Yeah, and Algeria was an integral part of France. New France and the whole North America empire had a different ideological underpinning than the one established in Africa and Asia in the 19th century. While still racist and unjust, French imperialism after the Revolution allowed for the natives to become legally French if they accepted French culture and jumped through the right hoops. This change makes a lot of sense, since Napoleon had made Europeans as disparate as Basques, Danes, and Croatians "French" in the legal sense as a result of his annexing wide swaths of Europe. A similar program took place in France's African and Asian colonies. All of Algeria and parts of Senegal were treated as competely equal legally with the mainland and their inhabitants, provided they behaved French, were citizens. There was still discrimination and the French government opposed independence movements, but it's undeniable that there was a guiding philosophy to make at least some of the colonized people "French" and not simply to rule them for the base reasons behind all imperialism.

trolling some of you? lol

Invictus. What the fuck are we talking about here.

A summary of the relevant parts of our conversation

Me: 18th Century stuff
You: how does 18th century stuff have to do with New Imperialism
Me: New Imperialism isn't in the original post
You: Do you even know what New Imperialism is?
Me: Where the fuck is it in the original post?
You: Well... It isn't there. But Quebec wasn't even a province.
Me: No... It was a colony, and I thought we were talking about colonialism (that was the word used)
You: So What! Algeria was an integral part of France

WTF is this? Am I talking to Invictus or Invictus' ADD? If it is Invictus' ADD please put Invictus back on the gone so he can focus and stop lecturing me about stuff I never argued.

And while all of what you wrote is well and good, Native Americans were viewed as British Subjects even before the American Revolution. They had no representation but neither did white subjects. It is hardly a new concept that loyal indigenous people will be taken under the imperial umbrella... until they misbehave.

Oh my gods what is this forum hahahaha

obviously a forum for Thucy to allow or disallow what other people say about Black people.

And for santa to reassure himself how clever his antecedents were to leave that horrible arsehole of a place - Europe, and find a new live for themselves and their families in shining pristine America. Self deception or what?

YAWN. point to the one place i even eluded to that Dr. E---Ful, yet again you completely miss the plot. And i am sure that the trend will continue. Imperialism, American or European was nasty business, as anyone literate can see that I have been arguing this entire thread.

And for the record *my* antecedents were living in shtetles in Eastern Europe when all this happened and were more or less expelled from Europe.

I am sure that you will find that in today's world santa's antecedents would be classified as economic migrants. Just like that nasty lot south of your border, who will soon, given trends in birth-rate, be in a majority; certainly in California. It would be rather neat to see the demographic scales reset to pre-19th century values. If the racists allow it, this might even happen elsewhere, e.g., Arizona, Texas, Florida etc.
Of course if santa was really serious about thinking about, let alone acknowledging, the sad story of American imperialism he would not take such umbrage at my post referring to Cuba, the Philippines and the Native Americans. Me thinks that the doctrine of Manifest Destiny ever so slightly lives on in this particular history teacher. A very comforting and self-reassuring position for him to hold; let’s hope his charges are more open-minded.

@ santaClausowitz, is that when you moved to the North pole with the reindeers & elves ?

there are a few "geneology nutjobs" in my family who claim a lineage back to a Norman thug, Guillame De Bras who joined William in 1066 at Hastings, and another chappie who visied Palestine circa 14th Century & spent 20 years putting heathen scaracens to the sword before returning to England, mind you it's a doubtful distinction & probably shared amongst 10's of thousands of other present day citizens

My vote for best post WW2 Imperialists-- Indonesia, threw off their Dutch Masters
in the late 40's early 50's ??? and then practised the lessons in Imperialism from the Europeans on a whole bunch of separate "peoples" spread over approx 14,000 islands

Does anyone else have no idea what SantaClausowitz is going on about?

"@ santaClausowitz, is that when you moved to the North pole with the reindeers & elves ?"

Ha that is funny! But seriously it was when the Hungarians sent them to concentration camps, Germans killed their families and their Czech/Ukranian neighbors grabbed their property.

"Of course if santa was really serious about thinking about, let alone acknowledging, the sad story of American imperialism he would not take such umbrage at my post referring to Cuba, the Philippines and the Native Americans. Me thinks that the doctrine of Manifest Destiny ever so slightly lives on in this particular history teacher. A very comforting and self-reassuring position for him to hold; let’s hope his charges are more open-minded. "

Dear Christ. I say that Europeans were imperialist, and I also say that the Philippines was a nasty American imperial endeavor and, following, that Americans were imperialists. I said your argument the US was imperialist is a ridiculously commonplace argument (commonplace implies true). I just find it tickling how you take information that was in US history textbooks by the '70s and claim you are enlightening the misinformed Americans. And why? Someone asked a question about European Imperialism and your contratian nature just HAD to tweak the Americans who you thought would vehemently disagree with your banal assertion.

You seriously just cannot stop and read a post. Either that or you assume that anyone that laughs at your self important argument style must be diametrically opposed to your position. Now come on, put more words into my mouth and thoughts into my head for old times sake.

Invictus- As always, a lost cause.

German East Africa under Karl Peters *was* one of the worst (in terms of brutality) colonial projects that ever existed. Probably worse than the Congo under King Leopold. Germany made the Portuguese positively progressive by comparison.

"I am afraid that colonial racism is not limited to old Europe"

Self-government in Cuba and the Philippines was decidedly greater than in most European colonies and most of the 'racists' opposed taking control of these territories. There was no racial prohibition on obtaining certain offices, nor separate laws based on race to my knowledge.

I don't think you'll ever find Fulham criticize anything his own country has ever done, just endless America bashing. He's a flag waving codger. Just ignore him.

"An independent Philippine republic would likely have been taken by Japan or Germany in short order, and neither of those countries would have given up their hold on the islands as easily as America did."

It probably wasn't a binary decision between controlled by us and colonized by them (what about some guarantee similar to Monroe doctrine?) but yeah, Philippines was not some horrible abomination anti-Americans like to pretend.

The French never had a doctrine similar to blubo and the republican idea that you're French as long as you're a proper French citizen is comparatively progressive even in today's Europe. Which might be difficult to appreciate in the US where it's your bread and butter but it's kinda big deal in the more homogenous parts of Europe.

As for Portuguese, something went horrible wrong at some point of their history. Started out as pretty much colorblind in the 15th century, acceptive of Africans (especially in comparison to Spanish campaigns agains their own Moors and Jews) but once they went past their prime, their empire was one big hellhole.

The French are a strange people...they preach of their great virtues, of their advanced (socialist) civilization and yet they still expel Roma/gypsy peoples out of their country every year, as if a quota system exists for how many Roma people to throw out. It only leaves you thinking about their morals.

"obviously a forum for Thucy to allow or disallow what other people say about Black people."

Whoaa where did THAT come from, dude? My post didn't even have any content. Lmao

The op mentioned african and asian colonization, which is firmly in the new imperialism period.

I know he could never admit we're on the same side, and I bet there's still some huge point lurking where we'd have to part ways, but it's nice for Putin33 to not be arguing about how wonderful Wilhelmine Germany's colonial policy was or that the American experience in the Philippines was TOTALLY WITHOUT EXCEPTION EVIL FULL STOP.

"It probably wasn't a binary decision between controlled by us and colonized by them (what about some guarantee similar to Monroe doctrine?) but yeah, Philippines was not some horrible abomination anti-Americans like to pretend."

No, it wasn't binary. It could have been some basket case but politically independent or it could have become a hue success. Anything is possible. But with two other imperial powers hungry for influence in Asia I doubt the Philippines would have had much of a shot at remaining independent. Remember, Germany had no Asian territories at all apart from Chinese concessions. If it was desperate enough to buy the mostly useless Pacific islands from Spain why should we expect it would not have gone for the Philippines if given a chance? Most of the same goes for Japan, but in 1900 they didn't have Korea yet so they likely would have focused there if a choice had to be made.

As for a Monroe Doctrine equivalent, why would America do that? These were still the halcyon days where the United States kept out of alliances. And who's to say there even would really be a government with which the United states could make a deal? The Philippines had known nothing but Spanish rule for centuries. It's a bit much to expect them to run a country without experience doing so (cf. Afghanistan).

The ideal of course would have been to just build a few bases and then leave the Filipinos to govern themselves, but I don't know if that was really possible at the time. Independence should have been guaranteed right away, but in the end that policy took till 1916 to be enacted and then 1946 to come to fruition. Again, not a proud episode in American history, but not really so horrible either (particularly after 1916).

Putin33, let's try not to soil this glorious moment of concurrence.

What?!?! You are on the same side?!?

THE RULES OF ARGUMENTATION DEMAND THAT YOU FIGHT TO THE DEATH

Shhh! I think it's only on very fine and specific points.

coward.

The op mentioned african and asian colonization, which is firmly in the new imperialism period.

The French had African and asian holding in the eighteenth century. it could easily be a reference to french colonialism writ large.

I too agree on south west Africa. I recently read this: http://www.faber.co.uk/work/kaisers-holocaust/9780571231416/
A shocking story laced with social darwinism. I think the authors must have read this:
White men with low moral standards? German anthropology and the Herero genocide
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/003132201128811133
With this abstract:
Stone argues that, although German anthropologists were relatively liberal thinkers before 1900, they nevertheless advocated an understanding of race that encouraged hierarchical thinking. Such thinking saw colonized peoples as primitive and culturally inferior. When, around 1900, anthropologists became increasingly reactionary and drawn to social Darwinist and racist ideas, their work served as a scientific legitimation for colonial atrocity, as the case of the Herero genocide in German South West Africa (1904-5) demonstrates. At this point anthropologists, along with the colonial military, were more sanguine about the disappearance of 'backward races'.

"As for a Monroe Doctrine equivalent, why would America do that? These were still the halcyon days where the United States kept out of alliances. And who's to say there even would really be a government with which the United states could make a deal? The Philippines had known nothing but Spanish rule for centuries. It's a bit much to expect them to run a country without experience doing so (cf. Afghanistan)."

All that applied to South America as well, which makes the analogy to Monroe Doctrine even more apt. You cannot call it an alliance in any meaningful way and the self-governance tradition was pretty basic in the whole Spanish empire. That doesn't mean you can say with a straight face that peninsulares ran everything, local colonial elites played their part in the administration of the late Spanish empire. The low shot at Afghanistan is also difficult to comprehend, that state has enjoyed various degrees of independance for longer than the US even exists. Afghanistan is in shambles because it has been in turmoil for several decades already, the only change being who stands on which side, not because the locals don't know how to take care of themselves.