The slow, painful death of UK armed forces

[Razgovory]

Okay but I think you protest too much.  I mean the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars were attacked at the time by many Americans as imperialist.

Also you did get the Philippines in 1898.  So those years sound impressive, but the truth is they became self-governing in the 1930s and got independence in the 1940s.  That just puts them in line with many other colonially ruled states.  European countries generally got them earlier.  I think that reflects more the changed circumstances and ideologies of the period than American benevolence.  For example the easy answer to this 'the US granted The Phillipines independence about 40 years after annexation.  Which European colonizer did the same?' is Italy and Libya.  By just measuring the years the British presence in Iraq was positively benign.

Also as Tyr's point makes clear the Russian model shows you don't need overseas territory to be colonising.

I was under the impression that the loss of Libya was not the desire of the Italian government, and that British and French presence in Iraq and Syria were not colonies but mandates.  The US had planned to set the Philippines free before WII.  In 1945 I believe.  The colonization of the continental US can be fair game, but should be compared not to European overseas holdings but to integral parts of their country.   Like France in Occitan and the UK in Yorkshire.  These territories had all the rights as any other part of the US as soon as then attained statehood (which they did as quickly).

The US also has a lack of famines that wracked European colonies like India and Ireland.  I mean millions died in In British India from famine.  You'd be hard pressed to find such a thing in California.

[Neil]

At any rate, June 7, 1960 was the Day the Music Died for the British armed forces, so to speak.

[Ideologue]

1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.

  For a couple years in the 1940s?  Funny, I don't recall many Euros holding on to their shit then, either.

All of metropolitan France is a colony.

[Sheilbh]

The colonization of the continental US can be fair game, but should be compared not to European overseas holdings but to integral parts of their country.   Like France in Occitan and the UK in Yorkshire.  These territories had all the rights as any other part of the US as soon as then attained statehood (which they did as quickly).

The comparison I'm making is between the colonisation of Canada, Australia or the similar process of wiping out natives in Argentina.  The comparison with Yorkshire would be absurdly facile if you gave it just a minute's thought.

I mean millions died in In British India from famine.  You'd be hard pressed to find such a thing in California.

Don't misunderstand me European imperialism was a monstrous wrong, but I don't see famine over other forms of death matters.  Surely millions died to expand to California?

What I find odd, though, is what Tamas pointed out.  Americans are getting sensitive of probably two of the most controversial conflicts the US has ever been involved in (Mexican-American and Spanish-American) despite the fact that, from what I can tell about half of Americans at the time considered them wrong and imperialist conflicts. 

[dps]

Surely millions died to expand to California?

Millions?  Total casualties in the Mexican-American War were under 30,000.

from what I can tell about half of Americans at the time considered them wrong and imperialist conflicts. 

Here's what President Grant said about it in his Memoirs:

Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

[Admiral Yi]

Surely one can disagree with the assertion that American colonialization was exactly the same as European colonializaton with "getting sensitive."

Or without it!  D'oh!

[CountDeMoney]

Here's what President Grant said about it in his Memoirs:

Not to mention a certain transcendentalist that made his name going to jail in protest.  Granted, it was one night, but still. 

[dps]

Surely one can disagree with the assertion that American colonialization was exactly the same as European colonializaton with "getting sensitive."

Yes, and evidence of dissenting opinions within Ameican society at the time (such as the Grant quote above) is also not particularly good evidence that American expansionism was of the same nature as European expansionism.  IMO the American westward expansion was more akin to the Spanish reconquista or the pushing of France's eastern border to the Rhine than, say, the French takeover of Indochina.  OTOH, I think that it's not unreasonable to see the aquisition of the Phillipines as somewhat different than expansion into Oregon or California.

[CountDeMoney]

It had to be done. 

[Sheilbh]

Surely one can disagree with the assertion that American colonialization was exactly the same as European colonializaton with "getting sensitive."

Well they're not exactly the same.  In fact I don't think anyone but viper and Tyr's said anything close to that.  Tamas has said that the Mexican and Spanish American wars were imperial conquests - I agree, as did the Whigs, Grant and, say, Twain - and I don't see the difference between the Spanish-American war and any European colonial war, like over Morocco.

The only comparison I've made with colonisation is with Australia, Canada or what Argentina did.

[Sheilbh]

IMO the American westward expansion was more akin to the Spanish reconquista or the pushing of France's eastern border to the Rhine than, say, the French takeover of Indochina.  OTOH, I think that it's not unreasonable to see the aquisition of the Phillipines as somewhat different than expansion into Oregon or California.

I'm making three comparisons:
Mexican-American war - imperial aggrandisement, like Prussia taking Alsace-Lorraine.
The internal colonisation of America - like what happened in Australia, Canada or Argentina.
Spanish-American war - basically the same as any inter-Euro colonial war.

[Admiral Yi]

Mexican-American war - imperial aggrandisement, like Prussia taking Alsace-Lorraine.

I think this is a very apt comparison.  Both sides itching for a fight, one side getting their face pounded, one side gaining territory which was incorporated into the metropole.

But I also don't recall reading many commentaries about the immorality of Prussia in that war.

[Sheilbh]

But I also don't recall reading many commentaries about the immorality of Prussia in that war.

You've read the wrong commentaries

[mongers]

I'm not defending European imperialism but I'm struggling to see the significant difference between much European colonisation (as in imperial Canada, Australia, Argentina etc) and what Americans did in their own country.

At least you're not jumping on Tyr's wagon.  It's like talking to Mongers, circa 2004.

And you think I've changed.   

[grumbler]

OTOH, I think that it's not unreasonable to see the aquisition of the Phillipines as somewhat different than expansion into Oregon or California.

That is very true, and there are plenty of court cases (including at least one USSC case) that made such a distinction clear.

However, there is an equal difference between the US "acquisition" of the Philippines and the British acquisition of most of India.  The US effort was explicitly temporary and explicitly aimed at granting the PI its independence as soon as was practical.  Cuba, "acquired" in the exact same war and in the exact same way, was granted its independence almost immediately. 

Did Britain grant (or at least offer to grant) independence to, say, Quebec when Britain "acquired" it?

The US certainly had its imperialist moments and movements, but the US was, in general, not interested in playing the imperial game.  The argument that Colorado or California is the equivalent of the Bengal Presidency or Cape Colony is absurd; the US was interested in acquiring territories that would become fully equal states.  The results of the Spanish-American War somewhat muddy the field, in the several different types of territories resulted (those given immediate independence, those that were established as proto-independent states, and those that got citizenship but not statehood), but none of these resemble European imperial gains.