\n
Beyond the chatter, however, are serious stakes. As the world prepares for Trump\u2019s return, the parallels between his preoccupations and the distant age of American imperialism in the late 19th century are becoming more relevant.<\/p>\n
Mr. Trump has already championed the era for its protectionism, claiming that the United States in the 1890s \u201cwas probably the wealthiest it ever was because it was a system of tariffs.\u201d Now, he seems to be adding the focus from the 19th and early 20th centuries <\/span>on territorial control.<\/p>\nWhat both epochs share is a fear of shaky geopolitics, and the threat of being locked out of territory with great economic and military importance. As Daniel Immerwahr, an American historian at Northwestern University, put it: \u201cWe are seeing a reversion to a more grabby world.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
For Mr. Trump, China looms \u2014 ready, in his view, to take territory far from its own borders. He has falsely accused Beijing of controlling the American-built Panama Canal. There is also the specter, more grounded in reality, of China and its ally Russia moving to secure control over Arctic Sea routes and precious minerals.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
At the same time, competition is increasing all around, as some nations (India, Saudi Arabia) rise and others (Venezuela, Syria) spiral and struggle, creating openings for outside influence.<\/p>\n
In the 1880s and \u201990s, there was also a scramble for control and no single dominant nation. As countries became more powerful, they were expected to physically grow, and rivalries were redrawing maps and causing conflicts from Asia to the Caribbean.<\/p>\n
The United States mirrored Europe\u2019s colonial designs when it annexed Guam and Puerto Rico in 1898. But in larger countries, like the Philippines, the U.S. chose indirect control by negotiating deals to advance preferential treatment for American businesses and its military interests.<\/p>\n
Some believe that Mr. Trump\u2019s fixation on Greenland, the Panama Canal and even Canada are a one-man revival of the debate over expansionist pursuits.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is part of a pattern of the U.S. exerting control, or trying to, over areas of the globe perceived to be American interests, without having to summon up the dreaded words \u2018empire,\u2019 \u2018colonies\u2019 or \u2018imperialism,\u2019 while still extracting material benefits,\u201d said Ian Tyrrell, a historian of American empire at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n