America and Colonial Imperialism

BTW, there is a difference between a state and an empire. A state annexes a region and includes as an equal to other regions. For Islamic history, there were Islamic states which annexed regions BUT included them as equal to other regions.

An empire has a 'motherland' around which all other regions are subservient. So a region will be 'annexed' only to serve the 'motherland'. The resources of the annexed region will go to serve the 'motherland'.  The annexed people may recieve some things, but nothing comparable to what they are forced to give.

Obviously, America could simply welcome the entire world to join its 'republic'.  Thus, everyone would have Congressmen, have a vote, etc.  But this concept is discouraged.  Woudl El Salvador TODAY like to join the American republic?

Greetings.

There are different forms of imperialism.  One should first establish a meaning for 'empire' and 'imperialism'. 'Empire' is derived from the latin word imperium: mastery to rule, supreme power, sphere of control or monopoly;  and the middle english empery: absolute dominion, sovereignty.  'Empire' is defined as a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, or other powerful sovereign or government, usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as in the British empire... 'Imperialism' is defined as "the policy to extend the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies or dependencies. 2. Advocacy of imperial interests."  Those are linguistic definitions.

The political, or conceptual definitions could be found in Machiavelli's The Prince wherein it is stated how a state can gain 'authority' over other states or people by either direct rule by force and installing someone from the state, or by making such a people subordinate but bringing to power indigenous rulers that will serve the empire but rule by their own laws. The former connotes colonialism, the latter connotes establishing people into their own 'nations' and bringing out of them rulers that will serve the empire.

The latter is the American way: forming people into 'nations' and bringing out of them rulers that will serve America. The Monroe Doctrine back in 1811 essentially said America will have free reign of the western hemisphere.  I recall reading that in as early as 1790, Salvador requested to join the American republic, but of course was turned down by the Congress. Ever since the Monroe doctrine, America has acted in Latin America to form 'nations' to serve America's empire. Most notably, America supported Panamanian independence from Colombia, itself a powerful state in South America at the time. Colombia eventually was carved up several more times. But Panamanian independence was insured by American military force as long as Panama enabled America to carve the Panama canal and establish a military force their for 90 years. Colombia originally owned and controlled the region of Panama. But America determined it to be the best location to form a canal. Since the French failed to do so for the Colombians, America sparked its the Panamian revolt. In retrospect, I wonder if France and America made a deal so France would intentionally fail to make the canal in turn, America would given something to France. I wonder.

In any case, America's empire is global. Today, it definitely includes Iraq. But also Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan.  It doesn't have to be about military forces on the ground, though they definitely reflect imperial interests.  It largely has to do with a sphere of action so that a foreign government advances  American interests superceding her own people's interests and a foreign government not acting outside that sphere.