“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
USMC Gen. Smedley D. Butler (ret.)
Do tell… does it only count as “isolationism” when you’re not interfering with white countries?
Do imperial powers see it as intervention when they’re interfering in the politics of what they consider to be their colonies or backyard? You’re right — the idea that the U.S. was ever truly isolationist in the strictest definition of the term is a myth. What they actually were/are is a kind of imperial exceptionalism: the U.S. avoids entanglements with other empires while actively dominating weaker nations, usually outside the scope of mainstream historical narratives.
‘Isolationism’ is a term imperial nations use to describe their non-interference with peer empires — not their restraint toward the rest of the world. So yes, it often does only apply when you’re not interfering with other white or Western powers. It doesn’t mean they weren’t acting imperially elsewhere — just that they weren’t stepping on another empire’s toes. That doesn’t make imperialism right — it just means your use of the term ‘isolationist’ is historically inaccurate. Something something, don’t use the master’s tools.
Also the point of democracy is to be inefficient. It slows the process of enacting law so other people can voice their concerns. If you’re looking for an efficient government, some dictator telling everyone what to do is super efficient. It gets a lot done real fast.
Do tell… does it only count as “isolationism” when you’re not interfering with white countries?
Do imperial powers see it as intervention when they’re interfering in the politics of what they consider to be their colonies or backyard? You’re right — the idea that the U.S. was ever truly isolationist in the strictest definition of the term is a myth. What they actually were/are is a kind of imperial exceptionalism: the U.S. avoids entanglements with other empires while actively dominating weaker nations, usually outside the scope of mainstream historical narratives. ‘Isolationism’ is a term imperial nations use to describe their non-interference with peer empires — not their restraint toward the rest of the world. So yes, it often does only apply when you’re not interfering with other white or Western powers. It doesn’t mean they weren’t acting imperially elsewhere — just that they weren’t stepping on another empire’s toes. That doesn’t make imperialism right — it just means your use of the term ‘isolationist’ is historically inaccurate. Something something, don’t use the master’s tools.
Also the point of democracy is to be inefficient. It slows the process of enacting law so other people can voice their concerns. If you’re looking for an efficient government, some dictator telling everyone what to do is super efficient. It gets a lot done real fast.
Then that is the term that should be used to describe US policy before WW2.
You mean… like using a term to describe history specifically invented by perpetrators of historical atrocity to mask said atrocities?