I've heard this question debated for a very long time now, so I'll throw it out to you all. Do you think America is an empire? Why or why not? What do you think are the ramifications if you believe America is?
Take care all.
Printable View
I've heard this question debated for a very long time now, so I'll throw it out to you all. Do you think America is an empire? Why or why not? What do you think are the ramifications if you believe America is?
Take care all.
Oh, it's not an empire...
Yet. :D
A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
For this definition to hold, the US would have to be directly ruling other non-US nations. So far as I understand the definition, that means the US's laws would apply to other nations; other nations would be required to pay the US taxes; things of that sort. This isn't the case.
The dominion of an emperor; the territory or countries under the jurisdiction and dominion of an emperor (rarely of a king), usually of greater extent than a kingdom, always comprising a variety in the nationality of, or the forms of administration in, constituent and subordinate portions; as, the Austrian empire.
In this case, an emperor (which the US doesn't have) would have to be the ruler of a number of nations (which isn't the case). Importantly, those nations comprise "a variety in nationality". This is common sense. If for example the US conquered Mexico and added it to the US, that's be an empire, because Mexico is of different nationality than the US. China for example conquered Tibet and made it part of China; I think you could argue that China is empire-like.
But it's a grey area, at some point. If China says "Tibet is part of China", and Tibet says "We're our own country", who's right? Beats me.
It depends on how you define empire, I suppose. In a simple view, an empire is one nation holding control over several others. Rome is a typical example of this. The US has military bases all around the world. No other country holds a military base in the US. The US has a strong presence throughout the world, and is unique in having such, but the nature of the US presence is not that of an invading conqueror, but that of a raiding special police unit. The US doesn't seek to militarily subdue other nations, but to ensure that they behave themselves.
I don't think the US is a military based empire. Times have changed since 400 AD. Is war the only means of conquest? Does an empire have to spread by the sword alone? There are other ways to control other nations: economic and cultural. The US is a cultural empire, and it's this that fosters the greatest resentment throughout the world. Invade Panama and depose Noriega, and the world scarcely blinks, but bring a Big Mac to Saudi Arabia and the world cries oppression. For better or worse, the US culture is homogenizing the world.
Though, you can no longer Super size that Big Mac.... but that's a whole other story.
I'd have to agree. America is certainly a cultural Empire, and we are probably still an Economic Empire, but with more and more jobs going overseas, that seems primed to change and lead to a much more balanced economy.
Take care all.
In the barest sense of the word, "empire" implies that one country uses force against another. No one is forced to adopt US culture. People do it voluntarily, or not at all. We might be a "cultural empire" if we purposefully emigrated mass numbers of people into a region in order to populate the area with Americans and thereby make the area American. We don't do this, that I know of.
No one is forced to buy goods from the US. If people buy them, it's because our goods are something they want. Trade is a mutual agreement to exchange goods. The US is under no obligation to trade with anyone, and no one is under any obligation to trade with the US. If our trade policies influence other nations, it's because they allow it to happen, or because they're not as good as us at producing something. This doesn't equate to force.
Empire? No. That word is outdated. The proper description is hegemon.
It's not an empire in the truest sense of the word. But you can't deny that American influence is disproportionate to its size.
America WAS an Empire, in the late 19th century up until around WWI. When they had the Philippines, and such. But when the Philippines won their war of independence, America no longer was one.
Oh, USA (America is the CONTINENT! :p ) is the big evil capitalist empire from hell! Didn't you know? :D
This Post Was Brought To You By The Worldwide Satire Consortium.
But, seriously, with this mess with freezing people's assets after the WTC-attack, doesn't many non-US territories follow much of USA's beck and call? Well, there are some notable exceptions, of course, but still. Or maybe the politicians are just evil. :)
The US isn't an empire in any sense of the word. They're not forcing their rule onto anyone else in any way, not culturally, economically, or politically. They are definitely influential, and powerful, but that alone doesn't make them an empire.
Empires don't have to spread by the sword, no. If they threatened Canada to join them in such a way that if we didn't agree our economy would be ruined, and we complied, then they would be an empire. That's not happening anywhere.
Noriega would say different, Emerald :)Quote:
Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
The US isn't an empire in any sense of the word. They're not forcing their rule onto anyone else in any way, not culturally, economically, or politically. They are definitely influential, and powerful, but that alone doesn't make them an empire.
Empires don't have to spread by the sword, no. If they threatened Canada to join them in such a way that if we didn't agree our economy would be ruined, and we complied, then they would be an empire. That's not happening anywhere.
America is a world-power, not an empire.
What exactly is the difference?
Some would say that "world-power" is just a modern definition of empire.
Take care all.
Empire means that other countries would have to be taken over, and ruled by Bush. Being a world power means having a strong economy, powerful army, a lot of influence, etc.
If the US is an empire, what countries do they rule? What country, other than the US, has Bush as their leader right now?
Bush DOES call himself Leader of The Free World....
Take care all.
It doesn't mean he actually controls anything other than the US. "Leader" doesn't usually mean you have complete control over the people that you lead. In fact, he doesn't even control any US citizens. Yet he's still the leader of the US.
American diplomats have claimed that their country is responsible for policing the world... recently, a US ambassador was commenting on nuclear weapons. He noted that they're immensely dangerous and destructive, and then said that it's up to the US to decide who's allowed to have them and who isn't. He said that France and the UK are *permitted* to have nuclear weapons because those countries are currently acceptable to the US. Then there's the US ambassador to New Zealand who implied that it's a deliberate insult to his country that my nation doesn't permit the presence of illegal weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear reactors, within its borders. What these guys are saying is that their country is somehow entitled to set the rules, that the rest of the world should conform to their wishes or "face the consequences". Kind of a disregard for the sovereignty of other countries. Only a few select individuals are behind these choice words, but it sure makes one think.
If Bush is re-elected, perhaps the rest of the world would vote him out of power?
Take care all.
He noted that they're immensely dangerous and destructive, and then said that it's up to the US to decide who's allowed to have them and who isn't. He said that France and the UK are *permitted* to have nuclear weapons because those countries are currently acceptable to the US.
If this is even true (I have my doubts), then so what? People can say anything they want. Has the US conquered Britain and outlawed weapons? Once we do, then we're an empire.
Then there's the US ambassador to New Zealand who implied that it's a deliberate insult to his country that my nation doesn't permit the presence of illegal weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear reactors, within its borders.
Expressing displeasure over something Australia does is wrong how exactly? Have we sent in the troops to enforce this man's wishes? Have we conquered your capital and erected nuclear reactors there?
Guy from the US: You should allow nuclear reactors in your country.
Guy from Australia: Nah, we don't want to.
Guy from the US: Well that upsets me.
Fanatical observer: HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THE US BEING AN EMPIRE! DOWN WITH BUSH! DOWN WITH AMERICA!
Honestly, this entire thread is ridiculous. I don't understand how people can make such huge leaps of logic.
It's not really an empire. Nope.
Oh, and why would somebody be upset that another country wouldn't use nuclear power? That just seems like a really weird reaction. :(
"Honestly, this entire thread is ridiculous. I don't understand how people can make such huge leaps of logic."
Why then, did you post in it?
Besides, it's a hypothetical question. It seems that most everyone outside of the USA believes we are an Empire, while those that dwell within don't. I'm very curious as to why that is. That, is the point of this thread.
Take care all.
If anyone did the same to the US - tried to tell them what to do, purported to have some kind of non-existant authority over them - the US would respond with hostile rebuttals. I never said or intended to say that my quotes were proof of America becoming an empire, nowhere in my post did I say that at all. They are, however, indicative of a kind of adminstrative arrogance, a belief in one nation's superiority over its 'allies'.Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Unne
He noted that they're immensely dangerous and destructive, and then said that it's up to the US to decide who's allowed to have them and who isn't. He said that France and the UK are *permitted* to have nuclear weapons because those countries are currently acceptable to the US.
If this is even true (I have my doubts), then so what? People can say anything they want. Has the US conquered Britain and outlawed weapons? Once we do, then we're an empire.
Then there's the US ambassador to New Zealand who implied that it's a deliberate insult to his country that my nation doesn't permit the presence of illegal weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear reactors, within its borders.
Expressing displeasure over something Australia does is wrong how exactly? Have we sent in the troops to enforce this man's wishes? Have we conquered your capital and erected nuclear reactors there?
Guy from the US: You should allow nuclear reactors in your country.
Guy from Australia: Nah, we don't want to.
Guy from the US: Well that upsets me.
Fanatical observer: HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THE US BEING AN EMPIRE! DOWN WITH BUSH! DOWN WITH AMERICA!
Honestly, this entire thread is ridiculous. I don't understand how people can make such huge leaps of logic.
Actually, it's New Zealand... But anyway, here's how this discussion really went:Quote:
Guy from the US: You should allow nuclear reactors in your country.
Guy from Australia: Nah, we don't want to.
Guy from the US: Well that upsets me.
Fanatical observer: HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THE US BEING AN EMPIRE! DOWN WITH BUSH! DOWN WITH AMERICA!
NZ: *Outlaws use of nuclear reactors and presence of atomic weapons*
US: Refuses to say which of its ships are carrying nuclear weapons, because that would provide inportant information to the Soviets.
NZ: Refuses to permit any nuclear-capable warships from entering NZ waters until Cold War ends and US starts declaring which of their vessels are carrying illegal weapons of mass destruction.
US Ambassador(2003): Our country isn't just going to 'get over it'. (I.e., he can't accept that a country has a law that (1) acknowledges and promotes peace and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and (2) disadvantages the US military's desire to do whatever it pleases.
It was in late 2003 or early 2004, when a US military or ambassadorial official was commenting on America's role as global 'plice force' regarding weapons of mass destruction. He said it during a radio interview on a news item... but you can assume I'm lying if you want.Quote:
If this is even true (I have my doubts)
Edit: Turned down the heat, in the interests of reasonableness.
No one's denying the US government isn't arrogant or whatever. Unne's point was that that doesn't prove that the US is an empire, which is what the thread's about. That's why he thought that you were trying to say that.
For the record, I'm not American, and I don't think it's an empire.
Why then, did you post in it? --The Captain
To point out the fact that it's ridiculous.
Fair enough. Then we agree to disagree. Neither of us are right, but I certainly hope Bush doesn't think America is an Empire.
Yet, it's not entirely an outlandish question. America is much more an empire than Iraq can ever be. You can make the case that we are using Iraq as a puppet to increase our sway in the Middle East, which would fall in line with an empire. Bush NEVER said anything about liberating Iraq. It was all about WoMD. Then, when that fell through, his interests changed. Seems kind of shady...
Take care all.
Neither of us are right... --The Captain
No, I don't agree with that.
Then pray tell, how you are right and I am wrong?
Take care all.
"America is much more an empire than Iraq can ever be. "
I'm much more an empire than a cactus, but it doesn't mean I am one.
"You can make the case that we are using Iraq as a puppet to increase our sway in the Middle East, which would fall in line with an empire."
No, Bush isn't making himself the leader of Iraq, thus not an empire. Puppetry/sway are merely speculations, and even if he was using them, if Bush isn't the president of Iraq, it's not an empire.
"Bush NEVER said anything about liberating Iraq. It was all about WoMD. Then, when that fell through, his interests changed. Seems kind of shady..."
Yeah, it does. I think their story for being there is shady, but it doesn't make the US an empire.
All you're proving is that the US is influential, perhaps manipulative, and arrogant.
I'm right that the US isn't an empire, for reasons stated by myself and others. I defined the word, and the closest anyone has come is saying "Some people in the US act arrogantly", which has nothing to do with being an empire, or by saying "'empire' no longer means 'empire', therefore with my altered definition, the US is one", which is a pointless argument of semantics. And you say things like
You can make the case that we are using Iraq as a puppet to increase our sway in the Middle East, which would fall in line with an empire.
Even if it's true that the US is "using Iraq to increase our sway in the Middle East", and I don't believe you've shown that that is necessarily true, it still has nothing to do with being an empire. We haven't conquered Iraq and made it part of the US. An empire doesn't conquer places and then leave after a few months to let them govern themselves. Are you arguing that the US' intention is to conquer the Middle East? Because I have yet to see this happen.
Or are you arguing that any country which ever fights a war with another country is an empire? Then pretty much every country on the planet is one. The UN is trying to increase its sway in Kosovo right now, sending in troops to stop a civil war, from what I hear. Is the UN an empire, then?
Many arguments in this forum are treated with far more respect than they deserve, in my observation.
Which certainly is Empirical behavior, is it not?
I'm joking of course. This debate has turned satirical. I made this thread because I wanted to see what other people thought. I know that there have recently been books published in England, France, Brazil, Australia, and Egypt that all argue America is indeed an Empire, so I was curious to see if people abroad truly feels much differently than US citizens.
What I've gotten is inconclusive replies and what I feel is a sort of concealed pretension and personal attacks from others, which isn't that fun to have.
Seriously, did Romans fancy they had an Empire at first? No, the citizens probably just went with the flow because their Emperor said so. If Bush declared America an Empire, would we fall in line too? That's a thought to ponder. There can be only personal responses, not large sweeping answers that completely rule out one side over the other. In the beginning of this country, you could argue that "Manifest Destiny" was certainly another fancy word for an Empire, as we took control of land, and claimed it for our own. There still seems to be a form of Manifest Destiny that lingers in that America feels it must get involved in everything and that "The American Way" must find its way into every country.
If I've offended anyone, I deeply apologize. This is obviously an issue that galvanizes some emotion from within. I sincerely hope we can all just have a real discussion about issues, not just jump down each others throats. There are no ridiculous questions, only ridiculous people who answer them, like myself.
Take care all.
EDIT: How about instead of saying "right" or "wrong", we say, "I'm justified in my belief because..."? It feels a lot less angry and might calm tension a bit. Just a thought.
"Which certainly is Empirical behavior, is it not?"
Nope.
"What I've gotten is inconclusive replies and what I feel is a sort of concealed pretension and personal attacks from others, which isn't that fun to have."
Uh, me, Unne, and others have stated that it's not an empire because it does nothing to fit the definition of empire. I don't see how that counts as any of what you've listed above.
"Seriously, did Romans fancy they had an Empire at first?"
No, but they concurred other countries and ruled them. The US hasn't. That's a huge, huge difference.
"If Bush declared America an Empire, would we fall in line too? That's a thought to ponder."
I don't know what you mean. I really doubt that if Bush said that America was an empire, Martin (my Prime Minister) would go "Oh, ok, have my country." If by we you mean American citizens, well, that still wouldn't make the US an empire. It would just think it's one.
"There can be only personal responses, not large sweeping answers that completely rule out one side over the other."
I disagree, since this deals with the definition of a word. The word "empire" isn't ambiguous, and doesn't have many meanings. Not everything is in shades of grey.
"In the beginning of this country, you could argue that "Manifest Destiny" was certainly another fancy word for an Empire, as we took control of land, and claimed it for our own."
The Manifest Destiny thing was definitely an empirical attitude, yep.
"There still seems to be a form of Manifest Destiny that lingers in that America feels it must get involved in everything and that "The American Way" must find its way into every country."
Manifest Destiny was some American's belief that all of North America should be un American rule. I would say it's too much of a stretch to say that that applies to Americans believing that their way is the best way. It doesn't mean they think other countries should be ruled by them.
"How about instead of saying "right" or "wrong", we say, "I'm justified in my belief because..."? It feels a lot less angry and might calm tension a bit. Just a thought."
I don't think that sort of tact is necessary here. I honestly don't see anything worth being angered or tense about.
Usually I would agree that most things aren't just right or wrong, but not here. The word "empire" is very specifically defined, and the US doesn't fit it. It's as simple as that.
The problem with the term 'empire' is its connotations, I think. People consider either the Roman-style notion of an all-encompassing military power, or the British-style colonies. When people refer to "US imperialism", they're usually referring to the forced imposition of ideas and ideals, the *sometimes extreme* external force and control exerted over other nations by the US in the past. This is often disguised or presented in a different light. Take 'Colonel' Gadaffi, the Libyan leader. Until just recently, he was the terrorist leader of an evil rogue nation, probably high on the list of "people whose family homes should be bombed in the name of freedom"; however, now that he's co-operating with the US's wishes by opening his country's WMD facilities to inspection, he's the new bestest buddy of the UK-US leaders. A decisions made "of his own free will", but obviously the only choice he could've made to ensure that his country can make socio-economic progress and avoid getting bombed into the last epoch.
I have to agree with The Captain, though. Opinion and perspective have a lot of sway in matters like these, but an absolutist statement like "I'm right and you're not" doesn't really help much. All we can really do is contribute our own viewpoints and interpretations, and more importantly, our reasons for believing what we do.
But, on a strictly literal construction, the United States aren't an empire.
Hmm, it would certainly seem that I erred by not including a certain word when I first created this thread.
Does America seem "like" an empire?
That probably makes a heck of a lot of difference.
"I disagree, since this deals with the definition of a word. The word "empire" isn't ambiguous, and doesn't have many meanings. Not everything is in shades of grey."
I'd say everything has shades of grey. Depending on whose definition of empire you read, it can mean entirely different things. For instance, in most countries, I'd warrant Manifest Destiny did not mean the same as it did to the Americans. It all depends on perspective. One can claim Bush is an evil dictator, in the same way that one can say Osama Bin Laden is doing right by Islam. Granted, neither is correct, but don't you see the dangers of just being black and white too?
Take care all.
I think that going to war with another country based on reasons that aren't clear is pretty Empire like. Then again it could just be that they have a stupid leader.
On a random note, NAFTA has some sort of really dodgy concepts, where US companies can sue the countries for the amount that they deem will be made, in the event that they are not allowed to "set up camp" in other countries and engage in capitalistic production (read: if they aren't allowed to make factories or whatever wherever they want, they can sue for excessive amounts of money). Mexico was hit hard, but I'm more familiar with USA companies randomly suing Canada for several million dollars for not letting them set up a factory.
Empire? Definitely.
Agreed. Then again, NAFTA has always had problems and troubles worldwide, which is odd since it's only supposed to be about North America.
Take care all.