Differene between expansionism and imperialism?

Question

Trying to write a paper on expansionism, and I'm wondering if contrasting it with imperialism would be a good point or if the two concepts are too similar to do that.

Sorry meant to say "differenCe"

Answer 1

Expansionism -- a country spreads itself out at the expense of other people, their land and their cultures.

Imperialism -- a country takes over another country.

Answer 2

I think I have something for you. Maybe you will stay with expansionism, but let's see. Imperialism is the policy of creating an empire. An empire is a state in which the emperor or home country rules, owns, or dominates other lands inhabited by other peoples.

There are two examples of expansionism in "recent" history. The one is the U.S., following "manifest destiny" in expanding from the East Coast to the Pacific Ocean during the 1800's. The other is the Russian Empire, expanding since the time of Peter the Great (died 1725?) into Siberia and the Far East.

You must explore Russian expansionism and imperialism further in modern times. President Vladimir Putin claims to have a say in the modern Russian, "near abroad."

One might argue that the U.S. did not seek an empire, in which a tsar wanted rule over far-flung territories. It is true that the U.S. pushed Mexico out of Texas and out of the Southwest. But that was to settle its own people there, ruled by a republic and a democracy.

Pardon: You have to check out every thing thgat I say for accuracy.

Answer 3

Folkish is a reference to things being of, from or related to a aprticular group. Many nordic pagans refer to their path as being "folkish" and in the context they use the term it is hightly accurate. The term itself does not, and I repeat does NOT imply, infer or otherwise describe a set of beliefs or traditions that are in anyway superior to other ways, traditions of beliefs simply by their existance as part of a particular culture or belief system. Racist, simply, and most accurately referes to the idea that becasue something is part of a particular group it is therefore superior to everything else because that particular group is superior to everyone else by the very fact of its existance. UNFORTUNATELY, both proponents of the folkish aspects of certain belief systems AND opponents of those systems in general tend to use the two terms interchangably with no regard for the accuracy of the term. For example, many White supremeis racist groups use the synmbology of and claim ties ot the ancien Nordic gods and religion, therefore they claim that because they are White, and the religions is from a country that was white it and they are superior to everyone else by that simple fact of being white. Many that disagree with the idea of people following the ancient gods are quick to point out the ethnic ties in this belief system and confuse that with racism. (the fact that some racist groups actively encourage this belief doesn't help either.) Somehow, the idea that if you are Pro-something then you have to be ANTI-everything else had found its way into the collective conscious and so things of a folkish nature are misunderstood and misinterpreted by both those that SHOULD know better and those that don't want to know better. And I'll stop here before I start to ramble....

Answer 4

Manifestation Miracle Live Your Dreams!

Answer 5

Expantion only has to entail the enlargement of territory. Imperialism entails the conlinization of territiories that are generally removed from the central body of the nation

Answer 6

The difference is semantic.
Sort of like the difference between "Manifest Destiny" and "Lebensraum."