1
   

US Neo-Imperialism

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 02:58 am
So - what DOES TR mean?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 02:59 am
By which I mean - what policies are being referred to?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 03:04 am
Chickachika

You win my prize for the most eloquent and coherent opening post on a2k. Welcome
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 03:14 am
Think they are referring to the emergence of the US as a world power at the turn of the last century.

No more injuns to kill, they started looking abroad.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 03:27 am
OIC.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 03:28 am
Steve is correct--the others were incorrect to attribute these to Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (TR)--but the policies to which they made misguided reference were to expand the United States military and economic presence in the world.

Steve, the reference to slaughtering Indians was gratuitous . . .
0 Replies
 
chunkydrive
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 03:31 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Chickachika

You win my prize for the most eloquent and coherent opening post on a2k. Welcome


Thank you, that was me (in a friend's account), answering my own question and hoping someone would tell me if i was wrong, because i have an assignment on this topic and i was in desperate need of help. Thanks all, for not telling me blatantly and harshly that i was an idiot. : )
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 03:36 am
Quote:
Steve, the reference to slaughtering Indians was gratuitous . . .


Yes. But no logical argument is complete without at least one gratuitous insult.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 03:37 am
Good point . . . killed any Paddies lately?
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 03:45 am
Now, now, Set. It's not like you to be thin-skinned.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 03:54 am
Merry

Set can take it and give it...so can I. Its only banter
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2004 11:05 pm
There's a very good interview on NPR with John B. Judis who wrote The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. He compares the folly of McKinley's annexation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American war and the fierce nationalist resistance that it engendered with Iraqi Freedom and Bush's occupation and oxymoronic imposed democracy on Iraq.

Roosevelt initially supported McKinley's imperialism, but came to see the annexation as a mistake. He referred to the Philippines as "our heel of Achilles."

"After Woodrow Wilson became president, he and the Democrats backed Philippine independence, but were thwarted by Republicans who still nurtured dreams of American empire. Only in 1946, after reconquering the Philippines from Japan, did the United States finally grant independence -- and even then it retained military bases and special privileges for American corporations." (Judis)


'Folly of Empire' Offers Critique of U.S. Imperialism

An exerpt from the book is included on the webpage.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 02:28 am
Yes, I listened to that interview on "Morning Edition." Judis draws some interesting parallels between our adventure in the Philippines, following the War with Spain, and our current quagmire in Iraq. Just like the current administation's fond hopes in Iraq, McKinley expected that the Philippinos would welcome the American presence with open arms, following the oppresion of Spanish rule. Lo and behold, erstwhile ally Aguinaldo, who had helped us fight the Spanish, promptly turned around and became an anti-American insurgent in no time at all. And we just didn't get it.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 03:59 am
excellent link infrablue

Judis hits the nail on the head

A must read for Bush supporters today.....oh why bother, let them wallow in ignorance
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 04:39 am
The American commander in the Phillipines was Arthur MacArthur. When his son, Douglas MacArthur, graduated the USMA, the Phillipines was his first posting. Not long after, he took a tour of the Far East with his father--a certified Civil War hero, and only the third U.S. Lieutenant General, after Washington and Grant--after Arthur MacArthur had been relieved as a result of his squabbles with William Howard Taft, sent to administer the Phillipines.

Years later, before the Second World War, Douglas MacArthur was the Generalissimo of the Phillipine Army, and he commented to reporters that if he were a Huk (the name commonly applied to the landless peasants of the insurgency) he would probably fight the Americans, too. Military officers are often politically clueless, and Douglas MacArthur was a classic example--but they are often very perceptive about political situations when they have to fight an insurgency. The situations tend to leap out and smack them in the face with the realities of the political situation when they see their troops killed every day, and see the consequences of artillery and high powered rifles on peasant shanty towns.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » US Neo-Imperialism
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 07:33:07