American Imperialism vs. European Imperialism part 1

This is the first of a three-part series on a paper I wrote on American Imperialism verse European Imperialism called In what respects did American Imperialism differ from European forms of Imperialism at the turn of the twentieth century?.  The work sited  page can be found on part three of this series.  I hope you enjoy it please feel free to leave a comment.  I would love to get your feedback:

The Background

The nineteenth to early twentieth century is known as the Age of Imperialism.  During this time European nations carved empires for themselves.  Nations like Britain, France, and newly formed Germany divided and conquered whole continents like Asia and Africa.   It was a time of social Darwinism where survival of the fittest meant that politicians who developed societies had the right to conquer under-developed nations for the betterment of the human race.  During this time, the U.S. had just finished settling its frontiers and building up its economy.  It finally felt it was ready to be a major player, like a young man ready to prove himself.  The U.S. was ready and did end up establishing a few territories in both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans.  In the Spanish-American War, the U.S. proved it had a navy to rival any European nation by destroying the Spanish navy and taking Cuba, the Philippians, Guam, and Puerto Rico.[1] Although America did end up entering into imperialism, it was imperialism of a far different form and method than that of the European nations.

European imperialism and U.S. imperialism differed by sheer size.  In Britain’s peak, it was said that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.”[2] This quote means that the British Empire was so big that at any given point in time the sun was always shining on land under British rule.  The U.S., on the other hand, only controlled Hawaii, the Philippians, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Cuba.  Britain did have one of the bigger colonial empires of European nations, but nations like France and Germany were also much larger than the U.S. empire.  Even when the U.S. acquired Cuba from Spain, it was to be liberated, whereas European empires conquered almost all of Africa, Asia, and even parts of Europe.  This also reflects the total impact imperialism had on a nation’s economy as a whole.  The territories the U.S. controlled helped the U.S. economy, and businessmen were very involved in the annexation of Hawaii.  Hawaii was very Useful and profitable for sugarcane, but the overall impact of these territories was small. China was by far a bigger trade partner and it wasn’t a colony or territory of America.[3] Imperialism in Europe, however, was viewed as an extremely important or even necessary part of the economy.  At the turn of the century, about ninety percent of Britain’s imports were raw goods and ninety percent of its exports were finished goods with the majority of the raw materials coming directly from its colonial base.[4] The importance of imperialism to the U.S. was very different from the importance of imperialism in Europe.

U.S. imperialism was also not nearly as systematic or accepted as European imperialism.  The U.S. government annexed Hawaii in June 15, 1898, and received Cuba, the Philippians, Guam, and Puerto Rico from the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, which ended the Spanish-American War. These two acts are seen as America’s key acts of imperialism but are not sequential in nature nor related to one another.  The U.S. annexing Hawaii did not lead to the annexation of the other islands.[5] Those two events are really the only two situations historians point to as examples of U.S. imperialism.  This is very different from European forms of imperialism.  They were much more deliberate.  America claimed to enter the Spanish-American War to fight for Cuba’s independence, and when the war was over, Theodore Roosevelt eventually gave Cuba its freedom on May 20, 1902.  Even the U.S.’s biggest land acquisition was not presented in the media as an act of imperialism, but as an act of liberation.[6] In Europe, Imperialism was a much more accepted part of government policy.  It was wildly accepted by the majority of the European public that the indigenous. people of Africa and Asia needed to be under the leaderships of European rule.  This can be seen by the popularity of authors like Rudyard Kipling in “The White Man’s Burden”.[7] Leaders of European nations like Germany, France, and Britain actively had policies of imperialism or at the very least did not stop members of their country from taking parts of Africa for business expansions.  Events such as the Berlin Conference, which led to the Berlin Act of February 26, 1885, laid down ground rules for how imperialism should be handled in Africa.  It set up where the borders of colonies should be drawn and how colonizing countries should act.[8] The Berlin Conference shows that European imperialism was much more deliberate and organized.  It was viewed as an acceptable and necessary government act.

• Click to read part 2 of American Imperialism vs. European Imperialism

• Click to read part 3 of American Imperialism vs. European Imperialism