The US in a nut-shell, why other Europeans are confused

I will be brief; the US was originally an aristocratic Union, only landed individuals may vote, and slavery was legal. After the Civil War little actually changed. The mechanics of voting and election and who were represented had become more universal (and totally universal in the early 1900s) but the principals remained the same.

An aristocratic elite governs the policies on behalf of all Americans.

As Toqueville put it; "Americans want equality in freedom or slavery, but want equality".

So are the majority of Americans slaves? Probably, at least in so much as personal choice. Any American can work his arse off and become rich. Something most Europeans cannot do (where landed aristocracy and the rich legally oppress the poor through taxation to keep them segregated).

This is a strong reflection of US foreign policy, what comes first is US success in business, because these men are the elites with a measure of control.

And what's good for US business, is good for everyone.

I think Europeans fail to see that this has been the US for 230 years and always was the US, and so today they liken the US to some kind of rising dictatorship but in actuality it has always been a Republic with Imperialist ambitions.

I don't think that the US became imperialist until modern times because, until, say the late 18 to early 1900's, the US was pretty closed and kept to itself. America was never at the top of the list with the colonial powers. The thing that came closest was some American's belief in 'manifest destiny' which was the belief that the American country should stretch from ocean to ocean.

I do agree though that most Europeans don't understand America and how things work here and judge America unjustly.

America is Imperialst?

When we helped win World War I. Did we ask for any spoils of the war? Did we take land or possesions of our losers?

When we helped win World War II, did we take land or spoils of the war?

Do you see my point? Imperialsm involves taking land and spreading our nation. We might have remianed in some areas to help rebuild the nation and economies, see what that did for Japan and the ass kicking they gave us for that? We might remain to help from allowing a break down in society or a civil war, but we have never occupied a nation for the purpose of making it ours. We don;t demane that the capital city be remained Washington unior, nor do we collect taxes from them.

We are not imperialistic. Case closed.

reply to post by traderonwallst



Hawaii, Guam, Cuba, Mexico and the Philippines have all been invaded with the intent to add part or the whole of these nations to the union.
Post WW2 the strategy changed to that of empire by proxy, the US did not invade El Salvador, they merely over-threw the government and installed a puppet regime. An other tactic they use to “get” foreign governments in their favor is corruption, e.g. Saudi Arabia.
But hey there’s nothing special about this, the US is a powerful nation with many far reaching interests, why wouldn’t they do these things?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Hawaii, Guam, Cuba, Mexico and the Philippines have all been invaded with the intent to add part or the whole of these nations to the union.

The foundations for these sorts of intervention lie within the Monroe Doctrine. Originally, the idea was to protect the interests of the Union by preventing encroachment of the European powers into what we felt was our “sphere of influence”. It was intended not as an imperialistic advancement, but a defense against such when the U.S. was still relatively weak.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Post WW2 the strategy changed to that of empire by proxy,

Exactly. Because at that point our sphere of influence had grown to encompass the globe. The shift was now from a fear of traditional imperialist powers to the modern variation, i.e. Communism. The U.S. felt that it needed to protect our interests at home by defending them from afar.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
But hey there’s nothing special about this, the US is a powerful nation with many far reaching interests, why wouldn’t they do these things?

That’s the trick here: When does a nation shift from defending it’s interests abroad to imposing them? Somewhere between the end of WWII and today the U.S. has made that shift. I don’t think that you can necessarily point to an exact date or event that would delineate the turn. It is, however, now apparent that the U.S. is on a path of Imperialism as opposed to foreign intervention for defensive purposes. In retrospect, this sort of transformation occurs in virtually every empire that ever existed. Why should we be any different?

Originally posted by passenger
The foundations for these sorts of intervention lie within the Monroe Doctrine… It was intended not as an imperialistic advancement…

I pretty sure that the American vs. Mexico and American vs. Spanish wars were American wars of expansion. An example would be the Philippines taken from the Spanish and made into a territory by the US government was in a near constant state of rebellion from its capture until WW2, after the war it was granted independence. Government holding land against the will of its inhabitance would be a clear case of an empire.

Because at that point our sphere of influence had grown to encompass the globe. The shift was now from a fear of traditional imperialist powers to the modern variation, i.e. Communism. The U.S. felt that it needed to protect our interests at home by defending them from afar.

But could not one surmise that the puppet governments set up in countries through out the world with a clear pro-American agenda and supported by the States was imperialism in all but name?
What is the difference in over-throwing a government and moving in your self openly (the Russian invasion of Afghanistan) and doing it secretly using an intelligence organization (CIA overthrowing the Iranian government and installing the Shah)?

That’s the trick here: When does a nation shift from defending it’s interests abroad to imposing them? [/quotes]
This would suppose that there is a difference

Somewhere between the end of WWII and today the U.S. has made that shift. I don’t think that you can necessarily point to an exact date or event that would delineate the turn. It is, however, now apparent that the U.S. is on a path of Imperialism as opposed to foreign intervention for defensive purposes.

I must disagree that there has been any shift, the only difference is how far the governments been willing to go because of various restrictions.

In retrospect, this sort of transformation occurs in virtually every empire that ever existed. Why should we be any different?

You shouldn’t. the US is doing the same thing any nation with interests to protect, I’d be surprised if they did any thing different.


[edit on 15-10-2007 by Mr Mxyztplk]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
But could not one surmise that the puppet governments set up…was imperialism in all but name?
What is the difference in over-throwing a government…and doing it secretly using an intelligence organization

True, but the CIA didn’t exist until post WWII. That still fits into my timeline. I know of the OSS forming during WWII but would submit that they had slightly different agendas.
The CIA came concurrent with the agenda of Imperialism.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
This would suppose that there is a difference (from defending it’s interests abroad to imposing them).

I submit there is. Defending a locality of any sort to prevent incursion is demonstrably different than seizing it for unjustified/undefined purposes.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
I must disagree that there has been any shift, the only difference is how far the governments been willing to go because of various restrictions.

There is a shift, but it’s a very subtle distinction. It’s like carrying a gun: the difference between using it for lawful, quasi-lawful and lawful purposes can sometimes be blurred depending upon the circumstances at hand.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
You shouldn’t. the US is doing the same thing any nation with interests to protect, I’d be surprised if they did any thing different.

I agree. Maybe surprised is not the right word here. It does seem an almost inevitable progression. The “surprise” comes at, I suppose, the fact that I am witnessing it happen instead of reading it in a text. That which happens in the past is almost always understandable (upon reflection) but what happens now is sometimes hard to comprehend.