U.S. releaves Spain & Britain from Imperial duties

[R_P_A_S]

I don't get it... I was reading and it seems that by the 1880's The United States had started claiming territories around the caribbean. some of this were taken from Spain and Britain. for example.. Puerto Rico. I even read that this was the case with Cuba, Philippines and even Guam.

How did this happen? or I just dont get how the United States emerge so fast and started heading towards an empire like status... Spain and Britain seem to be the top bullies in the region. how did the U.S. step in and took it over?

FOR EXAMPLE. how come Mexico, or Brazil. Chile, Argentina? why didn't this guys become that? you guys get what I'm saying? I don't quite get how the U.S. manage to get to be "the powerful one" and why the others are soooooo sooooo far behind. except for Canada?

KEEP IN MIND.. that I'm not saying that it would had been better if Mexico or Brazil were the imperialist. I'm just saying.. how is it the the U.S. "beat them to it"

?????

[Thíazì]

World War I had a lot to do with it. It seems that after being on the winning side of this war, the U.S. got cocky, decided to act like its allies — Britain and France — and starting claiming things for themselves.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

At that time, European countries had empires.

An empire is a closed off market, which the ruler country has sole trading rights.

So, like India, which was one of Britain's countries, would be a market the US couldn't trade with. No matter how much India or US wanted to trade with each other.

So, as a growing Capitalist power, and a country that was to a large extend isolationist towards Europe, it had to secure its own Empire or at least closed off markets.

It was probably able to do it because, by 1880, i think the US had a Naval Fleet as large as Great Britain and that was primarily how the western nations were able to control territory.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:44 pm
At that time, European countries had empires.

An empire is a closed off market, which the ruler country has sole trading rights.

So, like India, which was one of Britain's countries, would be a market the US couldn't trade with. No matter how much India or US wanted to trade with each other.

So, as a growing Capitalist power, and a country that was to a large extend isolationist towards Europe, it had to secure its own Empire or at least closed off markets.

It was probably able to do it because, by 1880, i think the US had a Naval Fleet as large as Great Britain and that was primarily how the western nations were able to control territory.
it makes perfect sense!. BUT what about this.. Why the U.S? how is it the the U.S. reserve this rights of an Elite country so fast? How is it that it was a major player in World affairs liek Wars and such.. while Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Gran Colombia etc. etc. were just like automatically the second class countries it seems like...

why didnt those guys fight it out too? it seems like they just were sitting there "being peasants" why the U.S. was capitalizing on their backyard and around the world...

how is that the U.S. afford to go to war and win? being such a new country.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:01 pm
it makes perfect sense!. BUT what about this.. Why the U.S? how is it the the U.S. reserve this rights of an Elite country so fast? How is it that it was a major player in World affairs liek Wars and such.. while Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Gran Colombia etc. etc. were just like automatically the second class countries it seems like...

why didnt those guys fight it out too? it seems like they just were sitting there "being peasants" why the U.S. was capitalizing on their backyard and around the world...

how is that the U.S. afford to go to war and win? being such a new country.
By 1898, the U.S. was pretty strongly industrialized. There was a big economic boom, lots of industry and railways built, after the Civil War. The U.S. had a large enough economy to build a powerful navy and easily beat a declining, decaying power like Spain.

Advantages over Latin America? The U.S. got its independence earlier. It had a fairly thorough revolution, not much landlordism left. Then it had another revolution and got rid of slavery in the Civil War. Capitalism had a clean start, relatively.

The U.S. adopted protectionist economic policies to encourage the growth of industry by keeping out British competition. In contrast, a lot of Latin American countries (like Argentina) were under British financial domination.

The U.S. was also an attractive place for immigration from Europe - so was Argentina, but a lot of Latin American countries had tropical diseases which were very deadly for Europeans. So the U.S. got a growing labor force that way, often already experienced in manufacturing.

That's a few of the factors involved, anyway. There are probably others. It's not so simple to figure out why some countries became advanced capitalist societies coming out of the 19th century and some others not. At least, it wasn't always obvious to people in the 19th century that say, Japan was on its way there and Argentina wasn't.

[Guerrilla22]

The US took control of the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Guam and Cuba from Spain after the Spanish-American War. The uS actually purchased them, but I can't remmeber for how much. Anyways, Cuba was allowed to have its own government but was administered by the US government (puppet Regime).

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Severian+February 25, 2007 12:23 am--> (Severian @ February 25, 2007 12:23 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 04:01 pm
it makes perfect sense!. BUT what about this.. Why the U.S? how is it the the U.S. reserve this rights of an Elite country so fast? How is it that it was a major player in World affairs liek Wars and such.. while Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Gran Colombia etc. etc. were just like automatically the second class countries it seems like...

why didnt those guys fight it out too? it seems like they just were sitting there "being peasants" why the U.S. was capitalizing on their backyard and around the world...

how is that the U.S. afford to go to war and win? being such a new country.
By 1898, the U.S. was pretty strongly industrialized. There was a big economic boom, lots of industry and railways built, after the Civil War. The U.S. had a large enough economy to build a powerful navy and easily beat a declining, decaying power like Spain.

Advantages over Latin America? The U.S. got its independence earlier. It had a fairly thorough revolution, not much landlordism left. Then it had another revolution and got rid of slavery in the Civil War. Capitalism had a clean start, relatively.

The U.S. adopted protectionist economic policies to encourage the growth of industry by keeping out British competition. In contrast, a lot of Latin American countries (like Argentina) were under British financial domination.

The U.S. was also an attractive place for immigration from Europe - so was Argentina, but a lot of Latin American countries had tropical diseases which were very deadly for Europeans. So the U.S. got a growing labor force that way, often already experienced in manufacturing.

That's a few of the factors involved, anyway. There are probably others. It's not so simple to figure out why some countries became advanced capitalist societies coming out of the 19th century and some others not. At least, it wasn't always obvious to people in the 19th century that say, Japan was on its way there and Argentina wasn't. [/b]
ok here are my other questions.

what men were responsible for this? who can you pin point? that was an American(s) and said. "ok we need to do this like this and like that. we need to get moving and what not"

who were the mayor players in the U.S. path to power early on in the 19th century and maybe early centuries.

here is an other question...

White Europeans (British, Spaniards, Portuguese, etc) colonized The Americas.. how come the U.S. was the only one that had a revolution by... white people. and not like a mixed race like in Mexico and other Latin American countries.

It seems that in Latin America the races mixed. while in the U.S. they looked just liked the British.

[The Bitter Hippy]

The USA was able to create an empire because it was an early colony that broke away. This is important because the whole concept of a colony changed dramatically as the age of imperialism dragged on.

bloody_capitalist_sham was right in his description of a colony, but this only really came into play after the huge increases in output of industry over the 19th century. the USA broke away before the industrial revolution began in earnest, when a colony was a source of resources, population, production and taxation.

The shifting patterns of manufacture and trade over the period 1793-1860 meant that a native market for output became far more important than a centre of production. The USA was able to avoid this form of economic exploitation because it was almost fully-developed as a nation by 1776, and able to throw off the british yoke.

As severian said, the USA had few of the traditions that inhibited capitalism as it started off, and the pioneer attitude combined with puritanism hanging on from the founding of the USA created the perfect climate for 19th century development.

It was also uniquely gifted by geo-politics. North America has all of the necessary resources for industrial revolution, and most importantly it was totally isolated from the various Great Power wars that characterised the 18th century, which allowed it to steadily grow and expand west, while all the other nations were bankrupting themselves, depleting their populations, and generally screwing things up.

The american accumulation of colonies in the late 19th century was of little economic significance, and was more a part of the great european land-grab than anything else. What was far more significant was the huge change in population, industrialization levels, steel output, and share in world manufacturing that took place as the USA moved from a backwater into being (economically) the foremost Great Power.

and hidden in there is the answer to the question, as far as my meagre brain stretches to. i hope it helps, and sorry for the overkill on post-age.



ok, further to RPAS's latest post.

The revolution in america was white-dominated because of the reasons for colonization. The natives, in the 1770s, were an annoyance to be exterminated as opposed to a workforce/market to be exploited, as the other colonial natives were later on.

I'm not big on individual players in american history, but the rise of industry can more be attributed to the bourgeios class than any one person. Sure, there were 'captains of industry', or the like, but every sweat-shop owner played his part.

[Phalanx]

what men were responsible for this? who can you pin point? that was an American(s) and said. "ok we need to do this like this and like that. we need to get moving and what not"

Theodore Roosevelt played a large role in bringing America to the forefront of Imperialist powers. After itching to go to war with Spain, he 'persuaded' Panama to declare independence from Colombia and begin the Panama canal. The Monroe Doctrine was a large part in America's imperialist adventures in Latin America.


The revolution in america was white-dominated because of the reasons for colonization. The natives, in the 1770s, were an annoyance to be exterminated as opposed to a workforce/market to be exploited, as the other colonial natives were later on.

In Mexico as well the indigenous population was treated similar, but they still managed to break free from white rule at several points in history. The reason whites in America had a more solid hand was because the system was much more rigid. Slaveowners tried their utmost to prevent slaves from getting weapons, otherwise events like the Nat Turner rebellion would occur. In Mexico I don't think the authorities had as much power as they'd like. Weapons were more readily avaliable to the average Mexican than the average slave in America.

[The Bitter Hippy]

well this demonstrates my point. There were still large amounts of mexicans left to rise up. Not the case in the USA.

The genocidal war fought by the settlers in the USA stopped the native americans taking over.

Conversely, in mexico the native population was allowed to live and exploited as labour by the spaniards. This sort of blatant exploitation incited the inevitable rebellions.

The british were not stupid enough to try to impose their own rule over the native americans and westernize them on a large scale. Instead they just began colonies of british people. Whilst it was not as profitable as the silver-mines of peru, or the plentiful gold in central america, it had the advantage (for the USA) that it founded a cohesive nation-state.

It comes back down to the objectives of colonialization: The british wanted a resource pool and more sources of revenue. The spanish wanted cheap labour to grow their cash-crops and mine their silver. The spaniards needed locals in terrible conditions, the british needed there to be no locals.

[R_P_A_S]

damn.. you guys fucking kick ass! where can i read more? lol tell me more!!

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Bitter [email protected] 24, 2007 08:37 pm
well this demonstrates my point. There were still large amounts of mexicans left to rise up. Not the case in the USA.

The genocidal war fought by the settlers in the USA stopped the native americans taking over.

Conversely, in mexico the native population was allowed to live and exploited as labour by the spaniards. This sort of blatant exploitation incited the inevitable rebellions.
There was a much larger native population in Mexico and Peru to start with. Highly developed agriculture, while parts of North America before Columbus weren't agricultural at all, and other parts had less intensive agriculture than the valley of Mexico.

So the post-colonization society had a large indigenous or mestizo workforce.

In Argentina, and parts of Brazil, there was not much of a native population left either; mostly white settlers or Black slaves - more Black slaves in the more tropical or semitropical regions. (Tropical disease again.)

But the Brits were more capitalist and had more surplus-population to export to colonies, yeah. The French were actually the colonial power that was the least interested in settling and the easiest on the Indians (in North America anyway) - for some reason French peasants never were that interested in emigrating in large numbers.


I'm not big on individual players in american history, but the rise of industry can more be attributed to the bourgeios class than any one person.

I agree. If you do want to read up on some individual politicians, RPAS, one interesting one is Alexander Hamilton. He had a very conscious goal of encouraging manufacturing and the growth of an industrial bourgeoisie. This was right after the founding of the U.S., when there was little manufacturing. Jefferson had the opposite idea.

Most northern politicians of the 19th century were big on tariffs to encourage industrial growth; most southern politicians opposed them - since the slaveowning class benefited from free trade with England, and had no interest in manufacturing.

With exceptions like Andrew Jackson, a southern supporter of tariffs. If you look at the 1830s Nullification Crisis, it's like a preview of the Civil War, but about trade policy.

I recommend "America's Revolutionary Heritage" by George Novack as one good place to start on a class understanding of U.S. history.

[R_P_A_S]

man.. you guys know your shit. thanks a lot... I just want to understand the root of the problem. where, how, and who...

so the guy on the 10 dollars Bill was a big time cappie huh?

[Severian]

Yeah, and progressive for his time. Especially compared to Jefferson, who as president represented the slaveowners.

[The Bitter Hippy]

best *ever* book for global economic/political/diplomatic/power history is "the rise and fall of the great powers 1500-2000", by Paul Kennedy. It's detailed an in-depth, but also readable and accessable. It gives a pretty comprehensive treatment of international power-plays and the reasons why each nation did what it did, and why it worked or failed in the modern era.

i'm not quite finished it yet, but it definitely is gripping. If you see it, get it!.

[Phalanx]

It comes back down to the objectives of colonialization: The british wanted a resource pool and more sources of revenue. The spanish wanted cheap labour to grow their cash-crops and mine their silver. The spaniards needed locals in terrible conditions, the british needed there to be no locals

Actually both had very similar objectives: take as much of the natural resources as possible back to England and Spain. England wanted timber and tobacco, while Spain favored gold and other agricultural goods.

Both wanted cheap labor, but England had to import it from Africa because after enslaving Native Americans, many had died from diseases. Because there was a much larger population in Mexico, more survived.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 26, 2007 01:42 am

It comes back down to the objectives of colonialization: The british wanted a resource pool and more sources of revenue. The spanish wanted cheap labour to grow their cash-crops and mine their silver. The spaniards needed locals in terrible conditions, the british needed there to be no locals

Actually both had very similar objectives: take as much of the natural resources as possible back to England and Spain. England wanted timber and tobacco, while Spain favored gold and other agricultural goods.

Both wanted cheap labor, but England had to import it from Africa because after enslaving Native Americans, many had died from diseases. Because there was a much larger population in Mexico, more survived.
hmm. so is that why there's no blacks in mexico? no need for slaves since there was a large indigenous population? how come the spaniards didn't feel the need to enslave them?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:00 pm
hmm. so is that why there's no blacks in mexico? no need for slaves since there was a large indigenous population? how come the spaniards didn't feel the need to enslave them?
As I understand it, the native population of Mexico were made peons (peones); something like serfs. The Spanish were used to feudalism; plus it probably worked better for subjecting a native population. Black slaves coming off the ships were ready to be sold as chattel slaves.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Severian+February 26, 2007 02:04 am--> (Severian @ February 26, 2007 02:04 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 08:00 pm
hmm. so is that why there's no blacks in mexico? no need for slaves since there was a large indigenous population? how come the spaniards didn't feel the need to enslave them?
As I understand it, the native population of Mexico were made peons (peones); something like serfs. The Spanish were used to feudalism; plus it probably worked better for subjecting a native population. Black slaves coming off the ships were ready to be sold as chattel slaves. [/b]
so the british and spaniards had two total different systems? and they both applied them to their new colonies?

[Phalanx]

hmm. so is that why there's no blacks in mexico? no need for slaves since there was a large indigenous population? how come the spaniards didn't feel the need to enslave them?

Actually, the Spaniards did enslave the indigenous population. Tupac Amaru lead a slave uprising against the Spanish in Lima.


so the british and spaniards had two total different systems? and they both applied them to their new colonies?

They were actually very similar. The English just had to import their slaves, while the Spaniards took them from the indigenous population.

[BreadBros]

At that time, European countries had empires.

An empire is a closed off market, which the ruler country has sole trading rights.

Thats not entirely true. The Spanish Empire, for one, did grant free trade rights to some of its colonies. In the ones where it did not, it generally became a pretty big issue in independence/liberation struggles.


So, as a growing Capitalist power, and a country that was to a large extend isolationist towards Europe, it had to secure its own Empire or at least closed off markets.

Thats not true! There is a considerable seperation between the type of colonization the European powers led and the type of imperialism the US created over Latin America. RPAS, if you want to understand American expansionism/imperialism in the late 1800s, especially in relation to Latin America, then you should read about two important documents: the Monroe Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine) and the Roosevelt Corollary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary). Basically, the US framed its role in Latin America as an anti-imperialist one. The Monroe Doctrine states that the US will defend Latin America from any European interference (such as attempting to re-establish them as colonies) and will defend their right to free trade (which is why bloody capitalist sham's comment is wrong and misleading in trying to understand this period). The Roosevelt Corollary states that the US has the right to enforce the Monroe Doctrine by intervening in Latin American affairs if it must. As you can probably tell, this only led to the US becoming the dominant imperialist power over the Americas, albeit in a way very significantly different from the European colonial model.



what men were responsible for this? who can you pin point? that was an American(s) and said. "ok we need to do this like this and like that. we need to get moving and what not"

who were the mayor players in the U.S. path to power early on in the 19th century and maybe early centuries.

No group of individuals is responsible for these type of actions. These types of process are the products of millions of people interacting within society. The imperialism the US engaged in is a product of the uneven economic relationship with Latin America, which is in turn the product of certain other factors of industrialization, etc, etc. No one ever said "we have to do this like this" or whatever. If you want to see some individuals who were important in articulating economic and social developments and integrating them into government policy, then, besides the people already offered I would say to look into the debates going on in America over foreign policy in that time period...Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Williams Jennings Bryan etc. would all shed some light on the discussions of the time period.


White Europeans (British, Spaniards, Portuguese, etc) colonized The Americas.. how come the U.S. was the only one that had a revolution by... white people. and not like a mixed race like in Mexico and other Latin American countries.

It seems that in Latin America the races mixed. while in the U.S. they looked just liked the British.

I think Severian got it right. The Amerindians of Mexico, Peru and Latin America were sedentary farmers with complex cities. Their society was similar enough that it could be adapted by new Spanish immigrants to produce a economic model of exploitation run by the Spanish peninsulares. On the other hand the Amerindians of N. America (as well as much of the Southern Cone, i.e. Argentina, Chile, Uruguay) were non-sedentary so they were never integrated into those societies economic systems. When they got in the way of the economic system's expansion they were simply killed off or placed on reservations.


hmm. so is that why there's no blacks in mexico? no need for slaves since there was a large indigenous population? how come the spaniards didn't feel the need to enslave them?


so the british and spaniards had two total different systems? and they both applied them to their new colonies?

There are blacks in Mexico, they're referred to as Afro-Mexicans and they make up a significant proportion of Mexicans in the Veracruz/Yucatan region as well as some in Guerrero, with smaller numbers spread throughout the country. You've identified one thing correctly, different economic systems co-existed in the Americas, some relying on slavery, some having other populations available to use as labor. However, it does not generally conform to nationality or the imperialist powers. The economic models that the Spanish empire employed in heavily mestizo areas (Mexico, Peru, Colombia), overwhelmingly white areas (Southern Cone) and areas where slavery existed (the Carribean) were considerably different. Similarly, regional differences of economic models existed in British colonies. Look at the US, the economic system of the northern states was emerging as a capitalist, industrial one. At the same time the Southern states still relied on slavery to power their overwhelmingly agricultural economy. This huge difference is probably the main reason that the Civil War happened, it was difficult to keep together such disparate economic models under one unitary government. So yes, you've identified the fact that different regions employ different economic models (or at least did to a greater extent in the past) but dont be fooled into thinking these neatly conform with national boundaries.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:34 am

At that time, European countries had empires.

An empire is a closed off market, which the ruler country has sole trading rights.

Thats not entirely true. The Spanish Empire, for one, did grant free trade rights to some of its colonies. In the ones where it did not, it generally became a pretty big issue in independence/liberation struggles.


So, as a growing Capitalist power, and a country that was to a large extend isolationist towards Europe, it had to secure its own Empire or at least closed off markets.

Thats not true! There is a considerable seperation between the type of colonization the European powers led and the type of imperialism the US created over Latin America. RPAS, if you want to understand American expansionism/imperialism in the late 1800s, especially in relation to Latin America, then you should read about two important documents: the Monroe Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine) and the Roosevelt Corollary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary). Basically, the US framed its role in Latin America as an anti-imperialist one. The Monroe Doctrine states that the US will defend Latin America from any European interference (such as attempting to re-establish them as colonies) and will defend their right to free trade (which is why bloody capitalist sham's comment is wrong and misleading in trying to understand this period). The Roosevelt Corollary states that the US has the right to enforce the Monroe Doctrine by intervening in Latin American affairs if it must. As you can probably tell, this only led to the US becoming the dominant imperialist power over the Americas, albeit in a way very significantly different from the European colonial model.



what men were responsible for this? who can you pin point? that was an American(s) and said. "ok we need to do this like this and like that. we need to get moving and what not"

who were the mayor players in the U.S. path to power early on in the 19th century and maybe early centuries.

No group of individuals is responsible for these type of actions. These types of process are the products of millions of people interacting within society. The imperialism the US engaged in is a product of the uneven economic relationship with Latin America, which is in turn the product of certain other factors of industrialization, etc, etc. No one ever said "we have to do this like this" or whatever. If you want to see some individuals who were important in articulating economic and social developments and integrating them into government policy, then, besides the people already offered I would say to look into the debates going on in America over foreign policy in that time period...Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Williams Jennings Bryan etc. would all shed some light on the discussions of the time period.


White Europeans (British, Spaniards, Portuguese, etc) colonized The Americas.. how come the U.S. was the only one that had a revolution by... white people. and not like a mixed race like in Mexico and other Latin American countries.

It seems that in Latin America the races mixed. while in the U.S. they looked just liked the British.

I think Severian got it right. The Amerindians of Mexico, Peru and Latin America were sedentary farmers with complex cities. Their society was similar enough that it could be adapted by new Spanish immigrants to produce a economic model of exploitation run by the Spanish peninsulares. On the other hand the Amerindians of N. America (as well as much of the Southern Cone, i.e. Argentina, Chile, Uruguay) were non-sedentary so they were never integrated into those societies economic systems. When they got in the way of the economic system's expansion they were simply killed off or placed on reservations.


hmm. so is that why there's no blacks in mexico? no need for slaves since there was a large indigenous population? how come the spaniards didn't feel the need to enslave them?


so the british and spaniards had two total different systems? and they both applied them to their new colonies?

There are blacks in Mexico, they're referred to as Afro-Mexicans and they make up a significant proportion of Mexicans in the Veracruz/Yucatan region as well as some in Guerrero, with smaller numbers spread throughout the country. You've identified one thing correctly, different economic systems co-existed in the Americas, some relying on slavery, some having other populations available to use as labor. However, it does not generally conform to nationality or the imperialist powers. The economic models that the Spanish empire employed in heavily mestizo areas (Mexico, Peru, Colombia), overwhelmingly white areas (Southern Cone) and areas where slavery existed (the Carribean) were considerably different. Similarly, regional differences of economic models existed in British colonies. Look at the US, the economic system of the northern states was emerging as a capitalist, industrial one. At the same time the Southern states still relied on slavery to power their overwhelmingly agricultural economy. This huge difference is probably the main reason that the Civil War happened, it was difficult to keep together such disparate economic models under one unitary government. So yes, you've identified the fact that different regions employ different economic models (or at least did to a greater extent in the past) but dont be fooled into thinking these neatly conform with national boundaries.
damn bro!!! thats a lot of info. how the hell u know all this? ok. before I read the Monroe & Roosevelt documents. I have to ask...

the U.S. said it would defend Latin America from European Intervention right?And obviously this was with the excuse of democracy. But clearly it was for their own benefit right? to exploit their people and basically for trade, and capitalism sake? right?

it just started doing to Latin America what Britain, Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain had been doing to Africa for centuries?

[R_P_A_S]

In 1904, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted the right of the U.S. to intervene in Latin America. This was the largest extension that has ever been added to the Monroe Doctrine.
In 1930, the Clark Memorandum was released, concluding that the Doctrine did not give the U.S. any right to intervene in Latin American affairs when the region was not threatened by Old World powers, thereby reversing the Roosevelt Corollary

here is my question. why did the rest of latin america just sat there and took this bullshit up their ass? why didn't they stand up and declare to the world that they didn't need to be baby-sat??

[Guerrilla22]

For the same reasons Latin American countries put up with it even today. They didn't have much of a choice. The US was a much wealthier, and much stronger politcally and militarily. The US has been and always will be a hegemon in the Western Hempishere. The other reason is because the US has a long history of propping up leaders that were loyal to the US and booting out ones that were getting in the way of US interest. See Somoza, Trujillo, Armas, Christiani, Cerezo, Batitsta, Pinochet and numerous others.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:38 am
for some reason French peasants never were that interested in emigrating in large numbers.

The French only allowed Catholics to emigrate.

[Phalanx]

Even so, French Catholics were a definate majority in France at the time, and wouldn't explain the lack of French colonists in Canada or the western United States. I think the reason most French didn't emigrate to the Western Hemisphere is because conditions for them wouldn't be better than if they stayed in France. English colonists were motivated by the thought of greater freedom from the king in America, which is why many came.

[StartToday]

Very true, but as the majority, the Catholics pretty much had it made. They got to worship how they wanted. That's why emigration didn't take off in France - because they offered it solely to people who were happy where they were. The English who left were either Catholics or Puritans - not many Anglicans, as that was the official religion, and they were fine with staying in England and being a part of that church.

[BreadBros]

damn bro!!! thats a lot of info. how the hell u know all this?

I like history a lot :P


the U.S. said it would defend Latin America from European Intervention right?And obviously this was with the excuse of democracy. But clearly it was for their own benefit right? to exploit their people and basically for trade, and capitalism sake? right?

Yep. Well, the Latin American countries had been independent of Spain since ~1810-1820 (with the exception of Cuba and a few others). But yep, the US basically was attempting to force Latin America to trade with it (in a very uneven relationship) and used the Roosevelt Corollary as justification for intervening when things didnt go their way.


it just started doing to Latin America what Britain, Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain had been doing to Africa for centuries?

Sorta, you cant perfectly compare the two, Im not really very knowledgable about African colonialism but I do know its a bit different. But yes, you're overall right that basically the US replaced Europe as the new imperialist power in the region. As I said though, the way it exploited those countries was different though, more exploitation through trade than direct intervention and introduction of settlers, etc.


here is my question. why did the rest of latin america just sat there and took this bullshit up their ass? why didn't they stand up and declare to the world that they didn't need to be baby-sat??

They didnt! There were "revolts" by Latin American governments against US policy, generally the US just used it's economic muscle to put things back in their favor. The US had (and still has!) quite a lot of influence over Latin America. For example, the country of Panama was essentially created by the US. The US funded and essentially planned a staged "revolution" in the Panama region against Colombia (of which Panama was a part back then). In return for giving power to the local pro-American leaders the US got to control and reap the wealth off the Panama Canal which they promptly built. Thats the kind of influence it has.


Even so, French Catholics were a definate majority in France at the time, and wouldn't explain the lack of French colonists in Canada or the western United States. I think the reason most French didn't emigrate to the Western Hemisphere is because conditions for them wouldn't be better than if they stayed in France. English colonists were motivated by the thought of greater freedom from the king in America, which is why many came.

The economic dynamics of American colonialism between France and Britain were quite different. From early on the US established itself as a place of high agricultural production (necessary for the increasingly large settled population). Canada and the French parts of the US were far more sparsely settled and served more as a place for fur-trappers and others to get high-value items they could sell in Europe. It just wouldn't have made much economic sense even for a really poor French peasant to immigrate to the Americas. Keep in mind that France and continental Europe were also experiencing the Napeoleonic Wars earling in the 1800s which would have made it even more economically harder for a French person to migrate in that period.