Right, the US wasn’t a superpower until around WWII, so we’re less than 100 years into it really being an empire. But it can also be said that in some ways it became an empire because it inherited the imperial tendrils of the British empire.
the “neighboring nation” I was referring to were the indigenous people. North America was not a blank slate before Europeans arrived. “manifest destiny” was imperialism
so, just walking through your own argument as I understand it: situations that are similar to the treatment of indigenous North Americans by the US can be considered imperialism, if it’s done by one nation to another nation. but the actual treatment of indigenous peoples by the US doesn’t meet that condition. the result of that syllogism must be: between the US and the indigenous peoples, one of them is not a nation. I assume you’re not saying that the US is not a nation. so the conclusion must be that the indigenous North American peoples were not a nation, or multiple nations; that there was no political or societal organization in the Americas before Europeans came. is that what you mean, or have I misunderstood?
The US was very unremarkable globally compared to Britain or France for example, people thinking it wasn’t dominant enough to be an empire doesn’t mean they think it wasn’t cruel or expansive
deleted by creator
Thanks for trying to buy us a little more time.
Right, the US wasn’t a superpower until around WWII, so we’re less than 100 years into it really being an empire. But it can also be said that in some ways it became an empire because it inherited the imperial tendrils of the British empire.
so you’re saying going to war against a neighboring nation to expand your territory is not what an empire does?
deleted by creator
the “neighboring nation” I was referring to were the indigenous people. North America was not a blank slate before Europeans arrived. “manifest destiny” was imperialism
deleted by creator
and my question is why do you think that’s not a form of imperialism
deleted by creator
so, just walking through your own argument as I understand it: situations that are similar to the treatment of indigenous North Americans by the US can be considered imperialism, if it’s done by one nation to another nation. but the actual treatment of indigenous peoples by the US doesn’t meet that condition. the result of that syllogism must be: between the US and the indigenous peoples, one of them is not a nation. I assume you’re not saying that the US is not a nation. so the conclusion must be that the indigenous North American peoples were not a nation, or multiple nations; that there was no political or societal organization in the Americas before Europeans came. is that what you mean, or have I misunderstood?
deleted by creator
The US was very unremarkable globally compared to Britain or France for example, people thinking it wasn’t dominant enough to be an empire doesn’t mean they think it wasn’t cruel or expansive
They terrorized and looted plenty of the world in the 19th century already.
Yeah, wasn’t much of a world power until WW1.