What does "Imperialist" tag mean?

[Nordic States and Territories]

I've heard the term tossed around in talk of R/D, but I don't get what it means. Does it refer to a certain type of regional ideology? Thanks.

[Space Dandy]

I've heard the term tossed around in talk of R/D, but I don't get what it means. Does it refer to a certain type of regional ideology? Thanks.

Yes it does.

Check this out: viewtopic.php?p=12554740#p12554740

Part II: viewtopic.php?p=14715474#p14715474

I'll linkify anything else I find, but this one essay is written by Charles Cerebella a long time Imperialist. Other Imperialists can answer any questions you still have.

[Nordic States and Territories]

So in short, an imperialist is one who wants to extend their regions power beyond their region itself through inter-regional politics like alliances and merges. They'll raid and defend according to need, not ideology.

[Nephmir]

So in short, an imperialist is one who wants to extend their regions power beyond their region itself through inter-regional politics like alliances and merges. They'll raid and defend according to need, not ideology.

Indeed; that is how I understand it.

[Nordic States and Territories]

It's a strange tag for how vague and open for interpretation it is.

[Aperi]

It's even more strange when you factor in the "Independents"

[Space Dandy]

It's even more strange when you factor in the "Independents"

I had come to the conclusion that Imperialism was a sub-branch of Independence, which some Imperialists recognized as true, given the similarities.

Though Independence is more akin to how some of the GCRs act, which isn't entirely the same as The LKE & TNI, etc.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

It's even more strange when you factor in the "Independents"

I had come to the conclusion that Imperialism was a sub-branch of Independence, which some Imperialists recognized as true, given the similarities.

Though Independence is more akin to how some of the GCRs act, which isn't entirely the same as The LKE & TNI, etc.

Broadly speaking Imperialism is a sub-type of Independence, with a greater emphasis on projecting power. Both Independents and Imperialists reject R/D as simplistic and pointless, and believe that foreign and military policy should be determined by regional interest. They will both raid, liberate, defend, etc depending on the unique circumstances of each region in question. Imperialists tend to be more aggressive and place greater importance on their militaries.

Historically Imperialism developed first, with Independence emerging as a major force in 2012 due to greater GCR military activity. Prior to that Europeia was the principal Independent region of note.

[Funkadelia]

So in short, an imperialist is one who wants to extend their regions power beyond their region itself through inter-regional politics like alliances and merges. They'll raid and defend according to need, not ideology.

No, that's being independent. And being independent and imperialist are not the same thing.

[Whiskum]

So in short, an imperialist is one who wants to extend their regions power beyond their region itself through inter-regional politics like alliances and merges. They'll raid and defend according to need, not ideology.

No, that's being independent. And being independent and imperialist are not the same thing.

On the contrary, proactively seeking to expand and project your region's power over other regions (which is the first part of the definition proffered by Nordic States and Territories), is more characteristic of a region which is specifically imperialist. Of course, you might say many regions seek to increase their power relative to other regions, but extending your region's power is a core focus and typically takes an aggressive form within imperialist regions.

Beyond that, imperialist regions reject raiding and defending for their own sake, hence why imperialist regions are also independent regions.

On the other hand, not all regions which are independent regions by that definition have the characteristics we associate with the imperialist tradition.

Independence and imperialism are not the same thing, but as others have already said, that is because imperialism is a sub-variant.

[Nordic States and Territories]

Thanks for the thorough explanation Whiskum. However, what of the gray area between imperialism and independents? All regions (except for isolationists I guess) seek to grow themselves in some form. If the only difference is that imperialists place a certain emphasis on it, that would suggest there is a sort of scale. You have extremist imperialists who are aggressive about expansion, extremist independents who are apathetic. Is there a term for moderates, or do they just fall on either side? And if the latter is the case, where do you draw the line?

[Whiskum]

Thanks for the thorough explanation Whiskum. However, what of the gray area between imperialism and independents? All regions (except for isolationists I guess) seek to grow themselves in some form. If the only difference is that imperialists place a certain emphasis on it, that would suggest there is a sort of scale.

In terms of the gray area, it should be clarified seeking to expand and project power over other regions is more than simply seeking regional growth. Every region may seek to further its own development and independent regions have a self-interested foreign policy, but that is not the same as orientating a region towards becoming a geopolitical power which sets strategic objectives for expanding that power and where appropriate wields this power externally.

Of course, your point stands that to an extent the differences between independence and imperialism might be regarded as differences of emphasis. However, while that may be true as a description of their activities, independence and imperialism also grew out of different historical traditions.

Moreover, those differences of emphasis define their way of doing business, affecting their internal political culture (compare the experience of being a citizen of Europeia to being a citizen of TNI) and perhaps most crucially how they relate to other regions: so at the end of the day they matter quite a lot.

You have extremist imperialists who are aggressive about expansion, extremist independents who are apathetic. Is there a term for moderates, or do they just fall on either side? And if the latter is the case, where do you draw the line?

It may be a difference of emphasis, but I am not sure it is one of a sliding spectrum which different regions can be neatly placed on.

That said,in terms of drawing a line, ultimately at the margin (and within reason - ultimately there are aspects which either can or cannot be identified in regions which are seeking to expand and project power) self-definition is important - both because the activities of imperialist regions require a consciousness and because of the social effect this has. As to whether a region defines in this way or can do so, there are strong practical elements to this - imperialism as well as being a descriptor for a type of behaviour also lends its name to the imperialist sphere of regions with its history and alliances.