The study of history

[Chris 62]

The US is not Imperialist MrFun.

Expantion and Imperialism are two different things.

Trying to say it is, is you guessed it, revisionist history.

[Sirotnikov]

Eye.

What I call revisionist history is usually attempts by people to create a new narrative, down playing facts which are "unimportant" to the case the author makes, and boldening facts which are "important" for it.

That, and adding adjectives and intentions like people above me said.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by MrFun
Exactly my point, Oerdin -- reread my post.

And others in this thread are right -- people who view Amerindians as being ecologically utopian people are just as ignorant as people who deny that the United States has been, and continues to be, an imperialist nation.

If the benefits outweigh risks, I don't see why we can't be more "imperialistic". After all, it's wimps and "nice guys" like Jimmy Carter who will bring us troubles.

[Japher]

To victor goes the spoils, and responsibility fo writing them down. When the powers change, history always seems to as well. Is this seem a little strange to anyone else?

Eventually the truth will be indistinguishable from the untruth, and the lies will be written and rewritten upon the walls that fill our lives.

History is doomed to repeat itself because we cannot come to terms with what it is, and we have forgotten. All it really is is time, it moves by without want or care to any of us. We spend so much time arguing about why, how, and when something happened when don't really take the time to sit down and realize what actually happened, and what was the outcome of it.

History is waste of time. We can only hope that lies we believe are the lies we wish never to repeat.

You know, I READ somewhere that you can't believe everything you READ.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The US is not Imperialist MrFun.

Expantion and Imperialism are two different things.

Trying to say it is, is you guessed it, revisionist history.

In the late 19th century, United States was an imperialist nation and still is in some aspects.

I'm talking about overseas expansion to overlord our "little brown brothers." Just ask the Fillipinos for an example of American imperialism.

[RGBVideo]

In the late 19th century, United States was an imperialist nation

Yes.

and still is in some aspects.

The US is not Imperialist MrFun.

combined with:

Expansion and Imperialism are two different things.

Straight back at you.

After all, it's wimps and "nice guys" like Jimmy Carter who will bring us troubles.

Ronald Reagan

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

Ronald Reagan

Maybe you Euros hate him, but for America, his tax cuts revitalized the economy, his military build-up forced USSR to give up, and his military actions brought America renewd respect.

The only drawback in this reign was the piling up of national debts. But our debt situation is still much better than most Euros and Japan.

[MrFun]

Where did the slogan, "The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer" under Reagan come from then?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MrFun
In the late 19th century, United States was an imperialist nation and still is in some aspects.

I'm talking about overseas expansion to overlord our "little brown brothers." Just ask the Fillipinos for an example of American imperialism.

I knew you would go for this obvious buzz word.

You think any expantion is "Imperialistic".

Let's look up the word:

"The dominion of an emperor; the territory or countries under the jurisdiction and dominion of an emperor (rarely of a king), usually of greater extent than a kingdom, always comprising a variety in the nationality of, or the forms of administration in, constituent and subordinate portions; as, the Austrian empire."

Does the United States, now or ever, have an Emperor?
Of course not.

"A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. "

The US government NEVER had a single SUPREME authority, the country has ALWAYS had a two-headed aspect, the federal level and the States level.

On all counts, this disqualifies your argument.

This is what is meant by Rivionist history, you just attempted it.

Let's go further into your superfical answer, using the phillipennes as an example.

The United States aquired the place from SPAIN, not the natives.
Even today, MOST of the people there look fondly at the US, ever been there?
I have, your attempting to push another revisionist theory, that the US brutalized the place in the teens and twenties, when the truth was a SMALL army (that never numbered better then 10,000) attempted to take the place over, from both the US, and before it Spain, and this group NEVER represented the people, only their own interest.
The United States promised self government in the 1940s, and low and behold, they got it.

That was a silly example you used, and it's a good example of why I have a problem with your interpretations of historucal events, your not interested in facts, your pushing an agenda.

You even tried a little tug on the heart-string, the comment about "little brown brothers".
You attempted to manipulate people by implying it's racist to view events in any other fashion then what you presented.

I have told this before, but it should be repeated.
History is about facts, check your emotions at the door, or you can NEVER make an objective assessment.

Also, you should try to avoid "buzz-words" like Americam Imperialism".
American expantion, yes.
Imperialism, no, unless you care to name the "emperors" (and don't go for the obvious joke of listing presidents, emperors aern't elected and we both know it).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Where did the slogan, "The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer" under Reagan come from then?

You think any President has 100% approval ratings? Welcome to fantasy world, Mr. Fun.

[Adam Smith]

As an example of historical revisionism at its worst, consider the (in)famous Hiroshima exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution a couple of years ago. The organizers of the exhibit were trying to make the point that the decision to drop the bomb was based not on military considerations, but out of a desire to intimidate Stalin. When informed that his estimates of US losses from invading Japan were low compared to other accepted estimates, historian David Kennedy of Stanford University responded that he would simply increase his estimates of Japanese casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[GePap]

A nice little counter-example:

So we all know that Custer died valiantly, as his troops gathered themselves and took heroic last stands: how could American soldiers do otherwise? The first hand reports form the iddians, which spoke of US soldiers fleeing for their lives, while some did stand and fight, ahd to be wrong, of course. So the myth of custer grew and grew. Well, finally, in the 80's, someone decided to go the the battlefield and look to see if there was anyting left that could shde some light on this picture. And they did find somehting: shell casings from the firearms used. No one had ever picked them up, so they begun looking at the whole battlefield for the casings. They could, of course, match the types of guns to the casings, and since they had very good knowledge about what side used what gun, they began to plot the casings they found and make a map of where shots were fired. What picture emerged? That the first hand Sioux accouns were basically correct: the soldiers of the 7th cavalry formed lines, broke, fromed lines again, they wavered unde rthe assualts, sometimes making new lines, sometimes trying to run for their lives. All, very understandable, human behavior. So the myth of a final last stand, with Custer and his units of the 7th cavalry standing there, valiantly waiting to die or be rescued, have no backing in the physical evidence.

Historical revisionism, cried the Custer fans: the scientist who carried out these studies obviously only wanted to denegrate the memory of the man. Historical revisionists indeed!

If a historian can back their position, no matter what is politics are (and all history is political), with evidence, documents, interviews and so forth, it can't be called revisionist. If a hisotrian has a claim for which they have no evidence, or one that runs counter to the evidence, then that's revisionist, whether you agree with their politics or not.

[MrFun]

So why did American officers place Fillipino citizens into concentration camps in the early 20th century during the war? Oh wait -- of course, we used a different name for those concentration camps.

As for your technical definition of imperialism, you're right. But the United States conquered the Phillipines to replace Spain's imperial rule, with American rule -- whether or not it fit the technical definition of imperialism. But part of your technical definition does fit American overseas expansion -- territories being ruled that are beyond the borders of the ruling nation.

As for self-government, we tried to hold onto the Phillipines for as long as we could, and then only in the 1940's, was the pressure strong enough that the United States gave the Fillipines self-government.

[Adam Smith]

GePap:

I heard the revised Custer story when I visited Little Big Horn about 15 years ago. I have no problem with this story, as it is based on new facts. Compare this to Kennedy who did not say he would revise his estimates, but would increase them.

edit: intervening post

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by MrFun
Where did the slogan, "The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer" under Reagan come from then?

The economy is better if majority of the people got better. A President is successful if this rule benefited majority of the people.

Reagan just did that.