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 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?