How did american include themselves in spirit of imperialism(19th century)?What terriorites did they conquer?
81173
The subjugation of Native Americans and the spirit of Manifest Destiny combined in the U.S.'s westward expansion.  The Brits were the biggies in imperialism; the U.S. stuck mainly to it's own continent and drove westward.  Hope this is a starting place for your paper.
716870
Yes it does prove that. Also the belief that god wanted american's to have the country span from coast to coast. The american mentality was they were doing the "barbarians" (Natives) a favour by converting them and taking over their land.
682902
The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed the United States' opinion that European powers should no longer colonize the Americas or interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations located in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, and others. In return, the United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and in wars between a European power and its colonies. However, if these latter type of wars were to occur in the Americas, the U.S. would view such action as hostile toward itself.\n\nThe doctrine was issued by President James Monroe during his seventh annual State of the Union address to Congress. It was met first with doubt, then with enthusiasm. This was a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States.\n\nThe doctrine was conceived by its authors, especially John Quincy Adams, as a proclamation by the United States of moral opposition to colonialism, but has subsequently been re-interpreted in a wide variety of ways, including by President Theodore Roosevelt as a license for the U.S. to practice its own form of colonialism (known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.)
836320
New York, but they also had large settlements in Southern Africa.\n\nChow!!
653544
mexician and american war 158 years ago.  only i am not so sure you can invade, mexician troops were riding across the rio grande into texas, which had won its independence.\n\nat the same time, the folks in CA declared indpendence from mexico as well.
448147
What imperialist expansion?  The U.S. has not taken on any new possessions in about a century.  If we were an imperialist nation than we would own Japan, half of Germany, and the panama canal, among other areas.  \n\nThe War on Terror is a response to an attack on U.S. soil.
587709
Hard question to answer using only a few sentences, so pay attention in history class.\n\nAmericans originally came from England, - Explorers from Brittan came to America - then got tired of British rule and fought to keep the British away and we formed our own country.  (Remember when Crusty the Clown said we need guns to keep the Queen of England out of our face?)   Anyway - we formed the 13 original colonies, yada, yada.  The first American born President was actually the 8th President - \nMartin Van Buren, 8th President: 1837-1841.  The previous 7 were all born in England.  So basically the Eastern part of the Country was formed by a bunch of people from England/Great Brittan - the west however started to form during the gold rush era.  Mexicans & Indians lived out west, California was once a part of Mexico - then America won a war and took it from them.  All the while, lots of immigrants came into the counrty - arriving at Ellis Island in New York.  Lots of Irish & Italian and others.\n\nBut that's just my quick summary - take a history class.
1104410
Ok sweetie, first of all ignore the ignorants, they are partially right but they still don't know how to answer the question. Ok here we go.\n\nAmerigo Vespucci or Américo Vespucio in spanish (see the relationship?) was an italian explorer that in 1501 arrived in what now is Guyana (North of "South" América) he sailed through the Amazona River and ended up in Patagonia (The very south of the American Continent).\n\nAmérico was the first European that realized that this was a new CONTINENT instead of Asia (What they thought at the begining, that's why we call our natives Indians because that was the destination of Columbus). The news spreaded rapidly over Europe and in 1507 a publication of a map made by the German Martin Waldseemüller using the description given by amerigo (Américo) showed the new land name as AMERICUS (In Latin) or América (Spanish because Americo was with the Spanish explorers) in honor of Americo.\n\nThe actual concept of América is the name of what people call North Central and South America which at the end and technically AND CORRECTLY speaking is the name of the whole land that starts in Canada and ends in Argentina. Back then, and, some countries now call americans refering to all people of the new continent (Not only the USA).\n\nNow in the USA, This country was called in honor to that name and also was the first country that became independent from a European authority.\n\nBeing called United States of America means States unified in a land called America which means in some kind of selfish and honorable way that the name of USA is America.\n\nThe only thing I ask you to do is please know and spread the word because there's people that really don't know how they became what they are, and yes, you can and should refer to American or americans to all people in the new continent and the nationality of the USA citizens, but you have to explain when you mean which one. To finish my answer is that everybody that know the difference and knows how to explain it is right and everybody in this WHOLE CONTINENT is an AMERICAN, the north, central and south definitions came after.\n\nThanks for letting me finally explain this to everybody. It took me a long time to figure the why's and the how's (I was born in the USA but raised in Venezuela so it helped expand my mind and knowledge).\n\nTootles
487678
Maybe, but also,the spirit of the conquistador and the pilgrims lives on through americans to take over the world.
1178995
Ok sweetie, first of all ignore the ignorants, they are partially right but they still don't know how to answer the question. Ok here we go.\n\n Amerigo Vespucci or Américo Vespucio in spanish (see the relationship?) was an italian explorer that in 1501 arrived in what now is Guyana (North of "South" América) he sailed through the Amazona River and ended up in Patagonia (The very south of the American Continent). \n\nAmérico was the first European that realized that this was a new CONTINENT instead of Asia (What they thought at the begining, that's why we call our natives Indians because that was the destination of Columbus). The news spreaded rapidly over Europe and in 1507 a publication of a map made by the German Martin Waldseemüller using the description given by amerigo (Américo) showed the new land name as AMERICUS (In Latin) or América (Spanish because Americo was with the Spanish explorers) in honor of Americo.\n\nThe actual concept of América is the name of what people call North Central and South America which at the end and technically AND CORRECTLY speaking is the name of the whole land that starts in Canada and ends in Argentina. Back then, and, some countries now call americans refering to all people of the new continent (Not only the USA).\n\nNow in the USA, This country was called in honor to that name and also was the first country that became independent from a European authority.\n\nBeing called United States of America means States unified in a land called America which means in some kind of selfish and honorable way that the name of USA is America.\n\nThe only thing I ask you to do is please know and spread the word because there's people that really don't know how they became what they are, and yes, you can and should refer to American or americans to all people in the new continent and the nationality of the USA citizens, but you have to explain when you mean which one. To finish my answer is that everybody that know the difference and knows how to explain it is right and everybody in this WHOLE CONTINENT is an AMERICAN, the north, central and south definitions came after.\n\nThanks for letting me finally explain this to everybody. It took me a long time to figure the why's and the how's (I was born in the USA but raised in Venezuela so it helped expand my mind and knowledge).\n\nTootles
672990
They hate us because of our imperialistic neo-colonialism...which strips down a country, uses its resources (ex. Iraq) and installs a puppet government bent on doing our every whim.  And I'm an American citizen but that does not make all of our country's policies correct.
403560
Jesuits were generally expelled in the 19th century from Latin American missions.\n\nAs to what year was the discovery and conquest of America, this is a really poor question.  It is true that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but the conquest took a lot longer than that.  As to the discovery, there are a lot of historical arguments that show that the Old World had met the New World on many occasions prior to Columbus.\n\nWhen were the independent wars against Spain? Well, again this depends on the country, but most were in the first 50 years of the 19th century.\n\nWhat century did the first democracies start to arise? Are you talking about democracy as we know it today, or are you talking about the roots of it in Greece?  Democracy is a conglomeration of a lot of political ideas from many countries and it comes in a lot of forms.  So it's very hard to say when it arose unless you are more specific.  Some argue that the US, in 1776, was the first "democracy."\n\nWhen did the indigenous people live in America? Well, that would be about 15,000 BC until the present.  But the 15,000 BC date is quite obscure and there are a lot of arguments for dates before and after that.
399683
After we broke our isolationism and joined World War II.  We've always been imperialistic though, just look at Manifest Destiny and TR's Big Stick corollary to it.\n\nWe go to all these countries to help out and many extremists assume that we are there for other than alltruistic purposes.
260155
There is a historical president in the The US taking over Latin American countries for other purposes than just to rule them. The best example is the Mexican American war. It was mainly a war over the border of Texas. US said it was the Rio Grand, Mexico said it was the Brazos river. So we fought a war all the way to Mexico City. We took over Mexico. But we didn't want Mexico we just want Texas and the other half of the nation. And that's what we got. Plus puppet governments are easy to run than local state government. Hope this helps.
708870
I can explain it in one word: imperialism.  It's pretty much that simple.  The govt. (basically an apparatus of plutocratic rule) has embarked upon an imperial course at least since the Spanish-American war.  I suppose some might place it at the emergence of the Monroe Doctrine, but one would be hard pressed to deny it after the Spanish-American war.
168280
From what I remember from American history, though perhaps my memory fails, he was a very expansionistic president and he would send U.S. troops to places they shouldn't really have been. Perhaps he was the first president to give the impression of the U.S. as a sort of "bully" in this aspect, and even to day the U.S. has problems sending their troops where they don't belong. Overall though, he was one of America's finest presidents I beleive. Hey, nobody's perfect.\n\nYes, I did a quick check and that's right. He called it "New Imperialism."
753964
In 1823, in his his 7th annual State of the Union Address, President John Monroe stated that the U.S. no longer recognized the right of any European Power to colonize in the Americas.  He further stated that the U.S. would remain neutral in any conflict between European Powers, or between a European Power and it's colonies, unless the latter was in the Americas, in which case the U.S. would consider the war an attack on itself.  We started ignoring that one in WW1 and have never looked back, the Falklands Conflict between Britain and Argentina was a clear violation, we didn't bat an eye.  Given the technology available even as far back as WW2, that kind of isolationism simply isn't an option any more.  Be nice if it was, I agree, but it ain't.