• America was an anti-Colonial, anti-Imperialist as of 1787


• America is a Colonial Imperialist as of 2006

A policy whereby a major power uses economic and political means to perpetuate or extend its influence over underdeveloped nations or areas: �Strong elements of neocolonialism persist in the economic relations of the rich and poor countries� (Scientific American).

From the day white people set foot on the land called "America", it has been a imperial power.

Bismarck,

I suggest you watch a movie called Z by a director called Costa-Gravas. I think it holds all your answers.

Muslima

if the US is a colonial power where are the countries they now own that before they didnt?

Careful what you wish, cause you just might get it!!!!!!

Of course America is imperialist...

it was built on imperialism...

DAMN THIS SITE IS SO DEAD!!!!

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.    

Some nations today have literally no physical capability of existing outside of the American empire given their tiny geography. The list of these obvious states dependent on the American empire: South Korea, Panama, Kuwait, Tiawan, Israel. There are others, but these best exemplify the concept.

 States which serve American empire but could theoretically exist outside of the empire were they to acquire independence: Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Colombia, perhaps Saudi Arabia, Nigeria.

States that it is doubtful they could exist outside of the American empire given their proximity to America or their vulnerable geographical composition: Mexico,  perhaps Saudi Arabia.

States which have independence but choose to capitulate to American primacy: India, China, Russia. 

In each area, there are more states, and there are several categories which bridge each other. For example, Canada, by proximity, could not withstand American power. Itse population is too small and its border too vast. However, Canada is awarded a certain degree of freedom by America in exchange for compliance with vital matters such as natural resources, commerce, joint security.    

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?

WoW usama,  that was VERY interesting.  i'm a total history-illiterate individual here and i think this gave me a step forward on becoming literate in it.

I never could remembered much about our history. probably because my history teacher's patriotic lessons in high school never gave me another side of the story and I new that that perspective was an exaggeration of 'our pride'. I didn't take them in. I just swallowed the teach's words but never digested it.  later on during ma life, i could't put my nose in an history book bcz it was too informational and also I didn't feel it gave me the right perspective to view it through.  i think i'm sceptical of our history books and i tend to avoid reading them when i can.

 your explanations now gave me a clear and concise picture of America and it's dealings.  I understand quite well and inshallah when i come across a discussion on an historical topic abt America among friends, i'll keep your words in mind and view it through that perspective.

jazakallahu khairan!