Craven de Kere wrote: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.
I'm afraid I disagree with the contention that any debate on whether or not America is an
Empire is simply semantics.
There is a huge difference between an
Empire based on influence and one based on territorial control. European colonialism may have taught us the benefits of influence over control, but not so other would be Empire builders.
The possibility of a modern Empire being based on territorial conquest has not been completely eliminated.
There are all sorts of examples of figurative uses of the term outside the sphere of geopolitics (Rupert Murdock's Publishing
Empire, FDR the
Imperial President), but how many within?
It is, at best, disingenuous for some to argue that a modern version of the word applies to the US but to than condemn an American Empire based on its historical definition.
I hasten to add Craven that you have not done so, but others have.
