Talk:Imperialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Imperialism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] earlier mainly unsigned discussions
I wrote a piece for the imperialism topic about modern American imperialism and it was hastily removed?!? I'm not sure why? As the graphic at the top demonstrates, Western powers such as the British have been imperialist rulers of the world, why is it so radical to extrapolate it to the 21st Century and rightly call the U.S. the dominant imperialist power of our time? What other country has the power and gall to invade other countries at will like the U.S. has in recent years? None. The U.S. is the imperialist power in the world. Too bad the editors at Wikipedia want to censor an important topic of our time.
Thanks for reposting this important topic.
Reply: Except that imperialism denotes the rule of other lands. The U.S. is the dominant power of our time (although China is on the rise), but please hesitate to denote the U.S. imperialist, as this philosophy has been more or less abandoned as of late. As far as the U.S.'s ability "to invade other countries at will" goes, that is a broad generalization. If the entire nation has the desire to go to war with another nation, one would think that there may be a reason for this. Please note the difference between war and imperialism. However, since you describe imperialism as "an important topic of our time," it would also be encouraged for you to read about the rise and fall of imperialism.
It is totally wrong to have any article on any kind of imperialism, e.g. New Imperialism, without at least a paragraph's worth of comment and a link here.
I agree. There is plenty of excess material on New Imperialism u should go cut some more off and bring it here. Vera Cruz
Vera Cruz is bloodthirsty evidentially.
lol Vera Cruz
There is no topic for the Japanese Imperialists.
"It is worth noting that Marx himself did not propound a theory of imperialism, and in contrast with later Marxist thinkers generally saw the colonialism of European powers as having a progressive aspect, rather than seeing it as the pillage of those countries in favour of the European centre countries."
I don't think that this is true. I currently have in front of me a copy of Marx's "The British Rule in India" which states that "the British in East India accepted from their predecessors the departments of finance and war, but they have neglected entirely that of public works". Marx earlier stated that in India and other Asian countries there were three government departments - interior (acquisition of capital internally), military (acquisition of capital externally) and public works (the irrigation that led to the development of civilisation and the necessity for central government). In the rest of the essay he essentially states that British imperialism in India led to the "oppression and neglect of agriculture", that it was "the British intruder who broke up the Indian hand-loom and destroyed the spinning-wheel" so as to export cotton and muslin from England to India. This is the basis of Lenin's theory of imperialism, monopoly capital and all that I can't be bothered going into right now.
Dafyddyoung 12:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If that's what Marx says, that's what he says. I've editted the article to try to allow for this. The prevailing wisdom is that Marx didn't have a theory of imperialism, however, so I've tried to isolate a different feature of his thought that separated him from theorists of imperialism.--XmarkX 06:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- Just found this observation very funny. [1]
I believe the whole of this article is somewhat lacking, especially concerning 19th century imperialism, being almost erroneous in oversimplification, and I would like to propose some consideration of the following matters: It is adequately noted that the term itself seems to be especially connected to the British case, and also that 'imperialism' doesn't necessarily imply the existence of an empire - indeed, most Frenchmen in the late 19th century, after having done away with Napoleon III, would scoff at the notion of having an empire. To my knowledge, the British Empire is the only one in which a notion of empire was formed because of the existence of large holdings outside the United Kingdom proper. As no mention is made on the differences between the 19th century empire, even though they are all still held to have existed, I believe at least a few examples should be included in the article. Furthermore, calling the obtaining of control over extranational territory imperialism is somewhat oversimplified, as it would mean that any and all seizing of territory is imperialistic. While this might be true, it seems quite anachronistic in many cases in the ancient and medieval world in which territorial gain took place. The main difference between late 18th and 19th century imperialism and the obtaining of territory in earlier 'empires' seems to me the lack of annexation visible in the 19th century empires: control over the territory did not mean the inclusion of the gained territory in the political, administrative, and judicial system of the 'conquering' state. In many cases the defining aspect of empire were the differences between the territories over which sovereignty, or at least suzerainty, was claimed, and the differing rights of the inhabitants. Moreover, an important aspect of imperialism which is not mentioned was the obtaining of non-territorial concessions, such as forced exclusive trading rights and extraterritoriality of empire's citizens (such as was obtained, for example, in the foreign quarters in China). Note that the abovementioned deliberately concerns only political imperialism, as exact definitions of cultural imperialism are hard to come by, and the interplay between political/economical domination and cultural domination is an altogether hazy subject. --Santetjan 7 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
[edit] Paragraph restored
I reverted an edit last night which removed the paragraph discussing Imperialism as an intellectual habit. If this paragraph does need to go, please leave a note here to explain why so the change won't be reverted again. This is generally a good idea when removing chunks of an article. At the least, please use an edit summary to explain.
Many thanks ~ Veledan • Talk + new 08:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I added several paragraphs to the article yesterday, discussing several aspects that contribute to imperialism; but, I look today and lo! It's all gone. Evidently, some "politically correct" person reverted it all back. Oh, well. He must be content to keep his 'small-minded' article, which only says what he wants it to say; excluding other viewpoints. I really hate it. It sucks. Of course, there's no "discussion" about it, at all. The "Nazi-editor" strikes again. ```` (Oct.)
[edit] Modern imperialism
i dont see what russia or the cold war has to do with americans being imperialists. american imperialism seems independent of usa being the dominant power. in the 1800s, imperialism was out of control throughout africa and the world was very much multipolar with germans, belgians, english, dutch, and french all taking a chunk of africa. so, the introduction of usa as a sole dominant power seems irrelevant. russia and the cold war was mentioned several times in the modern imperialism paragraph of the article and i fail to see the significance of it having to do with american imperialism. i believe american imperialism is independent to russia's status. usa was as imperialist during the cold war as it is today. during the cold war, usa invaded korea and vietnam. today, without the cold war, usa is invading iraq and afganistan. things have obviously changed with russia but its the same old story with usa.
To the Person Sitting in Darkness By Mark Twain (New York: Anti-Imperialist League of New York, 1901).
Extending the Blessings of Civilization to our Brother who Sits in Darkness has been a good trade and has paid well, on the whole; and there is money in it yet, if carefully worked -- but not enough, in my judgement, to make any considerable risk advisable. The People that Sit in Darkness are getting to be too scarce -- too scarce and too shy. And such darkness as is now left is really of but an indifferent quality, and not dark enough for the game. The most of those People that Sit in Darkness have been furnished with more light than was good for them or profitable for us. We have been injudicious.
The Blessings-of-Civilization Trust, wisely and cautiously administered, is a Daisy. There is more money in it, more territory, more sovereignty, and other kinds of emolument, than there is in any other game that is played. But Christendom has been playing it badly of late years, and must certainly suffer by it, in my opinion. She has been so eager to get every stake that appeared on the green cloth, that the People who Sit in Darkness have noticed it -- they have noticed it, and have begun to show alarm. They have become suspicious of the Blessings of Civilization. More -- they have begun to examine them. This is not well. The Blessings of Civilization are all right, and a good commercial property; there could not be a better, in a dim light. In the right kind of a light, and at a proper distance, with the goods a little out of focus, they furnish this desirable exhibit to the Gentlemen who Sit in Darkness:
LOVE, LAW AND ORDER, JUSTICE, LIBERTY, GENTLENESS, EQUALITY, CHRISTIANITY, HONORABLE DEALING, PROTECTION TO THE WEAK, MERCY, TEMPERANCE, EDUCATION, -- and so on.
There. Is it good? Sir, it is pie. It will bring into camp any idiot that sits in darkness anywhere. But not if we adulterate it. It is proper to be emphatic upon that point. This brand is strictly for Export -- apparently. Apparently. Privately and confidentially, it is nothing of the kind. Privately and confidentially, it is merely an outside cover, gay and pretty and attractive, displaying the special patterns of our Civilization which we reserve for Home Consumption, while inside the bale is the Actual Thing that the Customer Sitting in Darkness buys with his blood and tears and land and liberty. That Actual Thing is, indeed, Civilization, but it is only for Export. Is there a difference between the two brands? In some of the details, yes.
We all know that the Business is being ruined. The reason is not far to seek. It is because our Mr. McKinley, and Mr. Chamberlain, and the Kaiser, and the Czar and the French have been exporting the Actual Thing with the outside cover left off. This is bad for the Game. It shows that these new players of it are not sufficiently acquainted with it.
It is a distress to look on and note the mismoves, they are so strange and so awkward. Mr. Chamberlain manufactures a war out of materials so inadequate and so fanciful that they make the boxes grieve and the gallery laugh, and he tries hard to persuade himself that it isn't purely a private raid for cash, but has a sort of dim, vague respectability about it somewhere, if he could only find the spot; and that, by and by, he can scour the flag clean again after he has finished dragging it through the mud, and make it shine and flash in the vault of heaven once more as it had shone and flashed there a thousand years in the world's respect until he laid his unfaithful hand upon it. It is bad play -- bad. For it exposes the Actual Thing to Them that Sit in Darkness, and they say: "What! Christian against Christian? And only for money? Is this a case of magnanimity, forbearance, love, gentleness, mercy, protection of the weak -- this strange and over-showy onslaught of an elephant upon a nest of field-mice, on the pretext that the mice had squeaked an insolence at him -- conduct which 'no self-respecting government could allow to pass unavenged?' as Mr. Chamberlain said. Was that a good pretext in a small case, when it had not been a good pretext in a large one? -- for only recently Russia had affronted the elephant three times and survived alive and unsmitten. Is this Civilization and Progress? Is it something better than we already possess? These harryings and burnings and desert-makings in the Transvaal -- is this an improvement on our darkness? Is it, perhaps, possible that there are two kinds of Civilization -- one for home consumption and one for the heathen market?"
Then They that Sit in Darkness are troubled, and shake their heads; and they read this extract from a letter of a British private, recounting his exploits in one of Methuen's victories, some days before the affair of Magersfontein, and they are troubled again:
"We tore up the hill and into the intrenchments, and the Boers saw we had them; so they dropped their guns and went down on their knees and put up their hands clasped, and begged for mercy. And we gave it them -- with the long spoon."
The long spoon is the bayonet. See Lloyd's Weekly, London, of those days. The same number -- and the same column -- contains some quite unconscious satire in the form of shocked and bitter upbraidings of the Boers for their brutalities and inhumanities!
Next, to our heavy damage, the Kaiser went to playing the game without first mastering it. He lost a couple of missionaries in a riot in Shantung, and in his account he made an overcharge for them. China had to pay a hundred thousand dollars apiece for them, in money; twelve miles of territory, containing several millions of inhabitants and worth twenty million dollars; and to build a monument, and also a Christian church; whereas the people of China could have been depended upon to remember the missionaries without the help of these expensive memorials. This was all bad play. Bad, because it would not, and could not, and will not now or ever, deceive the Person Sitting in Darkness. He knows that it was an overcharge. He knows that a missionary is like any other man: he is worth merely what you can supply his place for, and no more. He is useful, but so is a doctor, so is a sheriff, so is an editor; but a just Emperor does not charge war-prices for such. A diligent, intelligent, but obscure missionary, and a diligent, intelligent country editor are worth much, and we know it; but they are not worth the earth. We esteem such an editor, and we are sorry to see him go; but, when he goes, we should consider twelve miles of territory, and a church, and a fortune, over-compensation for his loss. I mean, if he was a Chinese editor, and we had to settle for him. It is no proper figure for an editor or a missionary; one can get shop-worn kings for less. It was bad play on the Kaiser's part. It got this property, true; but it produced the Chinese revolt, the indignant uprising of China's traduced patriots, the Boxers. The results have been expensive to Germany, and to the other Disseminators of Progress and the Blessings of Civilization.
The Kaiser's claim was paid, yet it was bad play, for it could not fail to have an evil effect upon Persons Sitting in Darkness in China. They would muse upon the event, and be likely to say: "Civilization is gracious and beautiful, for such is its reputation; but can we afford it? There are rich Chinamen, perhaps they could afford it; but this tax is not laid upon them, it is laid upon the peasants of Shantung; it is they that must pay this mighty sum, and their wages are but four cents a day. Is this a better civilization than ours, and holier and higher and nobler? Is not this rapacity? Is not this extortion? Would Germany charge America two hundred thousand dollars for two missionaries, and shake the mailed fist in her face, and send warships, and send soldiers, and say: 'Seize twelve miles of territory, worth twenty millions of dollars, as additional pay for the missionaries; and make those peasants build a monument to the missionaries, and a costly Christian church to remember them by?' And later would Germany say to her soldiers: 'March through America and slay, giving no quarter; make the German face there, as has been our Hun-face here, a terror for a thousand years; march through the Great Republic and slay, slay, slay, carving a road for our offended religion through its heart and bowels?' Would Germany do like this to America, to England, to France, to Russia? Or only to China the helpless -- imitating the elephant's assault upon the field-mice? Had we better invest in this Civilization -- this Civilization which called Napoleon a buccaneer for carrying off Venice's bronze horses, but which steals our ancient astronomical instruments from our walls, and goes looting like common bandits -- that is, all the alien soldiers except America's; and (Americans again excepted) storms frightened villages and cables the result to glad journals at home every day: 'Chinese losses, 450 killed; ours, one officer and two men wounded. Shall proceed against neighboring village to-morrow, where a massacre is reported.' Can we afford Civilization?"
And, next, Russia must go and play the game injudiciously. She affronts England once or twice -- with the Person Sitting in Darkness observing and noting; by moral assistance of France and Germany, she robs Japan of her hard-earned spoil, all swimming in Chinese blood -- Port Arthur -- with the Person again observing and noting; then she seizes Manchuria, raids its villages, and chokes its great river with the swollen corpses of countless massacred peasants -- that astonished Person still observing and noting. And perhaps he is saying to himself: "It is yet another Civilized Power, with its banner of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in the other. Is there no salvation for us but to adopt Civilization and lift ourselves down to its level?"
And by and by comes America, and our Master of the Game plays it badly -- plays it as Mr. Chamberlain was playing it in South Africa. It was a mistake to do that; also, it was one which was quite unlooked for in a Master who was playing it so well in Cuba. In Cuba, he was playing the usual and regular American game, and it was winning, for there is no way to beat it. The Master, contemplating Cuba, said: "Here is an oppressed and friendless little nation which is willing to fight to be free; we go partners, and put up the strength of seventy million sympathizers and the resources of the United States: play!" Nothing but Europe combined could call that hand: and Europe cannot combine on anything. There, in Cuba, he was following our great traditions in a way which made us very proud of him, and proud of the deep dissatisfaction which his play was provoking in Continental Europe. Moved by a high inspiration, he threw out those stirring words which proclaimed that forcible annexation would be "criminal aggression;" and in that utterance fired another "shot heard round the world." The memory of that fine saying will be outlived by the remembrance of no act of his but one -- that he forgot it within the twelvemonth, and its honorable gospel along with it.
For, presently, came the Philippine temptation. It was strong; it was too strong, and he made that bad mistake: he played the European game, the Chamberlain game. It was a pity; it was a great pity, that error; that one grievous error, that irrevocable error. For it was the very place and time to play the American game again. And at no cost. Rich winnings to be gathered in, too; rich and permanent; indestructible; a fortune transmissible forever to the children of the flag. Not land, not money, not dominion -- no, something worth many times more than that dross: our share, the spectacle of a nation of long harassed and persecuted slaves set free through our influence; our posterity's share, the golden memory of that fair deed. The game was in our hands. If it had been played according to the American rules, Dewey would have sailed away from Manila as soon as he had destroyed the Spanish fleet -- after putting up a sign on shore guaranteeing foreign property and life against damage by the Filipinos, and warning the Powers that interference with the emancipated patriots would be regarded as an act unfriendly to the United States. The Powers cannot combine, in even a bad cause, and the sign would not have been molested.
Dewey could have gone about his affairs elsewhere, and left the competent Filipino army to starve out the little Spanish garrison and send it home, and the Filipino citizens to set up the form of government they might prefer, and deal with the friars and their doubtful acquisitions according to Filipino ideas of fairness and justice -- ideas which have since been tested and found to be of as high an order as any that prevail in Europe or America.
But we played the Chamberlain game, and lost the chance to add another Cuba and another honorable deed to our good record.
The more we examine the mistake, the more clearly we perceive that it is going to be bad for the Business. The Person Sitting in Darkness is almost sure to say: "There is something curious about this -- curious and unaccountable. There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive's new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land."
The truth is, the Person Sitting in Darkness is saying things like that; and for the sake of the Business we must persuade him to look at the Philippine matter in another and healthier way. We must arrange his opinions for him. I believe it can be done; for Mr. Chamberlain has arranged England's opinion of the South African matter, and done it most cleverly and successfully. He presented the facts -- some of the facts -- and showed those confiding people what the facts meant. He did it statistically, which is a good way. He used the formula: "Twice 2 are 14, and 2 from 9 leaves 35." Figures are effective; figures will convince the elect.
Now, my plan is a still bolder one than Mr. Chamberlain's, though apparently a copy of it. Let us be franker than Mr. Chamberlain; let us audaciously present the whole of the facts, shirking none, then explain them according to Mr. Chamberlain's formula. This daring truthfulness will astonish and dazzle the Person Sitting in Darkness, and he will take the Explanation down before his mental vision has had time to get back into focus. Let us say to him:
"Our case is simple. On the 1st of May, Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet. This left the Archipelago in the hands of its proper and rightful owners, the Filipino nation. Their army numbered 30,000 men, and they were competent to whip out or starve out the little Spanish garrison; then the people could set up a government of their own devising. Our traditions required that Dewey should now set up his warning sign, and go away. But the Master of the Game happened to think of another plan -- the European plan. He acted upon it. This was, to send out an army -- ostensibly to help the native patriots put the finishing touch upon their long and plucky struggle for independence, but really to take their land away from them and keep it. That is, in the interest of Progress and Civilization. The plan developed, stage by stage, and quite satisfactorily. We entered into a military alliance with the trusting Filipinos, and they hemmed in Manila on the land side, and by their valuable help the place, with its garrison of 8,000 or 10,000 Spaniards, was captured -- a thing which we could not have accomplished unaided at that time. We got their help by -- by ingenuity. We knew they were fighting for their independence, and that they had been at it for two years. We knew they supposed that we also were fighting in their worthy cause -- just as we had helped the Cubans fight for Cuban independence -- and we allowed them to go on thinking so. Until Manila was ours and we could get along without them. Then we showed our hand. Of course, they were surprised -- that was natural; surprised and disappointed; disappointed and grieved. To them it looked un-American; uncharacteristic; foreign to our established traditions. And this was natural, too; for we were only playing the American Game in public -- in private it was the European. It was neatly done, very neatly, and it bewildered them. They could not understand it; for we had been so friendly -- so affectionate, even -- with those simple-minded patriots! We, our own selves, had brought back out of exile their leader, their hero, their hope, their Washington -- Aguinaldo; brought him in a warship, in high honor, under the sacred shelter and hospitality of the flag; brought him back and restored him to his people, and got their moving and eloquent gratitude for it. Yes, we had been so friendly to them, and had heartened them up in so many ways! We had lent them guns and ammunition; advised with them; exchanged pleasant courtesies with them; placed our sick and wounded in their kindly care; entrusted our Spanish prisoners to their humane and honest hands; fought shoulder to shoulder with them against "the common enemy" (our own phrase); praised their courage, praised their gallantry, praised their mercifulness, praised their fine and honorable conduct; borrowed their trenches, borrowed strong positions which they had previously captured from the Spaniard; petted them, lied to them -- officially proclaiming that our land and naval forces came to give them their freedom and displace the bad Spanish Government -- fooled them, used them until we needed them no longer; then derided the sucked orange and threw it away. We kept the positions which we had beguiled them of; by and by, we moved a force forward and overlapped patriot ground -- a clever thought, for we needed trouble, and this would produce it. A Filipino soldier, crossing the ground, where no one had a right to forbid him, was shot by our sentry. The badgered patriots resented this with arms, without waiting to know whether Aguinaldo, who was absent, would approve or not. Aguinaldo did not approve; but that availed nothing. What we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization, was the Archipelago, unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence; and the War was what we needed. We clinched our opportunity. It is Mr. Chamberlain's case over again -- at least in its motive and intention; and we played the game as adroitly as he played it himself."
At this point in our frank statement of fact to the Person Sitting in Darkness, we should throw in a little trade-taffy about the Blessings of Civilization -- for a change, and for the refreshment of his spirit -- then go on with our tale:
"We and the patriots having captured Manila, Spain's ownership of the Archipelago and her sovereignty over it were at an end -- obliterated -- annihilated -- not a rag or shred of either remaining behind. It was then that we conceived the divinely humorous idea of buying both of these spectres from Spain! [It is quite safe to confess this to the Person Sitting in Darkness, since neither he nor any other sane person will believe it.] In buying those ghosts for twenty millions, we also contracted to take care of the friars and their accumulations. I think we also agreed to propagate leprosy and smallpox, but as to this there is doubt. But it is not important; persons afflicted with the friars do not mind the other diseases.
"With our Treaty ratified, Manila subdued, and our Ghosts secured, we had no further use for Aguinaldo and the owners of the Archipelago. We forced a war, and we have been hunting America's guest and ally through the woods and swamps ever since."
At this point in the tale, it will be well to boast a little of our war-work and our heroisms in the field, so as to make our performance look as fine as England's in South Africa; but I believe it will not be best to emphasize this too much. We must be cautious. Of course, we must read the war-telegrams to the Person, in order to keep up our frankness; but we can throw an air of humorousness over them, and that will modify their grim eloquence a little, and their rather indiscreet exhibitions of gory exultation. Before reading to him the following display heads of the dispatches of November 18, 1900, it will be well to practice on them in private first, so as to get the right tang of lightness and gaiety into them:
"ADMINISTRATION WEARY OF PROTRACTED HOSTILITIES!" "REAL WAR AHEAD FOR FILIPINO REBELS!"* "WILL SHOW NO MERCY!" "KITCHENER'S PLAN ADOPTED!"
Kitchener knows how to handle disagreeable people who are fighting for their homes and their liberties, and we must let on that we are merely imitating Kitchener, and have no national interest in the matter, further than to get ourselves admired by the Great Family of Nations, in which august company our Master of the Game has bought a place for us in the back row.
Of course, we must not venture to ignore our General MacArthur's reports -- oh, why do they keep on printing those embarrassing things? -- we must drop them trippingly from the tongue and take the chances:
"During the last ten months our losses have been 268 killed and 750 wounded; Filipino loss, three thousand two hundred and twenty-seven killed, and 694 wounded."
We must stand ready to grab the Person Sitting in Darkness, for he will swoon away at this confession, saying: "Good God, those 'niggers' spare their wounded, and the Americans massacre theirs!"
We must bring him to, and coax him and coddle him, and assure him that the ways of Providence are best, and that it would not become us to find fault with them; and then, to show him that we are only imitators, not originators, we must read the following passage from the letter of an American soldier-lad in the Philippines to his mother, published in Public Opinion, of Decorah, Iowa, describing the finish of a victorious battle:
"WE NEVER LEFT ONE ALIVE. IF ONE WAS WOUNDED, WE WOULD RUN OUR BAYONETS THROUGH HIM."
Having now laid all the historical facts before the Person Sitting in Darkness, we should bring him to again, and explain them to him. We should say to him:
"They look doubtful, but in reality they are not. There have been lies; yes, but they were told in a good cause. We have been treacherous; but that was only in order that real good might come out of apparent evil. True, we have crushed a deceived and confiding people; we have turned against the weak and the friendless who trusted us; we have stamped out a just and intelligent and well-ordered republic; we have stabbed an ally in the back and slapped the face of a guest; we have bought a Shadow from an enemy that hadn't it to sell; we have robbed a trusting friend of his land and his liberty; we have invited our clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit's work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America's honor and blackened her face before the world; but each detail was for the best. We know this. The Head of every State and Sovereignty in Christendom and ninety per cent. of every legislative body in Christendom, including our Congress and our fifty State Legislatures, are members not only of the church, but also of the Blessings-of-Civilization Trust. This world-girdling accumulation of trained morals, high principles, and justice, cannot do an unright thing, an unfair thing, an ungenerous thing, an unclean thing. It knows what it is about. Give yourself no uneasiness; it is all right."
Now then, that will convince the Person. You will see. It will restore the Business. Also, it will elect the Master of the Game to the vacant place in the Trinity of our national gods; and there on their high thrones the Three will sit, age after age, in the people's sight, each bearing the Emblem of his service: Washington, the Sword of the Liberator; Lincoln, the Slave's Broken Chains; the Master, the Chains Repaired.
It will give the Business a splendid new start. You will see.
Everything is prosperous, now; everything is just as we should wish it. We have got the Archipelago, and we shall never give it up. Also, we have every reason to hope that we shall have an opportunity before very long to slip out of our Congressional contract with Cuba and give her something better in the place of it. It is a rich country, and many of us are already beginning to see that the contract was a sentimental mistake. But now -- right now -- is the best time to do some profitable rehabilitating work -- work that will set us up and make us comfortable, and discourage gossip. We cannot conceal from ourselves that, privately, we are a little troubled about our uniform. It is one of our prides; it is acquainted with honor; it is familiar with great deeds and noble; we love it, we revere it; and so this errand it is on makes us uneasy. And our flag -- another pride of ours, our chiefest! We have worshipped it so; and when we have seen it in far lands -- glimpsing it unexpectedly in that strange sky, waving its welcome and benediction to us -- we have caught our breath, and uncovered our heads, and couldn't speak, for a moment, for the thought of what it was to us and the great ideals it stood for. Indeed, we must do something about these things; we must not have the flag out there, and the uniform. They are not needed there; we can manage in some other way. England manages, as regards the uniform, and so can we. We have to send soldiers -- we can't get out of that -- but we can disguise them. It is the way England does in South Africa. Even Mr. Chamberlain himself takes pride in England's honorable uniform, and makes the army down there wear an ugly and odious and appropriate disguise, of yellow stuff such as quarantine flags are made of, and which are hoisted to warn the healthy away from unclean disease and repulsive death. This cloth is called khaki. We could adopt it. It is light, comfortable, grotesque, and deceives the enemy, for he cannot conceive of a soldier being concealed in it.
And as for a flag for the Philippine Province, it is easily managed. We can have a special one -- our States do it: we can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones.
And we do not need that Civil Commission out there. Having no powers, it has to invent them, and that kind of work cannot be effectively done by just anybody; an expert is required. Mr. Croker can be spared. We do not want the United States represented there, but only the Game.
By help of these suggested amendments, Progress and Civilization in that country can have a boom, and it will take in the Persons who are Sitting in Darkness, and we can resume Business at the old stand.
Mark Twain.
- "Rebels!" Mumble that funny word -- Don't let the Person catch it distinctly.
I don't know how to seperate this from the above post, which is really unduely long, and obviously consists of an enormous amount of copied (not in a plageristic sense) material that doesn't say much. I just wish to note, that, if we wish to talk about modern America as imperialist, we cannot make the ludicrous assertion that Russia is not currently pursuing some imperialist policies. Russia is currently interfering in the internal affairs of several Eastern European countries, perhaps most notably the Ukraine, and is using oil power to retain influence in Belorus. I'm not here to defend America, though I think that many American policies are decried overmuch, but I will not tolerate such ridiculous factual errors. When making a point, let us not make generalizations and assumptions, and then treat them as facts.
[edit] Etymology
Read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, (There is a Roots album with the same title) for a wider perspective of descriptions of English Policies.
This sentence seems quite a bit out of place. Why direct the reader to a book _in_ the main article? State the etymology, and leave the book as further reading/sources. And why the need to namedrop "Roots"? Shandolad 11:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge it
[edit] US the World's only Super Power?
This is arguable and totally not NPOV. In fact it sounds like propaganda.
- i wouldnt readily call it non-relavent or non-neutral point of view, but information about other countries involvement with imperialism certainly seems important. that said, i dont see how it would be fair to label other countries with imperialist dealings without, at least, considering the US involvement in the matter. however it seems that the article should be rewritten to remove any suspicsion of NPOV. it IS important that wikipedia keep a NPOV, however consider all political POVs AlexOvShaolin 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested addition to header
After "For the 1997 computer strategy game, see Imperialism (game)" I would suggest putting: " 'Imperialist' redirects here. For the weapon in Metroid Prime Hunters see Items in the Metroid series - Hunter Weapons. If not this, then maybe a disambiguation page, perhaps?
-dogman15 06:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Benign Influence?
"In the context of the behavior of the other nations of the world, the United States has been positively benign in its influence."
This statement is completely false and should be removed. The US influence was benign? HA! I dare anyone to support this claim. --Dio free 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Consider: after WWII and the cold war, there were really only three options for the world hegemon: Nazis, Soviets, or the US. Would you have preferred one of the other two? In comparison, the US was at least more benign than the others would have been. The US had nuclear supremacy for long enough that, had the US been a true imperial power, they could have nuked Moscow and Beijing and any other capital that did not agree with their worldview. The US did not do this. So, if a nation has the ability to dominate but not the will...are they truly imperialist? If so, what meaning does that word have any more? Does it just mean hegemon? Does it just mean "Whoever's got the biggest army"?
As for being benign: You have to admit that the global economy and trade that US influence has fostered has lifted more people out of poverty than any other force in history. Relative living standards are higher than ever in history. And on the benign question: Are you saying that US influence is malevolent?
Pcrh 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is a silly argument. Saying that the US has been positively benign compared to the Nazis and Soviets is like saying that prostate cancer is positively benign in comparison to lung and brain cancers. None of them are benign, you just have a higher chance of survival when it comes to the US, although that is quickly changing. The Nazis and Soviets went away fairly quicky - American imperialism has been around since the United States' establishment. The Nazis saw a target and went to crush that target. When the Americans can't rule you politically or militarily, they rule you through her trans-national corporations.Coconuteire 01:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you know how us Americans are.. always forcing the rest of the world to see things our way, which is invariably the wrong way. God forbid we let women vote and drive cars. I'm definitely going to start a "trans-national corporation" that sells tinfoil hats and use it to rule a foreign country!
Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit. 20,000 people were murdered in my country's right-wing military dictatorship 30 years ago because the US didn't want other Latin American countries to turn into "another Cuba", so the used forced disapearances and state terror to ensure that. Eat shit and die, you little "hard working" right wing populist imperialist piece of shit.
68.228.27.106 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the "Mr. K" section is approprite to stay on this page, would anyone mind removing it due to the fact that I'm new to most of this (Wikipedia)and don't want to screw up the page?
[edit] The Berlin Conference
There is absolutely nothing in this article on the Berlin Conference of 1885. In this conference, the European powers laid down the rules for the division of Africa. If any experienced user is willing to collaborate with me on adding this section, please contact me. IronLance532 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] link - magdoff
the extarnal link to the essay of comrade magdoff is broken..88.231.157.122 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Standardization for Imperialism (re. Lenin)
In this article, the Anti-imperialism article, and the Theories of New Imperialism article, I standardized the stuff about Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Darth Sidious 23:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
