|
Is there an American Empire? Yes...that Americans don't want to admit it is by far one of the biggest foibles of recent American history. And all Empires fall, in fire and brimstone, everywhere, every time. Only one nation has successfully shed the burden of Empire, Great Britain and it did so by Lend/Leasing it to the U.S. If I heard recent proclamations by candidates from both parties, the Republicans embrace Empire (just look at Romney's new TV ad) and the Democrats ignore it. You can fix something if your two options are to drive against the flow of traffic or stop at the shoulder and wait for it to resolve itself. I don't believe there _is_ an American empire. How is it being defined? And did Britain _really_ shed its empire or merely hand it off to someone else? Sure we don't have empire under the traditional sense, i.e, other countries or territories under the control of America, but all indications in current times with our expanding military bases makes it very appealing to call it an empire. There is no denying a fact that America has more military bases in various countries then anyone else, and CIA does not ask anyone if and when they "interfere" in anyone else's business. So we need an idea or new definition of what empire means. What does it mean? What is the difference between empire and imperialism? Is there one? Its a new form of Empire (although in the territorial sense, the conquest of North America fits the classical Imperial expansion, with a few twist). As for global Empire, the New Empire relies on political/military proxies that allow for a semblance of independence and mask the Imperial connections. How do new players fit? Like China. There is no doubt that with the collaps of the Soviet Union the U.S. was left of the only global super power. And that our form of capitalism seems to require imperialism is accepted by many. But what is empire? Is it a force that totally replaces and absorbs another nation or people (in which the "conquest" of North America fits well) or as you say done through proxies. In which case I would say this is a new, more sophisticated form of imperialism rather than empire. But is there a difference between the two? To me empire means a taking and absorption of a nation and peoples, likely in a way that some/many native Hawaiians see the U.S. Well there is no difference between Imperialism and Empire, you can't have one without the other. New, in a way yes, call it a evolution and perfection of Empire. The Empire do not stifle or completely subsume other cultures (not for lack of trying) but they do change the framework (their language, culture, currency and values become dominant). In many ways the U.S. has ridden the wave of the last 500 years, most of the heavy lifting was done by other European powers (Spain, Portugal, France and of course England). As for China and India, I see them like the U.S. of the turn of the last century, economically powerful by militarily weak. It takes time to transform economic might into militar... There are a bunch of "cousin" terms that lay on the large spectrum of "hegemony", like colonialism, empire or imperialism. The latter was defined 90 years ago by some analysts and was considered more of a "finance-capital" thing than being a militaristic strategy of a single state that has ambitions to expand its power beyond its borders; largely it was defined as the "ultimate stage of capitalism". The debate can go very long but I personally try to avoid to use the term "Empire" for a "state", for the sake of terminology. Though there have been certain groups and forces that had (and still have) "imperial dreams" in America, I think it would not be true to call the U.S. as an "Empire" its... |
Related ClipsView the Top Clips from May 18, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
