Imperialism In American Samoa

According to the prompt, the definition of Imperialism requires a country to exercise control over a foreign country or to acquire or hold colonies or dependences. Because of the somewhat confusing situation surrounding United States territories, particularly America Samoa, there has been some question over whether or not the United States is Imperialistic. While it certainly met the definition during the early 19th century and into the 20th century, does it still meet the definition today? This paper will answer this question in two parts, one covering the U.S. territories with exception to American Samoa and the other focusing on American Samoa.

To begin, this paper will review the voting and citizenship rights of those living in Puerto
Every resident of these territories has full U.S. citizenship from birth and although none of these territories have representatives in the Senate, each has one delegate in the House of Representatives (1). These delegates are considered to be non-voting, although they may serve on and vote in committees (2). Because of the lack of voting members in Congress, those living in U.S. territories are not represented by the Electoral College and are unable to vote in the presidential elections. If any resident of one of these territories were to move to one of the 50 states, they would be allowed to vote. Because they are not truly represented, they are not required to pay U.S. federal taxes with the exception of Social Security and Medicare. However, they do pay taxes to the territories’ respective government (3). All of that said, it is now a bit clearer why the U.S. should not be considered
imperialistic? If one were to consider any territory other than American Samoa, the answer would be a clear no. These other territories pay taxes that stay in the territory and they are all U.S. citizens from birth. But American Samoa makes thing more difficult. The residents are not U.S. citizens but neither are they foreign, they don’t pay taxes to the U.S. but they also can’t hold federal office. In the end, it all depends on whose definition of “colony” is used. While I say that American Samoa does not meet the definition and thus the U.S. cannot be considered to be Imperialistic, someone with a slightly different definition of the word might be able to argue the opposite. To summarize, while I do not think the U.S. can be considered Imperialistic, the country is walking a dangerous path in regards to American Samoa and it needs to be careful not to fall into old