President Obama Accuses the US of Being Colonialist

Poligazette was paying very close attention to Barack Obama's interview with Al Arabiya, an Arab news channel.

When Al Arabiya said to Obama that America "was the only Western Power that was not colonial." Obama simply said "Right." You would think a patriot like Obama would have said "Excuse me, but the United States still isn't a colonial power." If such a statement had occurred I would be here applauding Obama.

Instead he took his rant about the United States being a colonialist imperialist power, one step further.

Obama: "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."

Apparently, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush (since 20 years we have been Colonial powers according to Obama) are all Colonialist Imperialist evil geniuses.

Is this the "Unified America," Obama always talks about? Accusing past presidents of colonialism? Does he even know what Colonialism means?

Colonialists are not the same as interventionists.

The United States does intervene usually when it sees massacre, genocide, threats to national security, stopping the spread of a violent ideology (like Communism or Radical Islam) and threats to allies. It's usually a humane cause and usually, usually, benefits the world in the end.

Colonialists on the other hand, such as Britain, France, and Germany in the past, usually before WWII (although France has continued colonialism in Africa well into the 1990s), to exploit indigenous people to deliver resources or production to that country while interfering with the local groups and keeping them in violent warfare. Usually colonialists don't send their own armies.

I guess Barack Obama still has a lot to learn when it comes to geopolitics, foreign policy, and historical background of the Middle East (perhaps he was inexperienced after all). As Michael Van Der Galien points out: 20-30 years ago, the Middle East was not in peace--the Middle East hasn't been in peace for centuries (we simply have better ways of recording and reporting the conflicts today, so it seems more common [it's an illusion]).

If anyone disagrees, I recommend you read the Wikipedia definition of colonialism:
"Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler or exploitation colonies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled, displaced, or exterminated."

Considering the millions of people who have edit powers on wikipedia, I think we can accept that this is a well-accepted definition.