Re your concerns about US global domination

Come on now, enough with the hyperbole. The US has been a superpower for 60 years, the beginning of which was marked with rebuilding Europe and Japan insead of enjoying the spoils of war, then turned to creating international organizations like NATO and the UN as a response to Soviet expansion, and then worked to clean up hotspots like Yugoslavia, Kuwait, and Bosnia.

I can't say I approve every US action in that span of time (particularly in South America and Southeast Asia), but the basis of comparison is the Europeans. This is a group of people who, when they had the power to, raped and pillaged the rest of the planet for 500 years, before just about destroying themselves in two wars. Now suddenly they're the moral compass for the rest of the planet?

First a definition:

The colonial system of political government or extension
of territory, by which one nation exerts political control
over another nation, territory, or people, maintaining the
colony in a state of dependence, its inhabitants not
having the same full rights as those of the colonial
power. The controlling power is typically extended thus by
military force or the threat of force.
[Webster 1913 Suppl. +PJC]


This means that Heshepesut was probably not a colonialist because Lower Egypt annexed Upper Egypt and in the treated it's citizens equally. Upper Egypt was not meant to be like a gold mine for Lower Egypt but more of a territorial expansion. Upper Egypt was considered part of Lower Egypt.

With Arabs, I think they killed most of the Egyptions (i dunno lol). If they did, it would not be colonialism either.

Concerning France in Algeria, the French were using Arabs as slaves or servants. The Arabs did not have the same rights as the French. If the French had driven out the Arabs or something, would that be colonialism?

What the hell; my ramblings are too vague and so is the currently accepted meaning for colonialism.