American vs. European Colonialism

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

"...but they are still there. If you consider their presence to be irrelevant I'd love to hear why they are there..."

Not "irrelevant", my good friend, but, like British forces in Hong Kong, they will be gone when Cuba has the gravitas and clout to negotiate their removal. Relevancy .... is relevant.

MM
 

The British presence on Gibraltar is by treaty just as The US presence in Cuba is. There's no point in debating two entirely different treaties and circumstances. I would suggest that a significant difference is that both Britain and Spain are members of the E.U. and NATO and despite the current pettiness will sort out their differences eventually by negotiation.

The treaties governing Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories were different. When the 99 year lease on the New Territories expired Britain negotiated the return of all three to China. It was hardly practical, nor was Britain in a position, to do anything else. It was 1997, not the second half of the nineteenth century.

In the case of Cuba the US is maintaining a military presence in a country with which it does not even have diplomatic relations.

Treaties in perpetuity may seem like a good idea at the time and are normally signed with one party at a disadvantage. They can store up trouble for the future, just take a look at the Falklands/Malvinas.

The fact remains that there are US troops in Cuba, a place where they are hardly welcome. If you ask the average Gibraltarian whether he wants to be Spanish I can guarantee what he will reply. You will get the same reply from the average Falkland Islander if you ask him if he'd like to become an Argentinian. That is a fundamental difference and for us a matter of principal.

Cheers

Steve
 
To correct some historical revisionism and colonial relativism; lets clear the record.

The Philipines:
After the US conquered the islands, there was a lot of public hand wringing over it and the PI was put on a path for self governance which was accomplished in 1934. Result - colonial period lasted 30 years or so. Compare that to the European colonies that were occupied for centuries.

Cuba:
US troops were out of the island fairly quickly with the US being granted a tiny piece of land in which to build a naval base. Result - no colonial activities can be inferred.

Latin America:
US business interests had the US intervening multiple times, but more for the protection of a small (but significant) chunk of their economy. US control for local and international affairs amounted to nothing. Result - no colonial activities can be inferred.

Columbian dispute:
The US acted as an imperial power in prying off the territory now known as Panama. But as a colonial power? NO! Result - no colonial activities can be inferred.

The stealing of the Native American lands:
True expansionism with some genocide along with it. But unlike the European powers, these lands were fully integrated, politically and economically with the US as a whole. No colonial activities can be inferred as the people were full up US citizens (on paper at least).

The impact on WW1 on this? Zero. Not even germane to the thread.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to occupy a place to colonise it even by proxy. How would you characterise the terms of the 1898 Treaty of Paris regarding Cuba, the Philipines, Guam, Puerto Rico?

Many Americans at the time saw the results of the Spanish-American war as a colonial enterprise, and objected to it as such. A year later apologist were countering that it was only fit that these territories should be governed by the US, even trotting out one of the oldest colonial arguments of all, that the people were not fit to govern themselves.

The impact on both world wars of US expansionism which took place in this period, and the resultant increasing US economic and military dominance of the Pacific is very significant. It is one of the factors that led directly to a conflict with Japan less than fifty years later.

Cheers

Steve
 
"....If you ask the average Gibraltarian whether he wants to be Spanish I can guarantee what he will reply. You will get the same reply from the average Falkland Islander if you ask him if he'd like to become an Argentinian. That is a fundamental difference and for us a matter of principal...."

And ... if you ask the average Cuban .... he will be unable to reply honestly ....and that is a "matter of principal".

".... It is one of the factors that led directly to a conflict with Japan less than fifty years later..."

But a minor factor compared to America's arrival in Japan fifty years before that.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Koi2KjpbkQY
 
Last edited:
Something tells me that if this thread keeps playing tit-for-tat things are going to get unpleasant.

Let's face it: ALL our countries did bad things in the pursuit of power at one time, colonial or otherwise. This thread, however was supposed to be about a couple wars of which I seem to have lost track ...
 

Well said...
 
Njaco said:
Wow, America caused WWI which brought on WWII. Never knew that?

Click to expand...

No that is not what was meant, all that was meant (by myself at least) was that America had colonial interests and that Americans were indeed themselves colonials. The exchange of population between Britain and America was a bit like Grey Squirrels and Red Squirrels just the opposite way around.
My point of view is that the Americans were hypocritical to criticise Europe for colonialism when they were in actual fact colonials themselves, and also wrong to pretend they were not involved with widening their own sphere of influence.
Why was it right for America to turn it's back on Europe after World War One but wrong for Britain to do the same?
You have to remember that Britain is not part of main land Europe and still to this day doesn't like to get involved in it's affairs. Now keeping that thought in mind, it strikes me as unfair for America to blame Britain for not doing enough to prevent the rise of Nazi Germany when America did nothing itself.
America being opposed to colonialism was a feel good myth, what was really the case was that America saw Britain in particular as a rival. The Americans even considered the possibility of war with Britain, a war which would have included another American invasion and the annexation of Canada.
 

Yes you are right about all countries having a dark past and I am not getting angry here about this, I remain perfectly calm. It does seem a bit one sided though that Britain and France can be criticised regarding the unfortunate events stemming from failures of the Treaty of Versailles but not America and that when we begin to spread the responsibility for the failures of the Treaty of Versailles to include the America we have suddenly departed from topic.
 
Hey, we (Sweden) have a few skeletons in our closet as well, those German troop trains, sending those poor people back to Stalin's Russia, being the most recent ones (WWII) and which I'm not very proud of, but then again, I wouldn't like to swap with those, who made those decisions!
Don't think that there's any country in Europe or elsewhere, that did not try their ways in colonialism, some did it better or worse, more or less greedy, depends on how you look at it....

vikingBerserker said:
I have no issue with pointing at myself or the actions of my country, but I am really lost as to how exactly the US was into Colonialism.
Click to expand...

Oh cooome ooon.....isn't that obvious, you did it the McDonald's and Coca Cola way!
 
Last edited:
Commodore Perry made his biggest mistake in his entire life.
He had shot 4 cannons into the air to show his power to the Edo(Tokyo) people.
It sounded as if a signal to start building IJN to confront with the US 88 years later.
I think this should be remarked in the history.
 
".... Commodore Perry made his biggest mistake in his entire life."

Better Japan remain in self-imposed isolation, Shinpachi ....?

".... I would rather have Disney and Coca Cola and McDonald's than Nazism or Stalinism."

Agreed absolutely. And isn't it ironic how the poor 'colonized' folks of the world seek out the cultures of those who colonized them to emulate ...? Perhaps a psychological disorder ... .... let's call it Stockholm Syndrome shall we, eh Lucky.

Ironic too, that Britain could abolish slavery and justify the opium trade with China ....

As we count down to the last day of 2013 - the 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812 between Britain (Canada) and the USA, I see no enduring evidence of American colonialism against Canada, but then that is perhaps because the Americans didn't win ...

MM
Proud non-colonial
 
michaelmaltby said:
Better Japan remain in self-imposed isolation, Shinpachi ....?
Click to expand...

Japan was not necessarily isolated with Dutch and China but if I may dare to say Yes or No,
please let me say 'Yes', MM. That is what North Koreans still feel today as they hate threats from outside.
I can understand how they feel very well.
 
What we are seeing today is economic imperialism. Why send in an Army to occupy a country when you can take a country over by putting it in debt and then calling the debt back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

American Civil War good books
Replies
7
Views
4K
wlewisiii
Germany vs its neighbours
Replies
5
Views
3K
davebender
Custer's Last Stand American Flag Could Be Worth Millions!
Replies
11
Views
4K
HealzDevo
H
Sunken British Warship From American Revolution Found in Lake Ontario
Replies
13
Views
7K
mike siggins
M
The Mexican American War
2 3
Replies
46
Views
12K
mkloby
Menu
Log in
Register