The slow, painful death of UK armed forces

[grumbler]

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

You've read the wrong commentaries

Or you are. 

[alfred russel]

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.

I am suprised that you think it is an apt comparison, or that you aren't aware of such commentaries.

American "colonization" was in areas that were sparsely populated and generally high quality land. I have a hard time envisioning scenarios at the dawn of the 19th century where we today would be huddled together on the east coast while the buffalo would be pursued by virtual hunter gatherers in the great plains.

My take on the Mexican American War: Mexico was dysfunctional, the US was not. The US was experiencing rapid population growth and Texas was almost empty. A bunch of Americans moved there, and were predictably dissatisfied with the government they received. Hence a sequence of events that led to their independence and incorporation into the US. Quite different than the Franco Prussian War.

[Razgovory]

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.

Did million die to expand to California?  Probably not.  At least not in the hands of US, and probably not at all.  You have to understand that the population density of North America was extremely low.  For the most part these people live in hunter-gather bands or tribes of a few thousand.  There were a few Urban cultures but these had mostly been wiped out before there was a US.

Since the survivor peoples became US citizens, they are us.

There is nothing odd about Americans being sensitive about wars that were controversial at the time.  The US was probably in the wrong both times.  The Mexican war was fought at the behest the slaver owners.  Rest assured the US suffered a decade later because of what it did.  The Spanish American war quickly proved the US really didn't want to stomach European style Colonialism.

[Neil]

Treating European-style colonialism as monolithic is a mistake.  There were many flavours, from British colonialism (the most enlightened form of government the world has ever seen), to the particular stylings of the French, the half-hearted German attempts, and then there's the Belgian killing fields.

[Berkut]

Calling the US spread throughout the continent into what was formerly "native" lands "colonialism" is confusing expansionism with colonialism.

I guess you can call it colonialism and empire building, as long as you make those terms mean nothing beyond "any expansion of one human society into the geographic space occupied by another". It is colonialism in the same sense than the Bantu tribesmen pushing out the Pygmies in central Africa was colonialism.

It really cheapens the dialogue, since it confuses two very different phenomenons that have very different social, economic, and demographic drivers and calls them the same thing. To what purpose?

Personally, I don't really even understand why anyone would want to even use it as the kind of reactionary defense mechanism, as we see here. It is transparently false to anyone who has a more than passing interest in history and doesn't really mean anything anyway - so what that many nations engaged in colonialism in the past? I don't even understand the guilt that would drive people to become so defensive. If I was British, say, I would not feel a singel iota of guilt about my nations colonial and imperial past. It was a phase in human history that modern nations went through - pretty much all of them who were at the requisite level of political and technological development at that time did their best to do the same thing, so it's not like it is some kind of failing that some particular country happened to be better at it than others.

Frankly, from what I know of most hunter-gatherer societies, it wasn't much of a picnic before the nasty Europeans showed up anyway.

[Tonitrus]

Treating European-style colonialism as monolithic is a mistake.  There were many flavours, from British colonialism (the most enlightened form of government the world has ever seen), to the particular stylings of the French, the half-hearted German attempts, and then there's the Belgian killing fields.

I think the rest of Europe must shoulder the blame for Belgium's killing fields...namely for allowing Belgium to exist at all.

[Ideologue]

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. 

Man didn't pay his taxes.  I wish they'd shot him.

Wait, this was before the end of slavery.  Nevermind!  Thoreau's okay.

[Ideologue]

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

You've read the wrong commentaries

The entry into war by itself, or the Siege of Paris?

Although now that I think of it Bismarck does get some shit for doing everything he could to bring the French to war as part of his long-term plan of binding the German states to the Prussian crown.

[Razgovory]

Calling the US spread throughout the continent into what was formerly "native" lands "colonialism" is confusing expansionism with colonialism.

I guess you can call it colonialism and empire building, as long as you make those terms mean nothing beyond "any expansion of one human society into the geographic space occupied by another". It is colonialism in the same sense than the Bantu tribesmen pushing out the Pygmies in central Africa was colonialism.

It really cheapens the dialogue, since it confuses two very different phenomenons that have very different social, economic, and demographic drivers and calls them the same thing. To what purpose?

Personally, I don't really even understand why anyone would want to even use it as the kind of reactionary defense mechanism, as we see here. It is transparently false to anyone who has a more than passing interest in history and doesn't really mean anything anyway - so what that many nations engaged in colonialism in the past? I don't even understand the guilt that would drive people to become so defensive. If I was British, say, I would not feel a singel iota of guilt about my nations colonial and imperial past. It was a phase in human history that modern nations went through - pretty much all of them who were at the requisite level of political and technological development at that time did their best to do the same thing, so it's not like it is some kind of failing that some particular country happened to be better at it than others.

Frankly, from what I know of most hunter-gatherer societies, it wasn't much of a picnic before the nasty Europeans showed up anyway.

This is absurd.  You could hand wave away any crime because it's was just a phase the country went through. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Not what Berkut is saying. He is saying that it is inappropriate to, for example, blame me for the British role in the slave trade and for me to then defend it or mitigate it as if I was a defendant in the dock. As people with a purported interest in history we should instead discuss what actually happened and why it happened that way.

[The Brain]

As the shining retard on the hill America cannot be judged like common countries.

[Tamas]

Not what Berkut is saying. He is saying that it is inappropriate to, for example, blame me for the British role in the slave trade and for me to then defend it or mitigate it as if I was a defendant in the dock. As people with a purported interest in history we should instead discuss what actually happened and why it happened that way.

But that is where he and the other yanks here are mistaken and get defensive - we (well, me and Sheilbh for sure) are not handing out blame or saying that the US was doing extraordinarily evil things.
We are saying that they have done similar stuff as any other great power at the time, and pretending otherwise is incorrect, and pretentious.

[Ideologue]

Oh, wait, we were the country with slavery in the Mexican-American War.

[Josquius]

I really don't get the idea that because the US planned on directly incorporating its colonial aquisitions it somehow makes them less imperialist. Russia incorporated a lot of its expansion as regular parts of Russia (yeah, not that there really was a one size fits all rule in Russia). France saw Algeria and (still sees) other places as integral parts of France.
In fact one could make the argument that this is a less desirable proposition than e.g.  British India where there was never any question that India would no longer be India and that it would be British forever more. Direct incorporation is really showing that the conquest is forever and there will never be independence (should everything go according to plan :degaul:).

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.

What wagon?

Nigga, please.  You're going to use an insurrection that didn't even take anything?
Yi's right;  you're not even trying.

Bet you think the Brits lost the Zulu Wars, too. 

No. I don't see the logical leap there at all.

The Phillipine-American war showed the US that long term holding down the Phillipines was untenable. The Fillipinos (never got why that becomes an F...) wanted independence and were willing to fight for it.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Not what Berkut is saying. He is saying that it is inappropriate to, for example, blame me for the British role in the slave trade and for me to then defend it or mitigate it as if I was a defendant in the dock. As people with a purported interest in history we should instead discuss what actually happened and why it happened that way.

But that is where he and the other yanks here are mistaken and get defensive - we (well, me and Sheilbh for sure) are not handing out blame or saying that the US was doing extraordinarily evil things.
We are saying that they have done similar stuff as any other great power at the time, and pretending otherwise is incorrect, and pretentious.

It would have required inhuman forbearance by the Americans not to have helped themselves to those under-exploited lands. I don't think it was even possible for the American state to have prevented what happened. So I do have some sympathy for the view that it was different to, say, British colonialism in India or Africa.