Reviews for Imperialistic America
Mbwun chapter 1 . 12/8/2004
Centavos, I am well aware that in excess of half a million Filipinos died during the war-and that only 20 thousand of them were soldiers. You will note that I DO refer to them as atrocities.

On the other hand, compared to the millions the Europeans slaughtered in Africa, India, and China, five hundred thousand ain't shite. I'd make a similar comparison between the six hundred thousand Americans killed in World War II and the approximately twenty million Russians killed in the same conflict.

He Who Walks On All Fours
my two centavos chapter 1 . 12/7/2004
"You don't note, however, that the US was hardly alone in its imperialistic ventures. Compared to what the Europeans-particularly, the British, French, and Belgians-were doing in Africa and Asia, the atrocities committed in the Filipino-American War were child's play. You also don't tell us why imperialism is such a bad thing. If a government's primary responsibility is the protection of its own people, couldn't one argue it is legally and morally compelled to engage in imperialism in order to be able to compete with other nations that do?"

OK. This sorta struck a nerve. Sure, I won't disagree about the amount of abuse the Europeans did to other colonies compared to what the US did to us in the early 1900s but to call it child's play definitely pissed me off.

Ever heard of the Balangiga Massacre, Mbwun? Or maybe the many instances US troops shot at intentionally civilians during engagements? There are tons of atrocities committed in the Fil-Am War. The US government now simply chooses to forget everything about it.
Mbwun chapter 1 . 12/7/2004
Your definition of imperialism is dependent on a definition of hegemony, which you do not provide. It might be best to rewrite it, or to give us the definition of hegemony, which is slightly different from what many folks will think.

The Monroe Doctrine, incidentally, was not intended to prohibit US involvement in Latin America; quite the opposite. It was a way to tell the Europeans to keep out and leave the colonizing to the US. Monroe himself set in place a number of programs, most of them economic, that led to the US domination of Latin America.

Was the omnipotence thing a quote? Either way, it doesn't make much sense in the context in which it is used.

Of course the US has always had foreign relations; what nation could survive without them? The difference between the US and the European powers is that, until the Spanish-American War, the US did not actively pursue an imperialist agenda, whereas the Europeans did-and as you pointed out, there were a large number of Americans who had a problem with the US embarking on an imperialist policy (which was why Cuba's legal independence was guaranteed by Congress at the beginning of the war).

This is a fairly interesting essay; the era of which you speak is the one I would tend to agree is the one that truly birthed American imperialism. The paper does tend to ramble and makes a few awkward transitions, so a revision could be helpful.

You don't note, however, that the US was hardly alone in its imperialistic ventures. Compared to what the Europeans-particularly, the British, French, and Belgians-were doing in Africa and Asia, the atrocities committed in the Filipino-American War were child's play. You also don't tell us why imperialism is such a bad thing. If a government's primary responsibility is the protection of its own people, couldn't one argue it is legally and morally compelled to engage in imperialism in order to be able to compete with other nations that do?

He Who Walks On All Fours