Видео

well didn't America insert their influence Latin America for their own gains, economically and militarily.

@@grumpycatlawyer3017 yes but tech, they didnt "control" them, you an aruge that they did under the table , but flat on on its face its not imperialism as its is defined, so its just speculation, because even if they did in the end them countries made the decioson, weather at the pressues of the us or not. if it was imperilistic they would not have a choice america would just say this is how it is and they would run it.. same with all of american territories, its more of a militaristic cause then a "i want to control your government" and talking about perratiroes like peurto rico.....its up to them for the most part, they can vote to become states and get the right to vote and everthing eles accosated with state hood, its just they chose not to do it(congres has to say its ok to, but its a bit of a formality). apnews.com/article/puerto-rico-political-status-plebiscite-referendum-2e268a33235a97b7068410476967cbfd its not the first time they had a vote. american territories still get protection from the united states, and we provide relief efforts to them but they goven themselves and get no public money other than emergency relief. so he is right imperalism is a no go, but expansionism for sure, the only thig CLOSE to imperialims that the united states did was with japan, where after world war 2 they signed a deal so that japan would have no standing army for 50 years and the united states was granted land to make military bases and we would protect them and some other stuff, but this dont really count cuz it came about because of there defeate in the war, and again even tho america had some say in what the japanese did govenment wise, the japanes ppl still made there own laws and such(they were not even granted as a territorie of the united states so they didnt get the boons accoated with that)