Author: yuan_zcen

Hawaii 'independence' was suppressed [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-27 16:10:33 |Display all floors
Kodama,

I don't ignore US long-held ambitions of Continentalism, they're just not relevant to the issues I'm arguing and I don't find them in-and-of-themselves bad. They explain why the US would accept, but I disagree that the US was the instigator. Nor do I disagree about a whole host of projects. What I disagree with is the way you spin it and I disagree with your characterization of it as imperialism. To me, imperialism is very specific and the only clear case of US imperialism that springs immediately to mind is the Philippines and US treatment of Cuba after the Spanish-American War.

If we want, we can call your definition "imperialism" and mine "Imperialism"; my definition refers specifically to the practices of exploitation most characterized by the British and French empires, Ottoman empire, Roman empire, Persian empire, Mughal empire and the way China handled tributaries. Your definition would surely seem to encompass  that, but it would also seem to encompass things like the UK itself, the Russian Federation or even the relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong or Washington and the current government of California. That's much too encompassing to be useful to me and has slid down to rhetoric.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-28 06:16:38 |Display all floors
Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-27 16:10
I don't ignore US long-held ambitions of Continentalism, they're just not relevant to the issues I'm arguing and I don't find them in-and-of-themselves bad. They explain why the US would accept, but I disagree that the US was the instigator. Nor do I disagree about a whole host of projects. What I disagree with is the way you spin it and I disagree with your characterization of it as imperialism. To me, imperialism is very specific and the only clear case of US imperialism that springs immediately to mind is the Philippines and US treatment of Cuba after the Spanish-American War.

If we want, we can call your definition "imperialism" and mine "Imperialism"; my definition refers specifically to the practices of exploitation most characterized by the British and French empires, Ottoman empire, Roman empire, Persian empire, Mughal empire and the way China handled tributaries. Your definition would surely seem to encompass  that, but it would also seem to encompass things like the UK itself, the Russian Federation or even the relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong or Washington and the current government of California. That's much too encompassing to be useful to me and has slid down to rhetoric.


It doesn't seem you understand my definition. My definition would be basically consistent with most definitions. That is, a policy of expanding a country's territory and influence over regions and countries. Over time what was considered part of a nation's empire can come to be considered part of a country. This is how I would view those European nations which still have overseas holdings and how I would presently view Hawaii. Tibet after 1950 or perhaps 1959 would also be in the category of once being part of an empire and becoming part of a country.

In this case aggression isn't really necessary to call something imperialism, though in most cases imperialism is aggressive to some extent. I also understand that aggressive imperialism can not be defined solely as something done by governments but also done by powerful interests in those countries.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-29 08:13:37 |Display all floors
Kodama,

By your definition, the following events which are not generally held to be imperial now are:

*the unification of Germany

*the reunification of Germany

*the unification of Italy

*the unification of Hong Kong with mainland China

*the establishment of embassies

*the signing of any treaty

*participation in any international organization

All fulfill the requirements of expanding either territory or influence. So too does the policy of helping an ally, which tends to increase one's influence and sometimes one's territory, even if the expansion is solely through the creation of a no-man's land

By comparison, I would hold that imperialism requires as a matter of course the subjugation, not necessarily by force, of an otherwise sovereign people or the removal of their territory by coercion or duress. Indeed, nearly every scholar would agree that this is absolutely necessary. Moreover, motives are also important because a nationalist campaign is not generally considered imperial. You can't really make this claim in the case of either Hawaii or Texas, for example, because each had revolutions deposing the former government. You can't make that claim of the Louisiana Purchase, however, because it was purchased from someone not desperate for protection (as happened often in Africa) while you can make that claim of the Mexican Cession.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2008-9-8 15:04:26 |Display all floors
Originally posted by projeka at 2008-8-22 13:47
Hahahahaha.... Let's go ask the people of Hawaii if they'd like to be a part of "People's" Republic of China... they'd probably die from laughter.


Have you asked them? I'm waiting for their answer.

I'm serious.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.