Lesson #33 - Imperialism in Southeast Asia

I read the first article choice. I thought that some of Max Boot's convictions of the United States were not far off. Some of those convictions were somewhat over-exaggerated to make a point. I agree that we are being very imperialistic in our foreign policies, where we invade other countries and set up bases there for much longer than we first expect. The United States continues to argue that it is not being imperialistic, but I believe it to be a lost cause. Other countries already view us in this way, but we don't care to notice because we are more worried about public approval within our own country. Max Boot's views made me think of how either the United States needs to accept that it is being imperialistic, or it needs to rethink its foreign policy agenda.

I read the article about shooting the elephant by George Orwell. I thought this article was important, no vastly important, but still important to the Age of Imperialism. Before he shot the elephant, everyone hated him. After he shot the elephant, things probably went back to normal. But during that period, in which the shooting took place, the people were trusting him to do the right thing. To shoot it. To take charge. That is a big step in which the British and the Sahibs are actually coming together and not despising each other. This is a step towards peace, perhaps between the British and the East.

George Orwell’s essay, Shooting an Elephant, is very relevant to the age of imperialism. In this story the elephant has been tamed, just like some of the countries that had been taken over. Both the elephant the countries were bound to rebel. The elephant rebelled, just like some of the countries that were taken over by other countries. When the man came to help, the people in the town did not know which way the elephant had went. Similarly the people of Britain did not know what was happening in the countries their government were taking. In this essay the man had no intent of shooting the elephant, he only did it because he did not want to look like a fool. Maybe that is why countries were imperializing only because others where also imperializing. I believe that this essay is very relevant to the age of imperialism.

Imperialism

I read the article on usatoday about American Imperialism in the present day. It was interesting that the author seemed to write how imperialism can be a force for good and note just evil. The author also used historical facts such as American troops in Germany and Japan after World War 2 to back up their claims. Although I don't think it should be used to justify America intervening in all world affairs, it was nice to finally see an article on the benefits of imperialism. This idea might affect how people view the United States interacting in the world in the future.

I read George Orwell's essay, "Shooting an Elephant," and I think it's very relevant to imperialism. The elephant represents the conquered peoples that are having others beliefs pushed on them. At first, the elephant was tamed, but then it rebelled (often as conquered people would) and was punished for it. The way it took a long time to die was like those conquered peoples or those whose countries were being colonized by people from other places took a long time to finally give up...they went slowly, as each part of the elephant gave up before it died, and for a while after all of the shots, it was still breathing, as the people were still giving an attempt to stay independant. The way that he felt bad about shooting the elephant could resemble how often people that were conquering or doing imperialism in another country didn't particularly want to do it, but went along with it because of pressure from others.

American observer in the Philippines in 1900

Our little brown brothers of the Philippines have an uncivilized nature. They are children who are unable to accomplish anything without the aid of the United States. The Filipinos health status is in shambles. The people are at the mercy of epidemics of cholera, plague, and small pox, malaria and much more. Their places of living resemble nothing close to the things we consider homes. Without the help, nourishment, and support of the US they will soon die out and become a people no more. It is our duty as Christians to help our brothers become a more stable, civilized race of men and women. I have not witnessed any examples that prove to me these people have skills. They are in much need of our help in order to work the lands, in which they inhabit, to set up sustainable schooling, a powerful government and military. Let us save these people by offering them in kindness our help, something they will surely be grateful to accept.

American Imperialism Article

Mr. Boot is right in that we are an empire, and I also agree that it will(has) taken longer than we originally thought to make changes in the Middle East. I agree with him that as an empire we haven't been perfect, but we've been less exploitative of our colonies than most others.

Max Boot brings up some questions about how military stationed in countries may actually be imperialism. In Germany and Japan there are soldiers stationed there for over 50 years. I do not think that America is imperialising the middle east. I believe they are doing what they need to do to make it safe to leave.

The article on American imperialism gives many examples of how United States is showing signs of imperialism in Iraq. The author talks about how the United States is trying to reform Iraq to make it similar to the United States. There are still U.S. soldiers stationed in Japan and Germany, where we tried to reform over 50 years ago. The author believes that it would be many lifetimes before Iraq could be reformed into a democracy.

I read the article about American Imperialism. I think he is both wrong and right about what he said. I thought it was very interesting in the way that he described America being imperialist. He made it sound good and I agree with him that it can be good in some ways. He was right about that, but I think that the way he described us being imperialist was different than most people view imperialism. Imperialism, to me, seems like something that is forced upon everyone in a terrible way, killing everyone until you have conquered the world. Hitler and the Nazis seem to me like imperialists. I view the U.S. as more of helping countries against terrors and dangers, and most countries seem to have benefited. I know people will argue with me that the U.S. is the same as every other imperialist country and that's fine, those people usually find something to complain about even in the best situations. But overall I think that his case was great and it was a very interesting story.

Reading the article on the Imperialism of America’s actions, I found that I agreed with many of Boot’s points. I agree that many of our actions in the past have been imperialistic. I also agree that we have in the past improved several situations through imperialism. However, I disagree with his point that imperialism is a fair practice simply because it has worked in the past. I don’t think that we should force our governmental system upon another country unless it is necessary. Occupation is fine under certain circumstances, but completely undermining the previous governmental system is overstepping our boundaries. Boot should reconsider his stance on whether or not imperialism is something the United States should be advocating, as it is not always about eliminating the evil Nazis and communists, and has been mistreated throughout history.

I digested the reading material granted us by Mr. Orwell.
The essay is germane to the subject of imperialism in several ways. The story takes place in an English colony, for one thing. Orwell also uses the protagonist and narrator to explain some musings about imperialism and colonization- he theorizes that colonials will become less controllers of the people they colonize and more controlled by those people, for example. But furthermore, the elephant in the story symbolizes the rise and fall of a colony. At first there will be violence, exampled by the elephant's vandalism and murder, often similar to colonists' destruction of places they conquer. The scenes leading up to the shooting of the elephant contain ideas of the mob mentality experienced by many natives when they rebel against colonists. However, mob mentality alone, sheer numbers, will never take down something as mighty as the 'elephant'(colony). It takes something more progressive like a 'gun' (or civilization: thought, reason, etc.) which only a person from a progressive civilization can wield. Yet, even when he had the ability to stop this great and mighty beast from doing more damage, the protagonist did not shoot. For, "It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant – it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery..." in this Orwell references the reluctance of a country to retract colonists from a place. Why destroy such a productive source of income and trade goods? The essay is packed full of metaphors and references to all kinds of aspects of colonization.

I read Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell and something I immediately noticed was that Orwell felt Imperialism was a foolish and futile process. This is an interesting idea for him to hold seeing as most of the British people felt superciliously that they were doing the right thing and held a very pejorative view of the people that they held power over. While Orwell does display this feeling of superiority, he also says that Imperialism ends up reversing the roles so that in the end the white men are being instructed by their native counterparts. This is due to the fact that the British feel a sense of obligation to show that they are better then their conquered peoples and as such end up almost being enslaved to them.

I read Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell and something I immediately noticed was that Orwell felt Imperialism was a foolish and futile process. This is an interesting idea for him to hold seeing as most of the British people felt superciliously that they were doing the right thing and held a very pejorative view of the people that they held power over. While Orwell does display this feeling of superiority, he also says that Imperialism ends up reversing the roles so that in the end the white men are being instructed by their native counterparts. This is due to the fact that the British feel a sense of obligation to show that they are better then their conquered peoples and as such end up almost being enslaved to them.

American Imperialism

The article says that the United States is an empire and they are imperialists in a way, yet they are not. It argues how we've been an empire since Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803 and we are imperialists because we have acquired colonies such as Puerto Rico and Hawaii. I however, believe we are an empire, but we are not imperialists. We have acquired colonies, but they were for the better good, not to expand our empire. We stepped into Iraq to help its government. Without the United States, it would be like "Somalia on steroids." According to Donald Rumsfeld, "We're not imperialistic. We never have been."

Andrew Kluge:

The author of this article expresses his concerns over the United States commitment to the war in Iraq. He says, “In a contest for control of Iraq, America can outspend and outmuscle any competing faction.” However, Mr. Boot expresses the concern that America will not fully commit itself to the war because we fear the word imperialism. He believes that Americans fear the word, but argues that they need not. Mr. Boot instead explains that, “U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century.” While admitting that there have indeed been some mistakes due to our imperialistic nature, such as the treatment of the Indians.
He also pointed to the claims by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that “We’re [America] not imperialistic. We never have been.” Mr. Boot elucidates that we have always been imperialistic; such as through the Louisiana Purchase, our pursuit of out “manifest destiny,” and through occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII. He claims that our imperialism defeated the Nazis, the Taliban, and Serbian ethnic cleansing as well as spread our liberal institutions to South Korea and Panama. His assertions are however, wildly exaggerated concerning the Taliban’s defeat, and it was not really our imperialism that defeated the Nazis. We actually tried to stay out of the war until we were forced into it. Our control of Germany’s government after WWII and our “running” of their government however can be called under that name (imperialism). He also raises the point that in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan were being imperialist through our (what we called it) “nation-building.”
Having given his summary of America’s imperialism in the past, he points to what we must do imperialistically to win the war in Iraq. He says that Rumsfeld stated that President Bush had pledged to keep U.S. troops in Iraq until the job was done. He applauds his effort but says that our dedication of troops will simply not be enough. He says that the scheme to rebuild Iraq is simply not enough. He says that the pledged $2.5 billion will not be enough and that estimated will are actually $25-$100 billion. Mr. Boot also explains the wonders that American Imperialism could do. “It means imposing the rule of law, property rights, free speech and other guarantees, at gunpoint if need be. This will require selecting a new ruler who is committed to pluralism and then backing him or her to the hilt. Iran and other neighboring states won't hesitate to impose their despotic views on Iraq; we shouldn't hesitate to impose our democratic views.” That is his view of “mission accomplished” in Iraq. He ends by scorning the Bush administration for thinking that they can have the job done in 2 years and says that to do it right, we may need to be in Iraq for years in not decades. It is important to have a stable country for other countries in the Middle East to look to. In order to do that, we need commitment. I agree, but also think that Iraq may not have been the best choice. That however, is another issue altogether.
I believe that there is certainly some truth to Max Boot’s claims. America is being imperialistic and needs to accept this fact. The rest of the world views us as an imperialistic nation and I think we need to get used to this fact. People generally view imperialism as a bad thing, due a lot of the baggage that the word carries; such as suggesting oppression of rights in countries that are being imperialized. However, most of our modern imperialism has been dedicated to actually liberating the rights of citizens in the Middle East and strengthening their government for the good of all. I can agree however, that our intentions are imperialistic. We went into the war in Afghanistan as a result of 9/11 and to try and protect our country as well as strike back at the people who have attacked us. With that however, has came natural imperialism. Afghanistan has been the longest war in America’s history, and our continued presence in the country could be considered imperialistic. We also entered the war in Iraq as a preemptive strike to defend America. Not imperialistic in intention, but imperialistic in nature. We have restructured the government and definitely interfered with Iraq’s politics (as we went into war to remove Sadam from power). We have indeed had an imperialistic past. Like America however, the intentions and meaning of the word imperialism have evolved. We need to get over the fact that imperialism is not necessarily a bad thing.

Benjamin Neumann-Chun

I read George Orwell’s essay, Shooting the Elephant. This essay describes many of the pressures that imperialism exerts on those who appear to be controlling it; the colonizers. After reading this essay, it seems that Orwell felt as if imperialism was some great beast controlling him. Although he was, “Seemingly the leading actor of the piece…” He was really, “only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.” He shows that although the English seem to have conquered, and indeed they have, the individual Englishman is just as much enslaved as the people his country controls. He shows how the vast power of nations and of large groups of people (like the people of the crowd pushing him to shoot the elephant) sweeps up the individual humans before it. This idea can be expanded somewhat. The force of imperialism, of the English people’s belief in it, forces the soldiers ahead to do things they know are wrong and don’t want to do, just as Orwell feels pressured by the people behind him to shoot the elephant. Another way to understand the symbolism here is to see the elephant as the British Empire or the British hold on India. The English believe they are the masters of India. In reality, they are a slave to the people they supposedly rule. The Indian people, by sheer force of numbers, will unconsciously drive the British to unwittingly destroy themselves. I think this is a rather unique take on imperialism and very relevant to the topic. It examines the effects and nature of its force.

I read the first option. The article about American Imperialism. Mark Boot might have something when he brings up the actions taken by the United States in Germany after WWII and how we gradually expanded our borders to include Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Alaska. However, you must also consider the circumstances surrounding these "gains". Puerto Rico was won by the United States in it's war with France to defend their territory. Germany was another example of a wartime occupation. We were only in Germany after WWII to prevent other Nazi Revivalists from building another standing army and starting the war all over again.
Later on however, Boot DOES bring up the various "experiments" in Africa that the US has been involved with under the guise of "Nation-building" which could be considered an example of temporary imperialism.
All in all, as Boot put it, "US imperialism has been the greatest force of good in the history of the world, putting down the greatest evils such as the Nazis and lesser ones such as the Taliban". Therefore, it stands to reason that OUR version of Imperialism should not be judged with contempt.

After reading "American imperialism? No need to run away from a label" by Max Boot, I was immediately under the impression that Mr. Boot exaggerated certain statements in the spirit of 'making a point'. While I don't agree these elaborations were necessary, he certainly asks a question I, fundamentally, agree with. Why should we care about the title of imperialism? The U.S. as a country has clearly been labeled an empire--even from within. And though many of our occupations weren't labeled imperialistic efforts, weren't they?
Regardless, I think it is nearly a form of cowardice to fear a title for it's connotations. And, is it not the United States that prides itself on honesty and truth? So, why not just say we are imperialistic? I believe a quote from the great Albus Dumbledore (or... well... J.K. Rowling) sums this up quite nicely.

"Fear of a name increases fear of a thing itself."
-Dumbledore

It does not matter what the term has meant, but, more so, what it can come to mean.

I read the essay by George Orwell, "Shooting an Elephant." I think that it is relevant to imperialism because the elephant symbolizes the rebelling force and the officer is the person trying to colonize. He is hated by all of the people and he is only truly like when there is something exciting going on like a shooting. The elephant is like the rebelling country or group of people because he didn't go down with out a fight. The officer had a hard time getting rid of the elephant and the elephant would not die. It took another half an hour after the officer left before he truly died. It was a story of the struggle that comes along with imperialism.
-Emily

I read the little thing on yella journalism.

It's funny how much people assume that newspapers are always telling the cold, hard facts. This just shows how big of an influence the media really can be on people, and how much power they really have. If people hear one thing, chances are they'll tell a friend, and that friend might get a fact wrong when they tell a friend, and things end up being grossly distorted. Also, this shows really how determined some people are to succeed. Mr. Hearst didn't really have much of a problem basically lying to the american people if it made him money. So what if it started a huge war?

Also, I was kinda seeing a connection between that and what President Bush did during 9/11. Th towers came down, soon Bush was on the scene, and pretty much without any details, he said that the Iraqi's bombed the towers. The people's anger pretty much did the rest, it doesn't even matter that it was later revealed to be some Saudi Arabians that bombed the towers. These two events seem pretty darn similar, in my opinion.

I read the article on Yellow Journalism. I found that while reading it, a lot of newspapers/news-sources still use sensationalist titles to attract an audience. The article suggests that the Spanish-American war was started by newspapers, making uninformed remarks and causing an undeserved reaction in the American people. I feel that this topic manifests itself in some issues today, one example being the "mosque on ground zero" where it was said to be a disgrace to the american public, and many lines about the "terrorists trying to get at us", even though as a counter to this, there was a mosque on the 11th floor in the towers. I do feel however, that it is a distrustful method to gain readership, rather than giving genuinely interesting and relevant stories

I read George Orwell's essay.

To me, it seems that the story of the actual shooting of the elephant is not important. What is important however, is the way this anecdote allows Orwell to show his view of imperialism. In the beginning of the piece, Orwell takes a chance (as the narrator) to analyze imperialism and the British Empire. But more the important, and more relevant, point is nearer the end of the essay. Orwell claims that imperialism is futile, as the white man must always appear better than the natives. "He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it." That although he may seem a leader, he is only "an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind." That is why "when the white man turns tyrant, it is his own freedom that he destroys" This is a definite, relevant, and highly controversial, statement about imperialism.

I read, “Shooting an Elephant”, by George Orwell. I think this article is relevant to the Age of Imperialism because it tells you how the white police officer is the one with power in Burma, and how he gets to decide whether the elephant lives or not. When he is making the choice he is not thinking about whether or not he is making the right choice, he is thinking about what the people will think about his decision, and how he is representing Imperialism in his society. He knows his actions will be a reflection of imperialism, so if he shows weakness or is doubtful it will be a sign of weakness and he has to prove that he has the gun and the power and can control difficult situations. This story also reflects on how individual choices and decisions are based on political and personal consequences; not necessarily what is best for the population or for the animal.

Jimena DelSolar

I read the article about american imperialism by Max Boot. The article states that the United States is somewhat imperialists, and they aren't at the same time. It says that the United States has been an empire since Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory from France. It also states that we are imperialists because we have gained colonies such as Puerto Rico and Hawaii. i believe that we are a strong empire but not necessarily imperialism. we have gained colonies, but i think that was for the good, we didn't do it to just expand are empire. when we stepped into Iraq we did it to help. Without the United States iraq would have been complete chaos. Boot states that if we wouldn't have entered Iraq to help it would have escalated and become like "Somalia on steroids."

-Aziza Maktal

I read the article about american imperialism by Max Boot. The article states that the United States is somewhat imperialists, and they aren't at the same time. It says that the United States has been an empire since Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory from France. It also states that we are imperialists because we have gained colonies such as Puerto Rico and Hawaii. i believe that we are a strong empire but not necessarily imperialism. we have gained colonies, but i think that was for the good, we didn't do it to just expand are empire. when we stepped into Iraq we did it to help. Without the United States iraq would have been complete chaos. Boot states that if we wouldn't have entered Iraq to help it would have escalated and become like "Somalia on steroids."
-Aziza Maktal

I read "Shooting an Elephant," by George Orwell.

I found this essay very interesting for it's portrayal of imperialism's emotional connotations. Orwell, a British police officer in Burma, expresses confusion in the essay as to what his real feelings are concerning his job, illustrating the gray areas of imperialism. While Orwell feels the Burmese are unjustly oppressed and thus hates the empire he serves, he also strongly dislikes the Burmese for harassing Europeans and must in some way enjoy his power over them. Yet the lines of power are blurred by this essay. In many ways, the British and other colonizers certainly dominated the natives whom they colonized, often brutally. (Orwell describes prisoners of the British "huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups," and also talks about the "scarred buttocks of men" beaten with bamboo sticks). Yet the colonizers are not immune to feeling "an intolerable sense of guilt," as Orwell does, or to being influenced in their actions by the desires of the people, as Orwell is when he shoots the elephant. This particular interaction of power between the oppressors and oppressed is not so much touched on in our history books, and it is interesting to see it brought to light in such detail. I was similarly intrigued by how Orwell felt ending the elephant's life. At first, of course, he does not want to kill the elephant. He relates the animal to a "costly piece of machinery," showing in an analogous way how colonizers can see a group of natives as merely machines capable of helping the empire prosper. Orwell, unique in his views, knows this "machine" would function better without interference, however, just as a native tribe would be more efficient surviving with their own methods rather than adopting the techniques of a foreign power. But once Orwell starts shooting the elephant he cannot stand the agony the animal must go through, showing colonizers' sympathy, if rare. Every painful breath of the dying beast tortures both it and Orwell, and as much as the officer tries to quicken the animal's submission to death via a barrage of bullets, he must in the end accept that the animal will succumb to the power of death (or colonizers, to relate the situation to imperialism) at his own pace. Orwell seems to come to very deep and thought provoking conclusions about the brutality of imperialism and the ways in which it is conducted. All things considered, this essay definitely brought out more of the emotional components of imperialism and stirringly described interaction among people of different status in a deeper way than many other sources.

I read, "American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away From the Label". This article discussed the war in Iraq, and our fear of the label "Imperialism". The author of this article writes that we must become a permanent presence in Iraq for at least 10 more years in order to have any success in the country. The article states that Americans are fearful of the term "Imperialism" and refuse to be an "imperialistic presence" in Iraq. However, the article states that the only way to success in Iraq is by becoming imperialistic, and that it is not such a bad thing. I agree with the article, because imperialism is commonly viewed (at least in America) as a bad thing to stay away from. I think our government should embrace what we need to do and keep a small presence in Iraq to help their government.

I read American imperialism? No need to run away from label. The main points that were brought up were U.S. imperialsim and the troops that the U.S. has in Iraq. It was said that the U.S. troops failed in Somalia and Haiti but did better in different places because they stationed themselves there. By putting themselves in Iraq and keeping themselves there it could take decades until Iraq finally has a peaceful and representative government. It also talked about the Americans running a foreign government, and when the U.S. was bringing imperialism to Germany and Japan it was more like occupation. I think that helping Iraq is a good thing and maybe using imperialism could be good to. As long as the U.S. gets done with what they went there to do, it should be fine.

I read American imperialism? No need to run away from label. The main points that were brought up were U.S. imperialsim and the troops that the U.S. has in Iraq. It was said that the U.S. troops failed in Somalia and Haiti but did better in different places because they stationed themselves there. By putting themselves in Iraq and keeping themselves there it could take decades until Iraq finally has a peaceful and representative government. It also talked about the Americans running a foreign government, and when the U.S. was bringing imperialism to Germany and Japan it was more like occupation. I think that helping Iraq is a good thing and maybe using imperialism could be good to. As long as the U.S. gets done with what they went there to do, it should be fine.

I read American Imperialism, and I found that while my first instinct was to immediately reject the idea, I was eventually persuaded. I think the main point of the article is that cultural imperialism is not a bad thing if you spread the parts of your culture that are favorable to those it is spread to. It is hard to interpret the spread of law and democracy as a bad thing. Imperialism the word, though, has gained a horrible reputation. I agree that while trying to spread our culture peacefully and for the benefit of all involved, it is very prudent to avoid the title of imperialism and all of the negative connotations it brings.

I read George Orwell's article, Shooting and Elephant. The biggest impression I drew from the article is that those who have conquered nations are more frightened than the people they have conquered. They are terrified that they will one day loose control. He shoots the elephant because he is frightened. Not of the elephant, but of the people. They probably won't hurt him, but if he does not kill the elephant, they will laugh at him. He will look like a fool. And if he looks like a fool, than they will loose respect for him and the British. While they may still obey the British, without respect and fear, they will eventually forget to obey. Perhaps not intentionally, but once the British loose even a bit of control, it will go downhill from there.

"American imperialism? No need to run away from the label."

I think that the main issue in this article is addressing America and its "imperialism" of Iraq. The author of this article doesn't think that America should necessarily embrace the word imperialism for this situation but they should understand how close they are coming to being an imperialistic empire. He also thinks that America needs to realize how unrealistic the time and money estimate was. He believes that we might as well finnish what we started given that we are going to be considered an empire either way so we might as well be a successful empire.

I read "American Imperialism? No need to run away from the label."
In my opinion, the author was very blunt with their views. Not many people would outright say that we should embrace becoming an empire and imperialize Iraq. But their point is a good one. Why cover up something that's true? Why should we deny something everyone knows we're doing? When President George Bush said we would only be in Iraq for 2 years did he really believe that? Because I don't really believe that. The author was also pointing out that what we are doing for Iraq is good, and we will be creating a democracy in the process. I think while the author points out that it will take a long time, Iraq will become a democracy, hopefully that will happen.

I read "American imperialism? No need to run away from the label"
The first thing which struck me was the unmistakable bias of this article. With claims like "On the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century," It is difficult for me to trust this article. The title of the article also came across as very confusing to me. It seemed like he was arguing for imperialism as a label, while in the article mentioning that it would probably be beneficial to continue to call it something else as long as we continued the practice. I thought that his arguments for imperialism were sound, but I also feel like the strong language he used and unclear aspect of the article weakened his point.

I read the USATODAY.com on Imperialism in Modern Day America. I like how the authored seemed to say that, aside from being bad and evil, there is also a good side to Imperialism. To support his claim, Max Boot used historical examples including American troops in Germany and Japan following WWII. Even though people should not and do not believe that this is the way to justify America intervening in World Affairs, it was a friendly change/reminder to see an article that talks about BENEFITS of Imperialism. There was also a bit of, what I found to be humor in the article, a bit of a change in this topic as well, when Boot wrote, "If we want Iraq to avoid becoming a Somalia on steroids..." All in all, looking toward the future, this could alter the way that people view the United States and their interaction with the rest of the World.

I read the USA Today article on Imperialism in America. It mostly talks about the different "Imperialistic" actions of the US in the past century. I personally disagree with the opinion of the author that what is happening in Iraq and what happened in Japan and Germany is Imperialism. By his own admission it wasn't labeled that, and it shouldn't be. Imperialism was the colonization of an area, to add to the empire. It is also closely tied with the idea of superiority. Now, when the US entered Germany and Japan after WWII, it wasn't because we wanted to change their government, or because we thought they had something to give us, it was because they had just done terrible, terrible things and we had to make sure it didn't happen again. Sometimes it can look a lot like Imperialism, but the American actions taken are NOT Imperialism.

Yellow Journalism-

The Indian Natives Have Gone Rabid With Nationalism

Rumors spread, over the land like a mist on a cold night, of British disrespect. The people, filled with anger, learned of the wild rumor of British covering their cartridges with animal fat, a huge offense to Hindu and Muslims. The sepoys were stupid enough to fall for the evil plan of other Indian nationals and bloodshed covered India. Luckily, the brave and great British, quickly got on their feet to stop the war and to save all the helpless citizens of India. The sepoys will thank Britain one day for their courage and their aid in helping their childish imaginations not get away with them. Britain now feels betrayed, but they are willing to forgive, for they are merciful.

"American imperialism? No need to run away from the label" USATODAY.com 5/5/2003

The author of the article, Max Boot, brings up some good points. He says that the United States is afraid of being labeled as imperialistic. I think the United States is afraid of the label, because it had been empire building during a large portion of its history. It did so when expanding westward toward California, when annexing Texas and Hawaii, as well as when it gained control of Puerto Rico and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. In modern times the United States had strong influence over countries including Germany, Afghanistan and Japan. Any way it is viewed one cannot deny that America was imperializing during this time. Oddly, Americans have the mind set that all imperialism is wrong, but imperialism has helped in the past such as when dealing the ethnic cleansings of the Taliban and defeating the Nazi forces. The worry of imperialism directly relates to America’s involvement in Iraq. America entered Iraq for humanitarian reasons to protect the world against weapons of mass destruction. I believe the American government is afraid of being too forceful with its ideas. It should be investing more than $2.5 billion to rebuild Iraq and a lot more than the estimated two years to help Iraq become stable. If American troops pull out of Iraq too early it could result in leaving Iraq in a worse state then it originally was.

Megan Wright

I read the American Imperialism thing: -Mark MIller

This article, by Max Boot tells how the US is like it or not, and empire. And also an imperialistic empire. Max says that the US's "nation-building" in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, etc. is just imperialism but in a different name. He says that although in the past the term "imperialism" hasn't meant good things, the US's imperialism is benefitting other countries, and helping to instal democracy into their governments. He does however tell that the US's interventions in counties must not be prematurely ended. He says that our troops must stay in the country/territory long enough for the effect to take root, and i agree with this. I think that if we leave too soon, all the money and lives we put into that cause are wasted. He also stresses a point that I very much agree with, and that is that we shouldn't be afraid of the name "empire". It is the same as with "imperialism", although in the past it has been a bad label it can mean whatever we make it mean.

I read the American Imperialism thing: -Mark MIller

This article, by Max Boot tells how the US is like it or not, and empire. And also an imperialistic empire. Max says that the US's "nation-building" in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, etc. is just imperialism but in a different name. He says that although in the past the term "imperialism" hasn't meant good things, the US's imperialism is benefitting other countries, and helping to instal democracy into their governments. He does however tell that the US's interventions in counties must not be prematurely ended. He says that our troops must stay in the country/territory long enough for the effect to take root, and i agree with this. I think that if we leave too soon, all the money and lives we put into that cause are wasted. He also stresses a point that I very much agree with, and that is that we shouldn't be afraid of the name "empire". It is the same as with "imperialism", although in the past it has been a bad label it can mean whatever we make it mean.

I read Max Boot's "American Imperialism? No need to run away from the label". This article had me questioning my views on America and its past and current actions involving imperialism. Americans cringe at the thought of the us being imperialistic but according to Max Boot, we are a building empire whether americans deny it or not. But, Max's main point is that the title "imperialism" is not something we should ashamed to be associated with but that it can used to help other countries. This is not to say that America is free from fault because it has made its share of mistakes, like Hawaii, the Philippines, etc. But, America has and still is trying to bring democracy and freedom to countries that need it and that is not something that americans should be ashamed of being associated with.

I read the essay "shooting an elephant" by George Orwell for my blog post. Overall, I thought that this essay had very interesting content and metaphors about imperialism, but the fact that it was about how one man had to kill an elephant was so sad. I thought the story was well written but again the subject was depressing. The perspective in which it was written was a very interesting and unique one. The fact that the protagonist was a English man in India for his job resented the british rule was a very different view. I though it was very intriguing the way in which the main character thought of british rule at the end and used his current situation as a metaphor for imperialism. The setting in which he used that metaphor was a very important one in the story, at the peak of the climax and basically decided the final path of his action. The setting was that of when he had finally reached the elephant and he had the whole crowd behind him, was then he realized that the colonizers were much like him in that they are always trying to please the natives and to be respected from that. And so they were trapped within their power. I think that it is really sad that he killed the elephant only because he didn't want to be laughed at, especially since they already so obviously disrespected him. I get that he would want to possibly improve his standing by killing it but, I don't think he made the right choice to kill the elephant simply to please the natives. I think it is very relevant to the age of imperialism for how much it relates to and calls back to the age of imperialism and its theories. George Orwell makes references toward the age of imperialism through his use of multiple powerful metaphors throughout the essay and I think it is these metaphors that make this essay an important contribution of the history of imperialism.

-Laura Nicholson

(Option 3, Yellow journalism article on Sepoy Mutiny)

INSTABILITY IN INDIA!
May 11, 1857

Enraged by the presence of beef and pork grease in their rifle cartridges, Indian soldiers under the employment of the East India Company have mutinied. The violent and furious mercenaries refused orders from their British officers and instead staged a violent rebellion, gaining momentum and taking the city of Delhi with brutal force. Despite bloody clashes between the rebellious native army and the venerable East India Company, there seems to be little chance of stopping the carnage. As of yet, the British government has yet to intervene, and the violence will continue until a resolution is reached by the East India Company and the savages.

I read “American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away From the Label,” and found myself questioning the affect of what actions are called. The point of the article seems to be that imperialism through culture is not something to be looked at as a bad thing. What happened in Germany and Japan as the author labeled it was imperialism, but I disagree. Imperialism could be colonization, protectorates, sphere of influence or economic imperialism. Although America occupied Germany and Japan, it was not intended to change their government or because we wanted something from them. It was because what they had done was not acceptable at all and we just wanted to ensure that it did not happen again. Even though it could be seen as imperialism, it was most definitely not.

Halley

I read Max Boot's, "American Imperialism? No need to run away from label" and it really made me question America's role in foreign countries. For example, what is America's actual goal in Iraq? It was clear that we had some previous issues, and maybe some current issues as well, however, the fact that Bush said that we will stay in there long enough to "build a peaceful and representative government" makes me wonder if we are just being imperialistic. However, Max Boot did say that we shouldn't be ashamed of being imperialistic, and I agree with him. If we are being imperialistic to better the environment of another country, I think it might be worth it. Whether or not the Iraqi's use the methods of having a peaceful and representative government is up to them, but in the end, I really don't think American's should run away from the label of being imperialistic.

The main points that Max Boot’s article “American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away From Label” brings to my mind is of the views of imperialism. Usually imperialism is affiliated with bad and over-controlling empires (due to historic evidence), however this article brings in a new, more positive view of the subject. Americans are being criticized of being an empire that is using imperialism and many deny that this is what is happening. However in Boot’s opinion, who cares if people hackle Americans about imperialism? The only thing that matters is if what we are doing is purposeful and successful. So even if Americans cannot embrace the term of imperialism, they should at least embrace the practice since it can bring positive things to countries in need.

I read the story "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell; I thought it brought up a lot of interesting points. Probably the most interesting was that he really didn't want to shoot the elephant but he had too because he was pressured by the natives. It seemed like the people he was technically more powerful than actually made him shoot the elephant. The story shows that the natives were higher in the class system than Indians, too. Another thing that I thought was ironic is how Orwell didn't seem to like the British rule even though he was a British person stationed in south east Asia. It also seemed like a kind of a metaphor; the British people really didn't want to take lives when they colonized, but in reality they gave the Indochinese slow, painful deaths. I feel like this story is very relevant to the age of imperialism because of both its metaphors and how it shows the relations between the British, Natives and Indians in Indochina.
-Nick Gardner

The author of the article "American imperialism? No Need to Run Away From Label", Max Boots, raises many valid points about imperialism. He explains that although imperialism seems like a terrible thing, can, in reality, have a positive impact. After reading this article I feel the government is not being clear to the people what they are doing in Iraq. They say things like "We're not imperialistic. We never have been." But that is not true, we have indeed been imperialistic. People do not want to associate imperialism with America, but we are practicing these ideas in Iraq. I think the government should be honest in what they are doing and not try and cover it up. If it is for the good of the people then it will have a positive reaction. They should embrace their decisions instead of covering them up.

The essay, "Shooting an Elephant," by George Orwell put in to perspective what it was like living as a European in a foreign colony. The natives treat him poorly despite the fact that he is strongly against colonization. He is an outsider in their world, and does not have it easy living in Burma. He ends up feeling compelled to shoot the elephant, though he sees it as unnecessary, to retain his pride amongst the natives. He was not in control, he was purely a pawn in the game of colonization. He was easily replaceable. After he shoots the elephant he feels great remorse and pities the animal, as it suffers in agony for quite some time before finally dying. Eventually, he leaves because he can no longer stand to watch the animal suffer. I think this essay did a really good job of exemplifying the decisions people make, and how they have to deal with them. It was a really helpful piece to understand the side of the British people living in foreign lands. Though the foreigners are rightfully seen as the victims usually, the British didn't have the easiest time adjusting to colonization, either.