Would you say it is Imperialism to force democracy on other nations? Would you say it is hubris to commit to?

Question

such an endeavor?

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

The dictionary doesnt limit that to aid and Dollar diplomacy. It even includes colonization into its chracteristics, which is usually subsequent to invasion and always requires physical presence.

Answer 1

Actually no. I will explain.

Imperialism is when a specific country uses indirect, 'non-aggressive' methods in order to influence the direction of another country.

So you see, when a country is 'forcing' democracy that falls under occupation where a country is directly selecting the direction of the occupied country.

Imperialism is when a country doesn't occupy the other country but uses things like sanctions or trade tariffs... maybe offering mega amounts of aid, in order to get them to do what you want them to do.

I'm not saying that using military force isn't PART of imperialism. I am saying that they are separate. Imperialism usually follows some sort of direct military conflict; therefore, occupations can be argued to be part of imperialism. I am saying they are not the whole of it and that what clarifies imperialism between say directly conquering a nation, is that indirect influence of imperialism.

Answer 2

Beach Bum is wrong in part..Imperialism CAN be through force and violence; it will destroy the old government and install one that will be in line with its policies...which include business ventures and using the resources of the occupied as their own...recall Britain, Spain and France in the 16-19th centuries, as well as the US in Panama, the Phillipines, and Mexico.

It is incredible arrogance to assume that taking over a country and reforming their politics would be easy. We may have the military power, but we are a free people and would lack the will (as a body) to crush the population as tyrants (present administration excepted). These people think of democracy as the American system and would not have the desire to pursue it as a population would with years of motivation and organization, through years of conflict to bind them as a nation and eventually a nation of free men. The irony is that if they considered us the enemy and grouped together to fight us, they would have a better chance of success than if we just built it for them.

Making Iraq democratic is only part of the situation. Iraq will be America's vassel economically for years, as long as we have a troop presence there. From what I've read, the Neo-Conservatives (or whatever you want to call them) have the ideology of forcing other countries into this arrangement of democracy/capitalism because it is good for business...that is why it is imperialism....they want to define a new royalty class through the gun and the dollar. Is it the corporations? I don't know, but my Conservatively Liberal values are diametrically opposed to theirs....individual rights and non-interference in the affairs of other nations.

Answer 3

No, not at all. To force another nation to be a vassal state and tax them and conscript soldiers from their population is Imperialism (as UK did to India).

Answer 4

democratic nations must struggle with undemocratic ones to change their regime to democratic. That way you increase the chances of having peace on earth.