arctanthrope

ok I see. my understanding of imperialism is that it encompasses both of those, meaning broadly, expansion of influence, especially (but not necessarily) by claiming areas of land, in order to gain control of resources currently held by others. but I agree, there are two types within that, and the distinction between them is whether the people currently occupying the land (or in particular their labor) are part of the resources that the empire is trying to claim

so, just walking through your own argument as I understand it: situations that are similar to the treatment of indigenous North Americans by the US can be considered imperialism, if it’s done by one nation to another nation. but the actual treatment of indigenous peoples by the US doesn’t meet that condition. the result of that syllogism must be: between the US and the indigenous peoples, one of them is not a nation. I assume you’re not saying that the US is not a nation. so the conclusion must be that the indigenous North American peoples were not a nation, or multiple nations; that there was no political or societal organization in the Americas before Europeans came. is that what you mean, or have I misunderstood?

and my question is why do you think that’s not a form of imperialism

the “neighboring nation” I was referring to were the indigenous people. North America was not a blank slate before Europeans arrived. “manifest destiny” was imperialism

so you’re saying going to war against a neighboring nation to expand your territory is not what an empire does?

live SpongeBob reaction