1
   

America Is An Empire

 
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 11:52 pm
The arguments against the stability and security of empire are pages long, and rich with empirical evidence, but the argument must finally cease as to whether or not the United States is an empire. It is, homie.

I offer two definitions in support of this:

From Dictionary.Com:

Quote:
1.A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

2. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: "There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the... Asians" (James Traub).


True, the United States is not explicitly a territorial empire, but this is true only in the strictest definition of the term. The U.S. has many hundreds of permanent military bases located around the world, and owns large portions of land in several countries that have independent governments. It's influence - what Jospeh Nye has labelled "soft power" - pervades every corner of the globe, in many cases American influence is enough to fundamentally shape the policies of other nations.

It is the second definition, though, which is most fitting, and is reiterated by the following definition.

John Lewis Gaddis, in Surprise, Security, and the American Experience, defines 'empire' as:

Quote:
a situation in which a single state shapes the behaviour of others, whether directly or indirectly, partially or completely, by means that can range from the outright use of force through intimidation, dependency, inducements, and even inspiration.


This definition is a fair one, and encompasses the nuances of what constitutes empire in a fairly complete manner. It is also perfect descriptor of the type of empire that America is.

I make no normative claims in this thread. I seek simply to establish that the U.S. is, in fact, an empire in the best definitions of the word.

Personally, I think viewing the world in terms of civilizations - with American empire at the helm of Western civilization, sharing it with the European Union - is the most apt paradigm with which to view the world. But America is an empire unto itself nonetheless.

I will explain why, in my opinion, American empire is doomed to failure - halting but inevitable failure - in a later thread. For now, I end with a word of advice for the younger posters on Able2Know: learn to speak Chinese.

Trust me on this.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,108 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 12:11 am
Laughing While you do make me laugh with your rhetoric, I happen to agree with you. I don't know Chinese, but we do have ties with the Yakuza.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 12:15 am
The United States form of government is a Representative Democracy. And many countries have military bases outside their home territory.

And I do agree with you about learning Chinese.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 12:23 am
The American Government certainly has a hand in shaping policy in Oz. Howard mimics the shrub every day. Finally the people of this country are beginning to see what a puppet he is. With the wonderful lifestyle we've got in this country, it takes quite jolt to shake people out of their apathy and general ignorance of what's going on in the rest of the world. Appears as though they've finally received that jolt, and the government's stocks are sinking fast.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 12:32 am
Tarantulas wrote:
The United States form of government is a Representative Democracy. And many countries have military bases outside their home territory.


Japan charges a 475% tariff on imported rice.

[/non-sequitor]
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 05:55 am
Cambridge Dictionary defines Empire as:

empire
noun [C]
a group of countries ruled by a single person, government or country:
the Holy Roman Empire


Lets see ... America is a group of states ruled by a President, a Congress with two houses... no ... no Empire here.

Lets try another definition...



Merriam-Webster defines it thus:
emĀ·pire
Pronunciation: 'em-"pIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empire, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

Lets check (Looks to Washington D.C., nope still no emperor there...), now lets see about the territories ... the U.S. does lease territory for bases (The home country retains possession, we merely RENT the land. ANd when is the last time you heard of an empire paying for the land it took)

If you are going to point of owning sovereign territory outside ones home country, then every country that has an embassy in another country is an Empire. Rolling Eyes



Quote:

John Lewis Gaddis, in Surprise, Security, and the American Experience, defines 'empire' as:

a situation in which a single state shapes the behaviour of others, whether directly or indirectly, partially or completely, by means that can range from the outright use of force through intimidation, dependency, inducements, and even inspiration.


Using the definition of an author for the word you are showing an example is disingenuous. I could just as easily say:

Quote:

Fedral in his book Liberals love to re-define words defines 'Liberal' as: A clueless know-it-all who believes that only HE knows what is best for everyone and has no respect for alternate points of view.


As you can see... I can probably find an author who would be able to re-define any word you like. But lets stick with the actual definition of words shall we...
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 10:50 am
Ok, let stick with actual definitions:

Mirriam Webster:

b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

American HeritageĀ® Dictionary

3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: "There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the . . . Asians" (James Traub).


Wordsmyth

3. an extensive range of enterprises or activities under the authority of one person or a central organization.

America is a modern empire. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 10:55 am
My god! The US controls the entire world's supply of cheezewiz!

People had better start jumping from bridges. You go first. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 09:58 pm
cavfancier wrote:
Laughing While you do make me laugh with your rhetoric....


Yes, it is funny, isn't it? Funny the way killer spiders are funny.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 10:05 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
America is a modern empire. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.


Hear, hear.

It is currently undergoing a decline, though. The rise of Western civilization to global primacy took 400 years, and it's fall may take as long, but it will happen, and the steady erosion of the American empire will come to mark it's death knell. IronLionZion said - May 27th, 2004.
0 Replies
 
ArohemQ
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2004 02:07 am
IronLionZion said:
Quote:
True, the United States is not explicitly a territorial empire, but this is true only in the strictest definition of the term. .... It's influence - what Jospeh Nye has labelled "soft power" - pervades every corner of the globe, in many cases American influence is enough to fundamentally shape the policies of other nations.


I certainly agree with this statement. And the belief & purpose of neo-conservatives Evil or Very Mad is well documented in the pursuit of furthering this empire.

However, the sun shall soon set on this empire too. I say its apogee was in the 20th Century. The 21st belongs to China.

Fedral's adherence to definitions that primarily describe territorial definitions of empire is naive. While I think physical territory isn't in US's sights not many countries today have international bases spread all over the world, and certainly none that come anywhere near to the number that the US possesses. Britain, Portugal, Spain, Belgium & France had many worldwide bases during their colonial periods but these are no more. Britain & France's bases today are few & far between. IronLionZion wasn't referring to embassies and Fedral knows that very well (a deliberate obfuscation) . These are military bases. The colonial powers of past initially established trading posts, then protected these with forts or set up up both at the same time :wink:

Meanwhile...

Ni-how :wink:
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 12:51 am
I'm not sure why it is necessary to strech or revise the definition of Empire so that it includes America.

For many, if not most, there is a negative connotation to the term even though it simultaneously connotes, magnificence.

I don't really take issue with anyone refering to an American Empire, providing it is not intended to suggest territorial expansion, colonialism, or direct control.

None of the American military bases around the world are in a country without the free acceptance of the sovereign government of that country.
The Philipines asked us to remove our military bases and guess what? We did.

Of course nothing lasts forever, but I see no reason to believe the American Empire (such as it is) is in decline.

China has vast potential, but is, by no means, assured an Empire of its own.

Barring a cataclysm that completely upends the world as we know it, I doubt that the next Empire, Chinese or otherwise, will be significantly less benign that the American Empire.

I think it's more likely that the American Empire will give way to a unified world government than to another nation state's hegemony.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 10:20 am
Finn

More great writing-----who can possibly find fault with that anaysis?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 11:04 am
I think the lining up of nations against America could be viewed as a sign of decline. Euro emerging, another. It has been going on for years--but seems accelerated currently. And the collection of the Euros isn't at its peak, yet--but still, a sign.

I never thought we would ride so high indefinitely. However, the first signs of decline don't point to immediate dissipation of hegemony, by any means... Perhaps in our lifetimes.

I agree with Finn's last sentence. When we give way, it will be to a global order.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 12:16 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

None of the American military bases around the world are in a country without the free acceptance of the sovereign government of that country.


Cuba? Panama?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 12:18 pm
What happens to the connotation of the word when applied to capitalistic efforts where has been used with consistency? As in, "Carnegie built an empire." This is, after all, where the "American Empire" hangs -- its position in world economics. Global economics is becoming more and more crucial to the economic health of America. We probably do own countries in a financial way even if it doesn't show up on "the books," but many countries also own parts of us. I just was involved with a harbor shopping and business center that is owned by the Taiwanese.


You can play with semantics all you want but it's the precedent of the uses of a word that establishes the meaning.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 12:18 pm
Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 12:22 pm
Walter came up with two good ones and does anyone wonder if we would really leave Iraq if the government we put in place asks us to leave?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 12:37 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Walter came up with two good ones and does anyone wonder if we would really leave Iraq if the government we put in place asks us to leave?


... if we had put a government in place that would ask us to leave.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 01:26 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I'm not sure why it is necessary to strech or revise the definition of Empire so that it includes America.


Modern empires will not be territorial. For the word to continue to have modern-day meaning it needs to evolve.

These days, power is not measured in territory. European colonialism taught us that the benefits are not territorial but rather of influence.

America's empire takes this lesson to heart, creating an empire of influence and power that is unparelleled in history.

Not wanting to call it an empire is semantics. Quite frankly the word is, well, jsut a word.

Ultimately there is a truth, and that is that there has not ever in hostory been a power and a global control that approaches what the USA has today.

What you want to call it is of secondary importance to that acknowledgement.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » America Is An Empire
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.49 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 12:41:58