Talk:Overseas expansion of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Imperialism" - POV[edit]

The title of this article is inherently POV. Perhaps a name change is in order? Or it can be put under a single article, "US imperialism", which could debate the term, not present it as a POV history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willowx (talk • contribs) 17 July 2005

Delete?[edit]

That is not "fact"-- it is POV. The title of this article is fundamentally POV, since the debate would be WHETHER the US was or was not imperial. This article should be merged in Imperialism or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.80.132 (talk • contribs)

This article should separate imperialism that is accepted by mainstream historians (eg. Philipines, Hawaii) vs. speculation. As it stands, it mixes fact with ridiculous diatribe. For example, there is no legitimate reason a 7 paragraph lesson on the Boxer rebellion belongs here--however interesting US diplomacy regarding it may seem. I dare say it is possibly longer than the boxer rebellion section on China's page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.80.34 (talk • contribs)

Discussions[edit]

The US was imperialist, all that is arguable is that it still is. It is a fact that it was imperialist however. It was in a situation similar to Russia where its empire was on its borders not in far off lands. I didn't write this too well though hopefully you can understand what I mean and impliment it beter. --Josquius 16:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That is POV. Wikipedia is NPOV. You must post what others say (magazine articles, academic papers etc) and not your opinion. Get it????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.80.34 (talk • contribs)
What Jasquius said is not strictly POV. You are confusing NPOV with NOR. Either way, he makes a valid point; I don't think anyone would rationally argue that the US has never persued imperialist goals. Anyway, the page title uses the phrase "overseas expansion" (though I don't see why that is any more PC than "imperialism"). -- abfackeln 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA support for the overthrow of Allende in Chile is confirmed. Here is a link to the primary source documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex S (talk • contribs)

Uh, no it doesn't. All this confirms is that the US was trying to prevent Allende from coming to power, which is not disputed. Show me the sources where it shows CIA agents giving instructions to the Chilean military on how and when to make the coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.J. (talk • contribs)

Um jingoist, read the Salvador Allende section. No, there is no picture with the CIA having a gun to Allendes head. But lets be honest, if there was, this would be explained away too.
Jingoist, Lets read together what we do know from the Salvador Allende section:
  • A CIA report released in 2000 admitted that the CIA financed this trucker's strike...The "truckers' strike", backed by CIA funding, virtually paralysed the economy for three weeks, which Moscow saw as evidence of the weakness of the Popular Unity government.
  • Almost immediately after his election, Nixon directed CIA and U.S. State Department officials to "put pressure" on Allende's government, however it is not certain to what degree this influenced Allende's downfall.
  • It is known that the United States played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending coup two days in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup.
  • After Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told U.S. President Richard Nixon that the U.S. "didn't do it" (referring to the coup itself) but had "created the conditions as great as possible", including leading economic sanctions.
  • Recently declassified documents show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970, immediately before he took office ("Project FUBELT"), through the incident that claimed the life of then Commander-in-Chief, General René Schneider, but claims of their direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence.
So Jingoist, can we agree that there was a CIA 1970 coup to overthrow Allende? Wasn't this the imperialism that we are discussing today? Where America attempts to overthrow a democratically elected leader?
Can we agree that the CIA put a lot of financial pressure on the government before the coup? That this economic pressure was to try and topple Allende?
Can we agree that the CIA has a recently declassified document, dated September 16, 1970: which states:
"The Director told the group that President Nixon had decided that an Allende regime in Chile was not acceptable to the United States.. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him. The President authorized ten million dollars for this purpose, if needed. Further, The Agency is to carry out this mission without coordination with the Departments of State or Defense."See Project FUBELT
Can we agree that the CIA has a recently declassified cable, dated October 16, 1970, which states:
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand will be well hidden." See Project FUBELT
Answer my four questions Jingoist, or don't waste my time.
Here we have America attempting to overthrow Allende once before, then they try to destabilize the economy so the people will overthrow him, and then when he is overthrown, you have the audacity to claim that America had no part in the overthrow. True blind jingoism. How could you be so ideologically blind?
See also:
*US intervention in Chile
*Chilean coup of 1973
Travb 21:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Um, excuse me but you can still support a coup without giving specific step by step instructions. These documents quite clearly show the CIA had a hand in the overthrow of Allende.--GD 18:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
You won't get any, because of course no such evidence exists. Nevertheless, there are still several places on Wikipedia where partisans have falsely asserted that it has been proven that the US overthrew Allende. -- VV 06:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As Im sure the CIA have never tried anything simliar to it. Let me just call my friend at the Agency and Im sure how glad he would be to let me have a copy of the "How to make a Coup D´Etat in 10 steps and letting the whole world know about it".LtDoc 17:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if a coup is successful there is likely to be very little evidence of who organised it (although in some instances declassified documents have revealed CIA & MI6 involvement in foreign military coups), however it is possible to look at the attitude of the US to a foreign government before a coup & that after it to the new government & assistance given to the coup imposed government not given overthrown leaders & also at what policies are adopted/dropped by the new gov & how these fit USA interests & previously expressed desires. This doesn't constitute proof of involvement in a coup but does, at least, indicate the attitudes of the USA (or whichever country you're dealing with) & provide reasonable grounds for suspecting involvement. This would need to be worded carefully but I don't see any problem with noting that these suspicions exist, provided thay are properly attributed (eg so & so argues). I don't know much about the Chile situation but there certainly seems to be enough suspicion of USA involvement to warrant mentioning it specifically, provided reasons for that suspicion are given. AllanHainey 07:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page was ginormous, I moved most of it into an archive. I hope to be expanding several sections of the page soon (don't worry, no more on Indian Wars), so I'm sure that we're going to end up needing some space on the talkpage =). --Alex S 05:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am a professional editor and technical writer in the oil and gas industry and my comments are focused solely in the role of editor.

There is much in this article that is verifiable fact. However, much of this article is stated in POV terminology and should be restated in NPOV term. Any sentence or phrase that includes “some believe…”, “some would argue…”, or “some claim…” is de facto POV and weakens the entire article. These need to be edited such that they state verifiable fact or cite a direct reference to the source of the opinion quoted (as is done for opinions cited to Mark Twain). If there is no citable, verifiable source, then the sentences or phrases are, by definition, POV comments and should be deleted. This is specifically discussed in the Wikipedia policy titled “Avoid weasel words”.

I also recommend re-phrasing, deleting, or citing sources for views ascribed to historical figures. An example of this can be found in the section on the Louisiana Purchase, in the second paragraph, where the phrase “…Jefferson felt that…” appears. Without a citation as to a source for this (for example, a reference to a published work containing writings by Jefferson where he states why he did something), this is speculation and does not seem to meet Wikipedia’s verifiability policy.

Thank you for your time. --PW July 8, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.236.0.61 (talk • contribs)

New long list[edit]

  • This new long list of alleged imperialism really stretches the meaning of the word. Many of these could simply be "foreign policy" or foreign conflicts with no credible tie to "imperialism". At the very least it should be trimmed. And if it stays, I'm definitely removing the prejudicial rhetoric many entries include. -- VV 21:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree. For instance, the section on colonialism in China and the Boxers is as long as it is on the page for China! And yet the US involvment here was peripheral. It seems like the agenda for this page is to extend US "involvement" to as much as possible to implicate the US. Why are similar pages for History of Russian Imperialism or History of Swedish Imperialism non-existent or sparse at best? Germany had numerous proper colonies around the globe, yet the page is a simple list. Double-standards are obvious, but more importantly one expects an encyclopedia to have proportional information. An encyclopedia that had 12 pages on "Cats" and a single paragragh for "Dogs" would be a joke. Unfortunately the partisan political agendas of many participants put politics ahead of the user experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates999 (talk • contribs)


  • I don't accept this. The whole point about this project is that we should aim for detail, and this is one of the most comprehensive lists around. Furthermore it states at the top: "The following is a list of incidents involving the United States which some view as having hidden or overt imperialist motivations" - that is, it points out from the start that only some regard them to be imperialist acts. Moreover, each coup says "alleged", even in cases where it's pretty much generally accepted or proven. Neither do I think it stretches the meaning of the word imperialism - it's a list of actions where the United States is purported to have meddled in the internal affairs of other nations to further its own interests. To simply suggest that the overthrow of governments and their replacement with regimes more pliant to US interests isn't imperialist and indeed is simply "foreign policy" does not seem reasonable to me. And what prejudicial rhetoric are you referring to? Jonesy 22:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think VW makes a valid point. I mean, I was all for the shorter list, of the main, key allegations of third-world meddling, but now the list includes every single possible event of the last 50 years in which American intelligence may have even been slighty present. Every time there is a regime change in some corner of the world that the current occupant of the white house finds preferable it doesn't nessisarily follow that this was the result of some grand imperial scheme. As well, vague terms like "supports" and "backs" are hardly indicators of imperialism. America "backs" the current government of Canada, and would probably defend Canada if attacked. Does that mean Canada is just some imperial puppet state?
See, this article becoming exactly what I knew it was going to be. The term "imperialism" is no longer being used in any sort of factual context, but rather as a "catch all" term to describe any foreign activities (real or imagined) of Republican governments that certain members of the political left do not care for. user:J.J.
  • I would agree with the above. I think there is a valid place somewhere for the list in Wikipedia, but in general large lists in the middle of an article are bad formatting. (I'm also certain Italy and Greece wouldn't delight at being lumped into the Third World) - SimonP 02:47, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • I do find it interesting that, except for Vietnam, every single intervention on the list was the work of a Republican president. That is hardly NPOV. It overlooks, to cite one obvious example, the Bay of Pigs invation under Kennedy; or the various bombings of Iraq under Clinton. I think it is impossible to keep a list of this nature short, because every single instance of US foreign intervention can be described "by some" as imperialist. So I think the short list should be removed from this page, and the link to all foreign interventions kept to replace it. Fishal 03:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For refrence here is a copy of the deleted list:

The Third World[edit]

The following is a list of incidents involving the United States which some suspect as having hidden or overt imperialist motivations:

Posted by: —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonP (talk • contribs)

"Imperialism is a value-neutral term"[edit]

I'm restoring some of my past comments on this page, seeing how some of the same confusions keep popping up. 172 07:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how this pertains to undoing J.J.'s trimming of the list in the article back to what it was three days ago. The shorter list was good enough Feb 9, why not now? And what about the several other objections? You're even calling Italy third-world again. -- VV 07:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just a correction. I haven't added any content to this article, so I'm not the one making that error. Anyway, this page is going to be a disaster area unless you all agree on a definition for imperialism and accept the usage of the term in a value-neutral context. You can remove the list if you'd like, but hopefully your or J.J. can do a better job of explaining why this list doesn't belong in this article before removing it again. 172 20:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. More back and forward normative debates. More moral judgments and catch-phrase throwing. This might as well be Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. While AlexS has been doing some serious work, this article isn't going to work out on Wiki. It's just going to become more of a breeding ground for partisan trolling and posturing. On one hand, you'll have a forum for Anti-Americanism, and, on the other, you'll have to deal with J.J.'s personal essays and rationalizations. The only way to create an atmosphere conductive to some real historical writing on the subject is to redirect it to a new article on the diplomatic and military history of the United States. If anyone wants to do so, I can recommend scores of sources with ISBN numbers. I can also provide links to articles online if users want to get the new article done fairly quickly. 172 01:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not "rationalizing" I'm just trying to present the other side, which is lacking. I mean, if this page can openly present the "Marxist view" of how my country is an "imperial fiefdom" of America, than surely my passage about American distain for the term deserves a place as well. user:J.J.
Yes, you are. "Imperialism" is a standard social science term, albeit one defined in a variety of ways depending on the context, and a wealth of literature is available on the subject. It can also be used in a values-neutral context, and it will be used in a values-neutral context in this article. There is no place here for Marxist ploemics (which you are confusing with scholarship that adopts some Marxian analyses and concepts), nor your personal commentaries.
This is not a forum for your creative writing. No one cares how you react to this word personally. When you start talking about what kinds of images of which this word reminds you, everyone's bullshit detector should be going off. I doubt you'd be able to get away with this with your professors. 172 19:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Readers unfamiliar with sociology, political economy, and international relations easily confuse common technical terms with context-specific, values-neutral meanings - like "imperialism" - with the more popular usage of these terms in the slogans and ploemics of activists. The same goes for "nationalism," another term used - and abused - in popular discourse.
There is no need for a neutrality dispute. There is a need for users to stay on topic. "Imperialism" is common technical term in the social sciences with context-specific, values-neutral meanings. J.J just needs to look up what "imperialism" means in the first place and how it is used in the social sciences and history. This doesn't mean finding the first op-ed piece that comes up on Google or Yahoo. This means that he needs to go to his local library or university library and consult encyclopedias, social science sourcebooks, and textbooks. It would behoove him to do this, rather than rambling on about he personally "feels" about the term. 172 00:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How is it value neutral? If the meaning is colonialism, then use the word colonialism, which has a concrete technical use. If the meaning is hegemony, regional dominance, use hegemony. If the meaning is globalization , use that word. Using a fuzzy word like imperialism, which technically should be connected to a formal empire, to mean any involvement with a world by a large nation is imprecise and obviously political, coming from its wide use in communist spheres (see so-called Anti-Imperialism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates999 (talk • contribs)

The title is fine (not my choice for an article entry, though), but I understand why some users are suspicious. When familiar only with the popular usage of "imperialism," general readers and students often use this term without knowing what it means. They assume that it is a pejorative term.

However, in diplomatic and military history, "imperialism" is a standard, value-neutral term. It merely refers to influence by nations or peoples over weaker nations or peoples. Dating from antiquity, imperialism has taken many forms. Thus, general readers often conflate imperialism and colonialism, which is properly used in a more restrictive sense.

Colonialism entails formal political control involving territorial annexation. Imperialism can be exercised formally or informally, directly or indirectly, politically or economically. One can say that colonialism is a form of imperialism, but not vice versa.

Having observed so many ridiculous, protracted edit wars stemming from the failure to understand standard, encyclopedic definitions, I would not have created this article. Given the likelihood of conflicts and misunderstanding on Wiki, a broader focus on the Military and diplomatic history of the United States, IMHO, would have worked out better. But you already have too much work here to change the title. Without a substantial rewrite, no other title is appropriate. While the title is going to raise eyebrows occasionally, it is not a violation of NPOV policies so long as the article stays on focus. 172 11:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I haven't added any content to this article (other than removing some irrelevant tangents). Nor was this my choice for an article. If users don't know the definition of the term, you can edit the article and add it to the intro. A word may be widely confused, but it's fine so long as this article uses properly. 172 03:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Umm...If you are using a term that is likely to be misunderstood by a large segment of the reading population, it is your responsibility to make its meaning clear. Wikipedia is not a specialized social-sciences encyclopedia. In case you haven't looked, the current contents of the Imperialism article (which this article rightly links to) begins with:

Imperialism is the acquisition and maintenance of empires, through direct territorial control or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.
Imperialists normally hold the belief that the acquisition and maintenance of empires is a positive good, combined with an assumption of cultural or other such superiority inherent to the imperial power. Subjects of imperial and post-imperial governments and those sympathetic to them have often considered imperialism to be an exploitive evil, a view often shared by factions of the citizens of the imperialistic state.

That being said, my major issue with this article is the use of "some" and "others" (as in, "Some argue that this means by which the United States expanded and asserted its authority were classic examples of imperialism; others disagree.") Me and my cat could argue something, and that would be "some". You need verifiable sources of information. Of course, this is an issue with many articles, but it's particularly important to correct it here if there is any hope of this article being anything worthwhile. -Rholton 00:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Even though it might be so that some (many?) people are misinformed with regard to the exact meaning(s) of 'imperialism', the word does best describe the totality of many US foreign policies in especially the late 19th century. Above-mentioned examples such as 'colonialism' and 'hegemony' do not adequately cover the whole situation: especially the projected special status of US traders in Japan and the forcing through of the Chinese Open Door-system cannot be expressed together with the above-mentioned words, and clearly result from imperialist tendencies. (Please note that I believe the page on Imperialism should be modified slightly; see the discussion page of that article for my remarks.) Wikipedia should use the correct terminology, and if this terminology is somewhat hazy through popular usage, we should redirect readers to Wikipedia's own definition as soon as the possibility presents itself, and stick to that definition except where the specific usage in an article might deviate somewhat. This is why I'm not too happy with having an explanation about the usage of the term 'imperialiasm' in this article, as this only adds to the confusion. On the whole I do not believe this article to be NPOV, though I too believe the usage of 'some' and 'others' in this article to be somewhat unspecified. Discussion on modern imperialism will always provoke some bad sentiment, as this concept is much less clearly defined than 19th century imperialism; cultural imperialism in particular has few hard definitions. Before fighting over what does and what does not comprise modern American imperialism, a workable definition of modern imperialism should be found, and it should be made clear when foreign policies and even extranational intervention becomes 'imperialist'.--Santetjan 7 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Inhabitants of the Mexican Cession[edit]

the entire Southwest and California, which at the time were almost wholly populated by Americans,

I find that surprising. Or are those "Americans" including the Native Americans? Does anyone have a good source for 1848 population figures? –Hajor 19:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They were americans alright; they were born in the continent of America, right? But as far as I know, US citizens only call themselves americans.LtDoc 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The question of how many people inhabited the lands of the Mexican Cession in 1848 is sociologically and anthropologically significant. How many Spaniards/Mexicans were there? Remained? How many Native Americans? How many Americans of European descent? Any census-like data about this would enlighten and make today's immigration and cultural discussion better educated and *people-centered*, which is essential as the topic of immigration is a facet of human rights. -DL March 24, 2006
Look in the Californio article for more information about the Spanish-speaking or Mexican inhabitants of Alta California when the U.S. by act of war with Mexico annexed the province of California in 1848. It's doubtful to call the American expansion into the west coast of North America an act of colonialism, but the Californios were rebelling against the Mexican government at the time and American (or independent away from Mexican) rule was somewhat favored among the Hispanos and Tejanos, other Hispanic peoples of the present-day Southwestern U.S. in the 1840's. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Deletion[edit]

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Empire[edit]

Portions of an article called American Empire duplicate the subject of this article. The rest of the article is about a rhetorical device and should not be merged. -Acjelen 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikipedia[edit]

Can anyone tell me how I'm supposed to cite an article in a college paper? Thanks. Karatloz 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean how to cite this page in an article you are writing I would just note the web page of the article. If you mean how do you cite a College paper article you've incorporated into this page in the references see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. -AllanHainey 10:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stand as is (combined though)[edit]

I don't understand why there is a debate. Just combine the two articles (under the same names) and it's all well and good. - web alias zeppelincheetah

Jefferson and LA Purchase[edit]

"After the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson signed the Louisiana Government Bill, which denied the new United States territory the right to self-government. Instead, it was to be ruled by military officials under direct orders from the capitol. Since most of the population of the territory consisted of non-whites and Catholics, Jefferson felt that the government should suspend its right to self-government until enough white settlers moved west to command a majority."

Can we get some actual cites and evidence for this? Otherwise, it doesn't seem very NPOV

--ViperDaim 64.154.26.251 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Imperialism[edit]

Stating that the current cultural imperialism is "unintentional" and "a side effect of capitalism" and that "government has no role on the industries" of culture is extreme POV.LtDoc 16:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can quotes be added to this wikipedia site?[edit]

I added these quotes to wikipedia and then added an external link to this page.

“…in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent "white man's burden." And in the United States, empire does not even exist; "we" are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide.”

--The Editors, "After the attacks…the war on terrorism", Monthly Review, 53, 6, Nov., 2001. P 7

The term “imperialism”...overuse and...abuse is making it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept. Thorton concluded that “imperialism” is “more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves….Colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against.” --“Benevolent Assimilation” The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903; Stuart Creighton Miller Travb

I pity the jingoists[edit]

Jingoist Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

I have been monitoring this entry for about 2 weeks. I am disappointed at the extreme Jingoists who frequent this entry. Every day someone else tries to vandilize this site.

There has never been a "Vote for Deletion" about America being the "beacon of freedom" to the world. None of these jingotists would argue that this is POV.

Since jingotists cannot argue the history of American imperialism, they characteristically attack the source, trying to other like minded jingoists delete the site.

Pathetic, irrational behavior you should be ashamed.Travb 20:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


They wont be ashamed mate, they know exactly what they do. They honestly believe imperialism is a good thing. That they have a right to rule the world. The original phrase jiongism was to take land by force if I am not mistaken? What do we have around the world? Phillipines = US; Kosovo = US; Japan = US; Germany = US; France = US; Spain = US; I could keep going forever.. is there ANY country the US hasnt got a military presence in? OH thats right, libya and iran... and then we know wich two countries are being invaded next...

213.141.89.53 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.60.161.63 deleted cartoon[edit]

User 24.60.161.63 deleted the cartoon showing uncle sam balancing all his new imperialist treasures. User 24.60.161.63 deleted it stating that it was a "pointless" cartoon. I reverted this cartoon back--can User 24.60.161.63 explain why he feels that this cartoon is pointless?Travb 16:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 24.60..., but I think this cartoon would not appear in a good article. Why? Because this topic is very important and controversial and these sorts of topics require writing that attempts to focus the mind of the reader on the exact topic under discussion. This cartoon does deal with US imperialist history. However, to modern eyes, it is also relevant to the history of internal US racism. The children have the overemphasized lips and hair of caricatures that are now regarded by many in America as offensive racial stereotypes. Their size and age relative to Uncle Sam is reminiscent of a time when all men with dark skin in the United States were addressed as "boy." This has nothing to do with the message of the cartoon at the time it was drawn, but it has everything to do with what would appear in a good article.
Hiding away such cartoons is stupid political correctness and a denial of history. However, incorporating the cartoon in this article adds heat to an important and controversial topic where light is needed. Whoever added the caption to this cartoon described the children as "savage children," adding more heat and taking away light. What traits of the children in the cartoon appear to be savage to you? They are not engaged in any savage actions and their size and stature suggests that the artist intended to convey dependency, not savagery.
So why don't I delete it myself? See the topic below. The rest of the article is so terribly written that a cartoon with this caption is a good fast way to warn the reader that the rest of the article is garbage. Flying Jazz 04:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awful writing for the introduction. Bad to awful writing elsewhere.[edit]

In the first sentence of the introduction we read that the United States was initially "of little international import." Little import compared to WHAT?

Later the introduction describes the 13 colonies as "small." Small compared to WHAT? To what it became later? Too obvious to mention. Small compared to European states? Untrue. The remainder of the introduction makes analogies rather than saying what the article is about.

The first dates we encounter in the article itself are the 1960s and 1970s. The historiography is discussed before the history, and then we are told truisms and informed that they are truisms. Fortunately, the rest of the article is better than the terrible start while most of it still manages to be simply bad with lapses into the terrible. I tried to fix American exceptionalism but now I have less time, so I'm just tagging this and hoping someone else will do a repair. This article shouldn't be deleted. It should be improved. Flying Jazz 04:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The 13 american colonies barely survived the war for independence. I would like to know if it means area or power. If area, then not technically small. If by power, then small in all sences of the word. On comparison with a former empire like spain. Not on par with Britain despite victory. Surviving an invasion is not a sign of a superpower. SO yes, small.

Why is this page here?[edit]

I am having a hard time figuring out why this page is here. Most of the topics listed here belong in other articles. Incidents involving the Indian Wars and U.S. westward expansion belong in Manifest Destiny. Incidents involving U.S. policy in the Americas belong in the Monroe Doctrine. Current issues belong in Foreign relations of the United States. This page seems merely to be a place for persons with anti-american views to express themselves. I think this article should be dismantled and the information moved to other appropriate articles. Please discuss.

I think wikipedia should have an article on United States imperialism. Part of that article should deal with its causes. Another part of that article should deal with its history up to the present. This page shouldn't be here, but the fact that this page is here and that United States imperialism redirects to this page is a first sign that horrible, disputed POV writing is ahead as if someone with an axe to grind said, "You think it's debateable whether the US is imperialistic? Ha! I won't even define the term for you! Here's the history!" This page needs a huge rehaul and part of that rehaul should involve a move, not a deletion. The topic of American imperialism certainly belongs on wikipedia. It should just be written better. Flying Jazz 13:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That is not very nice at all. Attacking my intelligence will not give any additional weight to your views. In future please stop making statements such as "Ha! I won't even define the term for you!". [1] I also never said I thought "it's debateable whether the US is imperialistic?" All I said was that this is covered in other, better written articles such as Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine. I also stated that it seems this article merely provides an area for persons with anti-american views to express themselves. Perhaps if this article is to become what I believe you are advocating it should be set up more along the lines of the British Empire article. By the way, if my mistake in not signing my comment above led you to believe that I was another user than I apologise. Movementarian 04:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in retrospect I withdraw the my objection. My sincerest apologies to you. This article is very well presented and maintained. I think that the use of the term imperialism, while correct, has an inherently negative connotation. That said, I cannot think of another term that would work better. Once again, I apologise for my previous statements. Movementarian 04:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. Without any irony, what would you like to happen? I never meant to insult your intellect. I agree with much of what you said originally. This page shouldn't be here. The same content is presented much better elsewhere. I also think the fact that United States imperialism and American imperialism redirect here is terrible as if those responsible for the redirect were making those not-nice statements. This article should not exist, but an American imperialism article should. Do you really think this article is well presented and maintained? I'm the one who added the needs-to-be-cleaned-up tag to it. What about it do you think is very well presented? Yup. I'm confused.Flying Jazz 06:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to confuse you, I confused myself reading my previous posts. I was addressing two different things at the same time. Personally, I would have liked this article to be dismantled and its pieces exported to more relevant articles, such as those I previously mentioned. I agree that American Imperialism is definitely a subject worthy of an article, but not in this form or under this title. I think this article would be better served if it started with the ideas and policies of the U.S. at given times in history and explained how they were intrumental in extending it's power and influence. This is a difficult task to complete without glorifying or condemning the U.S.

Excuse me, but isn't it up to people to judge the value of the word imperialism? Not you. Using a word like imperialism, does not make it POV. I see imperialism as a bad thing, I think the US consistently have continued in it for the last 150-200 years or so, but does that mean that that everyone sees it that way? Im sure some ultra conservative jiongist thinks its awesome to invade countries. The simple fact is, the US have had a consistent jiongistic/imperialistic foreign policy for a long time. Specific periods might be excluded. It has expanded it's territory or CONTROLLED territory if you will overseas. Question is in my mind what is expansion? Military bases? If so, then this article is way to weak. If it's military bases and puppet regimes, then WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to weak article. And so on.... If you want to argue the issue I'd be happy to provide incitement.

213.141.89.53 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

213.141.89.53 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

massive copyedit[edit]

I went through and basically copyedited the entire article (overall diff). There remains a great deal of work to be done before the NPOV tag can come off, but I hope my edits will be viewed as a step (or giant leap!) in the right direction... Tomertalk 10:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits, the article reads better now Travb 07:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Forgive my provocative comment... Is United States an adjective?

Major overhaul[edit]

I felt if this article was going to work, it needed a definition of imperialism at the beginning, and to differentiate the different schools of thought about Americas history and place in the world today in America. Inspired by Miller, I added:

  • why Americans feel they are unique and not imperialists,
  • a large section explaining the three school of thoughts, and
  • why Imperialism is such a worthless word for historians today.Travb 09:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions[edit]

Unfortunatly, in every major overhaul, some sentences and even paragraphs will need to be rewritten or deleted. I am sorry if my actions frustrates some of my fellow wikipedians. To avoid a revert war, I will attempt to explain why I am deleting these sentences, and work on a concensus to make this article more encyclopedic.

The following are some of the sentences I have temporarily deleted from the article, and why I feel they should be temporarily deleted and rewritten:


Deletions in: Continental expansion[edit]

Others argue that there is a difference between expansionism and imperialism. They argue that the American expansion driven by settlers and a need for more land was very different from European imperialism that was primarily a search for raw materials and new markets, with colonization and settlement only an occasional side effect.

"Others" is a weasel word. Who exactly? Please name a historian who feels this way, and please quote him or paraphrase his thoughts. This paragraph becomes a little redundant with Miller's three schools of thought. The three schools of thought already discuss the viewpoints, reasoning, and justifications that Americans use.

And indeed almost every nation on earth is occupied by invaders who wrested territory from previous inhabitants, so the notion that the US began its existence through the conquest of native tribes can be called a truism, since the conquest of one population by another and subsequent change of government/sovereignty is more often than not the very definition of a new country. Otherwise, it must be noted that the United States is no more "imperialistic" on sole account of its relationship to native peoples than such nations as Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, etc. Therefore, many would argue that while acts of conquest are generally reprehensible, acts of "imperialism" require a more specific and systematic method of exploitation (oppressive and non-mutually-beneficial in nature) and suzerainty over other nations, as opposed to mere territorial acquisition, an argument which likely makes no difference to the people actually losing their sovereignty.

This paragraph is not well written in its current form.

First portion of the paragraph

And indeed almost every nation on earth is occupied by invaders who wrested territory from previous inhabitants, so the notion that the US began its existence through the conquest of native tribes can be called a truism

followed, ironically by another truism:

since the conquest of one population by another and subsequent change of government/sovereignty is more often than not the very definition of a new country.

"more often than not" is not encyclopedic.

Like the other paragraph, this paragraph becomes a little redundant with Miller's three schools of thought, which is much better written and clearer. The three schools of thought already discuss the viewpoints, reasoning, and justifications that Americans use. The author of this difficult to read paragraph would probably fall in the first category: "patriotic American" apologist.

What exactly is this person attempting to say? I am not quite sure, except he/she is trying to minimize and justify America's actions.

almost every nation on earth is occupied by invaders who wrested territory from previous inhabitants

i.e. Since every country does it, America's territoral expansion is normal. This is a red herring falacy of logic, common with apologists. A red herring falacy of logic is when someone justifies the actions of a person by highlighting the crimes of someone else.

This is not encyclopedic, and maybe an example would explain why:

If I were descibing the attrocities of the French in Algeria on a wikipedia article on this war, would I cite Russian attrocities in Afghanistan in this article?

No.

Why?

Because I am talking about French actions in Algeria. What happened in Afghanistan is irrelevant to the discussion. Similarly, whether "Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia" is imperialistic is irrelevant to this wikiarticle. This article is not discussing "Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia". It is discussing America.

Second portion of paragraph

Therefore, many would argue that while acts of conquest are generally reprehensible, acts of "imperialism" require a more specific and systematic method of exploitation (oppressive and non-mutually-beneficial in nature) and suzerainty over other nations, as opposed to mere territorial acquisition, an argument which likely makes no difference to the people actually losing their sovereignty.

"suzerainty" --is a spelling error, I don't know what this is supposed to be.

This sentence appears tacked on to the other sentence, with no smooth transition.

The first portion justifies America's territorial expansion, stating that America is no different than other countries.

The second portion begins with a weasel phrase: "many would argue" and then states to be imperialistic, a country must be more oppresive and less helpful to the natives. This has nothing to do with the first portion of the paragraph.

Further, what authority is the author citing? Again, this sentence reaffirms Miller and Thortons argument that the word "Imperialism" cannot be used as a historical term.Travb 09:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions in: The Louisiana Territory[edit]

"However, the Louisiana Government Bill that followed it, although less well-known, is often cited as an early instance of heavy-handedness and hypocrisy in the early United States."

Who cited it? This is POV "heavy-handedness and hypocrisy" unless you cite and quote who said it (preferably a historian).Travb 09:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Some would argue that the actual owners of the bulk of land was neither France nor the United States but rather the Native Americans who had resided on it for centuries and who were not consulted about this transaction. Others would reply that this would be to apply a 20th century viewpoint to 19th century circumstances, and to assume a concept of ownership of land not actually held by Native Americans, who nevertheless may be entitled to the full benefits of such a concept regardless of their belief systems."

Other weasel phrases: "Some would argue", "Others would reply" Who says this?

This sentence is difficult to understand: "and to assume a concept of ownership of land not actually held by Native Americans, who nevertheless may be entitled to the full benefits of such a concept regardless of their belief systems"

I have no clue what the author is trying to say.Travb 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about: The Louisiana Territory[edit]

Since most of the population of the territory consisted of non-whites and Catholics, Jefferson felt that the government should suspend its right to self-government until enough white settlers moved west to command a majority. Modern-day critics of this choice point out the irony in the fact that Jefferson, who had decried British denial of American self rule in the Declaration of Independence, was now issuing the orders to deny self-rule in an American territory, issuing commands from half-way across the continent.

Jefferson felt that the government should suspend its right to self-government until enough white settlers moved west to command a majority.

I always cringe when anyone writes how someone felt, especially with no citied source. What did Jefferson say? Why not quote him, or add a footnote with a quote that proves that he felt this way.

Modern-day critics of this choice point out the irony in the fact that Jefferson...

Which "modern day critics"?Travb 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about: The Mexican American War[edit]

The Mexican-American War from 1846 to 1848 is often viewed as motivated by American imperialism. In 1846, President James K. Polk sent soldiers to the disputed zone between Mexico and the newly annexed Republic of Texas in what most historians describe as a provocation for war.

"often viewed" By who? I seriously doubt a majority of Americans view the Mexican-American War as American imperialism.

"in what most historians describe as a provocation for war."

Another sentence that makes me cringe--"most historians"

Why not instead write cite one prominent historian and replace "most" with "many".Travb 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I agreed with you. Then you wrote " I seriously doubt a majority of Americans view the Mexican-American War as American imperialism."
What the fuck do you know about that? Have you talked to a majority of Americans? Especially thoose who are dead now, like all of them are. Same situation. I dont care what you believe.
The simple fact is that america moved aggressively westwards under the idea of manifest destiny, and claimed that they had a right to said lands, even though some were under mexican control. How is this not imperialism?
213.141.89.53 23:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions in: The Mexican American War[edit]

Today, there is some question over the nature of the Mexican-American war. Most claim that it was aggressive in nature, prompted by Manifest Destiny. Among these, some historians claim that it was simply a grab for more territory, whereas others see it as part of a concerted expansionist movement, reminiscent of imperialism.

Who is questioning this? Which historians? Who are most of these people that claim the Mexican war was agressive? Historians? Americans? If this author is talking Americans, this sentence is incorrect, I have been to the Alamo and I see how Americans look upon this portion of history with pride. The Alamo museum mirrors this feeling, emphasing how ruthless the Mexican government was.

Many weasel phrases in this paragraph....Travb 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions in: Age of imperialism[edit]

The population was divided between those that saw the economic and strategic benefits of colonies and those that felt it was countrary to America's founding ideology.

This is a misleading sentence. The majority of Americans were jingoistic and supportive of this war. When the Maine sunk there was national outrage. This imaginary division of the population also ignores the other reason that was peddled by the elite for the Spanish-American war: the freedom of these colonies from Spanish control and for humanitarian reasons. The news had several articles talking about Weyler's attrocities in Cuba. It was the same tired "beacon of freedom and democracy" justification.Travb 10:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions in: Latin America, After World War II, The Third World, Cultural imperialism[edit]

Many argue, however, that this situation amounted to the United States having a de facto empire in the Americas throughout this period.

Many would argue, however, that cultural and economic imperialism of far greater import.

Many of these interventions have been denounced by some as imperialist.

Many argue that this serves to inculcate populations with American values, while at the same time destroying indigenous cultures.

who? more weasel words...Travb 10:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions in:Cultural imperialism[edit]

than of any insidious U.S. effort to spread its culture abroad, although this expansion is often condemned as such.

"insidous" is POV, condemned by who? Travb 10:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make a "ME" list? :P I'm confused though. Who exactly could verify that word? Do I need a PH.D to make it a valid statement? I agree with what you are saying... but.. I'm just saying...

I'm sure we could find at least 5000 people who would agree with that statement, POV as it is. So where does that leave us?

213.141.89.53 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The major weakness of this article: the title[edit]

The major weakness of this article is its title (History of United States Imperialism). That is why I added the large section from Miller about "Is the United States Imperialistic?" No other article needs to explain its title in 5 plus paragraphs like this one.

I close with Miller and Thorton's point:

"Miller concludes that the term "imperialism" recent overuse and abuse makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept. Historian Archibald Paton Thorton wrote that "imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where Colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."

This article is a lightning rod of criticism because of the "crusaders for and against", making it "nearly meaningless as an analytical concept". I suggest renaming the title to a less POV title, and moving the article, which will cause less people to attack the article.

Maybe the name: Histoy of United States foreign interventions? Travb 22:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're on the right track; good luck trying to get it done. Although this article covers very important topics, the title is unnecessarily provocative, which diverts us from the task at hand. This article is actually four different topics lumped together in one POV stew. Separate them out, and you have the potential for four useful NPOV articles:
All of this is an easy fix to create four useful articles. I've thought of doing this for a long time, but figured people who had an agenda other than writing an NPOV encyclopedia would scream bloody murder. But maybe I'm too pessimistic. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting comments. I never thought of dividing the article into 4 pieces, only a name change. Thanks for the comments.Travb 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the POV about the title. Its a fact that United States made the Philippenes, and Guam colonies. Later on we confronted the British and Germans over Samoa. Its a fact that we annexed Hawaii. It is a fact that we bought Alaska. That is all overseas expansion? The problem is the content. This article would better be suited with the title History of American Imperialism. 74.137.230.39 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • After further look, I think the content reflects the article well. Now it just needs more citations. I don't really see any POV left in the article. Remember, just because it was at one time it represented one perspective too much, don't let it become pro-American POV either. 74.137.230.39 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article can't possibly by neutral[edit]

It can't possibly be neutral, just look at the section about "evil capitalism." It's no more objective than the communist manifesto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KongminRegent (talk • contribs) .

I added that section, about "evil capitalist". Without this section I feel the article would be even more POV--if a person is going to call the US "imperilistic" a person must define what imperialistic is first. That is what Miller does fabulously. Miller explains the different ways that Americans see America's historical territorial ambitions, there are three views, that I paraphrased and labeled as the following:
  • "disneyland" apologists, (which view, like most Americans, you probably believe)
  • lesser apologists (imperialism happened, but only happened during one small period), and
  • the evil capitailist view. (which is the view I personally believe)
The evil capitalist title I added myself, if you find the evil capitalist title objectable, please add a different title that is just as descriptive and less POV.
Please read my statments just above this one The major weakness of this article which explains why I felt this section was sorely needed.
You mention the communist manifesto. This is a common and simplistic way that many Americans typically attach the word "communist" to something they disagree with to make the belief look bad. I could do the same by dismissing you as a facist, but I won't because this is the most juvenile way of debating. Your example only inadvertantly exposes your own POV. Your "communist manifesto" example has no merit, so it does not deserve any comment other than this. Travb 01:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate as 4 articles per Kevin Myers[edit]

Go ahead. Do it. Kevin Myers, Travb, and myself all agree so do it. WAS 4.250 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done it, more or less (some merging on foreign intervention is needed), and created a template to link them as well. Much cleanup and expansion to do; everyone have at it. I think it can make a nice article series, and help prevent needless debates about POV titles and let us focus on content. I've tried to be as even-handed as possible in creating article titles and the template. I'm certainly not trying to choose sides in any debate about "American imperialism"; like Walter McDougall, I'd characterize U.S. history as a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. I just want to create a stable format for us to write about it in a NPOV way. This article has been a battleground for too long; time to make it (and the others) useful entries. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great job Kevin, good call. Lets hope the leftist ideologues are satisfied with your excellent job and hard work.
We have already pissed off the ideologues on the right, lets hope we don't infurate the ideological left too. I have been in the position of pissing off both sides more than once on wikipedia, and it tends not to be very productive.Travb 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, sir. WAS 4.250 00:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the "clean-up" tag, as it seems to have been done. Kalkin

"cultural imperialism" changes[edit]

I've removed this paragraph:

Proponents of this view argue that not only is "Cultural Imperialism" a misnomer and an intellectually invalid concept, but is by nature a culturally fascist accusation or retort against cosmopolitanism, and, ultimately, racist. This is part of a larger world view known as Circular Political Theory (the farther you go to the extreme left, the closer you come to the extreme right, and vice versa), which interprets so-called "anti-imperialist" movements and the "new leftism" as merely superficial reworkings of classic fascism.

One paragraph neutrally proposing the thesis of cultural imperialism followed by two refuting it fails NPOV. I started to add some defense of the idea that cultural imperialism is something to be prevented, but decided that would make the subsection far too long. Better to leave the debate for the main cultural imperialism article. Kalkin

More interesting info to add about the American empire[edit]

For anyone interested, here is some of the info that I have compiled on my blog which may be incorporated in this article or one of the others in the American empire section:

The American Empire (the bottom section quoting Miller is already part of American empire (term).Travb 04:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the comment that this article has lost its neutrality.[edit]

Who wrote "It is also widely believed that the US was behind the Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002." What sources are you getting your info from? T.V. talk shows? Please realize that when you state unsubstanciated info like that you cause harm to the people who are really trying to improve relations. I strongly believe that unsubstantiated claims like that are an unethical, low-blow used to distort reality. Please desist! unless you have the facts. Wikipedia is a powerful learning/teaching tool. Don't make it a cheap political squak box.


I have read the same thing in many British national newspapers including The Times and The Telegraph. Both report on global feelings that the Bush administrantion was behind the coup. CNN online also reported the same feelings. James Quinn 20 Sept 2006, sorry, dont know my IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.213.247 (talk • contribs)

POV Warning[edit]

I started trying to get this article into shape, but it's probably hopeless. I added the POV warning. Why is this article even here? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 22:13 (UTC)

I didn't remove your warning, so that's no reason to revert my edits. However, if you want the warning to stay there, it will need to be more specific. How does the article reflect a Marxist point of view? What does it say that's false or irrelevant, or fail to mention that's true and relevant?
I left in your note in the "cultural imperialism" section that some people think the term is an abuse of the word "imperialism." I took out only the explanation - which is something that people who are interested can find in the main article, since there's nothing about it that's specific to the U.S. I removed the popularity of products "reason" from the "background" section because it's totally irrelevant to the time period. The U.S. is not being accused of cultural imperialism with respect to the Philippines, Cuba, etc. It's being accused of territorial imperialism. Therefore unless you have some reason why the popularity of U.S. products might lead the U.S. to invade other countries militarily, that popularity has nothing to do with the rest of the section.
For the record, although I do believe the U.S. is imperialist, I'm not a fan of the theory of "cultural imperialism."
Kalkin 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find personally that those who holler POV the loudest, ironically usually have the strongest POV. As Kalkin said, please explain your tag. Everyone who criticizes American expansion is not automatically Marxist. I am not a Marxist, and I criticize American expansionTravb (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article through again, very carefully. I'll try to make changes that square to some degree with the objections raised here. (Though, yes, leaving the tag up, with a better explanation, and leaving the article alone, might be the best strategy. I may go back to my decision to adopt that strategy.) First, one important point: The article is called "History of United States overseas expansion," not "History of United States overseas expansionism." I was trying to make the article square with its title. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-29 07:16 (UTC)

Cultural section[edit]

Old edit:

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has been dominant in most cultural industries. US movies, television, food, and music are popular throughout the world. Thus the US has often been accused of cultural imperialism, a form of expansion overseas certainly more subtle than military conquest but perhaps with similar problems.

New edit:

Since the end of World War II, the United States has been dominant in most cultural industries. US movies, television, food, and music are popular throughout the world. This dominance has led some to accuse the US of "cultural imperialism", a form of overseas expansion certainly more subtle than military conquest, but which, some contend, is attended by similar consequences on the affected populations.

Thanks for your continued contributions User: Cultural Freedom.

I want to talk about a particular policy page. I wish they would change the name of this page, because it has a negtive conentation: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.

"Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world.""
Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have? Why is this of any significance?
Examples: Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Examples
  • "Some people say..."
  • "Some argue..."

I will add a {{fact}} tag to this statment, lets give someone a week to respond, then lets delete the paragraph, and move the link to the see also section. I never did like that section much anyway--it seems off topic here.

The last edit has weasel words, and it is also more ackward. Read both sentences a couple of times, the new one and the old one, and see which one is more awkward.

Signed:Travb (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it for two reasons. 1) The word "thus" is incorrect here. 2) (More importantly) the English was abominable. But if you don't see those two problems, I'll go back to my first strategy: let you do what you want, but make sure the POV warning stays, as long as it's needed. Best, --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-29 15:49 (UTC)
cultural imperialism
Please feel free to continue to edit this page, I really think you can be a valuable contributor to this article. Don't let my edits discourage you.
Again, i never did care for this cultural imperialism section anyway. In a week, I will delete it, and move the link to see also, unless someone comes up with a source.
Please continue to edit this section, but please avoid weasel words, and please don't downplay what the sentences are attempting to say. I am sure this section can be written better, and expanded, if you wish.
Also, don't be intimidated when I, or anyone else on wikipedia quote policy. I have learned that some admins use policy as weapons, as a way to push their own POV / agendas against those users who happen to know less wikipolicy.
POV tag
I have no problem with the POV tag, except maybe that it says "anti-american" which to the majority of wikipedians, who are americans, this has a very negative conentation. I am proudly anti-american, but I don't think other editors would proudly accept such labels.
But I respect your opinion, so I will not change this POV tag.
Signed:Travb (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that in the cultural imperialism article a cite could very easily be found for someone alleging the U.S. to be culturally imperialist. Kalkin 00:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About continuing to work on this article -- we'll see. I have to be careful about my time. Not convinced my efforts will end up helping much here.
Out of curiousity, what makes you think the majority of Wikipedians (I assume you mean those who participate on the English lang. Wikipedia) are American? Seems to me that Americans are in the minority. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 07:07 (UTC)
User:DKalkin I agree. I will look for one, if it is becomes important to me, which I doubt. :) I won't delete it though, without trying to find a source.Travb (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Americans are in the minority[edit]

Seems to me that Americans are in the minority. Really? maybe you edit other pages then I do. There is this cultural wikiarticle that tackles this, and states that the majority are American, but I read it months ago. So there is probably no way I can find this--but I will try. Travb (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. This article does not say most wikipedians are American. I guess I assumed they were. I maybe wrong, let me know if I am.Travb (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this, (I love google):
"After all, the vast majority of Wikipedians live in Europe and Frankfurt is the city the largest number of Wikipedians can reach easy."
"Where does the statement that "the vast majority of Wikipedians live in Europe" come from? According to this, admitedly rough set of figures, 35.10% of page views come from Europe and 37.20% from North America, with another 16.10% coming from East Asia".
See the full argument here: [2]
Travb (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the majority is not americans. 37.2% isnt 62.8%.
213.141.89.53 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the page[edit]

The article is almost entirely written from an anti-American standpoint; all aspects of US growth are treated as the result of unsavory US actions, as opposed to the result of wars, for which, in some cases, other countries were at least partly responsible. Moreover, despite the article's title, the article is about a more controversial topic: expansionism, not expansion.

The {{POV-because}} was deleted, so I moved all the info here. Travb (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-American bias of this article[edit]

The article is almost entirely written from an anti-American standpoint; all aspects of US growth are treated as the result of unsavory US actions, as opposed to the result of wars, for which, in some cases, other countries were at least partly responsible. Moreover, despite the article's title, the article is about a more controversial topic: expansionism, not expansion.

-Travb- Thanks for retaining the above information. I've added a direct link to this new section. I was going to delete the section you added, but we can just leave it for posterity! (Or you can delete it yourself; I didn't want to do anything you might feel was too "aggressive.") --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-21 14:47 (UTC)

Why are people so sensitive about using the word "imperialism" in this article and denounce it as anti-American, yet at the same time are eagerly involved in other articels of reprehension on other nations and cultures, and vehemently deny any sentiment. Many people outside the US are aware of American hegemony (resulting from imperialistic foreign policies). If it is considered POV to talk about US imperialism (especially of the US government), then many negative opinions against other countries should also be classified as POV. Otherwise it's just typical American double standards. Let's face it, most of the contentions in the world are more about nationalism and retribution than about who's right and who's wrong. Pseudotriton 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I grasp what you're trying to say, sorry. One thing I can say that might help: "imperialism" is simply incorrect when describing the U.S. That doesn't mean the U.S. hasn't made highly questionable foreign policy choices. But that's different. I'm not sure people here are "sensitive" in any incorrect way. They're just trying to create accurate articles. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-28 8:26 (UTC)

Just a small point, but why is it simply incorrect? When the British seized Cuba in 1762 that would be described as imperialism without question. But when the US controlled Cuba 1898-1902 and 1906-1909 that is "different"?--Zleitzen 11:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even Encarta acknowledges American Imperialism in respect to Cuba "A number of factors contributed to the U.S. decision to go to war against Spain. These included the Cuban struggle for independence, American imperialism, and the sinking of the U.S. warship Maine"[3]. Whatsmore, the magazine which detailed the Cuban occupation in 1898 was specifically called American Imperialism. --Zleitzen 12:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it appears that the page you quote is a wikipedia type article, which anyone can edit too. Travb (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encarta isn't a wiki, there is an editorial staff. Try editing it and see how far you get. --Zleitzen 14:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I was wrong, sorry. Travb (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god how I'd like to troll on travb here, we all know his POV as much as we know mine :P Thank god for encyclopedias then? 213.141.89.53 23:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Freedom, I was perhaps a bit verbose in my last comment. What I'm saying is illustrated by Zleitzen's Cuba example. It's totally hypocritical to deny imperialistic intentions when the US exerts its influence on others for its own interest. You said using the word "imperialism" is wrong but offer no reasoning or evidence of why it is wrong. It is no more POV to label the US as "imperialists" than to label some groups "terrorists". Right after 9-11, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. said in an interview that the terrorists for one side are the freedom fighters for the other. Accuracy can be relative to who you are talking to. Pseudotriton 04:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the archives I see a comment by one user "imperialism is one of those taboo words that you just can't use if you want people to take you seriously - even when it is entirely appropriate". Your point above concerning people being sensitive about using the word appears to have some validity, Pseudotriton. For starters, imperialism and Empire are not taboo subjects in some nations who continue to celebrate the term. So we can establish that we can use the word to refer to other nations and still be serious. And if one reads the decidedly untaboo Soviet Empire page on wikipedia we find Cuba sitting unchallenged within. Now, remember that Americans began to inhabit the island en masse during the 19th Century before the US government occupied Cuba under military rule for two periods. Yet the Soviets did neither of these things 1961-90. There does appear to be a sense of denial and exceptionalism dominating this issue. Sometimes it's worth finding out what the recipients of such "expansion" believe. Amongst Cubans, there is no doubt whether the US actions were imperialist in nature or not. --Zleitzen 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any lingering POV issues that need to be discussed? Otherwise I will remove the POV tag. --Swift 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, nearly five months after Swift's message just above, there are no lingering POV issues that justify leaving the tag up. That being the case, I'm taking it down. Buck Mulligan 05:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article seem really about Spanish American War[edit]

There is an awful lot of Imperialism theory being employed here to explain the expansion of the U.S. THe overseas expansion of the U.S. boils down to two events: acquisition of colonies from the Spanish-American War, and the incorporation of Hawaii at the request of a foreign leader. If someone wants to diatribe about american imperialist adventures that did not result in the expansion of teh U.S. I am sure there is anotehr article devoted to it. Perhaps america as empire?Mrdthree 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the Spanish-american War and Hawaii proved to be a turning point in U.S. policy, U.S. interest in overseas territories began much earlier. See Guano Islands Act for a bit more detail (although this area could use more expansion in general). Also, I'm not sure if it was deliberate or simply lost in the shuffle, but The Banana Wars should be linked from somewhere on this page (whether as a main article link or as a see also doesn't matter to me). older ≠ wiser 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TH eGuano Islands Act is a pretty big shocker, brilliant researching, but as far as I could tell there were no colonies as a result of the Banana Wars.Mrdthree 21:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, there were no official colonies, but many of the Banana Republics were essentially puppet states of the U.S. older ≠ wiser 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The memory hole[edit]

Today (August 13th) the following was deleted from this page, this information is not terribly well researched, so I am not going to fight for its continued inclusion in the article:

==Asia==

While American intervention had begun earlier with Matthew Perry forcibly opening Japan to the West with the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854, this period saw the United States expand its presence in Asia. The U.S. pushed through the Open Door Policy that guaranteed equal economic access to China. It also vigorously acquired small islands in the Pacific, mostly to be used as coaling stations.

Throughout the later half of the 19th century, China was divided into "spheres of influence"-areas to which a foreign power (Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Russia) were given exclusive trading rights or even the territory itself as the result of treaties. The United States, having recently gained the Philippines in the Spanish-American War and thereby becoming a player in East Asia, felt impeded by these "spheres of influence". In an effort to equalize trade, John Hay, Secretary of State at the time (under William McKinley), sent letters to European leaders suggesting an "open door" policy in China, one that would grant equivalent trading rights to all powers inside the spheres of influence. The proposal was gently rejected. Following the Boxer Rebellion, John Hay called again for an expanded "open door" policy effective throughout China, not just within "spheres of influence". The United States and the European powers agreed to preserve Chinese independence and government.

==After World War II==

After helping defeat Nazi Germany, the United States occupied the southern portion of the Western sector of Germany (what later became West Germany) for ten years (1945 to 1955). More intense was the occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1951, during which time the US occupation force, led by General Douglas MacArthur staged a dramatic restructuring of Japanese society in order to prevent the nation from re-emerging as a military threat. (See also Japanese nationalism.) Although the occupation officially ended in the 1950's, large numbers of American troops remain today in bases in both countries. The United States also gained control of what are today the Northern Mariana Islands, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.

During this period, the United States actively intervened in the politics of many nations, with the purpose of curbing the expansion of the influence of the Soviet Union. Many of the post-war actions were implemented as the result of Cold War policy and anti-Communist sentiment, which were the basis of much of United States foreign policy.

==Europe==

During the 1960s and 1970s it became fashionable to view the Soviet Empire in eastern Europe as comparable to the American domination of western Europe. It was frequently argued that, through economic and military pressure, the United States pursued hegemony just as aggressively as the Soviet Union. The post-revisionist school, which, since the fall of the USSR, has come to dominate the study of Cold War history, has rejected this view, arguing that the full extent of Soviet aggression has become apparent as a result of the opening of the Kremlin's archives. (See historiography of the Cold War.)

==Middle East==

After World War Two, with the continued rise in the importance of oil to the world economy, the United States increased its interest in intervention in the Middle East. While it had no formal colonies, it had sufficient influence in several countries that they are sometimes viewed as client states; these include Israel, Iran under the Shah, and various Gulf states. Since 2001, and the September 11 attacks, the U.S. has had a large number of troops in Afghanistan. Since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, it has had an even larger number in Iraq. At least some U.S. war planners were interested in U.S. military domination of the oil-rich Gulf region, the world's top supply of this most important resource, according to U.S. General Jay Garner, who was in charge of planning and administering post-war reconstruction in Iraq, explaining that the U.S. occupation of Iraq was comparable to the Philippine model: "Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East". (Interview on National Journal 2004, archived http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5819&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported, http://www.alternet.org/story/17923/ )

The U.S. denies any intention to maintain long-term control of these countries; this is disputed by many, though very few allege that the U.S. intends actual annexation. However, at least some U.S. war planners are interested in long term bases in Iraq to project American power to the Middle East. "One of the most important things we can do right now is start getting basing rights with (the Iraqi authorities)", "I hope they're there a long time....And I think we'll have basing rights in the north and basing rights in the south ... we'd want to keep at least a brigade", Garner added (Interview on National Journal 2004, archived http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5819&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported, http://www.alternet.org/story/17923/ ) Also, a report of the U.S. House of Representatives accompanying emergency spending legislation for U.S. military bases in Iraq stated that the money allocated was "of a magnitude normally associated with permanent bases". (BBC News, March 30, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4834032.stm )

==Coups==

Declassified British Cabinet papers, published in The Guardian in 1994, indicate the possibility that the CIA and MI6 both provided backing for the 1963 military coup of Iraqi Colonel Abdul Salam Arif which overthrew Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim. Qassim had attempted to nationalize the Iraq Petroleum Company, of which U.S. companies were major shareholders, and in order to assert Iraqi rights to the territory of Kuwait. Following the coup, the new Iraqi government abandoned both of these policies disapproved of by the governments of both the U.S. and the United Kingdom. (See also History of Iraq.) After the government of Rahman Arif took power, the U.S. again backed a coup in Iraq, bringing the Baath Party to power in 1968, [1] with Saddam Hussein eventually taking the helm. Similar tactics were used by the United States in Iran in 1953 to topple the democractially-elected Moussadegh government and to install the Shah dictatorship, see Operation Ajax, and in Chile in 1973 to install General Pinochet after the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Dr. Salvadore Allende, see Chilean coup of 1973. In these cases U.S. interest lay in maintaining control over Iran's oil and Chile's copper. It is also widely believed that the U.S. was behind the Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 to topple the democratically-elected government of President Hugo Chávez.[citation needed]

==Cultural imperialism==

{{main|Cultural imperialism}} Since the end of the Second World War the United States has been dominant in most cultural industries. US movies, television, food, and music are popular throughout the world. Thus the US has often been accused of cultural imperialism, a form of expansion overseas certainly more subtle than military conquest but perhaps with similar problems.{{fact}}

Signed: Travb (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My aim was to redirect the focus of the article to changes in political boundaries. I was assuming that specific issues relating to the expansion of U.S. 'hegemony' were covered in the American Empire article. Since they appear not to be covered it may be worthwhile to chop this article into two sections: Expansion of political boundaries oversaes and U.S. Interventions overseas. Mrdthree 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although if you look at expansionism it seems to follow the premise of land acquisition rather than occupation and political subterfuge. It may be that the topics above are better situated as specifics to teh American Empire (U.S. Hegemony) article. Mrdthree 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Power too you User:Mrdthree, thanks for the explation. I try to post all major changes on the talk page, for a variety of reasons, I really am an anti-deletionist, and I am uncomfortable deleting even unreferenced poorly focused material like what was deleted above.
Although, if I recall correctly, I often disagree with your POV, I welcome a radical rewrite of this article. It is really terrible. Maybe you can raise it to the caliber of American empire I wish you the best of luck. If you need any help, let me know. Travb (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thats it for me its nap time. someone may want to rewrite the intro. Mrdthree 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no one will, you have to do it yourself, asking other people to do things on talk pages is pointless. Want to wiegh in at: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America? You seem like someone who may be interested in this subject, and we would appreciate your opinion. Travb (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge U.S. colonization outside North America into current article[edit]

Text is already incorporated, this proposal has already been made above. Mrdthree 13:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Include other maps?[edit]

A wikiuser added a map to this page (first one). Why not add the other pictures in the group?

U.S. and possessions at the turn of the 20th Century.
The world in 1958: The United States and its allies are marked in green, and the colonies of European powers allied with the United States are marked in blue.
The world in 1982: The United States and its allies are marked in green.
The World in 2003: Original countries in the US-led "Coalition of the Willing" are marked in green.

The maps were once on American Empire but first one map (Coalition map), and then the other two were removed for the American Empire page.

Reason: Talk:American_Empire#American_Empire_Map.

If this map stays, I think a great map would be the map of the Spanish empire, before the Spanish American War, and the U.S. and possessions at the turn of the 20th Century. Basically this map would show that America seized/bought all of the empire of Spain in the Western Hempisphere.

Another user brought up the point on the American_Empire page that the colonies of Spain made Spain an empire but when the US aquired them, that didn't make the US an empire? What changed? Travb (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I dont think the map is very useful. Compare it with the scanned Image:GreaterAmericaMap.jpg. On the incorporated map it is pretty much impossible to see anything but the phillipines. I would say chop out or rotate the map to look like the newspaper image or remove it.Mrdthree 16:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I can't see Image:imperialUS.PNG being very useful. Unless it lists the unnoticable islands, it would be better to simply verbalize this information. As for the other three, they look more interesting. --Swift 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed[edit]

The following text was flagged {{fact}}, then removed today. [4]


It is also widely believed that the U.S. was behind the Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 to topple the democratically-elected government of President Hugo Chávez.{{fact}}


Signed: Travb (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following text was flagged {{fact}}, then removed today.

Thus the US has often been accused of cultural imperialism, a form of expansion overseas certainly more subtle than military conquest but perhaps with similar problems.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neoimperial Grand Strategy[edit]

Being that History of United States imperialism currently redirects here, it is extremely disappointing that there is no mention of the new imperial grand strategy, popularised by John Ikenberry and Noam Chomsky. Its absence is conspicuous yet this page may already be too confused to deal with such an addition. On the other hand, I don't really know enough about it to start a new page for it. -- abfackeln 02:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of United States imperialism[edit]

  • Support -- not that there's anything to be merged. Let's do this quickly and redirect the other title. --N Shar 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and redirected the article here. It is a new article, with not much information. Travb (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, that counts as "quickly." I had been watching the article. I suggested to the author that he contribute to a more established article, but he ignored me. --N Shar 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should relate only to the literal territorial expansion[edit]

The article is named 'US Overseas Expansion' and should relate only to the literal territorial expansion of the US overseas. Since everyone seems to think that this article is about American 'imperialism'(however you want to define that word)'overseas'(as if to imply the US has no right to exist where it does), I suggest that we follow the above recommendation and merge the article immediately. I am not sure how to begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.97.15 (talk • contribs)

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS USING ~~~~ Thank you.
Wikipedia:Be Bold I disagree with you, but I look forward to your edits.
The name was changed from "imperialism" to "Overseas expansion of the United States" as a coprimise. I am sure there are a handful of people who disagree that this article is about American imperialism.Travb (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 71.30.97.15 about how this article (before a merger) should relate to territorial expansion only. To begin with, I'll remove the section on "Cultural Imperialism," which clearly doesn't belong here. --BrianMDelaney 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE OVERSEAS INTERVENTIONS TO NEW ARTICLE[edit]

Declaring overseas interventions of the united states as efforts at expanding the territorial holdings of the United States is editorializing. The fact of overseas expansion as documented in the introduction of this article can be confirmed. The fact fo overseas interventions can be confirmed. The argument that overseas interventions constitute efforts at expansion is opinion. So I started a new page Overseas interventions of the United States. Mrdthree 13:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, really needed, there is already a List of United States military history events.Ultramarine 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, since you have already created the article, there is absolutely no need for the section in this article, so it should be removed.Ultramarine 13:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Now the question is should this article exist? Should information deleted in Jan 2007 about hte overseas expansion of US territory be restored or is it as was argued then redundant with teh main article, territorual expansion of the United states? Personally, I would like to see the info restored, but I am not strong proponent. I restored it to illustrateMrdthree 13:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the material is unsourced, but at least it is on topic. I say keep it for now, I will go through it.Ultramarine 13:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this article[edit]

I do not really understand the purpose of this article. Is is supposed to be about an American Empire? There is already such an article. Is it supposed to be about Opposition to United States foreign policy? There is already such an article. It is supposed to be a List of United States military history events? There is already such an article

The "Background" section talks abourt the motivations for US colonialism before WWII. On the other hand, the section on "Overseas interventions", mostly after WWII, seems to imply that all of these interventions are examples of "overseas expansion". This is OR conclusions, most of these did not lead to any expansion of US territory or possessions. Therefore, I propose that that the "Background" section should be moved to the American Empire article. If there are any interventions not listed in List of United States military history events, they should be moved there. If there is any criticisms not in Opposition to United States foreign policy, they should be moved there. Thoughts? Ultramarine 13:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

No objections, so I have moved the "Background" section and other referenced material to the "American Empire" article. The rest was an unsourced OR synthesis as per above, duplicating Opposition to United States foreign policy and List of United States military history events. Redirected to "American Empire".Ultramarine 11:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My changes, carefully explained here and in the edit summaries, were reverted without explanation. If there is no explanation arriving, I will shortly restore the redirect.Ultramarine 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is simple, it identifies American expansion into foreign territories with imperialistic intent. This is a small subset of the List of United States military history events. This is a historical overview of events that the American Empire took part in, not an article on the Empire itself. It in no way endorses Opposition to United States foreign policy, it just points out some of the actions in which foreign policy has taken form. The article is substantially different from those three articles you mentioned. The existence of an 'American Empire' is disputed, and discussed in a modern context on that page, yet this history of imperialistic behaviour is undisputed and therefore should be kept separate. Therefore, the background section should stay. The military interventions listed serve as examples to this point, so they should stay. If it is critical of US foreign policy, it shouldn't be, as this would violate NPOV. The correct way to deal with criticisms would be to point them out and rework them into NPOV, perhaps by redirecting or deleting them but preferably by rewording them. Oh, and I didn't undo your wholesale redirect of this article, but really you should not have done that - this page hasn't survived a deletion review just to get redirected to a different topic.Nazlfrag 06:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is arguing that all of these interventions were with imperialistic intent? See Wikipedia:No original research.Ultramarine 08:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that there is almost no sources. When examining the those few that exist, they are unverifiable due to broken links and lack of exact date, or simply do not support many of the claims supposedly dervied from that source.Ultramarine 08:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two quotes from Garner in the "Interventions in the Middle East" section are well known, and appear in the source cited, as I stated in my edit summary. Why are you continuing to put a "failed verification" tag on it? This was the only one of your verifications I bothered to verify myself. The sourcing there, while not featured-article perfect, seems to me to be easier to understand than your criticism of it. Your usage of this tag does not seem to be consistent with Template:Failed verification, so I quick and dirty fixed the second reference, which wasn't pointing to the correct place (the same as the first) and removed the tag.John Z 09:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link was broken and the exact date was lacking, making it impossible to verify. Now you point to a web article that does not give a date either. Fine, but I will insert "claimed to have said"Ultramarine 09:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there were two links given in the article, the first one of which was broken and hard to verify; I tried a little at webarchive but was unsuccessful. The second link, in the article already, not given by me, was fine. So the "failed verification" tag was never really appropriate. How lack of a precise date (the week is indicated, in February of 2004) makes "claimed to have said" appropriate - what source disputes it? - I do not understand, so I changed some of your text as it thus verges on OR. I think one should use the "failed verification" tag carefully, in accordance with the explanation on the template page.
The quotes are well known, and googling would doubtless turn up more instances of them. But what I am more concerned with is careless citing practices. The article is far from perfect in that and many other ways, but I repeat, it may be better there than the critique given Judging from this example, are you sure that looking at fewer references, but more carefully at each, would not result in a better encyclopedia than your current practice?John Z 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The next tag too, on the Iraqi coup is also problematic. What precisely are you disputing? What are you saying the article says is not in the citation given (and not in the internal links)? Again, the "failed verification" page says " Explain in detail on the talk page." when you use the tag.John Z 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the quotes are well known, but is unable to find the exact source. This brings to mind the possibility that it is a rumor or a hoax. Unless the exact date is given, which is required for verifiability, I will shortly add back "claimed". Regarding the other source, it an unsourced op-ed in the New York Times, not "Declassified British Cabinet papers" published by the Guardian, and does not mention several of persons named in this article, MI6, or oil nationaliztion.Ultramarine 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put in the original source for Garner. One can check the quotes' appearance there by searching on them there. (Or pay the $2,000 for a subscription, your choice :-) ). But again, what source ever cast doubt on them? Without such, casting strong suspicion in an article, especially of a "dog bites man" unsurprising quote is non-allowable Original Research. For the coup citation, it was not clear what was being cited in the article, or what you objected to. Some of what was said was in the citation. I suggest using citation needed tags for the material which does not appear there or in the internal links provided. As the template and discussion explains, the (rare, <150 current usages) failed verification tag is only appropriate for clearer cases.John Z 22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Interventions in the Middle East" section {{failed verification}} tag[edit]

The tag is on a cite following this sentence: "After the government of Rahman Arif took power, the U.S. again backed a coup in Iraq, bringing the Baath Party to power in 1968," The cited source says:

[...] In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s Health Alteration Committee, as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.

Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. Almost certainly a gain for our side, Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.

As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.

As I read that, "American agents" marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime, then those agents and others ("the conspirators") staged a coup. Later, speaking of the coup, the author says, "As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, [...]". Perhaps the text could stand a bit of rewording, but I think that the cited source does support what the text asserts. The cited source is a bit soft, though -- a NYT Op-Ed piece requoted on a blog. -- Boracay Bill 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

I've proposed this page be merged into American Empire, the full details can be found here: [5] -MichiganCharms 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus there was against, -MichiganCharms 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re.revert on section header "Annexation of Hawaii"[edit]

Unregistered user 203.218.71.185 had changed the section heading Annexation of Hawaii to read Invasion of Hawaii, providing as an edit summary: "American always says China invaded Tibet, why not saying USA invaded Hawaii?". User:Ultramarine reverted that with the edit summary: "not a military invasion". 203.218.71.185 re-reverted that without an edit summary, and I re-re-reverted that reversion with an edit summary pointing to this talk page discussion.

IMHO, conducting guerilla warfare is not a good way to resolve ideological differences; especially not within wikipedia. I won't take the trouble to search Wikipedia guidelines about this just now, but I feel confident that the guidelines would bear me out.

I suggest that the Tibet/China questions are better discussed in Talk:South Tibet, Talk:Sino-Indian_War, or Talk:Tibet. -- Boracay Bill 12:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed Retitle to American Overseas Empire[edit]

I reject the idea to retitle this article as listed above. A better title may be possible but this is not it. A previous user finds it more objective to retitle this article american overseas empire. However I find this to be editorializing in favor of the 'american empire' notion that has become popular since 9-11. In titling the section American Empire assumptions about the nature of the current governance and administration of regions are being made that rely on ideological definitions of imperialism. Mrdthree 03:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article deals with the turn of the century. There's no post 9-11 assumptions in it, those can be found at American Empire (phrase). -MichiganCharms 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


American Empire Map[edit]

A map is being added to this article entitled the "American Empire". I have reverted it again [6] because as per previous discussions on this page, "American Empire" is not equal to "Overseas expansion of the United States" (that is why two separate articles exist). Furthermore, there is already a map on the page showing the overseas territories. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add a more deatalied, newer map on it? I see nothing wrong with that. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This is an article on the overseas expansion of the United States. Labelling the map the "American Empire" is contentious (see the talk page history) and colouring an area of Canada misleading. Yes, the US and Britain jointly claimed an area until the US-Canada border was finalised but to colour that on a map on the "overseas expansion" page suggests that the US "expanded into" Canadian territory, which is wrong. This is an article on history from 1898 onwards. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I will remove the dark blue coloring. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
And please any reference - in the title or in the legend - to the term "American Empire". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Former Possessions section[edit]

I have removed the FormerPossessions section and moved its former contents here

US has voluntarily left some of its overseas territories and they have gained independence. Cuba (1902), the Philippines (1946), the Panama Canal Zone (1979/1999), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), Marshall Islands (1986), and Palau (1994) are examples.

Firstly, the language "US has voluntarily left ... and they have gained independence" is clumsy. It oversimplifies and distorts.

Secondly:

  • Cuba was never a U.S. territory. It was under U.S. protection between 1898 and 1902 and has been independent since 1902. It came under U.S. protection by virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1898). The U.S. holds a lease on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
  • Yes, the U.S. recognized Philippine independence in 1946. For a treatment of that somewhat fuller than "US has voluntarily left", see History of the Philippines (1898-1946).
  • The Panama Canal Zone was never a U.S. territory. It was a 553 square mile territory inside of Panama; under use, occupation and control of the U.S. by virtue of the 1903 Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, until abrogated in 1977 by the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.
  • The Federated States of Micronesia came under Spanish sovereignty in the 16th century, were sold to Germany in 1899, were conquered by Japan in 1914, were seized by the United States during World War II and administered by the US under United Nations auspices in 1947 as part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Today, FSM is a sovereign, self-governing state in free association with the United States, which is wholly responsible for its defense.
  • A German trading company settled on the Marshall Islands in 1885, and they became part of the protectorate of German New Guinea some years later. Japan conquered the islands in World War I, and administered them as a League of Nations mandate. In World War II, the United States invaded and occupied the islands (1944) destroying or isolating the Japanese garrisons. Post WW-II, they were added to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and were administered by the US under United Nations auspices. In 1979, the Government of the Marshall Islands was officially established and the country became self-governing. In 1986 the Compact of Free Association with the United States entered into force, granting the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) its sovereignty. The Compact provided for aid and US defense of the islands in exchange for continued US military use of the missile testing range at Kwajalein Atoll. The independence was formally completed under international law in 1990, when the UN officially ended the Trusteeship status.
  • Like the Mariana Islands, the Caroline Islands and the Marshall Islands, Palau was part of the Spanish East Indies, and was administered from the Spanish Philippines until the Spanish-American War of 1898. In 1885, after Germany occupied some of the islands, a dispute was brought to Pope Leo XIII, who made an attempt to legitimize the Spanish claim to the islands (but with economic concessions for Britain and Germany). Spain in 1899, after defeat during the Spanish-American War, sold the islands to Germany in the 1899 German-Spanish Treaty. The Germans began mining bauxite (an aluminum ore), Phosphate, and other resources. The islands were also administered by German New Guinea. Mining continued throughout Micronesia even after the Germans lost the islands to Japan under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, after World War I. The Japanese continued and expanded the mining operations. During World War I, under the terms of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the Empire of Japan declared war on the German Empire and invaded German overseas territories in the Pacific Ocean, including the Palau Islands. Following Germany's defeat, the League of Nations formally awarded Palau to Japan as a Class C League of Nations Mandate. After WWII, the United Nations played a role in deciding the U.S. would administer Palau as part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Eventually, in 1979, Palauans voted against joining the Federated States of Micronesia based on language and cultural differences. After a long period of transition, including the violent deaths of two presidents (Haruo Remeliik in 1985 and Lazarus Salii in 1988), Palau voted to freely associate with the United States in 1994 while opting to retain independence under the Compact of Free Association.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Should we mention Occupied Japan?[edit]

It's known that Japan was occupied and essentially under American management after that country lost WWII, mostly to the USA. Shouldn't or should this be mentioned in our treatment of "overseas expansion of the USA"? 68.32.48.59 (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No because it was a military occupation, and the USA had no intention of occupying Japan prior to WW2. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would an argument that the U.S. occupation of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico should not be mentioned here because it came about as a result of the Spanish-American War, and that the U.S. had no intention of occupying these countries prior to that war apply in the same way? If so, it seems that this article should show, with cite-supported assertions, that a U.S. intention to occupy those former Spanish territories did exist pre-war. If not, why would the argument apply regarding Japan and not regarding the other countries? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is more important is that anyone wishing to imply in the article that Japan was an American colony or a US possession in the same vein as the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico should demonstrate that this is the academic consensus. Attempting to apply logic to this type of question is just a form of original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A categorical no. It was a temporary occupation, not permanent expansion of territory. Arjuna (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mention Japan, you would have to mention Germany, Austria and so on. Red4tribe (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba Entry[edit]

Should the entry for Cuba be shortened? The statement regarding Guantanemo Naval Base better belongs within that article rather than as a statement within what should be a brief statement. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making". New York Times. 2003. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Philippines section[edit]

After speaking of the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, bicameral legislature, the Philippine Commission (an appointive body having both U.S. and Filipino members), a popularly elected lower house, the Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) of 1916, and the United States commitment to grant independence to the Philippines, "...as soon as a stable government can be established therein.", the article backed up to 1899 and said, "... the guerrilla fighters soon found that the Americans were not prepared to grant them much more autonomy than Spain had allowed." (, of courthe insurgent Malolos Republic declared war on the U.S. long before Aguinaldo shifted from conventional to guerrilla tactics, of course). There was also a "Thus," which I took as drawing an unwarranted conclusion.

The problematic bits were unsupported (though not completely untrue, despite the biased presentation). I have boldly eliminated what I saw as the most problematic bits and have rearranged some of the remaining text. I think this is an improvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overseas_expansion_of_the_United_States&oldid=1204483848"