I do not think what the US is doing now is expansionism, we are trying to figure out how to leave, not to acquire.m3thod wrote:
How do you feel about the expansionist actions of the US now?
the book is terrible
read it for its historical value and accuracy, then burn it because it is so boring it is nearly impossible to read. I like historical books but this one is the worst ever
read it for its historical value and accuracy, then burn it because it is so boring it is nearly impossible to read. I like historical books but this one is the worst ever
what? i doVilham wrote:
lolusmarine wrote:
i hate reading books.
Good lord no. However we are looking at imperialism, so what is really important is how we act after the invasion. We are rebuilding infrastructure and such to rebuild good will among equals more so than helping out our "less fortunate" brethren.Home wrote:
Do you truly believe that we involve ourselves with 3rd world countries solely to make amends for abuse and raise their standard of living?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I would not call present day actions imperialism like what was seen in the early 20th century. Many parallels can be drawn in the application of foreign policy, but the goals are different. Not to say we have the lofty goals some politicians would like us to believe, but we aren't trying to rebuild a nation because they are incompetent, we are doing it because they have been abused for decades and their standard of living is shit. I don't believe it is so much an issue of white man's burden.
Wtf? It wasn't that bad. More than bearable.Locoloki wrote:
the book is terrible
read it for its historical value and accuracy, then burn it because it is so boring it is nearly impossible to read. I like historical books but this one is the worst ever
I've read much worse.
I was researching the The Balangiga Massacre after reading your reply. Jacob H Smith sounded like a real nice guy.lowing wrote:
in the PI the military had orders to kill every man woman child "over the age of 10". The soldiers had no problem doing it. Now when I compared the this to Japan and China, I was referring to the number of dead, and the callous approach the troops had in carrying out their orders, but no, it does not mention experimentation of the people.Kmarion wrote:
I haven't read the book so I'm unaware of what specific event that is comparable to this. (I'm genuinely curios)lowing wrote:
Not extreme at all, the book spells it out. It is not in a format that is "America bashing" but simply historical as it happened. I do not get the impression that the author has an agenda other than to tell it like it really was during this time period leading up to WW2.
Btw I finished a book last month that might also interest you. http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Hidden-H … 0061118184
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Wasn't there a movie called "Flyboys"?
And America is the worst one of them all because we assert the most influence and have the most power presently which means we get away with more and less is known about what horrible things we have done, that's why everyone hates us. Not one country doesn't have some negative history to it.
And America is the worst one of them all because we assert the most influence and have the most power presently which means we get away with more and less is known about what horrible things we have done, that's why everyone hates us. Not one country doesn't have some negative history to it.
yes. it was gayRoc18 wrote:
Wasn't there a movie called "Flyboys"?
To quote Churchill.
We (the english have) most likely done just as bad things and for much longer, its only really within the past 60 years that 1st world countries have developed this "conscience". In fact we've done these things to our fellow britains ever since borders were created.
Generally all the bad acts of the winners are downplayed whilst acts less evil committed by the enemy will be used for propoganda to show them as inhuman savages.Churchill wrote:
History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it
We (the english have) most likely done just as bad things and for much longer, its only really within the past 60 years that 1st world countries have developed this "conscience". In fact we've done these things to our fellow britains ever since borders were created.
I derived that question from a post from (I think) topal63 who referred to the US as an empire. An empire could also seek to covertly expand, and to be honest judging from that fortress of a embassy a foothold has been achieved.lowing wrote:
I do not think what the US is doing now is expansionism, we are trying to figure out how to leave, not to acquire.m3thod wrote:
How do you feel about the expansionist actions of the US now?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I have Flyboys sitting at home. Even as a future AF enlistee, I didn't read it. I picked it up at Borders along with In The Company of Heroes (about the story of Black Hawk Down) and only read that one. I'll have to read it when I get back from vacation.
The goals are virtually identical: preserve the ability to harvest resources; seek out and maintain spheres of influence; promote pro-elite government; maintain "national security".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I would not call present day actions imperialism like what was seen in the early 20th century. Many parallels can be drawn in the application of foreign policy, but the goals are different. Not to say we have the lofty goals some politicians would like us to believe, but we aren't trying to rebuild a nation because they are incompetent, we are doing it because they have been abused for decades and their standard of living is shit. I don't believe it is so much an issue of white man's burden.
"White Mans Burden" in the context you are speaking of was largely an excuse for the pillaging and plundering of resources, not the very real social-cultural attitude employed and embraced by missionaries and other conqistador-like folk.
Really now? It seems like most of what you listed are much more present day goals than early 20th century goals.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The goals are virtually identical: preserve the ability to harvest resources; seek out and maintain spheres of influence; promote pro-elite government; maintain "national security".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I would not call present day actions imperialism like what was seen in the early 20th century. Many parallels can be drawn in the application of foreign policy, but the goals are different. Not to say we have the lofty goals some politicians would like us to believe, but we aren't trying to rebuild a nation because they are incompetent, we are doing it because they have been abused for decades and their standard of living is shit. I don't believe it is so much an issue of white man's burden.
"White Mans Burden" in the context you are speaking of was largely an excuse for the pillaging and plundering of resources, not the very real social-cultural attitude employed and embraced by missionaries and other conqistador-like folk.
What resources were we getting? You can't instantaneously start pulling resources from a new claim, and they are more of a burden in the early years than a profitable sector of the economy as infrastructure is put in to increase efficiency. If we were truly after resources, trade for finished goods would have most likely been the best option at the time.
Spreading our culture at the time was more about a feeling of coming into our own as a nation, and beginning to spread our influence as all good nations did at the time. We wanted a finger in everyone's business, primarily for the sake of being there. We built of the infrastructure in some of the less developed places because of the white man's burden concept in this process.
edit: reading this again I didn't say very much because you didn't say very much. You didn't back anything up, so I'm not really sure how to dispute other than to flat disagree.
What resources were we getting? Plenty. Slaves, metals, etc. Those are the only ones that I can back up without research, but I'm sure there are more. If there weren't, why would the Scramble for Africa even have happened? The slave trade was quite profitable, and so was the metals trade. Just look at the wars and incidents they spawned, and for instance the success of the DeBeers company.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Really now? It seems like most of what you listed are much more present day goals than early 20th century goals.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The goals are virtually identical: preserve the ability to harvest resources; seek out and maintain spheres of influence; promote pro-elite government; maintain "national security".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I would not call present day actions imperialism like what was seen in the early 20th century. Many parallels can be drawn in the application of foreign policy, but the goals are different. Not to say we have the lofty goals some politicians would like us to believe, but we aren't trying to rebuild a nation because they are incompetent, we are doing it because they have been abused for decades and their standard of living is shit. I don't believe it is so much an issue of white man's burden.
"White Mans Burden" in the context you are speaking of was largely an excuse for the pillaging and plundering of resources, not the very real social-cultural attitude employed and embraced by missionaries and other conqistador-like folk.
What resources were we getting? You can't instantaneously start pulling resources from a new claim, and they are more of a burden in the early years than a profitable sector of the economy as infrastructure is put in to increase efficiency. If we were truly after resources, trade for finished goods would have most likely been the best option at the time.
Spreading our culture at the time was more about a feeling of coming into our own as a nation, and beginning to spread our influence as all good nations did at the time. We wanted a finger in everyone's business, primarily for the sake of being there. We built of the infrastructure in some of the less developed places because of the white man's burden concept in this process.
edit: reading this again I didn't say very much because you didn't say very much. You didn't back anything up, so I'm not really sure how to dispute other than to flat disagree.
Oh, and by "we" I was also considering the European side of imperialism in Africa. I'm not sure if you were too.
Last edited by Home (2008-08-02 00:16:30)
We aren't any better than anyone else and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool who needs to be shot by those whom he thinks he's better than.lowing wrote:
I dunno, maybe you oculd look up some shit on the internet. I was gunna after I finished the book, but man, it is humbling to find out that we were no better than anyone else during the expansionist era of our history.usmarine wrote:
is there a documentary or something? i hate reading books.
Lowing I don't get it.
I read the book.
What stands out in my mind is the fact that the Japs ate American p.o.w's
I read the book.
What stands out in my mind is the fact that the Japs ate American p.o.w's
No, I'm talking about American Imperialism, and you're either out of your ever loving tree or are in the wrong time period. Early 20th century. Slaves are a no op. "Metals" is about as generic as you can get.Home wrote:
What resources were we getting? Plenty. Slaves, metals, etc. Those are the only ones that I can back up without research, but I'm sure there are more. If there weren't, why would the Scramble for Africa even have happened? The slave trade was quite profitable, and so was the metals trade. Just look at the wars and incidents they spawned, and for instance the success of the DeBeers company.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Really now? It seems like most of what you listed are much more present day goals than early 20th century goals.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The goals are virtually identical: preserve the ability to harvest resources; seek out and maintain spheres of influence; promote pro-elite government; maintain "national security".
"White Mans Burden" in the context you are speaking of was largely an excuse for the pillaging and plundering of resources, not the very real social-cultural attitude employed and embraced by missionaries and other conqistador-like folk.
What resources were we getting? You can't instantaneously start pulling resources from a new claim, and they are more of a burden in the early years than a profitable sector of the economy as infrastructure is put in to increase efficiency. If we were truly after resources, trade for finished goods would have most likely been the best option at the time.
Spreading our culture at the time was more about a feeling of coming into our own as a nation, and beginning to spread our influence as all good nations did at the time. We wanted a finger in everyone's business, primarily for the sake of being there. We built of the infrastructure in some of the less developed places because of the white man's burden concept in this process.
edit: reading this again I didn't say very much because you didn't say very much. You didn't back anything up, so I'm not really sure how to dispute other than to flat disagree.
Oh, and by "we" I was also considering the European side of imperialism in Africa. I'm not sure if you were too.
Yes. There was a film called Fly Boys. Very good film tbh.
That had to do with U.S. pilots flying for France in WW1.SEREVENT wrote:
Yes. There was a film called Fly Boys. Very good film tbh.
Yes, i know. And a 100 year old bottle of conyac, if thats how you spell it, to show you i did watch it.ATG wrote:
That had to do with U.S. pilots flying for France in WW1.SEREVENT wrote:
Yes. There was a film called Fly Boys. Very good film tbh.
If you want a good film, you should watch Master and Commander: The Far Side Of The World
I loved that.
Agreed. I bought the cd and my wife put it in a Thomas the Tank Engine case and I can't find it.SEREVENT wrote:
Yes, i know. And a 100 year old bottle of conyac, if thats how you spell it, to show you i did watch it.ATG wrote:
That had to do with U.S. pilots flying for France in WW1.SEREVENT wrote:
Yes. There was a film called Fly Boys. Very good film tbh.
If you want a good film, you should watch Master and Commander: The Far Side Of The World
I loved that.
Any...ideas as to where it might be?
Wrong time period. My mistake.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, I'm talking about American Imperialism, and you're either out of your ever loving tree or are in the wrong time period. Early 20th century. Slaves are a no op. "Metals" is about as generic as you can get.Home wrote:
What resources were we getting? Plenty. Slaves, metals, etc. Those are the only ones that I can back up without research, but I'm sure there are more. If there weren't, why would the Scramble for Africa even have happened? The slave trade was quite profitable, and so was the metals trade. Just look at the wars and incidents they spawned, and for instance the success of the DeBeers company.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Really now? It seems like most of what you listed are much more present day goals than early 20th century goals.
What resources were we getting? You can't instantaneously start pulling resources from a new claim, and they are more of a burden in the early years than a profitable sector of the economy as infrastructure is put in to increase efficiency. If we were truly after resources, trade for finished goods would have most likely been the best option at the time.
Spreading our culture at the time was more about a feeling of coming into our own as a nation, and beginning to spread our influence as all good nations did at the time. We wanted a finger in everyone's business, primarily for the sake of being there. We built of the infrastructure in some of the less developed places because of the white man's burden concept in this process.
edit: reading this again I didn't say very much because you didn't say very much. You didn't back anything up, so I'm not really sure how to dispute other than to flat disagree.
Oh, and by "we" I was also considering the European side of imperialism in Africa. I'm not sure if you were too.
While it is true that America's modern interventionism is far more humane than its earlier expansionism, the lessons we learned in the Pacific and Caribbean should be enough proof of why we should intervene less than we currently do.
Now do you understand why some people in the world don't like the US very much?lowing wrote:
Nope, I just never understood the extent of our cruelty in the Pacific. The extent of our hypocrisy. Read the book you will be shockedusmarine wrote:
well, i think i already knew that tbh. not to be an asshole, but have you been in a cave or something?lowing wrote:
it is humbling to find out that we were no better than anyone else during the expansionist era of our history.
lol....coming from the UK that statement is funny. you must have forgot your past.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Now do you understand why some people in the world don't like the US very much?lowing wrote:
Nope, I just never understood the extent of our cruelty in the Pacific. The extent of our hypocrisy. Read the book you will be shockedusmarine wrote:
well, i think i already knew that tbh. not to be an asshole, but have you been in a cave or something?