Turn on thread page Beta

Pentagon - New Africa Command watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    It was established by the "American Colonization Society" in 1821 with the support of then President Monroe and funded by the US Congress. It settled American 'citizens' (loosely defined - but consider the similarity between persecuted puritans in UK colonizing US) in non-US territory in Africa and governed it directly until independence in the late 1840s. Liberia's capital was named after the chief exponent of this colonialistic venture: Monrovia.

    You can't just deny that it was a colony because it's easier to apply an arbitrary definition. It was a de facto colony, by anybody's standard, for at least those years between establishment and independence.
    It was no more a colony than any of the 37 states that joined the Union after the first 13. All of them were settled by people from former states, and were allowed to join the Union (in this case, to gain independence) once they reached a sufficient population level.

    (Original post by Cage)
    But they are commonly used political terms with obvious meanings, you're just pressing her with irritating questions to make her argument seem less legitimate. Why not offer some rebuttal instead of asking her to explain every tiny detail?
    Their meanings aren't obvious. They're common terms, but there's constant fighting between people who use them because everyone means different things by them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    It was no more a colony than any of the 37 states that joined the Union after the first 13. All of them were settled by people from former states, and were allowed to join the Union (in this case, to gain independence) once they reached a sufficient population level.
    I see no problem in calling a territory which US citizens colonised a colony, prior to its admission to the United States, no matter where it is located. Thereafter, of course, its accession to the Union invalidates this title just as one might consider the 1800 Act of Union as ending Ireland's status as a British colony.

    Conflating the two separate statuses of territory - that of settled but unincorporated into the colonising nation & that of settled and incorporated - is why your statement about the 37 states being unlike colonies seems valid. Nowadays it does, but contemporarily I think the similarity between pre-independence Liberia & pre-accession 'states' holds.

    As an aside - are there precise population criteria for accession to the United States? I've briefly looked, but can't see anything.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    I see no problem in calling a territory which US citizens colonised a colony, prior to its admission to the United States, no matter where it is located. Thereafter, of course, its accession to the Union invalidates this title just as one might consider the 1800 Act of Union as ending Ireland's status as a British colony.

    Conflating the two separate statuses of territory - that of settled but unincorporated into the colonising nation & that of settled and incorporated - is why your statement about the 37 states being unlike colonies seems valid. Nowadays it does, but contemporarily I think the similarity between pre-independence Liberia & pre-accession 'states' holds.

    As an aside - are there precise population criteria for accession to the United States? I've briefly looked, but can't see anything.
    I think the difference is that the US didn't directly administrate these territories. Laws were made and enforced locally. Even things like slavery and polygamy could have been prevented only when the territories applied for statehood.

    There was a population threshold. It varied on the time period (more was required as the US population grew). According to this, for example, the threshold for Wisconsin was 60,000. The people in the territory also had to accept the US Constitution and everything that entailed. Note that they didn't have to abide by the Constitution prior to joining the Union.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Removing any emotive content from the word, aren't those very similar to the arguments advanced for nineteenth century imperialism & the scramble for Africa?
    1. Spread our values to 'less developed' cultures.
    2. In our economic interest.
    3. To avoid other powers acquiring hegemony in a region.
    Yes. They are exactly the same, and for a very obvious reason: namely that it makes very good sense to do so.
    Monroe or Truman Doctrine? The latter seems to fit better with the creation of a direct command or a US funded indigenous organisation for containment, as with NATO or the other ATOs.
    Er, I thought I meant Monroe - the application in question being the insistence that no foreign power/empire would have more influence over South America than the US. The Truman Doctrine was the name given to the primary financial method of effecting a similar thing in the wreckage of Europe, wasn't it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    The Truman Doctrine was the name given to the primary financial method of effecting a similar thing in the wreckage of Europe, wasn't it?
    The Truman Doctrine said that communism is an existential threat, and therefore the US will support any country that is threatened by communism. This type of rhetoric was used to coax Congress into providing support for Greece and Turkey (key American allies in NATO). But the law of unintended consequences reared its ugly head and this "doctrine" was later taken at face value.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I think the difference is that the US didn't directly administrate these territories. Laws were made and enforced locally. Even things like slavery and polygamy could have been prevented only when the territories applied for statehood.
    More like a dominion, then (in the mould of Australia, Canada etc)? I have no stance on this, as I've not the knowledge to intelligently have a stance, i'm just trying to work out what you'd call it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    More like a dominion, then (in the mould of Australia, Canada etc)? I have no stance on this, as I've not the knowledge to intelligently have a stance, i'm just trying to work out what you'd call it.
    Dominion status was given to a colony after it reached a certain level of development. Here it's the opposite. The territories were given a certain status until they reached a certain level of development.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Dominion status was given to a colony after it reached a certain level of development. Here it's the opposite. The territories were given a certain status until they reached a certain level of development.
    right, but in political terms - Like Australia could make its own laws, etc, but its foreign policy was aligned to ours.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For the record: I don't actually know what my opinion on this subject is, so I'm not actually making an argument.

    As for the neo-colonialism thing, I think American military presence could easily be interpreted as neo-colonial. Perhaps it's all of my social science studies, but "neo" is used to qualify something that is similar to a previous practice or theory, but differs because of a different modern environment. Hence, the fact that colonialism as it was practiced is totally taboo now, neo-colonialism could be used to describe actions taken by powerful countries to place its citizens (in this case, military personnel) in a weaker country, with the primary aim being the benefit of the powerful one. Any benefit to the host country would be incidental.

    OK...that's my definition and I'm sticking to it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    As for the neo-colonialism thing, I think American military presence could easily be interpreted as neo-colonial. Perhaps it's all of my social science studies, but "neo" is used to qualify something that is similar to a previous practice or theory, but differs because of a different modern environment. Hence, the fact that colonialism as it was practiced is totally taboo now, neo-colonialism could be used to describe actions taken by powerful countries to place its citizens (in this case, military personnel) in a weaker country, with the primary aim being the benefit of the powerful one. Any benefit to the host country would be incidental.
    Colonialism isn't just 'placing' citizens somewhere - it's settling them there, which I think implies civilian colonizers. Eg. the expulsion of ethnic Poles in the Warthegau (region of hitherto western Poland) during WWII by the military personnel wasn't a colonization process. It was only when ethnic German citizens were settled there that it became colonized. I can't think of a better example to demarcate between occupation and colonisation off the top of my head.

    I doubt that the US plans to settle many American citizens in Africa or the Middle East.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Several of the British colonies in Africa didn't have settlers: Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, for example. They used to refer to West Africa as "the white man's grave" because any attempts at settlement ended in malaria or other tropical diseases.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    For the record: I don't actually know what my opinion on this subject is, so I'm not actually making an argument.

    As for the neo-colonialism thing, I think American military presence could easily be interpreted as neo-colonial. Perhaps it's all of my social science studies, but "neo" is used to qualify something that is similar to a previous practice or theory, but differs because of a different modern environment. Hence, the fact that colonialism as it was practiced is totally taboo now, neo-colonialism could be used to describe actions taken by powerful countries to place its citizens (in this case, military personnel) in a weaker country, with the primary aim being the benefit of the powerful one. Any benefit to the host country would be incidental.

    OK...that's my definition and I'm sticking to it.
    You don't really see the flaw in that argument? The US has troops in Germany, Britain, Japan, South Korea, etc. Is that neocolonialism? The US sends a huge amount of money in investment and trade with Europe. Is that neocolonialism? The US has a huge trade deficit with China and Japan. Are those countries being neocolonialist to the US?

    (Original post by shady lane)
    Several of the British colonies in Africa didn't have settlers: Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, for example. They used to refer to West Africa as "the white man's grave" because any attempts at settlement ended in malaria or other tropical diseases.
    That's called imperialism. Colonialism is just one type of imperialism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    Several of the British colonies in Africa didn't have settlers: Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, for example. They used to refer to West Africa as "the white man's grave" because any attempts at settlement ended in malaria or other tropical diseases.
    Pedantatically - can an area that is not colonized by colonizers be called a colony? It would seem that the sort of indirect rule through local magnates is more like a protectorate - like Albania was to Italy under Mussolini.

    As for Nigeria and Tanzania, there was a East India-style chartered Niger Company established by Brits, and Tanzania - until after the First World War - was Germany, not British. Surely the spoils from WWI, like in Palestine, were granted in order that the remaining imperial nations could gradually oversee transition to local rule. They therefore weren't colonised in that sense.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.