Imperialism

The US never joined any world imperialistic movement. An argument might be made that the USA colonized Hawaii. Some local US businessmen toppled the Hawaiian Queen toward the end of the 19th century. The US Government demanded they give it back, they refused, bickering went on for decades until Hawaii voted to be annexed into the USA in the 50s. Bill Clinton apologized for the mess during his reign of hyper-polling sensitivity. Hawaii wants themselves back now, keeping the infrastructure at no cost of course, but so does Texas and Florida. We pushed some people around during the "banana republic" adventures of the Dulles brothers, but we have never imperialistic along the lines of Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Britain, Portugal, Japan, Italy, Egypt, or any of those I forgot.

Your questions can be answered after you clarify them a bit.

1. What "Imperialist League"?

2. US Soldiers? This indicates that NO naval units are involved and NO aircraft are involved; as Airmen and Sailors are not soldiers. It also indicates that NO US Marines are involved. This must strictly be a US Army operation.

3. What "expansionist war"? Is the US trying to obtain more over-seas territory, like in the war against Spain in 1898, when the US obtained the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico?

Japan was largely unaffected by European imperialism. For centuries they maintained a very isolationist policy and had almost no contact with the opposite world. They never came under the rule of any Western power. Beginning in the 1800's though they, of their own accord, began allowing in Western ideas and seeking to modernize their economy and, to some extent, westernize their society. This eventually led them to adopt an imperialist policy of their own. They conquered Korea in the early 20th century and then in the 1930's invaded China. They had plans for a vast empire covering most of east Asia and the Pacific Ocean. In 1941 they tried to make good on this by attacking the United States, England and other European countries in Asia and the Pacific as part of the Second World War. As a result of this their economy was utterly destroyed and vast stretches of the country were reduced to rubble and they spent many years under American military occupation.

According to Merriam-Webster, a corporate colony is a charter colony (as Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Virginia) having a royal charter granted to the inhabitants as a corporate body. Corporate colonies had a charter granted by the English monarch to stockholders.

Answer
Mercantilism is an economic system that requires two distinct political entities to exist. It requires a metropole, which is the main part of the country and where the leadership sits. It also requires colonies, which are distant regions with unique resources that can transfer these unique resources to the metropole.

In order to create this kind of relationship, leaders from the metropole must create colonies in distant lands in order to extract these resources. This is why mercantilism necessarily leads to colonialism. Note that this form of colonialism can exist within large empires as well. The Russian expansion into Siberia and Central Asia in the 1700s and 1800s mirrors the Western European creation of colonies in the Americas and this expansion was done with the purpose of extracting raw materials that were present in these territories.

Further Elaboration on the Metropole-Colony Relationship
Mercantilism is the economic policy that a metropole should have a number of colonies that provide it material wealth, unrefined resources, and a market for its goods. As a result, according to mercantilism, the colonies were required to engage in two general behaviors: (1) The colonies were locked into exclusive trade between the colonies and the metropole and were not allowed to trade with any other nation or colony. (2) No manufactures or complex goods could be made in the colonial territory. As a result the colonies would provide wealth to the metropole by trading their natural resources for less than they would be worth and by buying manufactures for much more money.

Ships were able to transport goods worldwide.

Egypt was once a colony of Alexander the Great.

A striking feature was the lack of controlling influence by the English government. All colonies, except Georgia, emerged as companies of shareholder or as feudal proprietorship stemming from charters.
The colonial governments had power to pass laws and create taxes.

The Industrial Revolution lead to Imperialism by Countries associated with the Industrial revolution started to produce goods that were cheaper and people had better quality homes.

British impact on Indian Agriculture
Indian economy was mainly an agrarian economy before colonial period. Agriculture was the main occupation of the people and industries like textile, sugar, oil etc were also depended on it.Before the coming of English, Indian villages were self sufficient and used to practice agriculture and handicraft together. They used to pay portion of produce as land revenue and sell one portion in cities.

British Land Revenue System : The land revenue system of Bengal started by Warner Hastings was based on the principle that all land belong to the crown. He started the system of auctioning of the rights of the land. This deprived old landlords of their lands.
At the time when Clive got Diwani of Bengal, a system of annual settlement was in practice, it was collected by two Diwans, Rheza Khan in Bengal and Shitab Rai in Bihar. (In 1772, the post of Nayab Diwan was abolished and land revenue came directly into the hands of governor and its council.)
Warren Hastings changed annual revenue system into 5 year system. The post of European collector was abolished in 1773 and was reintroduced in 1781 and Calcutta was made the centre of collection of revenue

Imperialism leads to independence movements in colonized areas because the fact that they lock them up and make them slaves, gives them a reason to have an independence movement. They wouldn't need an independence movement in the first place if the people who "colonized" them didn't treat them like slaves.

Primarily Holland, Portugal and France; for example Vietnam was french territory until their defeat by the vietnemese at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 (leading to the start of the Vietnam war). Various islands in the pacific are still french and dutch territory (although most were transferred to US control), for example, the Marianas. Britain made inroads into Asia and of course colonised India, and subjugated china (see 'boxer rebellion') but mostly it was the aforementioned three. It should be noted that Asia was a damn sight more capable at resisting colonisation than Africa (only one African country has never been part of a colony, or under European rule/control)

Because Africa was loaded with natural resources and the Europeans wanted to take advantage of that.

Britain, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Germany, Greece (in ancient times), Rome (in ancient times). Possibly others.

In the nineteenth century many European nations created vast colonies in Africa. By the end of the Age of Imperialism all of Africa, excluding Ethiopia, were under the rule of outside Europeans. This has had an influence even up to today. With the expansion into Africa, Europeans carved new borders in Africa. In many countries, the local people were oppressed and, in some cases, subject to extreme cruelty (as in the case of King Leopold's treatment of the Congo). Many countries experienced turmoil following the Europeans leaving and in areas with many white people, there were many years of racial discrimination. Most of the reason Africa is having such difficulties today is because of European imperialism.

James rediscovered and discovered so many cultures that people thought he was boss and couldn't defeat him.

No, the USA has no need for colonies.

To gain more territory for the United States

Most of West Africa was colonized by France.

Upon the arrival of the British in India, they immediately set the indigenous population of farmers to work. Much of the land dedicated to growing the aforementioned staple food sources were converted to cash crops (Webber, 1/6). These cash crops were primarily comprised of jute (a fiber partway between a textile and a wood), oilseeds, and cotton (Satya,11). This produce change resulted in insufficient supplies of food available for the Indian people, despite the fact that, "the proportion of those dependent on agriculture grew to over 70%," (Satya, 4).

More negative impact of British on farming

Despite the injustices forced upon the citizens of India, the British occupation was not without its benefits. The first and foremost within the scope of my essay was the addition of railroads to India. These railroads allowed farmers' crops to reach farther and provided them with an insatiable market for their yearly reaping. Regrettably for those farmers, the railway system was set by and, through ownership, for the British as well. These railways predominantly, "favored shipment to the ports rather than encouraging internal trade. Similarly, it favored raw material export and finished good imports" (Satya, 6).

Another major benefit to food production in India thanks to the British was modern farming techniques and instruments. As an Indian-government-affiliated site described it, "In order to overcome the problem Government of India has introduced a 'Natural Disaster Management Programme'" (AgroWAN, Drought) based on what they have learned from their exposure to the British and other more technologically advanced nations. According to the Indian Department of Agriculture's most recent information availible, in the last fifty years the yield of rice per hectare more than tripled. (IDOC Statistics, 4.6) Unfortunately, no data is available before 1950, but we can assume that around the time the British entered India which had almost no modern farming paraphernalia, their introduction must have been of enormous benefit.

Despite the increase in food production, it is unlikely that this able to overcome the drawbacks of British occupation in India on farming. This would primarily be because of the use of the guarantee system. The guarantee system promised shareholders of the East India Company that, "If the company performed poorly, the taxpayers of India would pay for the loss." (Satya, 2). This essentially meant that the British investors would get returns on their investment, regardless of who has to pay to make it happen. Furthermore, since a bad year for the Company was also likely to be at least partially caused by a bad year for farmers, they would be taxed more heavily in years where they have a reduced amount of food or resources to spare.

In essence, the positive effects for farming of the British inhabitation of India do little to overcome the negative accompaniments to each one.

southern colonies

Roman Imperialism is a term that was defined in later times than the Roman Empire and it best describes the tendency of the Romans to extend the authority of their state [Imperium Romano] to all neighbour countries/ regions or territories in the same way that all empires did in the past - Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Spanish, Portugese, French, British; currently USA [President G W Bush: who is not with us is against us] and god knows who the next will be.

In 1511, Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar set out to colonize Spain. The Spanish remained there until 1898. There was also a 7-years war with the british (1756-1763) where the British occupied Cuba. The Spanish government gave the British Florida, in return of having Cuba without the British soldiers there.

Imperialism Viewed From Abroad:

Having begun a pattern of international involvement, the U.S. discovered that these actions frequently took on a life of their own. In the Caribbean and Central America, for example, the U.S. often had to defend governments that were unpopular with local inhabitants. In Latin America, the cry "Yankee, Go Home!" began to be heard. Even before the Panama Canal was completed in 1914, Panamanians began to complain that they suffered from discrimination.

On the other hand, because the United States was quickly becoming so powerful, other countries-even those fearful about maintaining their independence-began to turn to the United States for help. Both welcomed and rejected, the United States would spend the rest of the century trying to decide the best way to reconcile its growing power and national interests with its relationships with other nations.

Each city-state was separated by large mountain ranges, so it was pretty hard to unite the whole country.

HO CHI MINH was the leader of the Viet Minh Resistance to the French Colonizers.