Talk:Isolationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] A bit thin
Is this the best that the wiki-ites can do on this subject? There are many errors and mis-statments. It may not be worth fixing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaintes (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neo-isolationism
In the Face the Nation interview with Ron Paul (lots of Youtube videos of it for those who missed it), he referred to Neo-isolationism and I was wondering if it was notable enough to be included here?
I know he definitely didn't invent the term as searches turn up lots of other places it was used except there's no wikipedia article on neo-isolationism and if you heard how he described it, it does fit in with this article.
--Trailing (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] what?
How is this part of a series on discrimination? That's idiotic. News to you: ALL countries are isolationists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.37 (talk) 16:54, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
This article should be completely rewritten, as "Isolationism" was (and is) a pejorative smear word that has made its way into common usage. An article on "non-interventionism" would contain most of what is included in this article, whereas an Isolationism article should deal with that term exclusively.
To call Jefferson's sentiments "Isolationist" are especially absurd, seeing as he calls for peaceful exchange between nations (rather than hostile isolation).
Paul 16:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Right, Paul. I've rewritten the non-interventionism article, and intend to move the examples of "isolationism" in this article to the non-interventionism article, and to replace the term "isolationism" with "non-interventionism" where appropriate. Hogeye 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- isolationism as its used is mostly a smear world, but it wasn't always, like stated in the comment below, it was sometimes a stated policy, 'splendid isolation' was a conscious policy decision in great britain. see my last entry in the discussion page for comments on this. Brianshapiro
Would anybody object to a section for british isolationism? "splendid isolation" from the conflicts and alliances of the european continent until the massive strength of germany forced britain into alliance with the french and russians in order to retain the balance of power. SRP 15:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Eek
Needs some work, eh. Isolationism in China = See China? Also, "Britain isolated herself within the Empire" is a contradiction-in-terms. You're not exactly isolated when you're administering to a quarter of the planet. Marskell 19:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 'British Isolationism'
This section is plain wrong. For most of the 20th century Britain *did not* isolate herself from the Continent. During the Edwardian era Britain formed the Entente with France and fought the Great War against Germany. During the 1920s she signed the Locarno treaty with France and Germany. During the 1930s she actively appeased Germany and then reversed this position to fight the Second World War, mostly during the 1940s. In the 1950s Britain negotiated with six other European countries to form EFTA which became official in January 1960. Britain applied twice in the 1960s to join the Common Market, which it eventually did in the 1970s. Britain signed the European Single Act in the 1980s and the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s. - Johnbull 20:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, the policy of Britain in the 19th century was Splendid Isolation
- Brianshapiro
[edit] Pejorative?
I don't think there's any dispute that isolationism was a pejorative term in the WWI era. In a previous version of the article it was claimed that just before WWII "isolationism" was not pejorative. Is there any evidence of this? E.g. Did America Firsters call themselves isolationists? My impression is that the label is generally used only by opponents, but I could be wrong. Hogeye 07:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stay objective.
It seems whoever wrote this is not staying objective. When giving examples against, you should also give examples supporting. Else do not tell readers what to consider, as if it requires being said to consider an event or the past. Just say it, don't spray around argumentative statements like "one must consider."
"One must consider..." is where this article goes into an argument. Stay objective, please, or as objectional as possible when describing the failures or faults of "isolationism."
Also, general, sweeping statements like "isolationism has always been a debated topic." Has it ALWAYS?
Could someone please verify how long isolationism stayed in effect in Japan for? Inferno 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Objectiveness is needed. As are meny citations, and specific numbers. In fact, this article might need a major re-write; though I am probably not the best person to do so, I would bias the article in the other direction. --- Le Blue Dude (Not logged in right now)
[edit] North Korea
Wouldn't North Korea be considered isolationist? --LeoNomis 09:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Korea in general has some history of isolationism due in part to being conquered by outsiders on occasion. I think it was called the Hermit kingdom for a time.--T. Anthony 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bricker Amendment
For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Racial isolationism
I think this article is about isolationism as a state policy, not racial isolationism. I would reconsider attaching the "this is part of a series on racial segregation" box in the upper right. If someone wants to create an article titled Isolationism (racial), go ahead, but this article is on isolationism as political policy. ~ Rollo44 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Truman
I would say american isolationism ended with Truman. Participation in the World Wars was seen as something temporary. Quote from Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman: a life (1995): "The principal accomplishment of Harry S. Truman... was to change the foreign policy of the United States, from abstention to participation in the affairs of Europe and the world... the truth is that until 1947, in the midst of Truman's first term, the principal American way with foreign policy was that of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and Monroe... that the interests of humankind... lay in nonintervention in, abstention from, the affairs of the Old [World]... Americans of this time deemed participation in the world wars a temporary proposition... President Roosevelt told Stalin at Yalta he did not expect American troops to remain in Europe more than two years." Vints 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Non-interventionism ended with Roosevelt and Truman, not Wilson. Wilson got reelected with his slogan, "He kept us out of war." But that's besides the point because America has never been an isolationist. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Isolationism in art and music
Isolationism is also a term used in art and music, an example being the Isolationism compilation of ambient music released by Virgin Records in 1994. heqs 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US part of article expanded
I added some to the US section, to 1) expand it. (aka: expanded that more than just Washington thought that isolationism (militarily, at least, but also economically somewhat) was the way to go) And 2) add a section about the US's current position on isolationism.
Hey, what do you think about adding [Mercantilism] under "see also?" Constitutional texan 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Constitutional texan 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed U.S.
I removed the United States as an example of an isolationist country. The United States has never been an isolationist. Even this article explains how non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism. The United States has always openly traded and communicated with foreign nations. These ideals of non-interventionism but open trade and talk with other nations is found in the writings of the Found Fathers and has persisted today (at least the trade and talk part). ~ UBeR (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- "The United States decided to wash its hands of European wars and reverted to a policy of Isolationism." [[1]]. Changes to this article ought to be done then. 83.248.168.231 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] On the US, and problems with this article
To the previous commenter, yes if you view "protectionism"--the belief there should be barriers on trade--like this article does--as the standard for trade relations to be a criteria for isolationism, then the US was isolationist. The US in the 19th century relied heavily on a policy of tariffs, often called "neo-mercantilism", and pushed by Whigs like Henry Clay, and these policies lasted into WWII (Smoot-Hawley). It was only in the aftermath of WWII that the US looked to move towards free trade policies. And even in so much as it did, real free trade agreements didn't start until the 1970s.
The United States industrial revolution was built on protectionist policies. See American School. For a lot of reasons, I think it would be accurate to call the US in the 19th century isolationist.
But not because it was protectionist, or because it was non-interventionist, or both:
This drives at the major problem of this article.
--'Protectionism' could mean any degree of trade barriers, from 5% tariff rates based on labor and environmental and other standards; to massive quotas and governmental regulation of what goes in and out.
--'Non-interventionism' could mean any degree of non-involvement, from lack of participation in international 'policing' activities through international bodies like the UN, to refusal to participate in any alliances.
So, a government can be both protectionist and non-interventionist, in the less extreme ways, and not be isolationist.
Isolationism is not about either protectionism or non-interventionism or a combination of both; its about a political world view which intentionally tries to seek to isolate a country from the problems of the rest of the world. The United States in the 19th century did this, by both avoiding alliances with Europe and warning Europe through the Monroe Doctrine to stay away from the Americas. Foreign trade was heavily managed, because the US, being a burgeoning country with a lot of resources, never really needed to rely on it. 19th century Britain was isolationist in policy towards the rest of the world, because it could survive through management of colonies it already owned. One could say Britains participation in these colonies was anti-isolationist, but really Britain saw it as Britain managing its own affairs. See Splendid Isolation.
Isolationism usually also only refers to the diplomatic stance, and not the stance on trade. Isolationism does mean an isolation from the political concerns of other nations, not economic concerns.
'Isolationism' as a term often is, and is as defined in this article, merely a derisive slur against a populist viewpoint which supports both protective tariffs and withdrawl from international policing activities. But neither of these things together add up to isolationism, if it means keeping alliances and diplomatic commitments, and limiting tariffs to purposes of interest while trying to open trade relations worldwide.
So what you have in the two-part definition in the opening of this article is not an objective account of what isolationism has been historically, but what opponents of populism use to attack populist candidates. In fact, even though libertarians don't fit the real meaning of the term historically, they are better examples of it than populists. (Taking their stance towards diplomacy only)
