#Monroe Doctrine

[metaphors-about-maps]

the united states of america is so fucking funny, like they've got pretty much the entire english-speaking world convinced, to some degree, that they're these great guardians of modern democracy, the leaders of the free world, the benevolent peacekeepers, etc. all while being the worst imperialists modern history has known, on a level currently no other country is.

#venezuela #bolivia #honduras #congo #chile #argentina #south korea #indonesia #afghanistan #iraq #iran #dominican republic #vietnam #the list goes on #us foreign policy is downright dystopian #monroe doctrine #truman doctrine

[paulpingminho]

#Monroe Doctrine #American history #James Monroe #James Monroe Museum and Memorial Library #Fredericksburg #Virginia

[malfunctioning-viagra]

JFKs hot dead son, I will have sex with his corpse

#jfk #gay #monroe doctrine #headcanon #math #spiderman #:) #I personally think I should not have been banned from the morge on fifth #they were dead they couldn’t say no

[cmanateesto]

A War of Misinformation

Public School taught me that the Mexican-American war was an intervention. To save the country from a dictator, Santa Anna. The US Army rallied to save the oppressed people of Mexico as Santa Anna had taken Texas by force. 

Counterpoint: The Mexican-American War was a war supported by false and misconstrued information. 

Santa Anna had rallied an army to take Texas. These 300 families of Austin would not stop importing slaves into Texas. The problem is that slavery was illegal in Mexico. Yet these American immigrants insisted upon it despite Mexico's stance. 

Mexico would offer opportunities for emancipation. They banned the purchasing and selling of people in 1823. Mexico also passed a law that gave blacks born in Mexico automatic citizenship. This meant that these Anglo-Texan immigrants wouldn't be able to own a slave's child. A custom often practiced in the United States. Yes, if you were a slave and had children, they weren't your children. They were your master's children. 

If you're familiar with Reactionary sentiment, they don't take too well to the word "no." So to make concessions for these adult toddlers, Mexico exempted Texas. Texans could own slaves until 1830. The abolitionist sentiment was prevalent within Mexico. It was so prevalent that slavers would force slaves to sign contracts. "No, no they weren't slaves. They were working to pay their debt off." 

What I am saying is that if you had to report the crime rate in Texas around the 1830s. White American immigrants would be the biggest sources of crime. They were a backward group of people. While Mexico progressed and attempted to dismantle slavery, White Americans would insist. They would insist upon their draconian and archaic customs despite their surrounding conditions. Would defy the face of a modernizing world in favor of their Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny, a crusade against non-Americans. The goal is to gain exclusive ownership of land by any means necessary. Yet it was Mexico who needed an intervention?

I'm only pointing out that some more Conservative media outlets will demonize Mexicans. Some older sources would demonize Catholics. Yet it was Mexicans that founded a country that would abolish slavery before the US. 

Slavery was a practice that was becoming irrelevant in the mid-19th century. A practice that would become an issue that killed millions of Americans in a civil war. Yet Mexico needed the intervention?

Because American immigrants were becoming the biggest source of crime in Mexico. Mexican Congress took action to enforce its abolition policy. Congress would reintroduce property taxes which discouraged further immigration. Import Tariffs would slam down on American-imported products. If you're going to insist upon your archaic practice, you can at least pay for it. It's not like you're paying your slaves.

In response, the Texans would declare independence from a country they immigrated to. So yes, Santa Anna brought an Army to suppress an insurrection in Mexico’s country. If Mexicans tried to do the same thing in Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, the response would be just as forceful. Tucker Carlson would be freaking out in an “I’m not racist but” line of dialogue. 

 Douglas Hales, "Free Blacks", Handbook of Texas Online, accessed 12 Aug 2009 

 Douglas W. Richmond, "Vicente Guerrero" in Encyclopedia of Mexico, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn 1997, p. 617. Santoni, "U.S.-Mexican War", p. 1511.

After Santa Anna had taken the Alamo, the Texans would defeat and capture him. This was what these terrorists explained to Santa Anna. Sign the treaty to confirm Texas' sovereignty or get shot. Under duress, Santa Anna would sign the treaty. Now, remember: U.S. propaganda portrays the Mexican Army as bloodthirsty or cruel. They would never surrender or see reason. So Santa Anna signing the treaty is quite uncharacteristic to what the US said. James Polk insisted that the bloodthirsty Mexicans came over to shoot them. That they only wanted war and conquest, like their Conquistador ancestors. I'm joking, I doubt most Americans could pronounce Conquistador. 

Santa Anna brought this treaty back to Mexican Congress. Congress denied this treaty. Now, if you're following American propaganda, of course they denied it. Those bastards will never give up. They're sneaky and two-faced and only want American blood...no, that's not what Congress said. 

Yes, many express frustrations about rebels taking Mexican territory that wasn't theirs. The main reason are the conditions in which the treaty took place. Santa Anna signing the treaty was not the negotiation of two nations. Santa Anna signing the treaty had done so ONLY by threat of force. You'll find the United States using this method for many more "treaties." This treaty was not a treaty validated by two nations, this was a hostage situation. 

On top of that, the Texas Revolution wouldn't stop in Texas. These militias would send excursions into Arizona and New Mexico which. The Mexican Army had thwarted. Oh...and as far as Santa Anna being this totalitarian snake who ruled Mexico with an iron fist.

The Presidency had changed 4 times, the War Ministry 6 times, and the Finance Ministry 16. Mexico was a volatile country at this point. Politics were getting heated and it was affecting the people living within it. One thing that did unite Mexican politicians was the cession of Texas. They weren't willing to do it. As far as they're concerned, the militias are terrorists fighting for slavery. 

 Donald Fithian Stevens, Origins of Instability in Early Republican Mexico (1991), p. 11. 

Rives, George Lockhart (1913). The United States and Mexico, 1821–1848: a history of the relations between the two countries from the independence of Mexico to the close of the war with the United States. Vol. 2. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

James Polk decided that the U.S. should go to war with Mexico. It was not a popularly-supported decision at the beginning. Many members of the Whig Party were abolitionists. They knew that by accepting Texas as a part of the United States, Texas would come in as a Pro-Slavery territory. 

The Democrats held a strong belief in Manifest Destiny, citing it as a reason to take Texas. The Monroe Doctrine was a policy motivated by Manifest Destiny. This doctrine would claim dibs on North America. This was in response to European powers encroaching on modern-day Oregon. The United States didn't want to contend with European Empires for the land they wanted. Manifest Destiny was a sense of entitlement for these White Americans. God himself had defined this land as theirs. This nationalist mythology would set the West Coast as the final destination. As the world knows, that wouldn't be the end of American exceptionalism. 

The Whig opposition to the war wouldn't last. Senators like John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln would debate the validity of the war. Lincoln went as far as to ask Polk for the exact location of the skirmish. Can Polk point out on a map where the Mexican soldiers shot the Texan settlers? If these was to be a cassus beli, the least he could do is provide proof. Polk couldn't produce the proof, so him and his War Hawks turned to more misinformation.

Despite the anti-war rhetoric, the Whigs would vote for the war. Good to know that politicians voted for war even back in 1840. It's a relief to know that politicians then weren't any different than now. So when one says "this is the worst it's ever been" it wasn't. We have fancier toys, but the human condition is still the same. 

There were some principled people against the war and they weren’t politicians. Law enforcement arrested Henry David Thoreau for refusing to pay a tax for the war effort. He wrote an essay known as Civil Disobedience, an influential work. 

 See O'Sullivan's 1845 article "Annexation" Archived November 25, 2005, at the Wayback Machine, United States Magazine and Democratic Review. https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html 

“I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.” 

I'd recommend further reading. In another part he compares voting to wishing for change to happen instead of being the change. This essay would influence Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi. It would also influence lesser-known figures like Alice Pauls. Pauls had campaigned for Women's Suffrage in the United States. This essay also influenced Tolstoy when he wrote War and Peace. It inspired Upton Sinclair when he exposed the lack of sanitation in meat packing.

 Maynard, W. Barksdale, Walden Pond: A History. Oxford University Press, 2005 (p. 265). . 

My point on leaving this on Civil Disobedience. Many feel limited by their surrounding conditions. It's very easy to do. The United States would commit the public to a war of annexing Mexican territory. It's because they didn't do enough to counter the misinformation. It's because we fear we'll waste our time. We treat our nations as if we have no stake in them. We treat the politicians as another body separate from the people. We slump our heads thinking the nation will act with or without our consent The process of revolution is not narrowed down to a single war or battle. You can achieve a meaningful difference with a holistic approach. Revolution isn't only cannon fodder and blood. Revolution is a mindset. This is why nations try to censor information. This is why Propaganda exists. It doesn't exist to inform, but rather the opposite. If the collective knowledge of the public wasn't important it wouldn't receive funding. The United States defunds its education while pouring money into News outlets. Europe enacts vehement scapegoating of Reactionaries while riling anti-Russian sentiment. They depend on our fear for us to do their bidding. Knowledge is an axe to these intentions. Debate is a grindstone to sharpen our axe. Groups and communities are the forges that provide us with the tools we need. 

You are all capable of action. You're all brilliant in your ways. You'll devise solutions that nobody else can think of. Thomas Paine didn't fight one battle in the American Revolution. John Adams didn't have the Military career Alexander Hamilton did. It was Adams who chartered recognition from European powers. 

American Council of Education. (2019, March 11). White House proposes significant cuts to education programs for FY 2020. News Room. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.acenet.edu/News-Room/Pages/White-House-Proposes-Significant-Cuts-to-Education-Programs-for-FY-2020.aspx 

bureaus, M. V. I. A. T. T. E. A. U. with A. F. P. (2022, March 11). 'get the hell out': Wave of Anti-Russian sentiment in Europe. Barron's. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.barrons.com/news/get-the-hell-out-wave-of-anti-russian-sentiment-in-europe-01647018307

Camera, L. (2022, March 9). Congress set to cut funds that made school meals free - US news & world ... US News. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2022-03-09/congress-set-to-cut-funds-that-made-school-meals-free 

Conte, M. (2021, December 8). US announces funds to support independent journalism and reporters targeted for their work | CNN politics. CNN. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/blinken-summit-democracy-journalism/index.html 

Rob Portman Press Release. (2016, December 23). President signs Portman-Murphy Counter-propaganda bill into law. Senator Rob Portman. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/president-signs-portman-murphy-counter-propaganda-bill-law 

 Ferling, John E. (1992). John Adams: A Life. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 978-0-87049-730-8.

Thoreau argued against any revolution coming “too soon.” Be realistic, what can you finish? Acting reckless without real support does nothing but cause unnecessary risk. Finding truth outside propaganda is our responsibility. We'll inevitably fall prey to one form of propaganda. There are many factions we're a part of. This will come with many biases. Instead of denying bias, be cognizant of it when you approach a topic. Find out what's supported by fact and what's propped by bias. 

Thoreau acted when the surrounding society wouldn’t substantiate his belief. This doesn’t make him wrong. You don't owe apathy a consideration. You don't owe a palatable approach to those that have a problem with your conviction. You will take the time to consider all angles while they only accept their confirmation bias. The time for apathy needs to meet its end. We can do so via a fervent pursuit of truth. Do not let them discourage you, keep marching. They'll pick a tune and flag to march to in the end. 

Also, let me recommend Howard Zinn’s book People’s History of the United States. He does more justice to American history from the people’s perspective than I ever could. 

The Chapter referring to the Mexican-American war is “Thank God it wasn’t taken by Conquest.”

Origins of Instability in Early Republican Mexico (1991), p. 11. Rives, George Lockhart (1913). The United States and Mexico, 1821–1848: a history of the relations between the two countries from the independence of Mexico to the close of the war with the United States. Vol. 2. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

See O'Sullivan's 1845 article "Annexation" Archived November 25, 2005, at the Wayback Machine, United States Magazine and Democratic Review. https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html 

Maynard, W. Barksdale, Walden Pond: A History. Oxford University Press, 2005 (p. 265). Ferling, John E. (1992). John Adams: A Life. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 978-0-87049-730-8.

Origins of Instability in Early Republican Mexico (1991), p. 11. Rives, George Lockhart (1913). The United States and Mexico, 1821–1848: a history of the relations between the two countries from the independence of Mexico to the close of the war with the United States. Vol. 2. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinntak8.html

#history #united states #united states of america #book recommendation #class warfare #imperialism #anti imperialism #mexico #mexican #mexican american war #manifest destiny #monroe doctrine #american history #civil disobedience #martin luther king jr #gandhi #slavery #abolition #education #no child left behind #campism #colonialism #social justice #texas #war and peace #Santa Anna #european union #europe #russia #propaganda

[quotesfromall]

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference.

James Monroe, Monroe Doctrine

#pinochet #cia #us imperialism #apush #james monroe #monroe doctrine #the monroe doctrine #1823 #monroe 1823 #us history

[warsofasoiaf]

Building off the other Anon's Monroe Doctrine ask, what would you say is the exact point in history that the Old World powers recognized the US as an "equal" and would take proclamations like the Monroe Doctrine seriously?

I would say either the Venezuelan Crisis of 1895 or the Spanish-American War of 1898 would be the most likely candidates, with the British press even talking about "the American Peril" during the Spanish-American War. Certainly by the 1902-1903 Venezuelan Crisis (not to be confused with the earlier 1895 one), US intervention under the Monroe Doctrine was taken seriously. However, the reason many of the European powers did this was not due to fear of the US Navy, but rather because trade with the Americas was profitable and a positive foreign relationship with the United States was seen as preferable.

There's no such thing as an exact point in history when multiple people think something, each person would have their own opinions and both heads of state and foreign ministers come and go. But the best answer to this question is the Spanish-American War. This is when the European powers and public talked openly about rising US hegemony in the Western hemisphere, and the US blundered its way into the colonial game.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

#history #monroe doctrine

[teachanarchy]

Watch "System Fail 20: Picking a Side" on YouTube

#world history #peru #geography #anarchism #monroe doctrine #us history #imperialism #Youtube

[1929crash]

Slavery then and Now

Votes are what repeal bad laws. Idiots are what reelect looter politicians. When China deported East India Company’s Opium Detail Men in December 1836, Britain sold off American municipal improvement bonds to rearm for the Opium Wars. Whigs blanked this out entirely and invented a fabulous fiction that the Panic of 1837 resulted from Andrew Jackson’s opposition to an opposition party central…

View On WordPress

#Argentina #birth control #Comstockism #emancipation #mercantilism #Monroe Doctrine #murder #mysticism #racial collectivism #slavery #suffrage #tariffs #war #white supremacy

[factcheckandchill]

Historical thread: from Manifest Destiny to today's global strife.

James Monroe gave a State of the Union address on December 2nd, 1823. Buried within it, was a warning to the powers of Europe; that any further expansion in the Americas might be perceived as an act of hostility.

By the late 19th century, the Monroe Doctrine combined with the rise of the concept of Manifest Destiny, gave the perfect combination for American expansion westward towards, and into the Pacific.

Monroe was the last "founding father" to serve as president. He attended the College of William and Mary, fought in the Continental Army, and practiced law in Virginia. He was an anti-federalist - a group involved in ratifying the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, he served as minister to France from 1794 to 1796. He was also, partly responsible for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.

America started as groups of various European settlements whose affluent organized to create an independent, monarch-free empire. A monarchy of the rich with an illusion of public equality.

This was at a time when Europe was grappling with what powers their monarchs should have.

They originated as feudal systems in medieval times in Europe that developed from the mass enslavement of the poor in proto-capitalist societies.

The economic systems we live under today, if you live in the Western world, or a place under Western spheres of influence, derive from those systems.

In the 19th century, the Europeans and Americans could not allow for systems that existed outside capitalist control. The idea that people did not serve a state power, a monarch, or the various forms of landlords/capital owners, was unsettling and a threat to their legitimacy.

During colonial times, Guatemala was an administrative center in the Central American region. Today, it remains a religious center. Monroe-ism had a hand in eradicating most European control in that region. And instead imposing U.S. influence.

The influence is most pronounced in the Panama region, where the dollar is the current currency.

While the impact of Spanish, Portuguese, and other European conquest in Central and South America is still felt today, the current hand of the local conquistador, the U.S.A., is most today.

For the past 200 years, U.S. intervention in Latin America has become second nature. If a government in that region does something that the U.S. does not like, then that is grounds for a U.S.-backed coup, destabilization of government and society, and re-appointment of more U.S. corporate interest-friendly persons in the place of anyone the U.S. does not like. This started to translate elsewhere after Wilson took power. Like in the Koreas, Iraq (where the U.S. supported Saddam until they didn't) Israel, the GCC, Iran, heck even the Soviet Union and post-Soviet states - namely Yugoslavia.

Moral consistency be damned, you have to protect your foreign interests and ensure access to other people's natural resources! Right?

Nowadays, the times of Monroe and other early presidents are incredibly romanticized by U.S. Americans. Forgetting his actions towards Native Americans, and his presiding over the trail of tears.

This is not unlike the modern-day treatment of occupied indigenous populations elsewhere. But hey, white culture is better than any other, right? (Wrong, it isn't, it never was, it never will be.)

Looking at Palestine today, you can see where this amalgamation of Monroe-ism, Wilsonianism, post-modern imperialism and colonialism collide. And it all goes down to this white supremacist belief that their culture and way of life is best, which is infantilistic at best and narcissistic at worst.

Winston Churchill himself said of the colonization of Palestine;

"I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, though he may have lain there for a very long time I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race or at any rate a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, 'American continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here'. They had not the right, nor had they the power."

Decades after the Monroe Doctrine State of the Union, Theodore Roosevelt used the Monroe Doctrine as a way to legitimize America's "international police power" around the world. And if we ask KRS-One about the police, they are an extension of the upkeep of white supremacy in the United States. According to Roosevelt, the Monroe Doctrine was a way for the U.S. to expand their overseer officers across the globe.

Roosevelt's antics in Venezuela, reflect the ideals of today's American government. Telling Henry Cabot Lodge, "I rather hope the fight will come soon. The clamor of the peace faction has convinced me that this country needs a war."

Today, Joe Biden, like most all presidents before, is keeping up this power. Protecting their interests everywhere at the expense of everyone else. As we see in the carte blanche given to Israel by its imperial benefactors to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. Including committing genocide, enacting apartheid, controlling the world's largest concentration camp, and arresting 100s of children annually - without charge or judicial oversight - in military prisons, in a country that has become a safe haven for pedophiles according to its own media, amongst incalculable and unimaginable atrocities occurring daily against Palestinians across the territories.

This brings us to China and the Soviet Union, both of these nations are/were economic rivals of the U.S. The former two gaining power on the global stage is not good news for U.S. global control, as they provide alternatives to anything the U.S. can do, and it would be a great danger to U.S. and European satellite stateless, like Israel.

Cuba, being the antithesis of an American satellite state, remains a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy. A state, in its own 'sphere of influence', that isn't attached to the U.S. economically and socially? Worse, economically tied to the Soviets? What?!?!

Hell, the Monroe Doctrine was at the root of J.F. Kennedy's response during the 'Cuban Missile Crisis'.

And before you start to list the 'atrocities' of the Cuban state, I wish to redirect you to the concept of moral consistency! Look it up.

This is a catch-22 for both the U.S. and Israel. They both have internal issues that are bringing their power down on the global stage, and American support of Israel brings its power and influence down even further. Its power going down brings Israeli support down.

The final goal of anti-Monroe-vian visionaries should be to take away the veto powers of all who hold them on the UNSC, taking away any carte blanche powers that any state can hold, and the demand of moral consistency from all.

The Monroe Doctrine started out as a way to prevent European involvement in the Americas to ensure U.S. American economic influence in the Western Hemisphere. Later on, expanding that hemisphere to wherever natural resources and economic pathways may lay.

This motivated Europe to expedite the process of expanding east and south. A process that has been in the works, but it definitely allowed for more capability, time, and focus to be applied there than in the potential of expanding into the western hemisphere.

In today's world, Europe's colonial modus operandi is to settle its people elsewhere. While the U.S. modus is imposing a military and cultural presence that sought to command people's loyalties to what it saw as the moral high ground. Manifesting what once was titled the "white man's burden" - or in today's social power structure the "western-capitalist man's burden."

#palestine #manifest destiny #U.S. dimplomacy #israel #joe biden #genocide #united nations #gaza #politics #apartheid #israel palestine conflict #Monroe Doctrine #American Expansion #Manifest Destiny #Imperialism #US Foreign Policy #Global Politics #Colonial Legacy #Monroeism #Latin America #US Intervention #Western Capitalism #Modern Imperialism #Global Power Dynamics #American Empire #Global Influence

[irreplaceable-spark]

Vivek Ramaswamy Unveils Foreign Policy Rollout at The Richard Nixon Foundation

#vivek ramaswamy #vivek2024 #2024 presidential race #foreign policy #monroe doctrine #russia #china #ukraine #proxy war #president richard nixon #richard nixon foundation #taiwan #Youtube

[politicoscope]

The Far-Reaching Impact of Monroe Doctrine on United States Foreign Policy

Monroe Doctrine: Introduction Over the course of history, the United States has witnessed several critical moments that have shaped its foreign policy. One such influential milestone was the Monroe Doctrine, a proclamation with a profound impact on the nation’s diplomatic approach toward the world. As the Doctrine celebrated its anniversary last year, it is crucial to reflect on its significance…

View On WordPress

#James Monroe #Monroe Doctrine

[jwood718]

“The Monroe Doctrine - let Sam do it.”

“Illustration shows a resolute Uncle Sam as a soldier with rifle standing on a pile of money bags labeled ‘Financial Interests in South & Central America’; sleeping on the ground, using the bags as pillows, are men labeled ‘St. Petersburg, Wall St., Lombard St., Paris Bourse, Berlin, [and] Vienna’."  by Udo J. Keppler, 1911 (minor processing by Jake Wood, 2022).

Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Online Catalog

-

getting back to non-Xmas related stuffs -- in this case, politics and capitalists!

#Illustration #monroe doctrine #puck magazine #library of congress

[quillsword]

Should the Monroe Doctrine Still Exist?

Should the Monroe Doctrine Still Exist?

Yes. Y’all come back… Okay, okay, I’ll explain. It’s in the US’ best interest not to allow its enemies to have significant inroads on the American continent. You need that explained, too? Didn’t they teach you kids anything in college? The reason the US has rarely been invaded is its geography. To get to us you have to either cross an ocean or take over Canada or Mexico first. None of that has…

View On WordPress

#Canada #Central America #Hostile nations #International Relations #Mexico #Monroe Doctrine #South America #US #US Foreign Policy

[theparallaxview]

I feel like both internet liberals and leftists have a tendency to reverse-Great Man Theory Ronald Reagan at the expense of any insight into the history of his policies or the conservative movement that led up to him.

#YOU CAN’T JUST BLAME EVERYTHING ON HIM WITHOUT TACITLY ABSOLVING COUNTLESS OTHER MONSTERS AND THE WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM OF ITS GUILT. #IT’S DEEPLY INDIVIDUALISTIC AND ARGUABLY ANTIHISTORICAL. #Anyway this is because I saw a post that blamed him for the US backing brutal regimes in the global south under the guise of anticommunism. #When that famously started back in the post-WWII era and has its roots in Monroe Doctrine ideology. #FYI I fucking hate him but he’s a part of a larger picture. #(Anyway I study American politics during the Cold War with a focus on the rise of the far right.) #original content #100 #500 #1k

[warsofasoiaf]

When the US first issued the Monroe doctrine, how did the European powers react? Did they think it was presumptuous that upstart colonials should give their ‘betters’ ultimatums and dictate how they should act in the New World?

The European powers, knowing that the United States lacked a credible navy or the ability to project their army outside of their territorial borders, largely ignored it. Some did think that it was a new act of revolt, but largely the European heads of state did not deign to publicly acknowledge the uppity Americans. Britain actually privately supported it, because they wanted the newly independent Latin American states to buy British finished goods instead of being returned to the Spanish fold.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

#monroe doctrine #history

[woodworkzz]

Me, Brazilian, desperately writing an essay on the Monroe doctrine: oh this explains why they're Like That sometimes... Has this ever been like, deactivated-

#monroe doctrine #history #american history #latin american history