It was a war of secession, they were part of the same nation…

Right on, as I said, I’m here to learn too. And I agree that the education and milieu I got in Florida in the 80s is pretty poor. What recommendations would you make to find out about these subjects?

BTW what I meant by “global interventionism” is how the US Government really ramped up manipulating the internal affairs of countries across all over the world, both depth and breadth. Twilight Struggle is one of my favorite board games, because of how much history I learned from it.

Okey doke, I’ll concede that. I’ll admit that I overextended myself rhetorically. I still maintain the point that I don’t think there was anything explicitly imperialistic about the Civil War, though.

Most wars have economic causes and impacts, but that alone does not imperialism make. There are “unprovoked punching down” as well as interventionist components that I don’t think describe America’s intentions or entries into either World War.

Either way, the argument I’m trying to refute is that me, as a Western Liberal, view any kind of modern war as imperialist, and thus dilute the definition of the term. I think I’ve demonstrated that while I don’t adhere to Lenin’s more strict definition, I don’t want to use the term lightly, either.

I’m also not trying to make an argument that the USA isn’t imperialist, in any strictness of the term. Western Liberals aren’t a monolith, my bud.

That’s a really interesting perspective on the precursors to the US Revolutionary War, and exactly the kind of think I hope to learn about in these exchanges. I will also concede that Manifest Destiny was, to be glib, manifestly imperialistic and one of the many grand sins of my country.

As I understand them,

• American Revolution - “No Taxation Without Representation” and resulted in documents foundational to American liberalism, like the Bill of Rights and Declaration. Politically and philosophically motivated, not expansionist.
• American Civil War - A war of secession, with abolitionism as a root issue. There were economic factors, like the North’s industrialization, but to say that this war is imperialist is to legitimize the Confederacy’s claim to preserve the institution of American slavery.
• WWI - America supported Britain and France but was isolationist, until the sinking of the Lusitania. America entered the war to defend trading partners, but again, that doesn’t make this imperialist.
• WWII - Again, America was initially isolationist until a decisive moment (this time, Pearl Harbor). Again, this was more diplomatically motivated than a surplus of capital or land-grabbingly expansionism.

It wasn’t until the post-WWII era of the Cold War that America shifted gears from a habit of isolationism to global interventionism, and began a long line of imperialist atrocities.

I’m only bringing these wars up because they’re the ones I’m familiar with - I’m sure there are plenty of examples of wars across the globe, even in more modern eras, that Western Liberals wouldn’t call imperialist.

If you think I’m trolling or whatever, you’re free to bow out of the conversation. I was just trying to be succinct and avoid writing walls of text.

Forgive me if this sounds like I’m being dismissive - I’m not trying to be, just trying to be practical. Anyway, doesn’t this seems like splitting hairs? Any violence initiated with the intent of economic expansion seems unethical and unjust to me. At least, far less just than revolutionary or anti-colonial violence. Labels are just labels, and whether or not something adheres to Lenin’s definition seems to be far less important than the fact that people are dying and suffering because of the greed of the wealthy.

I wonder if MLs around here are pro-Palestine only because that’s a pushback against the Western representation in the Middle East, Isreal

Yeah I’d call those all imperialism as well. There’s a distinct theme of economic expansion - and that certainly doesn’t describe every war I know about

Well, I mean, as an American I can mention a couple of important wars to my homeland that weren’t driven by these motivations. Shall I elucidate?

I guess it’s the textbook definition? A larger nation using its resources (cultural soft power, or military power) to extend their authority over a smaller country. Usually for economic or territorial ends. I apply it to Russia/Ukraine because I put more stock in Ukraine’s sovereignty-from-cultural-identity than I do in Russia’s historical claims over it. It seems adjacent to decolonization to me.

I personally think Russia’s long-standing attitude and justifications for undermining and attacking Ukraine are imperialist. It seems Russians view Ukraine as traditionally Russian, even the Ukraine has developed their own national identity. Same thing with how China views Taiwan and Tibet, they use past history to hand-wave away any claims of self-determinism and develop a narrative that manipulation and threats are justified.

(I’m not a geopolitical expert and willing to hear good-faith arguments, but anyone who’s just snarky or insulting will just get ignored. I’m here to learn, not to fight.)