Do you think American Imperialism is justified?
First, I'm sick of these stupid questions from Bambi B - are you Bambi Bambeneck? (That's a joke.) Great way to spread your crap, buddy. The only thing your candidate's run will do is split votes, like Ralph Nader manages to do every time he rears his stupid head in a presidential race. Second, America is NOT "imperialistic." OBVIOUSLY, YOU do not know what the word means. IF we "invaded" (cough) and then SET UP OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, THAT would make us imperialistic. WE'RE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO GOVERN THEMSELVES FREELY! HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD ARE NOT FREE, AS YOU ARE. WE ONLY WANT FREEDOM FOR THEM! Third, hey, here's an idea -- the next time some idiot says, "America should do something about FILL IN THE BLANK (Darfur? maybe?)," we'll say screw you! You dudes is on your own!
Cultural Imperialism is the idea that one culture can either influence or dominate another in much the same way as nations have invaded and controlled other nations. Cultural imperialism may form part of such a political or social project where the colonising culture is imposed on the indigenous culture. Or it may occur less directly through mass media and dissemination of culture internationally.All powerful states or empires exert influence on their neighbours and further afield whereby their language, style of government, religion and cultural norms spread beyond its borders. The British empire was highly successful at replicating British customs and values around the globe, which is perhaps why we are communicating in English—one example of an effect of cultural imperialism.Modern media are now the most powerful means of exerting cultural influence beyond the borders of a given state. America is often accused of cultural imperialism because of the dominance of its entertainment industry which helps spread American values throughout the world, as well as the success of American business models which also make American products and brands ubiquitous around the globe. For example, not alone does Hollywood encourage the continuing spread of (American) English, but it ‘advertises’ a way of life and a value system which influences people from other countries. No force is involved, of course, but there is a cumulative effect which is why it is likened to imperialism of old.
Well, I guess that depends on what school of thought you follow.A realist might say "yes", on the grounds that all nations are ultimately justified in expansion and conquest of other lands because international politics is a zero-sum game. Cannibalizing the remains of a once mighty great power (Spain) in order to gain control of various islands in the Pacific and Caribbean was therefore completely justifiable - the US was simply jumping at a relatively easy opportunity to extend the range at which it could project power abroad and compete with the other global powers such as Britain, France, and Germany.A humanitarian might say "no", maintaining that American expansion overseas, just like American expansion westward across North America, was unjustifiable because it involved the conquest and subjugation of entire peoples, by a nation that supposedly embodied the ideals of liberty, no less; the fact that it might have been necessary in order to compete on a global scale is irrelevant - it was horrible and the US should have taken the 'high road', so to speak.Just like with most things throughout history, the expansion of the Imperial Republic is a story with nearly limitless sides to it; people can spend years on end debating whether or not it was "proper" or "legitimate", "just" or "necessary" without ever agreeing on a single conclusion - the fact of the matter is that it happened and that it played a role in shaping the world we see today.
This is extremely controversial. From the perspective of the conqueror, it is whereas from the perspective of the defeated, it is not.The thing is that when an empire assimilate another nation, several things happen:The defeated is absorbed into the empire and the borders change. Several generations later, the assimilation is total and those who live in the defeated state will associate themselves with the conqueror rather than the defeated. The Yue Dynasty in China is considered legitimate dynasty even though its original rulers are Mongols who destroyed the two other Chinese dynasties.Migration and inter-breeding leads to the new generation being a mix of the original population and the people of the conquering empire. In other cases, genocide can lead to the original population expelled or become a minority (such as the Native Americans).In many cases, the small nation is willing to be absorbed. Losing their independence for economic prosperity and defense against other enemies doesn’t sound too bad back in the old days where nationalism wasn’t a thing yet. Of course, many also surrendered out of fear of genocide.The cultures and religions of the conqueror is imposed on the defeated. Within a few generations, the defeated will consider these as their own rather than something alien.From my personal perspective, I simply cannot argue for or against imperialism. Back in the 10th century when the country regained independence from China, we only owned the north. As a result of aggressive expansions to the south which caused the downfall of the Champa empires (and maybe the mass murder of its population), the territory of Vietnam had greatly expanded to what it is now.The people of Ho Chi Minh City in the south of Vietnam would see themselves as Vietnamese rather than the Champa people who lived there for thousands of years before they were conquered.
In your opinion, what makes war justifiable?
Nothing justifies war. It doesn't mean that self defense is wrong. But "self defense" is usually a term reserved for fewer than a couple hundred thousand troops:) We could go on about tribal wars and community wars and drug wars and so on, but they are all initially sparked by greed and fear...which is the real issue to address. Not the knee jerk reaction to it. We all don't exist to fight each other. Ask anyone. Most people don't want to live that way. To live in war. And I don't mean watching war on a television screen or being fed sound bites from acquaintances. We have these few dominant personalities... greedy and egotistical personalities in every society whom are clever enough to create reasons for whole populations to fight each other with. Hitler was one man. He convinced his people to be afraid. Fear, hate and propaganda drove his armies. Saddam was one man who used fear, hate and propaganda to drive HIS people as well. Some of our own elected officials have used fear and propaganda to drive us into hating each other and doing senseless things. Creating the appearance of lack, which drives our survival instinct. Having us focus on negative things. This is where the "kill em all" concept comes from. Ignorance driven by fear. As if there are no salvageable people on "the other side" of the line; whom are just as human as us. If the general population can be made to believe that there is a reason to fight, even when there isn't, then wars can go on for years. There are answers to problems like oil-dependence and compromises to differences of opinion in religion. There are solutions to poverty. They are attainable and within reach now. But many of us already know that money, greed, corruption and a placid, do-nothing society are to blame. And too often, many of us don't even know THAT. The mass as a whole can make a decision to make change occur for the better... or they can be driven like cattle to do as a small group of people would have them to do. The problem is that so many people are hypnotized. They want a solution, but they "cannot see the forest for the trees". They run in circles thinking that pointing a gun at some one or dropping a bomb on a society is the answer. I love this country. But angry people will hate me for what they don't understand in themselves.
What are some U.S. territories acquired by imperialism?
State policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because imperialism always involves the use of power, often in the form of military force, it is widely considered morally objectionable, and the term accordingly has been used by states to denounce and discredit the foreign policies of their opponents. Imperialism in ancient times is clear in the unending succession of empires in China, western Asia, and the Mediterranean. Between the 15th century and the middle of the 18th, England, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain built empires in the Americas, India, and the East Indies. Russia, Italy, Germany, the United States, and Japan became imperial powers in the period from the middle of the 19th century to World War I. The imperial designs of Japan, fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany in the 1930s culminated in the outbreak of World War II. After the war the Soviet Union consolidated its military and political control of the states of eastern Europe (see Iron Curtain). From the early 20th century the U.S. was accused of imperialism for intervening in the affairs of developing countries in order to protect the interests of U.S.-owned international corporations (see United Fruit Co.). Economists and political theorists have debated whether imperialism benefits the states that practice it and whether such benefits or other reasons ever justify a state in pursuing imperialist polices. Some theorists, such as Niccolò Machiavelli, have argued that imperialism is the justified result of the natural struggle for survival among peoples. Others have asserted that it is necessary in order to ensure national security. A third justification for imperialism, offered only infrequently after World War II, is that it is a means of liberating peoples from tyrannical rule or bringing them the blessings of a superior way of life. See also colonialism; sphere of influence.
How did British Imperialism lead to worldwide colonization?
It works the other way around. England, Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Portugal became prominent colonizers of lands 'discovered' by Europeans which were in the path impeding sea-trade between Western Europe and Eastern Asia. These nations constructed outposts which grew into colonies from which they sent explorers to wend their way across the landmass (North, Central, and South America) to find the sea route to Asia. They had no idea as to the size of the land mass. As these outposts grew they became colonies. As there became more colonies (in the case of Britain) an Empire resulted which later expanded beyond the Americas.
What are negative political, economic, and cultural effects imperialism had on africa?
Britt, there are several things that imperialism did specifically to Africa. Let's look at those in your order of questioning: 1 Political - whatever political organization Africa had (and it was old and considerable when Europeans intruded into the continent), the imperialism of those European nations destroyed or negated any of the balance of power, strategic imperatives, or alliances that existed among the various nations or tribes of locals on that continent. In other words, it is sort of like what the Europeans did to the Americas and their native populations beginning in the early 1500's. Wiping out those politics left the people there without any sense of balance (think of the modern United States without, say, the governments of all the states and Washington). Politics help people to understand their world on a relational basis, in other words how we deal with each other. 2 Economics - all the existing trade and finances of the continent fell away into nothing, as European realigned the continental landmasses to suit THEIR economics. Their purposes were at cross-purposes with those of the locals and the Euros had bigger guns, so they killed the locals that resisted. Despite what made sense for the locals, the Euros wanted their way and simply obliterated the local interests through military action. 3 Culturally - now here's the really damaging one we still see the results of today. By dividing African territory across tribal and established boundaries, the Euros trapped previous enemies within the new political units created by the Berlin Conference ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conf... ) and left those previous warring factions to get along with their old enemies and their new ones (Euros) at the same time. The slaughter in Rwanda and Burundi a few years ago (mid-90's) was a direct result of the 1884-85 Berlin Conference. Enemies within the same territory simply revived an old struggle and killed 600,000 people in the process. I hope this helps. Edit your question and add other questions you want answered or email me directly on Yahoo if you need more ideas or suggestions. Good luck.
Was the Spanish-American war justified??
Glad to see you are honest and admit that you really aren't looking for view points that disagree with you; not being sarcastic honestly enjoy the honesty. I do happen to think that the reason we went to war with Spain being the sinking of the Maine was probably false; most evidence now points to it being an accident aboard the ship but it was the emotional reason for the war. From that point it was not really justified. The real reason for that war was a desire to free this hemisphere from Spanish influence, minimize the slave trade still in those waters, increase American territory and get overseas basis for the U.S. military. Emotional reasons often hide the real reason for a war and it is true about the U.S. Civil War (wasn't about slavery really but about the power balance between the states nd federal government) and U.S. entry into World War 1 could not be justified by the sinking of the Lusitania as it was carrying war goods and ammunition which made it a legal target under international rules of war. So the reason for going to war did not justify actually doing it but the underlying reason would justify it from the aspect of the nation(s) going to war.
Good question. Why not stay home, improve your infrastructure and keep your military better than anybody’s? See Switzerland.Once a country takes over some place, there are endless new, emphasis new, opportunities for many of the people in the country. Some will manufacture stuff sold overseas. Some will go and try to get rich. Some will dodge a paternity order. Some will take up land. Orwell called the British Empire a vast system of outdoor relief for the upper classes. So there would be that kind of pressure. Getting on a potential enemy’s flank might be an issue. For the Romans, it might mean keeping the barbarians further away. The Czars had to expand because there were few natural barriers. No matter how far they went, the wild tribes were….just over that hill. Sending potentially troublesome big shooters and troops abroad might have been one of the Romans’ motives from time to time. If the crown/government could realize additional revenue, they might even break even on the venture. But they hoped to make a profit. Keynes calculated that QE I’s share of Drake’s great piracy would, compounded at three percent, equal the value of the Empire in the Thirties. In other words, without Drake…. Lots of reasons. But just for grins, wiki the Austro-Sardinian War. Which I bet you never heard of. Look at the shucking and jiving leading up to it. Were those guys INSANE? Maybe people who get to be in charge are constitutionally of leaving things the hell alone.