🚀 go-pugleaf

jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.185652.17362@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>>   Well, I can certainly blame the US for all the land-grabs taken after
>>   1776, can't I? Which includes everything outside the 13 colonies. Hmmm,
>>   that's quite a bit, don't you think?

You still persist in defining the US out of imperialism, and persist in
leaving the Indians out of the picture.  Yes, the French claimed
Louisiana and the US "bought" it -- but the fact is that the _occupants_
of that area were not French, they were Native Americans.  Throughout
the territory claimed to be US the indigenous people were harrassed,
uprooted and killed.  Does the Indian Removal Act ring a bell.  Does it
sound faintly familiar in today's world?

Why do you persist in discounting the presence of the Native Americans
throughout the West?  And why continue to assert that the US wasn't
behaving in an imperialistic fashion as the population moved west --
with the specific aid, frequently military, of the US Government?


>>   >Notice please that the Philippines were given independence in 1946.
>>   >Now please explain what the Black Panthers have to do with territorial
>>   >imperialism.
>>
>>   There's good reason to believe they were finally -- finally -- given
>>   their independence to prevent large scale Filipino immigration to this
>>   country.  And, anyway, so what!?  Just because 46 years later we got
>>   around to it, we weren't imperialistic?

>There is also good reason that Phillipine independence was always in
>the works.  The US involved Filipinos in their government pretty much
>from the start.  They got commonwealth status in 1935, and were then
>self-governing.  The Japanese invasion sort of slowed things down.

>A parallel case was Puerto Rico, also taken from the Spanish at the
>same time.  They are also a commonwealth, and don't want independence.

You need to read a little more history of the Phillipines, also Takaki's
excellent history of Asian-Americans, which covers the US attitude
toward the Filipinos.  Your assertion that Puerto Ricans don't "want
independence" is somewhat at variance with the facts.  A significant
minority of the population _do_ want independence, and an even larger
group want the priviliges of statehood.  And, in any event, it has
_nothing_ to do with the original imperialistic motivations of the US
Government.


>>   Considering the way the US government invaded Indian land (you still
>>   haven't mentioned the Indians, and you keep slipping away from that one)
>>   annd the way they invaded black neighborhoods and dealt with Black Power
>>   advocates, it has _a lot_ to do with imperialism.
>>
>>   I repeat: do not attack Israeli domestic policy by comparing it
>>   unfavorably to US policy.  They BOTH SUCK!

>Hmmm, putting down Black Power militarists constitutes imperialism?
>Not quite.  That interpretation would require one to consider Watts,
>Harlem, etc as colonies of Washington.  If that were really the case,
>then Washington would be better off divesting, for these colonies are
>hardly money making opportunities.
>--
Obviously you weren't around in the 1960s, or you would realize that a
lot of people living in Watts, Harlem, etc. _did_ consider themselves
--with plenty of reason--to be colonies.  And there is a great deal to
be said for maintaining a source of cheap labor.  But that's another
issue.

Anyway, WHAT ABOUT THE INDIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Jeff Frane

>=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) 
"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                    --Thomas Jefferson