Why is the myth of American isolationism prior to the First World War so prevalent online?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Why is the myth of American isolationism prior to the First World War so prevalent online?
Why is the myth of American isolationism prior to the First World War so prevalent online?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
americans own the continent. monroe doctrine.
Americans expanded their influence well beyond the continent prior to the First World War.
Irrelevant
It's literally taught in schools (indoctrination central).
Its a meme spread by schizo libertarians/neo-nazis by uneducated conspiracy theorist. The idea they like to promote is that America never got involved with foreign affairs until WW1 because Woodrow Wilson was a israelite or something.
They also have a bad tendency of excusing 19th century interventionism as being economically motivated rather than a politically motivated, but they also say the outwardly political interventions from the Cold War onward are secretly economically driven and therefore insidious. It's textbook doublethink.
It’s the opposite. America of this era is called isolationist by the (left-wing who write the textbooks?) because Americad didn’t jump on the opportunity to murder as many European Christians as possible as soon as the war broke out to further capitalist and globalist interest . This is despite the fact that America continued to trade with the allies and very clearly supported the allies both materially (from trade) as well as ideologically from the beginning of the war.
>uneducated
Academics need their skulls bashed against rocks
Manifest Destiny did not include giving a frick about what israelites wanted in europe.
Minding your own business and enjoying life free from central banking cartels is... le bad
>muh central bank!
why does this triggered morons so much?
Because central banks exist to enrich a small number of private shareholders and financial institutions by devaluing a country's currency and commodity reserves. They do this by protecting asset managers, and in doing so exacerbating boom and bust cycles than they possibly could be under more "natural" market conditions. So in that the stability that central banks provide is actually illusory and only intensifies consolidation.
tl;dr: central banks impoverish people so that a few can profit.
Federal Reserve in the USA came about directly due to bank panics.
>panics
Yes, panics caused by extremely rich bankers trying to further consolidate financial resources. Read into Jackson and Biddle, the Napoleonic Wars and the Rothschilds.
most depressions in US history were from the government printing money for railroads. It's not a coincidence that the first imperialist president during the gilded age was elected in large part by an irish quaker millionaire that married into wealth and power through a railroad family, who then spent the income on politics.
another similar rise to power was Abraham Lincoln, who spent most of his young adult life lobbying for railroads before marrying a prominent senator's daughter who was ugly (but so was he) immediately climbing the political ladder by being a noted "railroad man"
>the first imperialist president
whomst'dve?
The banks were the biggest advocates of american intervention in latin america.
Because the only wars that matter are the wars in Europe.
The US would not have needed an interventionalist foreign policy back then as Britain was the policeman of the world a role which we took over after WWII.
If Britain lost the war, the US economy would have gone into a depression. At least this is what Wilson was told and what he believed, the Black personhomosexual.
A US president wouldn't give a shit about a depression, that was definitely not the reason
He actually did thoughever. That's also why he supported banking reform. It was critical that society was stable and that nerds control everything, under the Wilson administration. This was the end of the Guilded Age anon. A new era.
A collapsed British Empire would've threatened America's ability to import and export overseas safely. British naval hegemony is one of the many things that allowed America to flourish economically in the latter half of the 19th century. The United States received the benefits of being a British colony with very few of the drawbacks after the Battle of New Orleans.
>Britain was the policeman of the world a role which we took over after WWII.
You literally forced Japan out of isolationism in 1853.
You were already the world police back then.
You also policed the seas before that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
American Algerian War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition
You are a an illiterate moron chud who doesn't read their own history.
The Maghreb states were enslaving American citizens. That wasn't a case of America going out of its way to get into something that didn't concern them.
And America was enslaving Africans. Yet African kingdoms never played world police. Your point is 100% moot.
>You were already the world police back then.
Temporary actions are similar to but not identical to the hegemonic naval supremacy of the British Empire. America intervened in North Africa, Sumatra, Japan, Samoa, Hawaii, the Philippines, and China prior to ww1. It was capable of intervening because of the British navy. American interventionism is always tied to British interventionism. After ww2 the roles were flipped and British interventionism became largely tied to American interventionism. The Falklands War is probably the only successful example of an independent British naval effort after the Suez Crisis. Unfortunately Suez is more relevant today than many people realize, as the geopolitical stability of the world relies on America not being moronic.
>And America was enslaving Africans.
Buying ungabungas—who had already been enslaved by their own African kinsmen, mind you—from Spanish middlemen in the late 17th and early 18th century is quite a bit different from what happened with respect to the Barbary pirates. Those African kingdoms didn't play world police because they were the ones who sold the slaves to the Spanish who sold them to the Americans.
More goal-posts moving and coping
Just admit you're wrong
Not an argument
Turn on your trip so we can filter you, imbecile
Not an argument
I agree with the general thrust of your point. I just dislike your heavily emotional third wordlist approach to history. You people make mountains out of molehills.
cope. op asked about isolationism. hence, every anon is asked to examine what america did or did not do on the world stage, regardless of whether they did that in the third world.
I am the OP. Third wordlism posits the inverse of the same problem I mentioned in the OP. America was neither world police nor wholly isolationist prior to ww1. Both of those are myths of ideology. I created the thread asking why the isolationist myth was so prevalent. My goal was not to propagate the equally false inversion of that myth.
it's prevalent because history students are pussies and enter exam answers they know are wrong, refuse to write the truth in their exams, etc. those students then become teachers and propagate the same lies to other students who are also pussies
They also pile up bodies and then accuse the great big other of doing the same thing
>two actions decades apart
>You were the world police!!!!1!!!
delusional
Not an argument
That anon listed three actions, not two
Rent free
stop
typing
like
this
you don't know what isolationism means
imperialism isn't mutually exclusive from isolationism, moron. everything you listed was done to further national interests. yes even blowing up nafri pirates.
none of this is "world policing", it's part of protectionist economies that all these nations had, which were created with isolationist foreign policy in mind.
whatever education system you fall into needs to be Reviewed and Corrected.
>during massive government unpopularity the government prints a bunch of money for some stupid infrastructure project
sounds pretty American
Roosevelt was extremely popular.
Also, another history 101 link for you to get up to speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rapprochement
Was this after WW2?
No?
Oh.
moron.
Isolationism is mostly just an epithet applied to anyone critical of any given point of foreign policy. It's a problem of polemical terminology memetically working its way into popular narratives of history. It's not an accurate descriptor of historical reality.
Because its fricking correct homosexual.
America had basically no colonies and polling showed the American populous was very against getting involved in a European war.
>No colonies
What are Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, Cuba
Don't delude yourself. America was very much an imperialist nation. Just to a lesser degree than the great colonial powers of Europe.
>muh Europe dindu nuffin
Sure, Hans
>the sun will never set on the German empire
Because the US didn't really get involved in anything beyond North and South America prior to the First World War.
What earlier presidents may or may not have done doesn't change the fact that Wilson was an evil warmongerer
It’s not just prevalent online. It’s a core part of America’s national mythology. Colonialism is European. Freedom and democracy are American. America lived in peace until Pearl Harbor then it learned to have a military to guarantee freedom. All that stuff about the Pacific and Latin America (assuming they’ve even heard about it) was just liberating them from Spanish tyranny with no mention of the resources acquisition or territorial sphere motivations like those greedy Europeans had. Of course the education system has changed now, but still that’s what a lot of people unironically believe because it’s the story they’ve come to know
After WWII the US was very new to being a world superpower, such that a lot of the Cold War was carried out with a remarkable ignorance of much of the globe.