American exceptionalism

Green? Libertarian?

Libertarian. Obviously not enough of a base and too many kooks to make much national headway...not to mention the fact both parties are like Walmart crushing Mom'n'Pop stores.

It's growth, if any, will be mostly local. Unless I see someone I prefer, I'm voting straight Libertarian. Where no Libertarians are running, I'm voting for the challenger, regardless of party.

People often post about making one's voice heard by voting. I agree with them. If more people vote as I do, maybe our voices will be heard.
 
The United States is also exceptional as a major / world power in that it has never been either a colonial power, imperialist, or conquering in the same way other great nations have been throughout history.

Agreed in part. You'd be more correct if GW hadn't started a war with Iraq killing tens of thousands along with spilling a massive amount of American blood and taxpayer dollars.

A positive difference between America and "other great nations" is because America was history's most powerful force spreading "the great experiment" across the planet. What's happened is that the plan worked and worked so well that now most of the world has both democracy and capitalism......the bad news is that the word for "other powerful capitalists" is competitors.

More bad news is that our national leaders, supported by most of the population, believes that America is a failure and want to make it "great again" by looking backwards at our past relative greatness. I disagree since America is still great and, as long as there are people, will remain great for decades to come. Additionally, it's best for our nation if we look forward, not backwood. Looking backwards is history. We should be looking forward to identify where our nation should be in the next generation.

What we can't claim any more is "being #1 in all categories". Other nations have not only caught up to America, but have surpassed us in the quality of their societies in a few categories, both socially and technologically. If America wants to excel in those categories, it needs to compete by being better, not a bully.
 
Last edited:
Libertarian. Obviously not enough of a base and too many kooks to make much national headway...not to mention the fact both parties are like Walmart crushing Mom'n'Pop stores.

It's growth, if any, will be mostly local. Unless I see someone I prefer, I'm voting straight Libertarian. Where no Libertarians are running, I'm voting for the challenger, regardless of party.

People often post about making one's voice heard by voting. I agree with them. If more people vote as I do, maybe our voices will be heard.

I looked up the (L) candidate and found that I voted for her in 1996, when she was the VP candidate.
 
I will disagree with one thing you stated, in totality, Dutch. That is, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. US casualties have been extremely light compared to past conflicts the US has been in. In the two combined, US military deaths have been below 1000 per year, well below (400 to 800 roughly). Iraq also is likely to have been necessary but it's hard to argue a negative.

That is, Saddam did support terrorism and terrorists of all sorts. There's ample proof of that. Invading Afghanistan alone to get Al Qaeda would likely have pushed some parts of that group and even possibly the Taliban into moving operations to terrorist friendly Iraq leaving the US having to invade. In any case, the Iraq invasion was hardly a major operation or issue compared to past wars. Iraq folded in a matter of days and was defeated in a matter of weeks with very low losses.

I also don't believe a "majority of Americans" think the country is a failure. That is the purview of the Left almost exclusively.
 
I will disagree with one thing you stated, in totality, Dutch. That is, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. US casualties have been extremely light compared to past conflicts the US has been in. In the two combined, US military deaths have been below 1000 per year, well below (400 to 800 roughly). Iraq also is likely to have been necessary but it's hard to argue a negative.

That is, Saddam did support terrorism and terrorists of all sorts. There's ample proof of that. Invading Afghanistan alone to get Al Qaeda would likely have pushed some parts of that group and even possibly the Taliban into moving operations to terrorist friendly Iraq leaving the US having to invade. In any case, the Iraq invasion was hardly a major operation or issue compared to past wars. Iraq folded in a matter of days and was defeated in a matter of weeks with very low losses.

I also don't believe a "majority of Americans" think the country is a failure. That is the purview of the Left almost exclusively.
Afghanistan was fully justified, so your adding it is interesting, but inappropriate. In fact, now that you have mentioned it, it was a truly fucked up mistake to pull our troops prematurely out of Afghanistan to start a new war in Iraq.

Dude, you're awfully flippant about American lives. Perhaps if you attended more military funerals and memorial services you wouldn't be so eager to write them off as being no more than statistics and calling it a win.

https://www.military.com/daily-news...eterans-got-military-honors-burials-year.html

military-honors-funeral-3200.jpg
 

Colonialism prior to the United States becoming a nation doesn't count as it isn't something the United States did. Secondly, the situation with indigenous tribes is far more complex than a few sources would show. As for Puerto Rico, if they wanted to be an independent nation, they could become one tomorrow. The problem is they have had a split population on whether to become a state or become independent leaving them in limbo as a territory of the US.

Hawaii is one case where colonialism-- actually more mercantilism--did occur. There is the case for a sort of imperialism in the 20's and 30's with the Central American "banana republics" too.

But on the whole there isn't a case to be made that it was some ongoing thing like the European powers had been doing for centuries.

Going back to Native American tribes. Many from the East Coast to the Great Lakes willingly participated and took sides in European warfare on the American continent. Unfortunately for them, all-too-often they chose the losing side and lost their lands as a result of those wars. That's nothing unique or unusual. It's also mostly pre-US history.
The plains tribes were all stone age hunter gatherers who had no established territory and lived a nomadic lifestyle. They were doomed by the vast gulf in technology and social development the rest of the world had. In the case of the Apache or Modroc there is a strong argument to be made that their lifestyle of raiding and pillaging while remaining nomadic was incompatible with any settled group Native American like the Tohono O'tham (Papago), or European (Spanish, English, or American) and they would be stomped on for it eventually.

In addition, with Native American tribes not having well defined borders, early colonization wasn't really intruding on their lands in any case. What really made a difference were things like technology and health issues. Settlers, Spanish, English, French, or Dutch, it really doesn't matter all brought their technologies with them. That included farming methods, tools, and weapons. Much of this simply overwhelmed the Native Americans as it spread uncontrolled. For example, the Spanish regularly released pigs, cows, horses, etc., to become feral and multiply in the wild. That would ensure they had food years later on land they now occupied. Horses gave many Native Tribes a mobility they never previously had as horses were not indigenous to the Americas.
But these feral animals, particular pigs, proved a huge detriment to Native American agriculture and destroyed crops wholesale leading to frequent famines.

Anyway, the situation with early American settlement is far more complex and less one-sided than many revisionist histories make it out to be.
 
Afghanistan was fully justified, so your adding it is interesting, but inappropriate. In fact, now that you have mentioned it, it was a truly fucked up mistake to pull our troops prematurely out of Afghanistan to start a new war in Iraq.

Dude, you're awfully flippant about American lives. Perhaps if you attended more military funerals and memorial services you wouldn't be so eager to write them off as being no more than statistics and calling it a win.

https://www.military.com/daily-news...eterans-got-military-honors-burials-year.html

military-honors-funeral-3200.jpg

I spent 27 years in the military. I have been on several funeral details. I know both persons killed in action as well as some seriously wounded in action. I don't make light of it. But people in the military are there to fight for the US and if killed, that's a risk of the job. You knew it when you raised your hand and took the oath to serve. There was a bit over 57,000 Americans killed in Vietnam. We've greatly reduced the casualty rates since then in wars.
 
The United States is also exceptional as a major / world power in that it has never been either a colonial power, imperialist, or conquering in the same way other great nations have been throughout history.

Dutch Uncle earlier mentioned the British invention of concentration camps in the Boer War, 1899-1902.

Almost exactly contemporary was the Philippine-American colonial war, in which hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians were herded into concentration camps, described by one US officer as "suburbs of hell".

Both these inventions - British and American - caused a major public outcry when word got back home.
 
I spent 27 years in the military. I have been on several funeral details. I know both persons killed in action as well as some seriously wounded in action. I don't make light of it. But people in the military are there to fight for the US and if killed, that's a risk of the job. You knew it when you raised your hand and took the oath to serve. There was a bit over 57,000 Americans killed in Vietnam. We've greatly reduced the casualty rates since then in wars.

If that were true, you wouldn't be so flippant about going to war simply because casualties would be "extremely light". In the case, you are claiming over 4,400 Americans gave the last final measure of devotion for a good reason. Please, sir, tell me what was gained by them laying down their lives for our great nation?
 
The United States is also exceptional as a major / world power in that it has never been either a colonial power, imperialist, or conquering in the same way other great nations have been throughout history.

The USA is found on conquering, colonialism & imperialism against Native Americans.
 
Colonialism prior to the United States becoming a nation doesn't count as it isn't something the United States did. Secondly, the situation with indigenous tribes is far more complex than a few sources would show. As for Puerto Rico, if they wanted to be an independent nation, they could become one tomorrow. The problem is they have had a split population on whether to become a state or become independent leaving them in limbo as a territory of the US.

Hawaii is one case where colonialism-- actually more mercantilism--did occur. There is the case for a sort of imperialism in the 20's and 30's with the Central American "banana republics" too.....
Agreed on the overall points.

The Monroe Doctrine was the gateway drug to American imperialist/colonialist acts, but it was never really in our soul just like watching fucking Nazis march down our streets isn't really in our souls. It happens, but most Americans are against it just like they turned on the Iraq War once they realized they'd been fucked.
 
Dutch Uncle earlier mentioned the British invention of concentration camps in the Boer War, 1899-1902.

Almost exactly contemporary was the Philippine-American colonial war, in which hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians were herded into concentration camps, described by one US officer as "suburbs of hell".

Both these inventions - British and American - caused a major public outcry when word got back home.

Technically it was the Spanish then the British. The Americans inherited them from the Spanish. Still wrong, but nowhere near the numbers the British, and, of course, later, the Germans would maintain.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/concentration-camps-existed-long-before-Auschwitz-180967049/
 
Dutch Uncle earlier mentioned the British invention of concentration camps in the Boer War, 1899-1902.

Almost exactly contemporary was the Philippine-American colonial war, in which hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians were herded into concentration camps, described by one US officer as "suburbs of hell".

Both these inventions - British and American - caused a major public outcry when word got back home.

Except the Philippine Insurrection wasn't a "colonial" war. The Philippines right from the beginning of US occupation after the defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American war was about eventually turning over the Philippines to an indigenous government and granting independence to the islands. Use of concentration camps was limited to two provinces on Luzon Batangas and Laguna, that were at the very heart of the insurgency and saw some of the most vicious combat. The insurrection lasted from about 1897 to 1902. The concentration camps lasted about a year to a year-and-a-half and were then ended with the end of the conflict. Most, the vast majority of, Filipinos were never in one.

In 1902 the US started with the Philippine Organic Act to establish an independent Philippine government and with the 1916 Jones Act made the Philippines a commonwealth of the US with the eventual intent to grant independence scheduled for 1944. So, the Philippines was never a US colony but rather a semi-independent nation under US rule moving to full independence.

This wasn't the first time the US put insurrectionists in camps. This was done with some Indian tribes going back to about 1880 as part of the reservation system.

One might note that General Douglas MacArthur was in good part responsible for the insurrection turning bloody as he was the first to order troops to fire on and take Filipino insurrectionist positions...

I should also add that Spain's rule of the Philippines for several centuries did far more damage socially to the country--just as it did elsewhere--than the roughly half century of US rule.

On the whole, not nearly as violent or vicious as many contemporary European powers were at the time.
 
Technically it was the Spanish then the British. The Americans inherited them from the Spanish. Still wrong, but nowhere near the numbers the British, and, of course, later, the Germans would maintain.

The US liberated the Philippines from Spanish rule, then suppressed the nascent Philippine government. This sparked a guerrilla war that went on for years.

“The Philippines became an American territory when the war officially ended in July 1902 with the islands becoming an unincorporated territory of the United States. Further rebellions flared in the islands for the next eleven years.”

As for the concentration camps: “Civilians were forced to enter the camps as winter came on in 1901 … By April of 1902 more than 8,000 Filipino civilians had died in the camps.”

https://historycollection.com/10-american-war-crimes-which-will-have-you-shaking-in-anger/5/

If the US wasn’t acting “colonially” when it did this 8000 miles from America, what was it doing?
 
Last edited:
...I should also add that Spain's rule of the Philippines for several centuries did far more damage socially to the country--just as it did elsewhere--than the roughly half century of US rule.

On the whole, not nearly as violent or vicious as many contemporary European powers were at the time...

Agreed on Spain. Their footprint is all over the messes in South and Central America to this day. Things are changing, but they are still behind the English colonies in the north. It was a major cultural difference between the two that made the difference.
 
The US liberated the Philippines from Spanish rule, then suppressed the nascent Philippine government. This sparked a guerrilla war that went on for years.

“The Philippines became an American territory when the war officially ended in July 1902 with the islands becoming an unincorporated territory of the United States. Further rebellions flared in the islands for the next eleven years.”

As for the concentration camps: “Civilians were forced to enter the camps as winter came on in 1901 … By April of 1902 more than 8,000 Filipino civilians had died in the camps.”

https://historycollection.com/10-american-war-crimes-which-will-have-you-shaking-in-anger/6/I

If the US wasn’t acting “colonially” when it did this 8000 miles from America, what was it doing?

Yes. Thanks for confirming the Spanish came first. It's also why the US developed the Colt 1911 .45ACP. Woot!

1911a1_731299e.jpg


I never disagreed that the US was completely innocent of colonialist acts. Are you seriously trying to equate the European Colonial Powers to the United States?
 
Agreed on Spain. Their footprint is all over the messes in South and Central America to this day. Things are changing, but they are still behind the English colonies in the north. It was a major cultural difference between the two that made the difference.

The Hacienda system of colonial plantations still exists in many parts of Mexico and South America where a few powerful families pretty much rule however they want within some local region of the country. It's one big reason these countries don't develop and get out of their second world status and grow a larger middle class. In a sense, they are still beholden to what was much the same system (as plantations) in the antebellum South. Of course, the Civil War in the US ended that system where it existed.
 
The Hacienda system of colonial plantations still exists in many parts of Mexico and South America where a few powerful families pretty much rule however they want within some local region of the country. It's one big reason these countries don't develop and get out of their second world status and grow a larger middle class. In a sense, they are still beholden to what was much the same system (as plantations) in the antebellum South. Of course, the Civil War in the US ended that system where it existed.
The key being no middle class. Without a strong middle class, the US would turn into an English-speaking version of that "Hacienda system" AKA serfdom as in the European early Middle Ages.
 
The key being no middle class. Without a strong middle class, the US would turn into an English-speaking version of that "Hacienda system" AKA serfdom as in the European early Middle Ages.

Or what happens in Socialist countries where all the wealth is confiscated and only the elite rich can be rich while everyone else gets a handout from the government.

Maybe you'd like a case of the CLAP like Venezuela gives it's citizens...

45F622DD-3B3F-465C-872F-D674D5464062_cx0_cy10_cw0_w1597_n_r1_s.jpg
 
Back
Top