At what point did America go against Washingtons edict that they should Beware of foreign entanglements. What were the reasons that they adopted to justify foreign country takeovers? It may be surprising to find out that they had some of the same motives they have today, as they shuffle and stack the deck in their favor. Many of the forces at work are eerily contemporary.

http://www.tucradio.org/1102parentitwo.mp3

In 1818, the United States and the United Kingdom (controlling British Canada) established a joint claim over the Oregon Territory - the region west of the Rocky Mountains and between 42° North and 54°40' North (the southern boundary of Russia's Alaska territory).
54"40 or Fight.


Panama- liberated from Columbia for the building of the canal. The first Banana Republic ? in order to establish a Two Ocean Navy.

These were minor internal American spats of attrition on the continent and had little to do with foreign wars. Until The Monroe doctrine was implemented there was no foreign entanglements until the Cuban and Phillipines encounters. Don't forget, we're talking about foreign entanglements here.

The protests and disorder that broke out in the American colonies in 1765 marked the beginning not only of the American struggle for independence, but of over half a century of popular protest, revolution, and war across the western world. From the Ural Mountains in Russia to the Alleghenies and the Andes in the Americas, rioting, revolutions, and popular struggles against undemocratic rule took place in areas as diverse as France (in 1789), Geneva in Switzerland, Ireland, and Mexico.

Revolution took on an entirely new meaning in 1791, when civil war erupted in San Domingue (Haiti) and slaves in the French colony's northern province rose in revolt. In 1770, a French philosophe, the Abbé Raynal, had called for a "Black Spartacus" to overthrow slavery. Spartacus was a Thracian slave and gladiator who led a great slave revolt against the Romans, in southern Italy in 73-71 B.C.E. Under the leadership of a new Spartacus, Toussaint Louverture, Haiti's slaves defeated the armies of France, Spain, and Britain, and, in 1801, adopted a constitution prohibiting slavery forever. Haiti became independent in 1804 after expelling a second French expeditionary force sent by Napoleon.

The age of revolution culminated with the Latin American wars of independence. In 1790, five European countries--Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain, controlled all of Latin America. But in 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain, and two years later Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua broke away from Mexico. In South America during the 1820s, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela won their freedom from Spanish rule.

So, the American Revolution was not an isolated event. Despite many significant differences, the popular protests and upheavals of the age of revolution reflected certain common ideals and aspirations that had been unleashed by the American and French revolutions. Unifying all of these revolutions was a shared political language invoking such potent terms as constitutional rights, the sovereignty of the people, and the consent of the governed.

Beyond that, interpretations vary. At one end of the spectrum is the view that the American Revolution was not revolutionary at all, that it did not radically transform colonial society, but simply replaced a distant government with a local one. The opposite view is that the American Revolution was a unique and radical event, producing significant changes that had a profound impact on world history. Most current interpretations fall somewhere in between these two positions.

America was in no position to contest foreign countries after the revolution as they were debt strapped and cash poor, having printed money that inflated to near worthlessness in 1789. It was a time when the new country almost broke out into revolution against the new government.

It was important not to ruffle feathers abroad, so Washington made it known that they were not to engage in "foreign entanglements". When they made the Louisiana purchase from France, Jefferson commissioned Lewis and Clark quickly, to guage the size and lay claim to new areas of land. Hence, the claim up to the Russian panhandle was made, but no further. Of course Britain made a counterclaim to the 49th parallel and so the famous 54 - 40 dispute, but Britain was not a foreign power, as Britain had claims in America through the Hudsons Bay Company at the time, and was the ruling force in Upper and Lower Canada. The Northwest Territories were owned by the Hudson Bay Company through a lease with Britain, for fur trading.

AFTER ENCOURAGING PANAMA'S INDEPENDENCE FROM COLUMBIA, the U.S. signed a treaty in 1903 that gave it the rights to build and operate the canal for perpetuity. The agreement also gave the U.S. the right to govern the 10-mile wide, 40-mile long strip of land around the canal, called the Panama Canal Zone.


http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/fac ... rac/50.htm
The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 marked the breakup of the Spanish empire in the New World. Between 1815 and 1822 Jose de San Martin led Argentina to independence, while Bernardo O'Higgins in Chile and Simon Bolivar in Venezuela guided their countries out of colonialism. The new republics sought -- and expected -- recognition by the United States, and many Americans endorsed that idea.

But President James Monroe and his secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, were not willing to risk war for nations they did not know would survive. From their point of view, as long as the other European powers did not intervene, the government of the United States could just let Spain and her rebellious colonies fight it out.

Great Britain was torn between monarchical principle and a desire for new markets; South America as a whole constituted, at the time, a much larger market for English goods than the United States. When Russia and France proposed that England join in helping Spain regain her New World colonies, Great Britain vetoed the idea.

The United States was also negotiating with Spain to purchase the Floridas, and once that treaty was ratified, the Monroe administration began to extend recognition to the new Latin American republics -- Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico were all recognized in 1822.

In 1823, France invited Spain to restore the Bourbon power, and there was talk of France and Spain warring upon the new republics with the backing of the Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia and Austria). This news appalled the British government -- all the work of Wolfe, Chatham and other eighteenth-century British statesmen to get France out of the New World would be undone, and France would again be a power in the Americas.

George Canning, the British foreign minister, proposed that the United States and Great Britain join to warn off France and Spain from intervention. Both Jefferson and Madison urged Monroe to accept the offer, but John Quincy Adams was more suspicious. Adams also was quite concerned about Russia's efforts to extend its influence down the Pacific coast from Alaska south to California, then owned by Mexico.

At the Cabinet meeting of November 7, 1823, Adams argued against Canning's offer, and declared, "It would be more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war."

He argued and finally won over the Cabinet to an independent policy. In Monroe's message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have always called the Monroe Doctrine, although in truth it should have been called the Adams Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the American continents were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs.

So as you can see, America wasn't in the foreign entanglement game until their war with Spain over Cuba and their move into the far east in the Phillipines near the turn of the 19th century.

BTW, Welcome to the Tvnewslies family. Don't forget to donate to Jesse's cause. Not from America, Eh? Canadian?

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: If every subscriber to this mailing list donated $1 per week our minimum financial needs would be met. If we doubled the size of our list it would only take $0.50 per week. Being financed to this point would mean that TvNewsLIES could pay for it's overhead and any money over this amount could go towards hiring reporters and expanding the new radio program. It would also allow TvNewsLIES could repay my original investment so that I can do things like pay the rent and buy food! Just something to think about. http://tvnewslies.org/html/an_urgent_message.html

Having US gunships blocking Columbia from retaining control over it's province of Panama was not "foreign entanglements"? Interventionism or Imperialist Agression?

Aiding the Fenian Raid into another sovereign nation, Inventionism or Imperialist Agrssion?

Even the Great George Washington attempted to incite riots in other Bristish holdings to further the cause of US Independence, but his actions failed.

It started long before the Munroe Doctrine, the only difference is the weapons used have before more lethal.

Sorry, no. Since South America is part of the new world it was not a foreign entanglement. Also, the Panama canal incident was after the Spanish- American war in 1903. This is not a foreign entanglement.

As I pointed out, America was too broke to engage Foreign countries after the revolution. They were barely holding on to their country.

Fenian raids were just the Irish and British problem. Any help the Fenians got was from Irish American partisans who wished to incite problems against the British, who were well established in America. Again a domestic issue covered by the Monroe doctrine. Should I repeat the doctrine for you? Shall we go over it for you. Please read it carefully this time. I hate to keep repeating it.



This still falls under the auspices of the Monroe doctrine, which gave America the right to govern the affairs of the America's. Whether they had that right or not was irrelevsant, because they had stated it internationally and were willing to exercise it.

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/chrono/1774fenian_e.html


The raids started in 1866, when Britain still governed the colony of Canada. Under the BNA act, or "The Constitution Act", Canada became a country in 1867, somewhat independant from Britain. it wasn't until 1931 when the Statute of Westminster Act gave Canada, among other colonies included, full autonomy from Britain, to enact international laws. So Britain was involved in Canada's foreign affairs until 1931.

http://www.statusquo.org/WestminsterAct.html


This is a quote from you.
Onthe outside-

What do you mean by this scrambled logic?

If you have any sources that are accurate about any of your statements, bring it on. Don't just say things without some verification just to argue. Opinions don't count. Truth is the name of this site.

Hey Do.g's, I know I may be splitting hair's here, but hasn't the basis of this country since the mayflower first came to this country been a forieng
Entanglement? At what point does it become a foreign entanglement?
Is a foreign entanglement not anytime you attempt to forcibly or passively take or control an area which you originally have no control of?
Just because the land taken was a part of what we now know as the continental United States was part of the continent, does this mean that it would not be considered a foreign entanglement?


I may be wrong in this line of thinking. I'm just curious.

CrimsonEagle

Again America was newly named. Could have been just as easily named Vespuciland. No it was just a colony and not the America after the revolution. We are talking modern American imperialism. You're not even splitting hairs here. It was a pristene environment, with a primitive culture ripe for the picking from the downtrodden oppressed of Europe who needed room to grow out of the dark ages. If you research the areas they came from and existence of the common people at that time you may understand why they were so hellbent on acquiring land and a chance at property ownership. It was said that the only hope a serf had in the old country was to turn over a pot of gold while harrowing the fields of his lord. Then he better keep it a secret or lose it.

What Parenti was talking about was USA imperialism, not colonisation and acquisition. Even today America looks to the far east as a place for cheap labour and a dumping spot for dometic goods.

Foreign entanglement wasn't a term used in the 13th or 14th century, it was a right of kings and a privilege given by papal edicts or bulls.

Remember, it's you guys that want to condemn and shoot the messenger? I didn't intend to go back in history to the guy who first threw a rock at someone else to steal his home and a scrap of food he had. That this is our philosophy of conquest as played out over and over again is to gingerly sidestep what Parenti is trying to say about our reasons for so called 'legitimate' foreign incursions. Iraq is an example of a so called 'legitimate' foreign incursion for purposes other than stated. The conquest of Texas (Mexico's borders receded drastically when the US acquired about half of Mexico by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on Feb 2, 1848.)and California were incursions on a sovereign country, Mexico, but not foreign ones. They were domestic ones and they were made under false pretenses and jingoisms that also enlisted public support. Hope you now understand the slight nuances between foreign and domestic incursions.

This is what was said as a prelude to Michael Parentis lecture.


Do Americans always do this to somehow avoid culpability as to their true intent? Seems blame shifting is a fairly common excuse for actions taken and cover ups the world over, but America is the best at obfuscation and deceptive tactics as most of the 1950'ws in South American countries proves.

I have done nothing but to give a point of reference from someone elses lecture as to when USA, also known as America, started to be a foreign imperialist. Is it that hard to understand? It is merely a starting point that even I can see and easily defend. Can you people not see it and understand it? Don't blame me. Check out the timelines and Parenti's credentials and ask him why he thinks this. Unfortunately he isn't here to defenf d why he chose these incidents as points of locus, so I will try to calm you people down.

What happened in the 15th and 16th centuries were foreign incursions but can not be blamed on Americans. They weren't Americans yet. just murdering hordes of colonisers from foreign lands.

The French under Napoleon 111 were a foreign incursion into Mexico, after Silver, from 1862- 1864, while America fought the civil war, but pulled out in 1867, with the help of Britain and Spain, who pulled out with Napoleon, leaving Maximilian to be dealt with by the President Juarez and Pancho Villa saga.

If CrimsonEagle you wish to go into the saga of the early settlers and their colonising conquest of the Indians in America, we can start a new thread about that. Now go back and listen to the lecture and understand better the connection between the Phillipines and the Cuban incursion. Hear the uncanny parallels with our modern incursions and be amazed how little has changed since Fred first hit Barney on the head with a whacking stick and stole his wife and home.

It seems that an apology is in order. Yes, I do see the difference between the two. I jumped to a conclusion without fully listening or reading everything which was given. In some cases it does no good just to browse information. Seems that at times even I am guilty of things which I blame others of doing. That would be making statements without being fully informed. This is something I will have to pay attention to, and attempt to keep in check, no matter how tempted I may be.




Even though the question I asked was uninformed, I was not blaming you.
I was trying to understand what you were saying, and bringing up a point, which I now see was nowhere near what you were talking about. Yes, I was wrong in my assumption, but please don't think that I was blaming you for anything.



No need of that:) Though someday perhaps.

I read in a book somewhere that "history is always told by the visions of the victors. The defeated would surely tell a different story." Yes, this does mean that much of the true history is hidden from us. This makes it a bit harder to learn from history also. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

CrimsonEagle

Wow, imagine that! A Canadian teaching American History to Americans.

Meanwhile, I wonder if NAFTA is still screwing Candians as bad as it was a year ago, when they had the huge rally in Sask over the loss of family farms and the infiltration of GM strains into local crops. Canada seems to have plenty of troubles of it own.

As to American Imperialism, and intervention, since Babylon every country has ben involved in militaristic intervention to protect its interests at home and abroad. The Egyptians captured most of the known world in something like 2000 BC, and if they didn't outright over run you, you were allied closely to them, militaristicly.

If I am not mistaken, the original inhabitants of the British Isles are now extinct, having been over run by several cultures. England and France have a colorful history that extends back to the Dark Ages. Even little innocent Belgium has some rather dirty pages in it's history books.

The Japanese Aboriginal, once widespread thru the islands, now exists on only one small island, and is near extinction.

America began protecting its interests before the revolution even began. Franklin's trips to Paris are an example.

Politically, America is no worse than any other country in this regard, and the problem is really one of ALL HUMANS deciding that violence isn't ever an answer, that wars are needless, that there are other alternatives. Until then, countries will ally and oppose according to their own interests, or their perception of their interests.

While this certainly doesn't excuse America's behavior, it does make important the idea that IF we want to survive as a species, we need to see that some issues are not *national* and some enemies belong not to any one country, but are common to all (sane and rational) humans.

Seeing America's Imperialism requires a broad view, and IMHO, requires us to look at the phenomenon in terms of TWO different countries. The first is The United States of America, which had a life span from 1770's till the 1860's, and the second is America, 1860 until today.

Understanding the pivotal, and important, shift in US politics and agendas in the 1860's lies at the center of our current Imperialism, if that is what you want to call it.

I think, if you want to look at the roots of the Neo-con movement, and the agenda of Pax Americana, you should investigate the issues that surrounded the Railroad growth in the middle of the 19th century. This was probably the *opening salvo* of Pax Americana. This same agenda has become the very centerpiece of American foreign policy ever since.

This is not to say that the seeds weren't planted before this, but I think it was this particualr war, I call it the Railroad War, that changed America, the world, the nature of war and the part it would begin to play in society.

I would add that IMHO the Railroad War was one the US lost, big time. We were defeated as throughly as the Nazi would be a century later.

The *generals* in the Railroad Wars are still around, or the dynasties they founded are still around, and still very much on power in the US.

[quote="Alkemi"]Wow, imagine that! A Canadian teaching American History to Americans.


Someone has to, Hollywood fucked yours up so bad.

WMD's- the blankets given out free to the native Americans were from the corpses of measle victims. Conquest of the west by using bio-terrorism.

Now instead of blankets, use cruise missles.

No doubt! American History (as it is currently erm *taught*) is a mythology that rivals any of the Ancient Civilizations.

A list of atrocities can be constructed for any nationality, any culture, any society. It seems a bit narrow visioned to say the slaughter of the Natives in the Americas (by the Spanish, French, English, and Americans, with probobly no small amount of help from a lot of other European Countries) was any different from the British atrocties in India and China, or the Viking raids, or the cattle raids of the ancient celts, or........

The sad fact is America needn't look back to history to find attrocities, we have them right in front of us, and a lovely little garden it is. Genocide, DU, Napalm and Chemical Warfare against civilians, illegal imprisonment of non-combatants, Torture. Oh, these are just the WAR CRIMES. We have a whole set of atrocities that are more social, not strictly against any treaty, too.

Nor are we alone in being a country CURRENTLY committing atrocities. France is going to have to consider at least fraticide soon, if not genocide. England, well we won't go there, see above. Israel has to be in the top 10. Africa. Yep, Nasty place. Central and South America, umm. It's ugly, very ugly. China, Japan, Australia, Russia and the various old Soviet countries. Not exactly leading the poll for *kinder, gentler nation* Did I leave anyone out? Probably, but let's give em a hand, anyway, all those little countries where atrocities don't make the news, but are committed all the same!

We should go back to blankets, I think. Except this time lets use nice clean ones. I am sure a lot of people the Neo-cons are currently murdering would welcome a blanket, since we managed to destroy their houses with aforementioned cruise missles.

Hate is a personal issue. Nations just take advantage of it. From what I have seen, even the *liberals* have a fairly complete hate list of people that would be on the receiving end of an atrocity or two.

The fact is the cruise missles haven't gotten anyone anywhere. We have mired ourselves into an endless war of attrition with a huge civilian population. We have little to lose, actually, with the blanket strategy.

Yes Alk, the blanket strategy was perfect. They were standard issue for the Indians by the military to keep them warm. They also had the fringe benefit of killing the person when he used it. What a kind gentler way to mercifully do them in, slowly and painfully. Effective all right. They did do it in Canada too, as the Jesuit priests gave them with love and Jebus to the unsuspecting natives. Biological warfare is an acceptable form of mass murder.

One of the problems with comparing atrocities is that when you look at the North American Indian atrocity, they were wiped out to 95%+, of their population. I don't think one can actually compare the completeness of this devastation to a civilization. It has been said that the loss of 10% of a population causes severe trauma for generations. Imagine the devastation that whole family loss would cause, where only a few mwmbers of some families survived.

General Sheridan said that in order to get to the root of the problem "We must exterminate Indian men, women and children." That's what he said. And later on, in order to help bring about the extermination, the word was put out by the military to kill off all the buffalo, to encourage the slaughter of the buffalo at every turn. Thus by eliminating their food source, they could be more easily controlled. This was a total act of genocide, for by that time the Indians were severely decimated by disease and war, so were already reeling.

The "white man" diseases…measles, chicken pox, typhus, typhoid fever, dysentery, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and after 1832, cholera- were devastating to the American Indian. Lumped together, these diseases did not equal the havoc of smallpox in terms of number of deaths, realignment of tribal alliances, and subsequent changes in Canadian and American Indian Cultures.

Prior to the arrival of Europeans, various sources estimate native population in North and South America at ninety to one hundred million. In the fifteen hundreds, the American Indian population in North America has been estimated at approximately twelve million, but by the early nineteen hundreds, the population had been reduced to roughly four hundred and seventy-four thousand. It is impossible to arrive at a number for the millions of American Indians killed during this period by European diseases with smallpox the deadliest by far. By 1907, there were less than four hundred thousand (Bray). This decline was not due to smallpox alone. Other diseases played a role, as did intertribal warfare and conflicts with the United States.

It was inevitable that when Europeans came to America that European diseases were going to run rampant through the indigenous populations of the Americas. The native populations of North and South America had no immunities, or genetic tolerance, to any of the European diseases, and not all white Americans had immunities to them either. There is a common misconception that syphilis spread from Native Americans to Europeans. This is not true. Like every other disease, Europeans brought syphilis to America.

Before the arrival of the white man, the Plains Indians as primarily hunter-gatherers were free of communicable diseases.

Smallpox passes through the air in droplets discharged from the nose and mouth. It spreads from the lungs of an infected person into the lungs of a susceptible person. Smallpox can survive years on the clothing and bedding used by smallpox victims. In the early seventeen hundreds, a smallpox outbreak in Quebec resulted in many deaths. In 1854, a pipeline laid through where the victims had been buried resulted in another smallpox outbreak.

Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse introduced vaccination to the United States in 1800. Due to contamination and lack of preservation, the vaccines were often infected with bacteria, which sometimes resulted in sickness or death.

Historians and many others have asked, “Why weren't the Indians vaccinated against smallpox?” In 1832, Congress appropriated twelve hundred dollars to begin the fight against smallpox in Indian country. One year later, actual expenditures were down to seven hundred and twenty-one dollars. Based on this, there are those that believe the Government deliberately withheld smallpox vaccine from Native Americans, and thus committed Indian Genocide. If this is what you believe, consider this- why is there a controversy raging today over the safety of vaccinating large numbers of Americans with the smallpox virus. With a perceived danger from vaccination based on today's medical technology, what would have been the danger in the early eighteen hundreds to vaccinating American Indians that had no immunity to European diseases?

Smallpox vaccination of the Native Americans could have had disastrous results. What would have been the results of smallpox vaccination on the Native American Indians that had no immunity to European diseases, or to the domesticated animals of the Europeans? The cowpox virus could have been as deadly to Native Americans as the smallpox virus.

To understand the problems associated with any vaccination program in the eighteen hundreds, the efficacy of the vaccine and the dangers of introducing other diseases must be considered. Completely unknown at that time were such health safeguards as sterile procedures, sterile instruments, sterile vaccine, refrigeration, attenuated viruses, overnight transportation, etc, etc. During the eighteen hundreds, a great many Americans feared vaccination more than they did the risk of catching smallpox.

Lack of funding a smallpox vaccination program and the Amherst letters have been taken by some writers and organizations to justify a cry of Indian Genocide - iwchildren.org. How many Native American Indians, with a well-founded distrust for the white man, were going to have their arms scratched with something out of a bottle that had previously wiped out entire Indian villages? If the Indian Nations had been vaccinated with the cowpox virus, the ensuing death loss among Native Americans would have raised a hue and cry across the land- then the cry, and rightly so, would have been the Government is committing genocide by vaccinating Indians with the cowpox virus.

Seems like the government was caught in a conundrum of choice- damned if they do, damned if they don't. So they chose the latter as a final solution.

Seems it was inevitable. But secretly perhaps, planned as well.

A footnote. Today on Democracy Now they had an interesting article on the flu pandemic and Smallpox.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 10/1527211

A new article in The Nation magazine written by Jeremy Scahill raises major questions about the nation's preparedness to handle a flu pandemic or bioterror attack.

The article examines how a Republican operative named Stewart Simonson who had no public health management or medical expertise was put in charge of the Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness.

The article also raises questions about whether the Bush administration exaggerated the threat of a bioterror or smallpox attack three years ago in an effort to win greater support for the Iraq war. It was a battle that would pit Vice President Dick Cheney and his now-indicted chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby against a team of public health experts at the Department of Health and Human Services.

This article also tells us who will benefit financially from its threatened or real reintroduction.

I know this has little to do with American Imperialism and Foreign Entanglements but it is an answer to some questions I hope about the Indian genocide and European diseases.

I think we can all agree that Foreign involvement in others affairs seems to have begun in the late 1800's as Alkemi stated.

Alk-

Certainly the Civil War era was a turning point in American domestic and foreign policies. With slavery out of the limelight, they were free to impress the world with their "fair equal" approach. Perhaps this was why they looked to open other markets to do their industry and trade. What with no more cheap slave labor in America....... on to Part 3- The Functions of Fascism