If it helps some people call America’s empire a hegemony. Niall Ferguson argued why they were pretty much the same, but to be honest its all semantics, whatever you call it, its there! Now correct me if I’m wrong but the US likes to ‘get involved’ with the world. It wants to globalise free markets, the rule of law and representative government or as is so fondly used ‘export American values’. The last Anglophone empire set out with the same goals. It became known as the ‘white man’s burden’. Of course Britain occupied the countrys it invaded, and kept troops there for long periods, enforcing its will on the people. Capital ventures in these new lands were often by chance, someone would stumble on a particularly good field of tea plants or whatever. America’s empire is obviously very different. Obviously the Sates took or bought various pieces of land- the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the Adams-Onis treaty of 1819, the Treaty of Paris 1898 and all the others. Those ‘purchases’ went on to form America (not the Paris one, but the rest). Of course because America is seen as homogenised culturally people forget that it is actually diverse, and individual states can be seen in many ways akin to the empire building of England which gave us rule of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. What differs is the name ‘state’ and the name ‘country’- they’re both areas of people who were brought under one government forcibly. Hawaii is a great example- Hawaiians peacefully resisted American rule- a Home Rule party won the a majority of seats in the first territorial legislature. The Repulicans were only able to resist by using the local Prince Kuhio as a front man with whom sugar companies and missionaries were able to ‘marginalise’ local people. ‘Formal’ and ‘fundamental’ provisions of the constitutions were extended to Hawaii therfore it became a state. Puerto Rico, which was ceded to the US by Spain was, however deemed a ‘possession’, ‘organised but unincorporated’ so it has remained in a kind of limbo. Of course America also attempted annexation of the Philipines. Their experiance there seems to echo in the current conditions of the world. Anyway, I believe in many ways country of America is an empire itself. Outside of that continent is where things become even more interesting though. America likes governments around the world to be sympathetic toward its values. In recent memory Milosovic is one of the classic examples of somebody who was not sympathetic to American values, thus he was removed (coincidentally the Serbian police brutality happened after Britain and America invaded, before that date the KLA were responsible for far more deaths). Going back further Roosevelt sent marines to Columbia (their 3rd trip there) to establish Panama as an independant state after the Colombian government refused to lease to land for construction of a canal. There was a secessionist coup and within 90 mintues of its success the US recognised Panama as a state. Panama coincidentally granted the US a 10 mile strip of land crossing their country shortly after. This is classic of post-Philipine approach of the US- intervention, not annexation. Washington has now been interveneing quite regularly, helping install favourable governments and the like. Ok the US is not in direct possession of these countrys, but there’s more than one way to skin a cat. America’s influence in effect means it gets what it wants- US companies receive the first and most lucrative contracts. In addition groups who don’t want to conform with American ideals, or American installed leadership, are quashed. I could go on literally forever, 10,000 to be more exact, but needless to say, the US has been empire building just as the British, the Romans, the Greeks and all the rest have.
John:
I’ll cede two major points here. First, that there is an American hegemony that is actively promoted in terms of markets and values; second, that historically, especially in the 19th and very early 20th centuries, the U.S. acted in a manner more consistent with a more traditional construction of empire building.
That said, I think you’re stretching the “imperialism” concept pretty far if you stretch it to include any use of the military and/or market size to pursue national interests.
But, hey, it’s your thesis. I’m sure it will be interesting reading.
Odd,
Brits didn’t complain when America “got involved” during World Wars 1 and 2, nor when we defeated the Soviets who had a ton of nukes pointed at England, the European continent, etc. When America is attacked, and we ask our “allies” for help, then come the shrill cries of hegemony and imperialism. I suggest you visit Normandy, and give some thought to American “involvement.”
Ahhh, the old trusty “you all would be speaking German right now if it wasn’t for us!”. Tell me this, how long does Europe need to kiss our ass for that one? It’s been 60 years, for christ’s sake.
Tyler23,
Didn’t the Berlin wall come down in 1989? Does 2004-1989=60?
Then there’s Bosnia…
Let me guess, you are a Democrat.
See you in November,
JeffR
[quote]conservativejud wrote:
Odd,
Brits didn’t complain when America “got involved” during World Wars 1 and 2, nor when we defeated the Soviets who had a ton of nukes pointed at England, the European continent, etc. When America is attacked, and we ask our “allies” for help, then come the shrill cries of hegemony and imperialism. I suggest you visit Normandy, and give some thought to American “involvement.”[/quote]
I’m not having a go at America for involvement in World War II! In fact wasn’t America not too bothered with Hitler until American ships were attacked in the Atlantic? The shrill cries of ‘hegemony and imperialism’ arise because its happening. America wants involvement from her allies not to defeat Hitler, who threatens the entire world, but to take out a feeble dictator, gain the 2nd largest oil field on earth and a Muslim foothold in the Middle East, whilst making defense corporations all the richer. When America was attacked her allies stood strong by her side. We all supported the US intrusion into Afganistan, we all tightened airport security and have helped the US find terrorists. Iraq wasn’t ever about terrorists or America getting attacked. If the current torrent of criticism about Afganistan hurts I believe that sadly it is well founded. The military occupation of that country is woefully poor. The war was won mostly due to the supply of weapons and air support to warlords opposed to the Taliban, not by US troops- a good strategy for winning a war. Now America is in an occupation scenario and those warlords are causing trouble, for instance opium production has risen 80% this year beacuse there is no control. Aid agencies are pulling out because troops can’t keep their workers safe and only pockets of territory are under Afgan governmental control. An American empire is potentially one of the most benign forces to have ever been seen, but instead it is wrought with bloody, covert operations and poor management. That’s why the world is bitching about it.
Tyler23 -
During the Revolutionary War, France loaned us the money to fight the war. We paid them back - with interewt.
In WWI we stopped the Germans from overunning France. We got a big thank you and maybe some wine out of the deal. Our cost? Thousands of American lives.
In WWII we went back over there and did the same thing again. We hardly received a thank you for this one. Our cost? 400,000 American lives.
After WWII - there was this thing called NATO. We were the defense system for Europe during the cold war. We had troops stationed in Germany - still do - on our dime.
And when we need some help forming a coalition where are the damn French? Cashing Sadaam’s hush money checks, and saying we are acting unilaterally.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Ahhh, the old trusty “you all would be speaking German right now if it wasn’t for us!”. Tell me this, how long does Europe need to kiss our ass for that one? It’s been 60 years, for christ’s sake.[/quote]
A LONG time dammit! A very long time. Especially since they haven’t done squat in return.
America fought wars to overturn imperialism, fascism, naziism, communism and the expansionist designs of several genocidal dictators. We sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives to free over 1 billion people in Europe and Asia. During that process, we have not taken one inch of territory, established one single colony or taken the wealth of a single conquered nation. America provides over 90% of the foreign aid received by the nations of the world and provides 75% of the funding for the UN. Nearly every dollar spent to fight AIDS, hunger, poverty, to aid refugees and countless other benevolent programs comes out of the pockets of American tax payers.
Compare that to the records of our “European allies.”
France: still has colonies, recently committed genocide in Sierra Leone and has a long history of genocidal policies, openly tolerates a vibrant slave trade in its colonies and trades illegally with slave trading countries and brutal dictators such as Saddam Hussein.
England: also still has colonies, and follows many questionable policies and is slipping daily toward socialism, but really isn’t too bad. I appreciate Tony Blair and the British troops willing to fight along side of us.
Germany: twice threatened the freedom of the world and killed millions. Became radically socialist during the early 1970’s and now adopts many anti-American policies. Openly trades illegally with several brutal dictators such as Hussein’s Iraq, Iran, Libya, Palestine (Germany is their main munitions provider - I guess they just love to kill Jews). Germany built Saddam’s bomb shelters and many of his weapons factories.
Russia: run by a former KGB agent who is allowing communism to rise again. Allows a black market trade in nuclear arms to any dictator who can afford them. Propped up Hussein and Iran for decades. Is waging genocide against Russian Muslims and helped Serbia do the same. Allows a vibrant slave trade within its borders.
The United Nations: propped up Hussein and allowed his people to stave by openly accepting corruption in its Oil for Food program. Condemns Israel for killing terrorists, but not Palestine for killing Jews. Runs a vibrant sex slave trade in refugee camps throughout Africa. Props up dictators. Has never done one thing to free any people or prevent genocide. Gave the Soviet Union 2 votes to America’s one and gives equal legitimacy to dictatorships as democracies.
I’ll stop here for lack of time. But, one final point. America dominates the world economy not through military force (as implied by hegemony and imperialism) but through the superiority of free market capitalism. The anger of our thankless allies is the result of envy, because socialism slowly destroys the economy of any nation. America’s poor are wealthier than the French middle class, ditto Germany, Russia, etc. They blame America for their ills just like they used to blame the Jews. Come to think of it, they don’t like Jews much either these days - they are too busy appeasing and surrendering to Islamic fascism.
PS
I’ll be gone for a couple of days, and my schedule is such that I’ll never be a frequent poster here. Don’t perceive any lack of response on my part as ceeding a point.
Wow, I really touched a nerve with that one. Guess I just get tired of the we’re-the-US-and-we’ll-do-whatever-the-hell-we-want attitude.
Just from reading the opening line in the first post- Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons or WMDs? I thought Reagan and Bush Sr took care of that already. Wow, Iran must have used up their supply already.
It’s obvious that many of you have the same misconceptions about ww2 that lead many in America to be seriously mistaken about America’s ability to wage war. The truth is it a was mutual ass saving. Heres why and how. It’s true the American ambassador to England, Joe Kennedy told Roosevelt England’s a lost cause. Churchill sent Kennedy’s punk ass packing. Churchill wrote a letter to Roosevelt saying that if England falls the only thing my successor will have to bargain with is the Royal Navy which was the worlds largest. Overnight it would have made Hilter a very serious threat to America’s Atlantic coast with the Japanese threatening the Pacific. This prompted the lend lease act in March 1941. It took American Industry 18 months to mobilse in ww2. Most Americans think that mobilisation began after Pearl Horbor which it didn’t. The English buying weapons first with their own money and then with the lend lease line of credit, is what got the American armaments industry going mobilised long before Pearl Harbor. This is how Roosevelt was able to say right after Pearl Harbor that America is going to produce increasing amounts of weapons and be the arsenal of democracy. Unfortunately many here think America sat back and did nothing till it got devastated at Pearl Harbor, then all of a sudden got up and kicked ass and can do the same thing again. That is a totally eroneous view. England saved England’s ass in the Battle of Britain and did it alone while pacifists in America said it’s best we do nothing.
The lesson’s are this. Don’t listen to the Kenndy’s they are moron’s. Pacifists standing in the way of decisive action have cost more lives than they have saved. England holding the line and mobilising American industry saved America’s ass! Most Americans and British don’t know their own history and many are protesting things they don’t understand.
Last but not least. Saddam sent a team of hit men into Kuwait to kill Bush the 1st after the gulf war. How anyone can say that this murderer didn’t hold a grudge over the gulf war is beyond me. With the threat posed by Alqaeda how is it reasonable to allow someone with a murderous grudge like Saddam to stay in business? Also Iraq has the third largest oil reserves. Russia who opposed the invasion of Iraq is number two. Russia produces 7.8 million barrels a day to Saudi Arabia’s 8 million barrels a day. I think any reasonable person would have to agree that they stood to lose money with the Iraqi oil back on the market. Lets also not forget that France and Germany own the banks where a lot of the Russian oil money goes.
Those who don’t know history are bound to repeat it’s mistakes.
Conservativejud-
You know the subject of ‘Imperial Denial’ is actually quite widely studied. I want you to read my post more carefully, I contend that the country of America in many ways can be likened to an Empire itselfin the way it was constructed, meaning in many ways America has a long imperial tradition. Beyond its borders it uses imperialistic actions to further the gains of the home nation; that doesn’t mean they have to occupy nations and run their governments (even though in the past they have done this), as (mostly) happened in the British empire. In my, and many other scholar’s opinions the act of installing favourable govenrments in countrys, allowing US interests to come first is a modern approach to empire building. I know my use of the word empire is controversial, and maybe I’d raise less middle fingers if I said ‘hegemony’ but I’m gonna stick to my guns.