Pearl Harbor Defense

On 23 Sep 2004 15:49:24 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

After one brief infection, we seem to have developed immunity to the imperial
disease.

Well, Chris, I don't know if I agree with that. Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between; Cuba and
Puerto Rico; Panama (okay, that was post-Spain), the Phillippines, and
Guam as you just mentioned. Hawaii, for crying out loud, which we
liked so much that we incorporated it, as to a lesser extent we have
done with Puerto Rico. It was only in the 1930s that we developed an
aversion to colonialism, perhaps mostly in the person of Franklin
Roosevelt (he particularly disliked French and British colonialism .

And we're fighting two colonial wars at the moment. We are much nicer
about it in 2001 than we were in 1901, but it's still colonialism of a
sort.

One could even argue that we colonized German and Japan, not to
mention Korea, Britain, and numerous other nations in the ten years
following World War Two, and are only now withdrawing. It was a benign
sort of colonialism (France asked us to leave after a couple of
decades, and we went, a pretty rare event in the history of
colonialism) but still...

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

From: Cub Driver

Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.

I don't understand what that means. Could you explain?

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between;

I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our
country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have
stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii. Neither Mexico nor
Canada need fear US territorial aggression. And, of course, you intended to
say "Mexico" rather than "Spain," as Mexican independence long preceded
the_Mexican_-American War.

Cuba and
Puerto Rico;

I was lumping them in with the whole Spanish-American War, which was what i was
referring to when I said "one brief infection." I should have made that clear.

Hawaii, for crying out loud, which we
liked so much that we incorporated it,

Mr. Alcala had already mentioned Hawaii in his post, and as I agreed with his
comments I didn't bring it up again.
The Hawaii annexation is also a part of the S-A War "infection," because Hawaii
was a fine staging base for operations in the Philippines, although probably
even without that war, annexation was inevitable sometime during the McKinley
administration. Had Bryan been elected in 1896 it would not have been annexed
and it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Spanish-American War.
Grover Cleveland, who refused to consider annexing Hawaii during his
administration, wrote at the time, "Hawaii is ours. As I look back upon the
first steps in this miserable business, and as I contemplate the means used to
complete the outrage, I am ashamed of the whole affair."

o much that we incorporated it, as to a lesser extent we have
done with Puerto Rico.

yep. But it is a legacy of that one infection.
It was only in the 1930s that we developed an
aversion to colonialism,

You have to throw huge qualifications on that. There was major domestic
opposition to US colonialist or colonialist-like actions from the get-go. Just
as there has been opposition to the current US adventure in Iraq.
Again, I quote Grover Cleveland: "I mistake the American people if they favor
the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality...and
that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weaker one
of its territory." This is quite an amazing thing for an American president to
say in a era that was the height of European Imperial land-grabbing. Cleveland
was emphasizing that America was _not_ like Europe and we would not stoop to do
the dirty things the Europeans did.
The McKinley administration, under the influence of the Boston imperialists
(Henry Cabot Lodge and his crowd), turned away from that view, and their first
target was Hawaii, despite the many difficulties acquisition would cause. As
Alfred Mahan wrote to Theodore Roosevelt: "Take the islands first and solve
the problems afterward." Gee, that sounds like advice somebody must have given
Bush about Iraq. Like they say, history doesn't repeat itself--but it rhymes.

perhaps mostly in the person of Franklin
Roosevelt (he particularly disliked French and British colonialism .

True, indeed.

And we're fighting two colonial wars at the moment.

I'm not sure about that. I suppose it depends on how you define "colonial."
They could be described as wars of self-defense. But then, broadly, that was
how the Boston imperialists described their expansionist policies: acquire a
defensive cordon of outlying territories to fend off the expanding imperialist
powers; if we don't take Hawaii, Britain will; if we don't take the PI, Germany
will; etc.
We certainly don't intend to annex Afghanistan and Iraq after the fashion of
Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

One could even argue that we colonized German and Japan, not to
mention Korea, Britain, and numerous other nations in the ten years
following World War Two, and are only now withdrawing.

But that, again, was a defensive action. We certainly had no plans to do that
before the Soviet threat became clear. In fact, at Yalta, when Stalin
specifically asked Roosevelt how long the US would maintain troops in Europe
after the fighting ended, FDR responded two years at most. This fact was one
of the reasons that it was agreed to rehabilitate France as a "great" power and
give it a zone of occupation in Germany.

People look at the events of history from different perspectives. I do believe
the words "colonialism" and "imperialism" are bandied about too freely these
days, now that most have forgotten what _real_ imperialism and colonialism
were. US goals since Wilson have been aimed at establishing a peaceful,
prosperous, democratic world, not at conquest and domination. Since we have de
facto been in charge of the planet post 1945 we have bungled badly at times,
but compared to how the world was managed in the half century before we took
over, we've done very well, indeed, for ourselves--and for the world.




Chris Mark

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
From: Cub Driver

Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.

I don't understand what that means. Could you explain?

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between;

I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our
country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have
stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii.

Not to mention the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and a
significant number of islands in the Pacific such as
Wake, Guam, Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc and there's the
panama canal zone of course

Then there's the little matter of US forces intervening
in various central and south american nations
to protect US economic interests, Nicaragua in
1933 comes to mind. See Banana Wars.

The fact is the US went through a colonial period
too.

Keith

From: "Keith Willshaw"

Not to mention the Phillipines,

Extensively discussed in the thread

Puerto Rico

Discussed






Chris Mark

From: "Keith Willshaw"

Not to mention the Phillipines,

Extensively discussed in the thread

Puerto Rico

Discussed

Wake,

Ceded to the US by Spain as part of the settlement of the Spanish-American War,
which has been discussed

Guam,

Discussed

Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc

Spanish possessions sold to Germany, seized by Japan, seized by the US.
Already discussed.

panama canal zone

Mentioned, not discussed

Then there's the little matter of US forces intervening
in various central and south american nations
to protect US economic interests, Nicaragua in
1933 comes to mind.

Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to
ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same thing
as imperialism, although the more radical left (and libertarian right) loves to
obscure the difference. Lumping US actions in Central America into the same
box with what the US did with Puerto Rico or the Philippines is to make a false
comparison.

The fact is the US went through a colonial period
too.

No one has disputed that. The proposition is that the US flirtation with
"classic" imperialism was brief in duration and limited in extent, largely due
to domestic opposition.


Chris Mark

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
From: "Keith Willshaw"



Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to
ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same
thing
as imperialism,

Of course it is, thats why Britain built an Empire fer crying
out loud.

Keith

From: "Keith Willshaw"

snip

I only replied to you to point out that you were bringing up points already
discussed as if they had not even been mentioned. That suggests you were only
interested in making a put down, not actually discussing the subject.
Based on previous encounters, I'm really not interested in having a
conversation with you.
Have a nice day.


Chris Mark

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
From: "Keith Willshaw"

snip

I only replied to you to point out that you were bringing up points
already
discussed as if they had not even been mentioned. That suggests you were
only
interested in making a put down, not actually discussing the subject.
Based on previous encounters, I'm really not interested in having a
conversation with you.
Have a nice day.


Evasion noted

Keith

On 24 Sep 2004 15:36:34 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

US goals since Wilson have been aimed at establishing a peaceful,
prosperous, democratic world, not at conquest and domination.

Good post, Chris. You almost convinced me!

I certainly agree that we have not been bent on conquest for a hundred
years. Domination is something else, however. If you weren't American,
you could even argue that the U.S. doesn't have to conquer because we
can dominate without conquest. (Indeed, lots of Americans argue that
way It's merely that the British/French/Belgian/Japanese model of
colonialism doesn't work any longer, if indeed it ever worked; we have
simply carried colonialism to a new level.

("Not that there's anything wrong with that," as Seinfeld would say.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

From: Cub Driver

Good post, Chris. You almost convinced me!

I'm glad I didn't! A few paragraphs in a usenet posting can't possibly be that
persuasive.

I certainly agree that we have not been bent on conquest for a hundred
years. Domination is something else, however. If you weren't American,
you could even argue that the U.S. doesn't have to conquer because we
can dominate without conquest. (Indeed, lots of Americans argue that
way It's merely that the British/French/Belgian/Japanese model of
colonialism doesn't work any longer, if indeed it ever worked; we have
simply carried colonialism to a new
level.

It's interesting that the Spanish-American War episode, which was so very close
to the classic European pattern of colonial imperialism stands as a singularity
in American power projection. It really wasn't what we were all about. That's
why it fell so easily victim to the scorn and satire of Bryan, Twain and Moody,
and was quickly viewed by Americans as an "ope'ra bouffe" imperial adventure
full of cheap jingoism that made the protagonists of the adventure--Hay,
Beveridge, Mahan and even TR--look like ninnies.
But the whole episode, with its noisy fireworks and the hoopla of Hearst
journalism, was marginal to the development of American power. The amasing of
American "imperial" power has scarcely followed the classic European pattern at
all. It has operated by the techniques of trade, investment and profitable
sales in foreign markets (you alluded to this in an earlier post and I was
hoping to draw you into a discussion of this interesting topic). It has not
been averse toward using "dollar diplomacy" to remove the obstructions in the
path of business profits (the Clinton Administration was very gung-ho on this),
to start convenient revolutions or quell inconvenient ones, and it has used
economic and technical aid as needed to secure its interests.
The S-A war did mark the coming of age of the US as a world power, and after
briefly veering into that European colonial rut, the country has stuck to an
amazingly consistant pattern. Since that time, and very especially since WW2,
which focused us wonderfully, the US has surprised both friends and foes by
its assertive diplomacy and an almost bristling eagerness to use American
military power. This policy reflects the basic American outlook or character,
unchanged from earliest days. It can be seen in every foreign engagement we
enter:
The attraction and recoil pattern, the fear of being hoodwinked by foreign
wiles, the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude, the demand for signs of affection
from the beneficiaries of American largess, the huffiness when these are not
forthcoming, the anxious pursuit of "national security," the belief that the
American angel must always, in the end, look homeward, followed by
introspection and the desire to withdraw from world affairs, only to be
followed by a reassertion of raw American power whenever the country encounters
a challenge from which it cannot escape. In the past that challenge was
German, Japanese, Soviet; today it is Islamic. We crush genuine threats with
brutal, unswayable determination--whatever it costs, however long it takes.
I don't believe this is at heart an "imperialistic" pattern: it is
self-defense writ large.


Chris Mark