About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 6:48amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Gripping (well-written and persuasive).

Ed




Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I think this ignores a lot of the circumstances surrounding the American annexation of the Philippines. Few people based their agreement with this on the grounds of “imperialism”. America annexed the Philippines for three principle reasons: Spain was no longer going to oppress the people of the Philippines any longer, as with their other oversees territories they had to go. Next was the very real fear that if the US left then another European nation was going to come in and take over; Germany (who had started their colonization efforts late) was especially worried over as they had been making significant gains in the area and Japan’s navel victory over Russia a few years later would only reinforce this belief. Finally America needed a base to protect it’s Far East trade which for the past 20 years Europeans had been attempting to suppress.

What should be the best indicator of American intentions is that only a few years after the insurgency ended Congress passed an act, I believe in 1916, declaring that once the Philippines were ready they should be let go. In fact the Philippine congress rejected our first offer for independence because we insisted on keeping navel bases. Finally I shudder to think how the attack on Pearl Harbor if Japan had used the full force of their navy against us instead of sending the majority of it to Luzon. They probably would have invaded and Hawaii would have fell. The fact that MacArthur was able to dog it out in the Philippines as long as he did gave the US valuable time to build up our defenses. And of course as soon as the war ended the Philippines were immediately declared independent.

Naturally they proved themselves incapable of maintaining when just 35 years after independence they fell to a dictator.




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
How small should the US have stayed? The 13 colonies? There are practical reasons why the US should try to stay out of foreign entanglements, but there are also strategic issues we should press.



Post 3

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
See further, this fine work by Walter Karp:

The Politics of War
The Story of Two Wars which Altered Forever
the Political Life of the American Republic (1890-1920)


One Reviewer at Amazon,

J. Dillingham writes:

Walter Karp's "The Politics of War" is simply the most concise and powerful study in history I've ever read. Simply by sticking to the premise that history is made not by anonymous "forces" but by men of power acting out of self-interest, Karp turns stuff that was frankly dull in your high school textbooks - you remember the names: the Progressive Era, the gold standard, William Jennings Bryan, the Lusitania - into something not only gripping, but eerily reminiscent of what our nation is currently experiencing. Karp's portrait of Woodrow Wilson as a self-deluded, self-righteous, vainglorious would-be messiah determined to drag an unwilling nation into war to suit his own dreams of glory is especially powerful and damning.

The final chapter, "The Old America That Was Free and Is Now Dead," is simply the most powerful piece of writing I've ever read in a nonfiction work, comparable only to the conclusion of Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem." No one could ever accuse Walter Karp of hating his country; he hated what a few people had done to it, and that, as all too many would like us to forget these days, is something very different.

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 1/10, 12:47pm)




Post 4

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Yes - that is an excellent book, especially in its analysis of Wilson......



Post 5

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 1:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
It was a pure act of imperialism and aggression. Nothing more needs to be said about what happened in the Philippines. The article doesn't say much about the US and its interference in Hawaii. The year of 1898 was the beginning of the end.




Post 6

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Karp's portrait of Woodrow Wilson as a self-deluded, self-righteous, vainglorious would-be messiah determined to drag an unwilling nation into war to suit his own dreams of glory is especially powerful and damning.
I seem to remember that the current American president regards Wilson as one of his heroes.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 1:46pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
[in Gomer Pyle voice - "surprise, surprise....."]



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:23pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Interesting article.

I have enjoyed several of Niall Ferguson's books in which he argues that Empire (particularly the British Empire but also others) has historically been a force for liberalism and economic growth. I have just started reading his "War of the World" in which he argues that the unprecedented bloodiness of the 20th century, both number and percentage of people killed, is largely due to the decline of empires around the world as the dominant political entities and the rise of supposedly homogenous nation-states as the political ideal.

Regardless to the ultimate merits of Ferguson's arguments, I think that blanket statements such as "empires are evil or wrong" or "always avoid foreign entanglements" are simplistic and not very useful. Foreign policy in the real world is complicated.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 7:22pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
if the policy is not one of trading, a peaceful and voluntary association of benefits, then is a tribal one - in which empires of any stripe are evil and wrong......



Post 10

Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 6:37amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
...but much of it IS about trading - trade requires security - security sometimes requires violence.  For the British Empire it was protecting trade routes.  In many cases, they had to fight pirates, savages, local warlords, and the like.  It is not as if these wars did not have two sides.  In WW I what was Germany doing to UK?  Cutting its trade lines by sinking merchant ships - ie ships carrying trade - to their country.  That is what got the US ultimately involved in the war.  Absent a uboat campaign the US would have stayed out.



Post 11

Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 6:39amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I see, and how do you reconcile that with the expansion of America beyond the 13 original states? And how does that contrast with what we with the former Spanish colonies?

PS. that question was for robert
(Edited by Clarence Hardy
on 1/11, 6:40am)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Friday, January 12, 2007 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Another sorry rant from the eccentric Mr. Woods! His passing reference to our fight against a most savage enemy – “incinerating innocent people in all kinds of scenarios, from Hiroshima …” – tells me all I need to know about the quality of Mr. Woods’ analytical abilities or honesty. If I had known nothing about our acquisition of Spanish colonies in 1898, I’d most likely suspect that Woods’ poor exposition reflects the questionable nature of his position. I happened to agree that our policy was wrong.




Post 13

Friday, January 12, 2007 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The extention of the land beyond the thirteen colonies was of a buying from another government, not a war aquisition - the same with Alaska....... the Mexican war should never had been taken, unless one considers Santa Anna's attack as somehow against and on American soil......



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Friday, January 12, 2007 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
It is interesting to see how people with supposedly the same philosophy have different opinions.  Compared to other systems, Objectivism is rather closely defined, and yet, we have basic disagreements.

We could go deeply into this and eventually expel each other to the Dissent Forum.

Personally, I share the anti-imperialist sentiment.  If Germany or Japan had taken the Philippines, it would have been wrong and the USA's taking it instead was not right.  "Protecting American trade" is a thin excuse.  I just finished a course in History of China -- it was grim -- and in preparation for that, I assembled some surprising materials.  For instance, the first Yankee ships went to China on the heels of American independence, 100 years before the highpoint of imperial encroachments. 

Furthermore, I have to agree that Western (European and US) expansion into Africa and Asia had its upside.  In China, in particular, while the Manchus (Qing Dynasty) wrung their hands, the fact is that thousands, perhaps millions, of Chinese in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tsingtao, and other ports were happy to enjoy Western modes of thinking and acting, including the privilege of holding an independent opinion.  Even more interesting, while Chinese did indeed travel abroad for two thousand years, it was only with the coming of Western "imperialism" that they were ready, willing, and able to leave by the thousands.  The creation of outland Chinese (or overseas Chinese) communities came at this time.

So, it was a mixed bag.  How you view it is pretty much a matter of who you are.

Myself, I prefer to err on the side of liberalism and I am less impressed by military power.  "And then conquer we must when our cause it is just" rests firmly on the next line "and this be our motto: In God is Our Trust."  So, again, we see that politics rests on metaphysics.  As a metaphysical Objectivist, I am opposed to imperialism.

You may perceive the same reality differently.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Friday, January 12, 2007 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
This whole protecting trade argument is just a blank check. Blank checks are always dangerous.




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Friday, January 12, 2007 - 10:29amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The new blank check is "national security" - no one should get away with letting that be their argument for military adventures or restrictive laws at home.



Post 17

Friday, January 12, 2007 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Another popular blank check is "protecting children."




Post 18

Friday, January 12, 2007 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The extention of the land beyond the thirteen colonies was of a buying from another government, not a war aquisition
Bought with stolen money(taxes).




Post 19

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
~ We should 'protect our children' from dogmas about 'national security' requiring that their lives, as supposed citizens, be an open book to all law enforcement agencies, as well as requiring that they, in volunteering for the military, should be required to Wilsonianly risk/lose their lives in helping others vote themselves into theocracies.

~ If we get back to actually focusing on protecting ourselves (hence, our children) 'trade protection' will Adam Smithly take care of itself.

~ Then, of course, there is the 'tax' issue...

LLAP
J:D




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.