Talk:Imperialism

Why does this article only speak of Europe? This implies that only Europe was imperialistic. Shouldnt it mention islamic imperialism?Bohdan

One might guess that the article deals with nation-states not the predominate religion of the colonizers, which, yes, just happened to be Christianity.-_- Rob Pommer_talk 17:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok fine. Arabic imperialism or Middle eastern imperialism.Bohdan

One might think Bohdan had something against Islam. What about cultural imperialism? Chinese imperialism? Japanese imperialism? The imperialism of various central- and south-American ancient cultures and their imperialism? Zulu imperialism? Pre-Islamic middle-eastern and central Asian imperialism?--Olly 17:18, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

for the record i dont care about the religion of anyone. I think the article seems to imply that only Europe was imperialistic, when this is clearly not true.Bohdan

Fair enough. I think the point is that Europeans - particularly Britain, France and Holland - were just the "best" at it. And as Rob Pommer said, Europeans colonised in the name of the state or the ruler - much like the Chinese or the Japanese.--Olly 17:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Im pretty sure we think the same thing. I have nothing against islam, i just mentioned it because of the Ottoman Empires name recognition and familiarity.Bohdan

Yeah Ok but then why not talk about Ottoman imperialism rather than Islamic? Personally I *do* have something against Islam, but the imperialism of Islam is not as important or far-reaching as that of Britain in particular, nor is it more important or far-reaching than that of many other cultures or "nations". I apologise for accusing you of anti-Islamism but you can see my point.--Olly 17:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

alright. i admit my mistake. i misspoke. i really wasnt talking about what is viewed as modern day islamic imperialsim. i was thinking more about the battle of tours and the seige of vienna.Bohdan