Talk:American non-interventionism

I can't make much sense of this blather. It seems to be about American non-interventionism, which is not akin to isolationism. Isolationism is the attempt to isolate completely from outside interactions, including trade, migration and communications as well as politics. An example would be Japan prior to the arrival of the Black Ships (those Americans not really avoiding interference in the Eastern Hemisphere after all) or modern day North Korea. 17:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. This article needs to be altered to reflect a global perspective of the subject.  TOW speak aside, ima makin' some changes--  18:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I favor global perspective but the term isolationism is used by scholars of American foreign policy to describe the foreign policy of the United States in the period from the early days of the republic until the First World War.  It did not refer to isolation from anything other than the great power rivalries of the Eastern Hemisphere.  The United States was involved and did intervene in the Western Hemisphere and insular Pacific.  That you don't find the term descriptive is unfortunate but the term has that technical meaning nonetheless.  Thorvelden (talk) June 19, 2011
 * You realize that we have contributors from all sorts of countries here, right? As well as readers from all sorts of countries?--  19:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed I do. If a Briton insisted upon calling the "trunk" of an automobile a "boot" I would have no problem.  However I would have a problem with the imposition of that term for all automobiles all the time.  If we are concerned with terminological precision, which is important for effective communication, then I think the conventional (academic) term "Isolationism" is more descriptive of American foreign policy until the First World War than "American non-interventionism."  After all, the U.S. intervened with amazing frequency across Latin America in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Thorvelden (talk) June 19 2011.