Imperialism/Colonialism: Not a Bad Thing

[erowe1]

Human history is the history of imperialism.

Unless you include very small empires, essentially defining the word "empire" to mean the same thing as "state" (which actually might be reasonable, but isn't the normal use of the word), this isn't really true.

It probably is true that the human history that gets studied the most is the history of imperialism, but that is by choice on the part of historians. Most human beings throughout history haven't lived under the rule of large empires.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Exactly! And that's why I gave the analogy of the black plague. Sure there were some positive effects. Maybe more positive effects than negative. It's still not "good." I'm still trying to understand the point of this thread and so far I haven't seen it. The OP claims he doesn't want to see more empire but that empire is/was "good." Education is good. I want to see more of it. Trade is good. I want to see more of it. Empire may sometimes have some good effects, but it's not good.

If you had to chose between saving 100 people and letting one die, or saving one person and letting 100 die, or ignoring the situation and letting 101 did....I hope you would chose to save the 100....even if it meant that you chose death for that one person.

Life isn't back and white. It's all gray. You gotta pick the best of the worst. If the plague was the best of the worst...well, maybe we shouldn't be so critical of it.

But we can't chose the plague. We can chose how we interact with other people.

The point of the OP, simply is. Democracy is Tyranny, and Representation has nothing to do with Liberty. Monarchy, still tyranny, is way less bad than Democracy, and focuses on Liberty more than perhaps any other form of government. And that historical Imperialism and Colonization, were comparatively good things for the world. Like choosing to save 100....there was undoubtedly 1 who died. And that is tragic. And when we look at the sins of imperialism through the modern lens, we see dozens of issues (oh, the slavery!). But imperialism ended slavery. (Oh, the voting rights and representation of locals) Under imperialism, they were exposed to the idea of rights. Ect.

This is a thread to challenge conventional wisdom. That is all.

[ArrestPoliticians]

Unless you include very small empires, essentially defining the word "empire" to mean the same thing as "state" (which actually might be reasonable, but isn't the normal use of the word), this isn't really true.

It probably is true that the human history that gets studied the most is the history of imperialism, but that is by choice on the part of historians. Most human beings throughout history haven't lived under the rule of large empires.

imperialism Translate Button
[im-peer-ee-uh-liz-uh m]
noun
1.
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

imperialismplay
noun im·pe·ri·al·ism \im-ˈpir-ē-ə-ˌli-zəm\
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of imperialism
: a policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world

[Tywysog Cymru]

Imperialism is the reason Capitalism isn't so popular in the third world. The people in those countries saw Capitalism as intrinsically related to their mistreatment under colonial rule.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

imperialism Translate Button
[im-peer-ee-uh-liz-uh m]
noun
1.
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

I fail to see how that precludes Imperialism from spreading Liberty, Free Trade, Western Values, and Peace to people who were in a state of backwards semi-barbarity; having no respect for Life, Liberty, or Property (not even to mention Christian Ethics).

Imperialism is only bad if its used by bad people for bad purposes.

Take the principle of Imperialism to a smaller level and work up.

I am a person. I notice that my next door neighbor is about to commit an act of tyranny against someone else (lets say he is going to to burn her alive on a funeral pyre because her husband has recently died). Is it wrong for me to intervene, and put a stop to it? Am i not then sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, being an imperialist?

Lets bump up a level. My town notices that the town next door is practicing the same kind of tyranny against widows...and for sake of argument, that the are so technologically undeveloped that they cannot import or export goods. People are in poverty, and they are sitting on ample resources. Is it wrong take up arms, put an end to the tyranny...let our businesses in to hire the locals, start mining the resources...boosting the lives of the locals exponentially (as Adam Smith says, to our own detriment), but also opening up the market to ourselves and the world. Is that wrong?

How about on a State to state level. Texas is practicing the same kind of barbarism with regard to the Widows, and they also are underdeveloped, so they can't do imports or exports, and the people are starving, and they are sitting on ample resources....and they have absolutely no effective form of government. Just roaming tribes, gangs, and family units. Is it wrong to do all of the above, but also put down a stable form of government?

What about if it was Mexico and the United States? What makes that any different than the first case?

What if it was North Korea and the United States? What makes that any different? Nuclear Weapons. That is what makes it different. And that is why I am Isolationist as well as Imperialist.

If the North Korean government didn't exist, or was barely in control...i would expect China, Russia, or South Korea to have "imperialized it" by now (assuming that the North Koreans themselves didn't fix things on their own)....but if they did not. What is wrong with Imperializing it, if we are comparatively better than what they have now for Liberty, Life, and Property?

I wouldn't be in favor of it necesarily, because of Adam Smiths arguement.....but the North Koreans sure would be....even if in 60 years they decided that we were the ones responsible for all of their woes; as they eat a full meal, drive their cars, have clothing, and a roof over their heads.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Imperialism is the reason Capitalism isn't so popular in the third world. The people in those countries saw Capitalism as intrinsically related to their mistreatment under colonial rule.

Due to Marxist Propaganda. I'm taking the opposite approach, trying to say why Capitalism helped the 3rd world!

Its like saying that Capitalism is responsible for the working conditions in America during the Industrial Revolution....we know that isn't true. But the Marxists have convinced us, en masse, and that is now the narrative. Unfettered capitalism is evil.

It's the same thing. Imperialism is Capitalism. Lenin was right about that.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

The sugar planters sure made a lot of profits off of the Caribbean. And they had disproportionate influence in Parliament.

Yet another reason why Parliament is a bad idea. Their interests take precedent over that of the health of the economy.

The profit was short-term, it helped the Spanish fund it's armies back in Europe.

Yup, short term profits at the expense of long term wealth and health...sounds like the fundamental principle of Keynesian Economics to me.

Also, Spain took a mostly hands off approach to the New World colonies until the mid to late 18th century. I doubt the Spanish crown was spending a huge amount of money on the New World in the 1600s.

Spain actually declared the New World "colonies" to be more than just colonies...but fully engrained and apart of the Empire. I'm pretty sure they are the only ones to do that. After destroying the existing major governments "like the Aztecs", they simply put themselves in the place of the Aztecs and told those whom they ruled over to fork over feudal-like payments, typically of gold. I don't really favor imperialism in this instance. It's a model of exploitation and conquest rather than of spreading liberty, and opening up markets.

[erowe1]

imperialism Translate Button
[im-peer-ee-uh-liz-uh m]
noun
1.
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

imperialismplay
noun im·pe·ri·al·ism \im-ˈpir-ē-ə-ˌli-zəm\
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of imperialism
: a policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world

So you agree with me then.

[r3volution 3.0]

I maintain that the advancements would have been greater if brought about by free market means than by violent ones. And on top of those advancements, we wouldn't see the post-colonial problems you allude to.

What do you mean exactly?

[r3volution 3.0]

Colonialism redivided regions that had been stable artificially putting groups that were natural enemies in endless conflict with each other.

These are problems resulting from the end of colonial rule.

As I said in my first post, it ended too soon.

[r3volution 3.0]

The sugar planters sure made a lot of profits off of the Caribbean. And they had disproportionate influence in Parliament.

Yup, which is why the British government kept the colonies, even though the costs exceeded the profits.

...same reason the USPS still exists, though it loses money every single year.

The profit was short-term, it helped the Spanish fund it's armies back in Europe.

Also, Spain took a mostly hands off approach to the New World colonies until the mid to late 18th century. I doubt the Spanish crown was spending a huge amount of money on the New World in the 1600s.

Hard to say, I haven't seen any study of it.

I'm sure if you look at the gold/silver producing regions in isolation, they were profitable.

But the vast majority of Spanish America looked more like Africa than Eldorado.

...i.e. peasants barely making enough to feed themselves, let alone feed the tax collector.

I doubt anything outside the gold/silver producing regions was profitable.

[HVACTech]

I maintain that the advancements would have been greater if brought about by free market means than by violent ones. And on top of those advancements, we wouldn't see the post-colonial problems you allude to.

@erowe1 if brought about by free market means than by violent ones.



yes erowe1. "greater advancements" are in fact desirable.

I thank you for "maintaining" that aspect. sir.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Due to Marxist Propaganda. I'm taking the opposite approach, trying to say why Capitalism helped the 3rd world!

The problem was that the people in the colonies were not fully able to participate in the Capitalist system.

It's the same thing. Imperialism is Capitalism. Lenin was right about that.

Capitalism is about the government leaving people alone, so I don't see any connection to imperialism.

Yet another reason why Parliament is a bad idea. Their interests take precedent over that of the health of the economy.

True, but an absolute monarchy would be even worse.

[r3volution 3.0]

The problem was that the people in the colonies were not fully able to participate in the Capitalist system.

That's true, but they had more economic opportunities than before, or since.

How free is the market in the DRC these days?

As compared to the Congo under Belgian rule?

In the latter, there was some segregation. In the former, no one's property is secure, with rebel groups roaming about, looting and pillaging.

True, but an absolute monarchy would be even worse.

The usual motive for maintaining economically irrational policies (like the BWI colonies or the USPS) is to satisfy some political constituency, in order to get (re)elected. This motive is absent in an absolute monarchy, as the monarch needs to satisfy no one to maintain his office; and his own interest is to maximize the wealth of the nation as a whole (because that means maximizing the value of his own property), and so he would be inclined to oppose measures which profit one group at the expense of the other, for a net loss to the nation as a whole (and thus to himself).

This is confirmed by the historical record. Most colonization was conducted by democratic governments: parliamentary Britain, the French Third Republic, Germany after the 1871 Constitution (pre-revolutionary British and French colonization were fairly trivial in comparison to what happened later - Spain being the big exception here). In the German case, for instance, Bismark (who rightly viewed colonization as a drain on the mother country), pushed for German colonization only in order to win over nationalist deputies in the Reichstag, whose votes he needed for other purposes.

[Ronin Truth]

I really doubt the motivation is to raise the locals to a higher level of civilization as much as it is to exploit and plunder their natural resources.

[erowe1]

@erowe1 if brought about by free market means than by violent ones.



yes erowe1. "greater advancements" are in fact desirable.

I thank you for "maintaining" that aspect. sir.

Huh?

[erowe1]

What do you mean exactly?

How could I possibly know? You're asking about what would have happened if what actually did happen didn't.

As with all questions of free market-based developments versus state-based developments, we are fully warranted in taking for granted that the free market is always superior, and that one of the reasons it is superior is that the things it accomplishes and its means of accomplishing those things are things that nobody could come up with on their own, or in committees.

But clearly all advancements that you may attribute to colonialism could very easily have come about without colonialism, through nonviolent market interactions between the parties involved. If Africa had an untapped supply of labor and natural resources that Europeans could have profited from using, then entrepreneurial Europeans could have found ways to tap into those resources with the full and willing cooperation of native Africans by offering them things they wanted. None of this would require any European regimes to divide up Africa with borders into regions that each claimed control over. And through the exposure Europeans and Africans would have had with one another, they could have learned from one another and voluntarily adopted changes to their cultures that would improve their lives in their own estimations.

[A Son of Liberty]

This thread is dying of osan deficiency.

Whether or not societies benefit/ed from western influence is immaterial. Sovereign people are not obligated to happily suffer under rule because it is "good" for them. "Good" is a subjective value, of course. What is objective is that human beings are not obligated to suffer rule if those people do not wish to be ruled, whether it be to their benefit or to their detriment.

[r3volution 3.0]

But clearly all advancements that you may attribute to colonialism could very easily have come about without colonialism, through nonviolent market interactions between the parties involved. If Africa had an untapped supply of labor and natural resources that Europeans could have profited from using, then entrepreneurial Europeans could have found ways to tap into those resources with the full and willing cooperation of native Africans by offering them things they wanted. None of this would require any European regimes to divide up Africa with borders into regions that each claimed control over.

You're assuming there would have been a free market society in Africa absent colonialism.

But there wouldn't have been.

There wasn't in pre-colonial Africa, nor has there been in post-colonial Africa.

It was a tribal society, which means (a) property rights were not defined as they are by libertarians (property was often communal, e.g.), and (b) however property rights were defined, they weren't very secure in practice, since there were very high levels of violence.

The colonial regimes were an improvement on both counts: the law they imposed was more liberal, based on Western conceptions of private property, and it was better enforced. Absent colonial rule, neither European nor African entrepreneurs would have been able to develop the continent as they did, for lack of secure property rights.

[r3volution 3.0]

This thread is dying of osan deficiency.

Whether or not societies benefit/ed from western influence is immaterial. Sovereign people are not obligated to happily suffer under rule because it is "good" for them. "Good" is a subjective value, of course. What is objective is that human beings are not obligated to suffer rule if those people do not wish to be ruled, whether it be to their benefit or to their detriment.

Suppose some Indians are murdering widows by throwing them on the funeral pyres of their husbands, against their will.

And then some Britons come by and forcibly put a stop to this practice.

Have the Britons acted unjustly, in your opinion?

[Krugminator2]

I think this Ayn Rand quote applies to this topic and I agree with it.

“[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using… [W]hat was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence. Their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out, so that you can live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it…. Any white person who could bring the element of civilization had the right to take over this country.”

[Tywysog Cymru]

That's true, but they had more economic opportunities than before, or since.

How free is the market in the DRC these days?

As compared to the Congo under Belgian rule?

In the latter, there was some segregation. In the former, no one's property is secure, with rebel groups roaming about, looting and pillaging.

In some countries, like Botswana, they have more economic opportunities than during imperialism.

And I think you should do some more research about the Congo during Belgian rule, it's probably the worst example for the pro-imperialist side to bring up.

The usual motive for maintaining economically irrational policies (like the BWI colonies or the USPS) is to satisfy some political constituency, in order to get (re)elected. This motive is absent in an absolute monarchy, as the monarch needs to satisfy no one to maintain his office; and his own interest is to maximize the wealth of the nation as a whole (because that means maximizing the value of his own property), and so he would be inclined to oppose measures which profit one group at the expense of the other, for a net loss to the nation as a whole (and thus to himself).

History is full of Monarchs who thought they owned their kingdom and sought to expand the land they owned, leading to many unnecessary wars.

This is confirmed by the historical record. Most colonization was conducted by democratic governments: parliamentary Britain, the French Third Republic, Germany after the 1871 Constitution (pre-revolutionary British and French colonization were fairly trivial in comparison to what happened later - Spain being the big exception here). In the German case, for instance, Bismark (who rightly viewed colonization as a drain on the mother country), pushed for German colonization only in order to win over nationalist deputies in the Reichstag, whose votes he needed for other purposes.

The reason that Britain, France, and Germany were the biggest colonizers was that they were the most powerful countries in Europe. Russia, an absolute monarchy, was also heavily involved in colonization. The Kingdoms of Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and Italy also played a role in carving up Africa.

[erowe1]

You're assuming there would have been a free market society in Africa absent colonialism.

No I'm not. I'm assuming that Europeans had nonviolent (i.e. free market) options available for engaging native Africans. And they did. They chose instead to take by force.

[r3volution 3.0]

In some countries, like Botswana, they have more economic opportunities than during imperialism.

Yes, in some.

Botswana's a great success story (or was, things have made a turn for the worse in recent decades).

Interesting lecture on Botswana's development:

And I think you should do some more research about the Congo during Belgian rule, it's probably the worst example for the pro-imperialist side to bring up.

Early on, yes.

By the end, the natives were is great shape relative where they'd started, and certainly where they are now (i.e. hell, approximately).

That's why I like the Congo as an example: even there, with all the horrors of the early period of colonization, it was for the best in the end.

...or until the Belgians left, anyway.

History is full of Monarchs who thought they owned their kingdom and sought to expand the land they owned, leading to many unnecessary wars.

Yes, monarchs sometimes fight wars.

So do all other types of governments.

There's no reason to think that monarchies are more warlike than democracies.

The reason that Britain, France, and Germany were the biggest colonizers was that they were the most powerful countries in Europe. Russia, an absolute monarchy, was also heavily involved in colonization. The Kingdoms of Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and Italy also played a role in carving up Africa.

Russia, yes, if we're counting Siberia and the like.

Belgium and Italy were democratic states with largely symbolic monarchs.

Spain, yes, as I mentioned.

Portugal, yes and no. Early on, Portuguese colonization was mostly limited to trading posts on the coast, and was probably profitable.

Direct rule in (which I presume was unprofitable) came late, when Portugal had already ceased to be a monarchy.

Overall, I'd say that the bulk of the irrational colonization was conducted democratic European states.

No I'm not. I'm assuming that Europeans had nonviolent (i.e. free market) options available for engaging native Africans. And they did. They chose instead to take by force.

How does one non-violently prevent one tribe from slaughtering another?

Stopping aggression requires violence.

[Ronin Truth]

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.

The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." -- United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler

//

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I really doubt the motivation is to raise the locals to a higher level of civilization as much as it is to exploit and plunder their natural resources.

That is the point. The Imperializer seeks profit and open markets of the natural resources for their own benefit, and in the process; everyone else is pulled up. Especially when the imperialist is like Great Britain, actively seeking the betterment of the locals along with profit.

But....as Adam Smith points out; imperialism was an economic burden. In America, for example, it cost 170 million pounds to defend the colonies; a trade node that only brought in 20 million pounds.

Now, you can "doubt" all you want. But the results are clear. The locals were risen to a higher level of civilization, pretty much where ever the British laid down roots.

Now, allow me this question. In areas of the world such as Rhodesia, or the Falkland Islands, where numerous generations of British have been born and raised....how is that not their homeland? Are they not to be permitted to lay down their roots in any way they please. Are they to be seen as "less" native that others? Are we to only be judged on where our parents were born? And if that is the standard; perhaps Adam and Eve were the first Imperialists, colonizing the world unjustly, to exploit and plunder Earths natural resources.

Am I not an American? What of the ancestor of the American Slave...is he not today an American? What of the Indian; no Native of America, but travelers from the Far East. Today, is he any less of an American; even though he can be traced back to Asia, and his more recent ancestors were conquered people?

I understand the impassioned rejection of any violence. A strict praise of the Non-Aggression Principle. But we can't live in lala land. The world has never, and will never, work like that.

As long as there are people, there will be government, and there will be violence and suffering.

What is the best way to minimize violence and suffering, while maximizing civilization, liberty, and virtue.

Answer: Private, not Public, Government (Monarchy); Splendid Isolationist type Foreign Policy towards other States; Just Imperialism Towards Failed and Uncivilized States.

Remember the basics of Capitalism. Trade is not zero-sum. Imperialism is not zero-sum. Everyone is better off.

The Socialist, Smedley Butler, has read Lenin once too many times. I think we, as non-interventionists, need to find non-marxist explanations of why war is not something to be gone into willy nilly.

Is there profit in war? You betcha. But that isn't a bad thing by any means. If there is a legitimate and just cause for war, or imperialism; it should be completely irrelevant to who is making money. How do you justify betraying capitalism whenever there is war?

Now, on the other hand, our argument should be one against the Military Industrial Establishment being a government monopoly, which erodes the Free Market, and encourage more competition in the field.

I'm sick of using the Marxist talking points about capitalism makes people suffer, or how looking for a profit is exploitation.

[Ronin Truth]

That is the point. The Imperializer seeks profit and open markets of the natural resources for their own benefit, and in the process; everyone else is pulled up. Especially when the imperialist is like Great Britain, actively seeking the betterment of the locals along with profit.

But....as Adam Smith points out; imperialism was an economic burden. In America, for example, it cost 170 million pounds to defend the colonies; a trade node that only brought in 20 million pounds.


Now, you can "doubt" all you want. But the results are clear. The locals were risen to a higher level of civilization, pretty much where ever the British laid down roots.

Now, allow me this question. In areas of the world such as Rhodesia, or the Falkland Islands, where numerous generations of British have been born and raised....how is that not their homeland? Are they not to be permitted to lay down their roots in any way they please. Are they to be seen as "less" native that others? Are we to only be judged on where our parents were born? And if that is the standard; perhaps Adam and Eve were the first Imperialists, colonizing the world unjustly, to exploit and plunder Earths natural resources.

Am I not an American? What of the ancestor of the American Slave...is he not today an American? What of the Indian; no Native of America, but travelers from the Far East. Today, is he any less of an American; even though he can be traced back to Asia, and his more recent ancestors were conquered people?

I understand the impassioned rejection of any violence. A strict praise of the Non-Aggression Principle. But we can't live in lala land. The world has never, and will never, work like that.

As long as there are people, there will be government, and there will be violence and suffering.

What is the best way to minimize violence and suffering, while maximizing civilization, liberty, and virtue.

Answer: Private, not Public, Government (Monarchy); Splendid Isolationist type Foreign Policy towards other States; Just Imperialism Towards Failed and Uncivilized States.

Remember the basics of Capitalism. Trade is not zero-sum. Imperialism is not zero-sum. Everyone is better off.

The Socialist, Smedley Butler, has read Lenin once too many times. I think we, as non-interventionists, need to find non-marxist explanations of why war is not something to be gone into willy nilly.

Is there profit in war? You betcha. But that isn't a bad thing by any means. If there is a legitimate and just cause for war, or imperialism; it should be completely irrelevant to who is making money. How do you justify betraying capitalism whenever there is war?

Now, on the other hand, our argument should be one against the Military Industrial Establishment being a government monopoly, which erodes the Free Market, and encourage more competition in the field.

I'm sick of using the Marxist talking points about capitalism makes people suffer, or how looking for a profit is exploitation.

How about the repeated genocides of the Native Americans? How about the genocides of the Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, etc. by the Spanish.

How about TJ buying Louisianna from Napoleon? How did Napoleon acquire it?

For just a few of the 'close to home' Empire examples.

BTW, do you have any verifiable sources that prove Smedly Butler was a socialist?

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

No I'm not. I'm assuming that Europeans had nonviolent (i.e. free market) options available for engaging native Africans. And they did. They chose instead to take by force.

So, ignoring Haiti; lets just hyper-focus on French Fur Traders.

Are you saying that the trapper had the right to trespass...it wasn't "his" land, right?

And if he was allowed to trespass in the Western Hemisphere...is he permitted to build a house for himself? Or is that forbidden by some arbitrary rule?

And if you grant him the freedom to build a house somewhere, what is stopping 100 other trappers doing the same thing in close proximity to him?

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

How about the repeated genocides of the Native Americans? How about the genocides of the Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, etc. by the Spanish.

How about TJ buying Louisianna from Napoleon? How did Napoleon acquire it?

For just a few of the 'close to home' Empire examples.

BTW, do you have any verifiable sources that prove Smedly Butler was a socialist?

The repeated Genocides against Native Americans. Easy. It is wrong to genocide people. Just like it is wrong to enslave people. Yet to British Canada is where many Indians fled to when the Americans were slaughtering them. The Brits continually attempted to avoid conflict in North America....because it cost an extreme amount of money to fight wars overseas. The Americans did not respect the Indian/British treaties, and they continually moved into legal Indian Territory, something that can be called an act of war. The indians happened to lose that war against the Americans. But it is no tenet of Imperialism to genocide people. That is a "mistake" that shouldn't have happened, just like Slavery.....it is a fault of people themselves being fallen beings....not the fault of Imperialism itself.

I've already refuted the (i wouldn't call it a genocide, but a war) between the Spanish and the Aztecs and other huge governing, tyrannical indian empires in central and south america....because after they overthrew the tyrants, they just stepped into their place. There is a huge difference between the Spanish and the British Model.

The British Model is "Just". The Spanish is "UnJust".

TJ buying land from Napoleon. Thats one way to expand an Empire of Liberty...aint it? How did Napoleon aquire it? Land claim by those "fur traders" that seem to be so highly praised on here. However, I'll be clear, once again. That is not the British Model in any way, shape, or form. A totally different kind of Imperialism.

Those close to home Empire examples fail to point out that....the Indians fled to British Canada in the face of Empires of Conquest. Why? Because the British had an Empire of Freedom. I think you'll find that Indian Tribes are still living primatively in Canada...while they are bound to poverty stricken reservations in America.

On Smedly Butler, apart from the fact that his rhetoric is straight out of the Marxists mouths, I'll put up a few sources from just a quick google search.

from: http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/no...ec_11_44a.html

‘The 99 Percent’
Too Many Veterans Still Believe In Santa Claus
Excerpts of a Speech By Major General Smedley D. Butler

On the Firing Line for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).


“We are divided, in America, into two classes: The Tories on one side, a class of citizens who were raised to believe that the whole of this country was created for their sole benefit, and on the other side, the other 99 percent of us, the soldier class, the class from which all of you soldiers came. That class hasn’t any privileges except to die when the Tories tell them. Every war that we have ever had was gotten, up by that class. They do all the beating of the drums. Away the rest of us go. When we leave, you know what happens. We march down the street with all the Sears-Roebuck soldiers standing on the sidewalk, all the dollar-a-year men with spurs, all the patriots who call themselves patriots, square-legged women in uniforms making Liberty Loan speeches. They promise you. You go down the street and they ring all the church bells. Promise you the sun, the moon, the stars and the earth—anything to save them. Off you go. Then the looting commences while you are doing the fighting. This last war made over 6,000 millionaires. Today those fellows won’t help pay the bill.


“All of these things you must be told so that you can present your case. Remember, we can’t win this alone. We have got to have the sympathy of all of our class of people. Go out and make friends with the farmers; they are a scrapping outfit. Be able to argue intelligently; know what you are talking about. Get all these people to join and then go after the enemy in the way that is provided for in your constitution. That is, go to the polls. Before you go to the polls, make every public office seeker state where he stands. Don’t take any alibi. A man who is not for the soldiers is against them. There isn’t any middle course. If he hasn’t got the courage to say yes for you, then lick hell out of him….


“You’ve got to get mad. You’ve got to hate. You’ve got to turn on these fellows who call you names such as ‘treasury raiders.’


“The only trouble with you veterans is that you still believe in Santa Claus. It’s time you woke up—it’s time you realized there’s another war on. It’s your war this time. Now get in there and fight.”
Foreign Service, December 1933
—Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist, October 19, 2011
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/20...the-bonus-army/

"Butler never stopped his personal crusade for what he believed. Going to the far left, he voted for Norman Thomas of the Socialist Party for president in 1936."

https://books.google.com/books?id=5v...page&q&f=false

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. Socialist newspaper Common Sense, 1935

https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../1916/imp-hsc/

What is the difference between Lenin's view and Butlers? I see no daylight.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/55/veterans.shtml

Even if Butler somehow didn't consider himself a Socialist.....the socialists certainly claimed him!

He echoes Eugene Debs:

“The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives.”

If you guys wanna go by the Marxist talking points...by all means, do so. I will not.

[Ronin Truth]

The repeated Genocides against Native Americans. Easy. It is wrong to genocide people. Just like it is wrong to enslave people. Yet to British Canada is where many Indians fled to when the Americans were slaughtering them. The Brits continually attempted to avoid conflict in North America....because it cost an extreme amount of money to fight wars overseas. The Americans did not respect the Indian/British treaties, and they continually moved into legal Indian Territory, something that can be called an act of war. The indians happened to lose that war against the Americans. But it is no tenet of Imperialism to genocide people. That is a "mistake" that shouldn't have happened, just like Slavery.....it is a fault of people themselves being fallen beings....not the fault of Imperialism itself.

I've already refuted the (i wouldn't call it a genocide, but a war) between the Spanish and the Aztecs and other huge governing, tyrannical indian empires in central and south america....because after they overthrew the tyrants, they just stepped into their place. There is a huge difference between the Spanish and the British Model.

The British Model is "Just". The Spanish is "UnJust".

TJ buying land from Napoleon. Thats one way to expand an Empire of Liberty...aint it? How did Napoleon aquire it? Land claim by those "fur traders" that seem to be so highly praised on here. However, I'll be clear, once again. That is not the British Model in any way, shape, or form. A totally different kind of Imperialism.

Those close to home Empire examples fail to point out that....the Indians fled to British Canada in the face of Empires of Conquest. Why? Because the British had an Empire of Freedom. I think you'll find that Indian Tribes are still living primatively in Canada...while they are bound to poverty stricken reservations in America.

On Smedly Butler, apart from the fact that his rhetoric is straight out of the Marxists mouths, I'll put up a few sources from just a quick google search.

from: http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/no...ec_11_44a.html









What is the difference between Lenin's view and Butlers? I see no daylight.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/55/veterans.shtml

Even if Butler somehow didn't consider himself a Socialist.....the socialists certainly claimed him!

He echoes Eugene Debs:


If you guys wanna go by the Marxist talking points...by all means, do so. I will not.

Was Butler singing the praises of Marx and Engels and glorifying Stalin? Now there's some Empiring for you. I'd have to call that ALL bad.