Talk:Overseas expansion of the United States

"cultural imperialism" changes

I've removed this paragraph:

Proponents of this view argue that not only is "Cultural Imperialism" a misnomer and an intellectually invalid concept, but is by nature a culturally fascist accusation or retort against cosmopolitanism, and, ultimately, racist. This is part of a larger world view known as Circular Political Theory (the farther you go to the extreme left, the closer you come to the extreme right, and vice versa), which interprets so-called "anti-imperialist" movements and the "new leftism" as merely superficial reworkings of classic fascism.

One paragraph neutrally proposing the thesis of cultural imperialism followed by two refuting it fails NPOV. I started to add some defense of the idea that cultural imperialism is something to be prevented, but decided that would make the subsection far too long. Better to leave the debate for the main cultural imperialism article. Kalkin

I totally agree with the comment that this article has lost its neutrality.

Who wrote "It is also widely believed that the US was behind the Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002." What sources are you getting your info from? T.V. talk shows? Please realize that when you state unsubstanciated info like that you cause harm to the people who are really trying to improve relations. I strongly believe that unsubstantiated claims like that are an unethical, low-blow used to distort reality. Please desist! unless you have the facts. Wikipedia is a powerful learning/teaching tool. Don't make it a cheap political squak box.

I have read the same thing in many British national newspapers including The Times and The Telegraph. Both report on global feelings that the Bush administrantion was behind the coup. CNN online also reported the same feelings. James Quinn 20 Sept 2006, sorry, dont know my IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.213.247 (talk • contribs)

Should we mention Occupied Japan?

It's known that Japan was occupied and essentially under American management after that country lost WWII, mostly to the USA. Shouldn't or should this be mentioned in our treatment of "overseas expansion of the USA"? 68.32.48.59 (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No because it was a military occupation, and the USA had no intention of occupying Japan prior to WW2. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Would an argument that the U.S. occupation of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico should not be mentioned here because it came about as a result of the Spanish-American War, and that the U.S. had no intention of occupying these countries prior to that war apply in the same way? If so, it seems that this article should show, with cite-supported assertions, that a U.S. intention to occupy those former Spanish territories did exist pre-war. If not, why would the argument apply regarding Japan and not regarding the other countries? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what is more important is that anyone wishing to imply in the article that Japan was an American colony or a US possession in the same vein as the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico should demonstrate that this is the academic consensus. Attempting to apply logic to this type of question is just a form of original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A categorical no. It was a temporary occupation, not permanent expansion of territory. Arjuna (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mention Japan, you would have to mention Germany, Austria and so on. Red4tribe (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cuba Entry

Should the entry for Cuba be shortened? The statement regarding Guantanemo Naval Base better belongs within that article rather than as a statement within what should be a brief statement. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Philippines section

After speaking of the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, bicameral legislature, the Philippine Commission (an appointive body having both U.S. and Filipino members), a popularly elected lower house, the Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) of 1916, and the United States commitment to grant independence to the Philippines, "...as soon as a stable government can be established therein.", the article backed up to 1899 and said, "... the guerrilla fighters soon found that the Americans were not prepared to grant them much more autonomy than Spain had allowed." (, of courthe insurgent Malolos Republic declared war on the U.S. long before Aguinaldo shifted from conventional to guerrilla tactics, of course). There was also a "Thus," which I took as drawing an unwarranted conclusion.

The problematic bits were unsupported (though not completely untrue, despite the biased presentation). I have boldly eliminated what I saw as the most problematic bits and have rearranged some of the remaining text. I think this is an improvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)