Empire lies at the core of American identity
Posted
Updated
Public debate on Iraq is centred on how best to project American power. (AFP: David Furst, file photo)
At the beginning of the Iraq War, Donald Rumsfeld stated on television that Americans don't "do" empire.
This is an historical interpretation based on certain assumptions derived from American exceptionalism. Europe has empires; the US has an anti-colonial tradition stemming from the American Revolution. Yes, the occupation of the Philippines, 1898-1946 did occur, but as an aberration.
Ignorance of the US's deeply entrenched imperial experiences starts with a legalistic definition of empire as formal, political control of territory. European empires are said to have had such arrangements routinely, and the United States has not. This in itself is erroneous as fact. It fully describes neither many European empires, nor the American case.
The United States is manifestly an empire because it has exerted power over other people; it has occupied other countries (repeatedly), changed their political regimes and fought wars that have given it the control of the territory of others, especially in 1848 and 1898. It has sought to influence other peoples indirectly as well. While we can argue over what kind of an empire it is or was, we should be beyond debates over whether it is or is not.
Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, are some of the countries invaded, occupied, and indeed ruled, for varying periods; direct intervention in the Caribbean was particularly heavy from 1898 to 1934. But the US empire's impacts were hardly unknown before or since.
One can play parlour games that make the past seem like the present, and show the US always to have been imperial in the same way. But empire can only be understood historically as a changing system. It has been a moving target that even historians have found it difficult to keep up.
Historians have divided American empire into:
- the continental to 1890s, including the wars against the Indians;
- the formal or island empire acquired from 1898, such as the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa;
- the "informal empire" demanding foreign lands be open to American goods (the "Open Door"), and the economic coercion of "dollar diplomacy";
- the empire of mass consumption exported since the 1920s that we call Fordism;
- the so-called "empire by invitation" of the Marshall plan and the defence of free Europe in the Cold War;
- the current "full-spectrum dominance".
Documenting American empire has been done by US historians for a century. Studying US imperialism is not new, and books about American empire are commonplace - this raises the question of historical amnesia. Part of the amnesia stems from school textbooks that continue to ply the standard line. In addition, identities deeply rooted in educational and family experience resist taking American empire as core to American experience. As part of this forgetting, a material stake in empire encourages denial. Many Americans have benefited, in cheaper prices for primary products, and in military-induced industrial and technological development since 1950.
One theme in the process of memory's erasure is how American empire is blurred by the market economy turning resources into commodities, and in the process, extending empire's ecological footprint. Americans have defined their national identity as the pursuit of freedom. In the 20th century, that has been increasingly interpreted as freedom to consume, based upon substituting cheap resources for labour through prodigious use of energy. We speak of abundance as a shaping theme in American historiography, based on a rich "frontier" - but much of that abundance since the 1920s has increasingly derived from other people.
The effects of 9/11 have been to consolidate trends in the exertion of American power and its distinctive technological warfare in the 1990s. Vast opportunities have opened up, not only in Iraq. The US now has even more bases around the world - in fact over 700. And the US will not be leaving Iraq, no matter who wins in November. Too much attention is given to differences between Democrats and the Republicans, and too little to how public debate on Iraq is centred on how best to project American power.
Certainly in an economic sense, American power is declining, slowly and unevenly, but Rome was neither built in a day nor destroyed in one. The United States is still the world's most powerful country and is systemically connected to the global economy. It is less likely than ever that the rest of the world can avoid being affected. The United States uses 23 percent of the world's energy, produces 30 per cent of the world's GDP, and is the third largest country by both geographical size and population. Its military spending is larger than the next 20 countries combined. Its empire is not going to disappear, and deeper knowledge of these traditions is vital subjects for discussion.
Ian Tyrrell is Scientia Professor of History at the University of New South Wales. This is an extract of a speech he will deliver at the university on October 8, 2008.
Search for news
Comments (89)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
lake 57:
08 Oct 2008 10:50:24am
its sad to see our island is nothing less than a vassal.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Clownfish:
08 Oct 2008 11:28:47am
It can seem irksome, certainly, especially to an old school lefty like me.
Donald Horne, who originally defined Australia's relationship with the US as vassalage, said that when he wrote it, he wasn't perforce being perjorative. He argued that vassalage, in its original form, was essentially an honour contract between vassal and liege, that each owed the other loyalties and obligations, and that the institution was not necessarily dishonourable to the vassal.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but there is a pretty strong argument that Australia cannot afford to go it alone in the world, and so vassalage might be to our advantage.
The only problem is that, in this case, the liege seems all too apt to forgo honour.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Craig:
08 Oct 2008 12:48:18pm
Australia, a vassal state....
.........and has it, and will it, be any different from yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Soon Australia will be a vassal of the One World Empire, a 'new' Roman Empire.
Watch this space. We live in the most interesting period of history. And nto very nice things are in store.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Revival of Roman Empire:
08 Oct 2008 2:58:36pm
Yes true. the world events are getting interesting to watch...America is no longer will lead the economy and world. It's the start of their economy's meltdown. we better watch out for the revival of the roman empire - definitely it's not gonna be Australia. And this empire will lead the world. Surely ppl will start crying out for help from America and its allies.. it's no longer a super power though...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Anne:
08 Oct 2008 3:43:28pm
America is only the 'Image to the Beast'...we should really be looking to the real origin...Rome!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
PShaw:
08 Oct 2008 10:58:24am
With 761 active military bases in 151 foreign countries as of 2008, I don't know how anyone could seriously argue otherwise.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
River:
08 Oct 2008 11:21:50am
I defiantly agree that American power is declining; soon it will be over taken with countries like Russia or China.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
08 Oct 2008 11:46:16am
Every empire has its time but I don't think our great great great grandchildren will see the fall of the American empire.
And as for being replaced by Russia or China ?
I don't think that countries can dominate when their people are oppressed and 'guarded' from the western influences. Russia's sabre rattling is due, not to the world's perception of its lost dignity but it is to show it's own people that it is still in control.
The Russian economy is partly run by the Russian Mafia and the other part by the state.
China has too many secrets to hide and too many people to feed and educate to be a new empire ...... at least for another 100 years anyway !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chrisred:
08 Oct 2008 12:09:14pm
India will be the next superpower - China is actually aging yet India continues to go from strenght to strength
It has the largest english speaking scientific community int he world!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
08 Oct 2008 12:28:12pm
I don't think even India can fill those shoes either !
It has too much on it's plate dealing with unstable government, Pakistan, let alone it's 1 billion odd people, most of whom still live in squalor.
I just don't see any country being able to fill this void when/if America falls !
It would seem that although democracy and capitalism may have its faults, but what can possible replace it and succeed ?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Steve:
08 Oct 2008 12:39:09pm
People said the same thing at the turn of the 20th century when America was a new nation and Britian was the imperial power. Things change in ways that you can't predict, and the current state of affairs is not static. America is not particularly special in the long view.
It's a matter of time. A political scientist might tell you that the US is the sole superpower ('hyperpower'), which is why all mainstream western theories of international relations are based around benign US hegemony. But an historian will tell you to give it a century or two.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Komrade Kirkby:
08 Oct 2008 6:15:24pm
Ahh a disciple of Fukuyama, the old monarchies of Europe believed there would be nothing to replace them, and Marxists thought they had the solution. Something new or at least different will eventually come... Heck looks at the resurgence of religious fundamentalist societies.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Greg h:
08 Oct 2008 5:46:56pm
India has huge problems with infrastructure, a sizeable section of the population is in poverty.
As it is a democracy, it would be more than 50-60 years before it is any where near super power status.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Anthony:
09 Oct 2008 3:33:49am
I would be careful about touting the benifits of western civilisation. The industrial revolution from which the western world inherited the position it enjoys as first world countries was born out of a long period of imperialism and the explotation of the working classes.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Brad:
08 Oct 2008 1:38:37pm
Or if the EU ever got its act together......
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
andy:
08 Oct 2008 8:22:13pm
US international behaviour has no relevant category or precedent; so powerful, so niaive. The US is an empire within its many states. The people have and the nation has a history of isolation. I believe it should return to that isolation or at least have the locals pay for and run the bases.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
apsix:
08 Oct 2008 11:27:50am
I'm sure Rumsfeld didn't think otherwise. He always said what was politically expedient, any relationship to the truth was purely coincidental.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
James A:
08 Oct 2008 2:27:12pm
The Roman Empire didn't fall overnight - it was a long process that took hundreds of years, and much of it, known as the Byzantine Empire survived until the 15th century.
China, Russia and India have also waxed and waned over the centuries. It stands to reason America will too.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
dragon:
08 Oct 2008 11:22:00am
Here is another perspective for the anti-US doomsayers.
Along with bases and 'occupation' comes aid, investments, technology. Japan, Germany, Sth Korea, Taiwan seem to have done pretty well after 'occupation' !
it's easy to understand the American imperial mentality !
Just ask yourselves "What's in it for the US", If you can work with that then the association can be a fruitful one !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Green:
08 Oct 2008 11:40:51am
And there are plenty of places that haven't fared well after US invasion and/or occupation - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
08 Oct 2008 11:59:33am
The Iraq, Afghanistan saga is yet to be finalised !
Vietnam is neither better nor worse off. I still have relatives there and they are not crowing about their wealth or lifestyles. It is still a third world country trying it's best to catch up to capitalism. I just wonder how the standard of living would have improved if the Americans were allowed (by its politicians) to win that war and democracy had triumphed ? But I guess all you armchair experts can give me educated answer !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Anton2:
08 Oct 2008 12:16:21pm
Dragon, while I agree with what you're saying to a point (There always has been, and always will be two sides to the Imperialism coin), don't get too enthusiastic about the soapbox you're on, mate - you're as much an amateur commentator as the rest of us, yeah? ;)
If the article is making any point, it's that Empire as a concept is not necessarily defined in strictly political or strategic terms. Empires can be economic or even cultural. In that regard, China is an Empire already; not nearly the size of the United States, but your relatives in South East Asia will certainly be able to attest to the scope of Chinese ethnic cultural influence in the region - mine certainly can.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Steve:
08 Oct 2008 12:34:42pm
The US is a democracy. It didn't pull out of Vietnam because its politicans necessarily wanted to, but because its people did. Just look at the scenes outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
As for the unfinished Iraq/Afghanistan saga, if you can point out a way that it is even possible to 'win' you can have a cookie.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Zibethicus:
08 Oct 2008 12:48:35pm
With all respect to all victims and veterans of the Vietnam war on both sides, I hardly think that it's fair to say that the Americans could have 'won' that war in any case.
It could be argued that the misconception of the Domino Theory was what drove the American intervention in Vietnam, and that the nature of national politics in Southeast Asia was overlook in preference to a Communist bogeyman which justified intervention. After all, the Viet Cong 'won' and the 'East' isn't particularly 'Red' today, right?
As to whether "democracy" would have "triumphed" in Vietnam if the Americans had 'won', well (shrugging sadly) the twenty-six thousand people killed by the Americans and the South Vietnamese under the Phoenix Program were killed just as dead - and just as minus 'justice' - as the countless others murdered by the other side.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sinekal:
08 Oct 2008 6:56:26pm
Zibethicus, Thank you. The truth however, is not always an essential component of history, and never more adequately displayed than by 'Unheralded Victory' written by an Australian, Mark Woodruff. 300 pages of how the USA in fact did win the war in Vietnam. Unfortunately they forgot to give the 750 million in rebuilding aid they promised.
So can you imagine how the neo conservatives will create a victory in Iraq for history to reflect on ? Will the hundreds of millions paid to Halliburton, Kellog Brown and Root plus Blackwater and a hundred other USA entities all be called foreign aid? Of course it will, and future generations will believe it.
Humanity is never more blind than when it wants to believe.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Zibethicus:
08 Oct 2008 9:10:29pm
Thank /you/ for your understanding. Woodruff's book looks interesting, and for anything I know his thesis may be sustainable. I've never been one of those people who believes in dishonouring veterans of war in which one doesn't oneself believe. The fact that the vets were putting their lives on the line for a cause in which one can't oneself believe doesn't mean they didn't believe in it.
My point, I suppose, was that I would imagine that to many of the victims of the war it might have mattered very little what the country of origin was of the bullet or what-have-you which killed or maimed them; it was a bullet or such, and it killed or maimed. Dragon's original point, to which I was replying, was that in his/her view the Vietnam war was a more-or-less stainless crusade for "democracy".
I mentioned the casualties in the Phoenix Project because it was a more-or-less covert program of assassination of people designated, sometimes arbitrarily, as Communist sympathisers. If the war was really about "democracy" one might perhaps expect that those thus designated would have retained a right to a public trial by jury where they could be represented by counsel, examine witnesses, and have a right to confront their accusers and the evidence...but here we stray dangerously close to contemporary parallels, which is what we are discussing, and I fall discreetly silent...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sillyfilly:
08 Oct 2008 1:23:05pm
Vietnam was subject to economic sanctions for decades after the war, left with the legacy of Agent Orange and other defoliants as well as the usual plethora of land mines and other booby traps of war. Wonderful legacy, imperialism at its best!!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Clownfish:
08 Oct 2008 11:50:00am
Well, apart from sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Loretta:
08 Oct 2008 6:12:03pm
And the aqueduct. Oh, and the CINEMAs, Reg. Could you imagine if we never had STAR WARS, and Paul Newman, and HOUSE? But apart from all that, just what have they ever done for us???
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Kocsonya:
08 Oct 2008 11:54:18am
What's in it for the US?
Markets. Trade preferences. Access to resources. Military bases to control the region.
In one word: money.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
08 Oct 2008 12:02:25pm
So what's wrong with that ?
Use that understanding and start trading in commodities/resources and services and US money will make your country wealthy !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jules:
08 Oct 2008 12:56:34pm
Some easy questions
Money, power, territory and resources are at the core of US expansionism...
Who's to blame?
The people who want those things of course.
Who are they?
As Sir Humphrey put it; a closer examination may be warranted of the person described by the single perpendicular pronoun.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mick Lynch:
08 Oct 2008 5:40:18pm
Economics is the cause of every war. British, Spanish, French, Roman, Greek, Portugese empires were all based around economic and military power. In fact compared to that lot the US are pussy cats.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
braddles:
08 Oct 2008 12:04:52pm
Japan has not done well in many respects post US occupation after WWII. Its cultural heritage and customs were altered by the US during the occupation and to this day, many traditions and other historical facts are blurred and/or lost. The base in Okinawa is a major source of tension and social problems in the area. They are still under the US heal and I fear maybe for years to come. Social and cultural health is as important as economic (I would say more but the two are now linked more than they should be).
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
08 Oct 2008 12:37:00pm
The best thing the Americans did for Japan was to humanised the image of it's emperor. Showing the average person that he wasn't a God-like figure and that people have rights to control and manage their own lives.
"Japan has not done well in many respects post US occupation "
I think you'll find the 'pros' far outweigh the 'cons' ....... And that's all you can ask out of life, in general :)Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Pete:
08 Oct 2008 4:53:09pm
And the aqua duct!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Jim:
08 Oct 2008 11:23:42am
If the McCain-Palin ticket get up, the possibility of Palin in the White House as Rome continues to crumble around her is very disconcerting. The woman's a loose cannon, she's even worse than Bush.
It will be interesting to see how the US copes with China and India in the next decade. The biggest test of Rumsfeld's claim that they 'don't to empire' will be the day America realises they're no longer the most powerful nation on the planet, and how they react to it. I don't think it's going to go well at all.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
DB:
08 Oct 2008 12:37:04pm
Jim quotes "she's even worse than Bush"
I didn't think anyone could be worse than Bush?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jim:
08 Oct 2008 1:26:33pm
That was my point...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rhys Needham:
08 Oct 2008 11:14:00pm
Believe me, there are plenty. Bush is quite reasonable compared to some of his supporters.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Brad:
08 Oct 2008 11:24:17am
What would you expect from a nation whose national anthem is about a war and where school children are indoctrinated that liberating a nation in battle is a good thing and where internal hatred from a civil war 150 years ago still simmers. That's not democracy. America is not a democracy, it's a republic.
On the other hand, Australia was founded by a democratic vote. Out Federation may not be perfect but we've never had a civil war (State of Origin matches notwithstanding). Sadly by chaining ourselves to the sinking ship we have lost a lot of the global respect we once had.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
braddles:
08 Oct 2008 12:09:26pm
"Australia was founded by a democratic vote" - democratic vote except for the native people of this land - therefore - not democratic.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Steve:
08 Oct 2008 12:35:49pm
I'm as unhappy as anyone about our treatment of indigenous Australians, but that's a ridiculous argument.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Blackie:
08 Oct 2008 11:28:33am
'Americans have defined their national identity as the pursuit of freedom.' Pursuit is the operative word here, since freedom lies further from their grasp than ever before. Not only are Americans enslaved by economics, but they are now also captives in their own country; despised by the world and imprisoned by a government whose authority is built on fear and mendacity.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lindsay Cooper:
08 Oct 2008 11:34:52am
Parasites is the word that best describes America, whether they are an Empire or not is irrelevant.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
08 Oct 2008 12:09:36pm
Such hatred Lindsay !
You seem a fair and open minded person from your other posts and yet you makes statesment like this !
have you been personally plundered and pillaged by the Americans or areyou an expert in foreign policy or are you just blinded by all the negative media America receives.
Do yourself a favour and search out all the good that America does in the world. Who is ALWAYS first to send aid and support to natural disasters, even to the 'axis of evil' states. Where does most of the worlds technologies researched and paid for.
Do the search, you'll be pleasantly surprised :)
Oh and BTW, I'm not a yank but just am sick of ill-informed bagging !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
08 Oct 2008 12:58:20pm
Yes, immediate aid, like in New Orleans...
The world's technologies are coming from the US as well as from all other places. Look at what you have. Radio, TV: Europe. Internet: US, but WWW: Europe. Miniaturisation: Japan. Walkman: Japan. CD: Japan & EU. Nuclear physics: EU. Turning it into an atomic bomb: US.
Then the US might have won the space race, yet the Russians had the first of almost everything, satelite, animal, man, woman, space walk, space station etc.
The US is very good in *commercialising* R&D results but they are no better than the rest of the world in basic research (for it doesn't have short term profits).
They are very good in entertainment but are not any special in art. In fact, their intellectual property mania, that they try to export to every country, seems to seriously hinder innovation and art.
Their leadership in financial matters led us into this "meltdown".
I think the problem with the US is that they do not want to *lead*. They want to *control*. There would be a lot less anti-American sentiment around if they did not want to transform the whole world to their image.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Paul Smith:
08 Oct 2008 5:03:03pm
Interestingly, the US lost their position in physics (i.e with their supercollider) through asserting their non-secular leadership.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Green:
08 Oct 2008 6:51:36pm
I have to wonder if you are yourself planning on running for president of the US, such is your obvious awe of and wonderment at all things American.
I have agree with Kocsonya - the US doesn't want to lead, it wants to control. And if anyone or anything refuses to be controlled, the automatic response by the US is to seek to destroy it - tolerance is not a big part of US policy.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Robert2:
08 Oct 2008 12:01:18pm
So our American friends "don't do empire". It also seems to me, judging by some of their international behavour, they also "don't do empirical education". Roll on the evolution.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ram:
08 Oct 2008 12:06:38pm
The USA is an empire and now it is collapsing. Same mistakes as other empires: imperial over-reach and debasement of the currency. Several other of the contending empire rivals also seem to be going down now if only due to using fiat currency.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Zibethicus:
08 Oct 2008 12:32:59pm
What's /really/ interesting is that the rise and fall of most civilisations know to history seems to be closely connected with the health of topsoil...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Karlis:
08 Oct 2008 7:14:35pm
Correlation or causation? How's does Japan's topsoil compare with Australias? What about Bangladesh? Egypt? Hmm. Interesting point, but much too simple to be an explanation of anything.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Zibethicus:
08 Oct 2008 9:22:05pm
Let me clarify this a little. As I understand it, inexpertly, the trajectory of collapse of many vanished civilisations (Mesopotamia, Classical Maya, Khmer Empire and others) has been attributed to unsustainable methods of land use, which have led to topsoil degradation.
The point is that our civilisation, like all other civilisations, is predicated (almost unknown to us) on sustainability, almost by definition. In America, as in Australia, there are now increasingly serious problems related to topsoil degradation and loss and shrinking water resources (not to mention serious loss of biodiversity through agribusiness monoculture and GM crop proliferation). The current crisis in the Murray-Darling basin being a discomforting case in point.
It could be argued that all the attention regarding America's action's overseas is in a sense a distraction, as if America's capacity to feed itself collapses - something as unimaginable to us today as it perhaps was to the Mayans and the Khmer at their respective heights of 'empire' - their civilisation can and will collapse very, very rapidly. I hope that we're not retaught this lesson in a sharp way anytime soon...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Zibethicus:
08 Oct 2008 12:14:44pm
The 19th Century American lawyer and political activist, Lysander Spooner, seemed to think that the turning point came at the Civil War, where the Union asserted the 'right' to impose itself on force upon secessionist states (Spooner defened, in the name of 'liberty' generally, the right of the states to succeed and the right of slaves to free themselves by any means necessary).
In his 1867 pamphlet 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority", Spooner said: "It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution --- not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it --- the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be "questioned" as to any disposal they make of them."
(courtesy www.lysanderspooner.org)
Is it too far-fetched to imagine that the step within America to the forcible imposition of 'liberty' at this time made such an impression on the national psyche (if there is such a thing) that its extension overseas was an inevitability once national 'union' had been achieved? Is there a more general lesson to be learned?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
nineteeneightyfour:
08 Oct 2008 12:16:05pm
The United States is manifestly an empire because it has exerted power over other people;
When in 1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payments on August 15,
putting ones head on a coin is indeed declaring an empireAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
robert thomson:
08 Oct 2008 12:34:06pm
As might be expected, Ian Tyrrell's analysis is excellent - I just can't understand how his piece has managed to slip through the radar and appear on an ABC site, given the ABC is largely given over to infotainment, and managing opinion these days. I'm sure that most ABC fans won't make it past the first sentence. This gripe aside, perhaps one of the most contentious questions concerning the American empire is the extent to which it has been a force for good in the world. Just what should we make of it's balance sheet when we put Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Iraq, its active support for political and social repression, the activities of its powerful corporations, etc, etc, against its role in World War 2 (when the US saved the Allies from defeat), its generous and often selfless support for a plethora of aid programs througout the world, etc, etc. Then there is the cultural legacy of empire, which again is a mixed bag, containing some of the best and the worst, from religious fundamentalism to progressive liberal idealism, all of which has, one way or another, had such an impact our lives.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
08 Oct 2008 1:14:06pm
In WW2 Germany would have lost the war with or without Normandy.
It might have costed the USSR an other 3 or 5 million people, but they could not have been stopped at that stage. On the other hand, without Normandy most of Europe would have been under the control of the USSR. It was very much against US interests and it was worth to sacrifice maybe a quarter of a million people (compare that to the about 20 million the USSR lost) for gaining control of Western Europe.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ian tyrrell:
08 Oct 2008 3:04:14pm
Robert Thompson is quite correct that the good in America must be considered too. It is not my intention to underrate American contributions to human improvement. Some people even argue that empires are a good thing. I don't, but I think, for example, of Woodrow Wilson's quite revolutionary 14 points and his efforts to create a League of Nations. Problem is that Wilson was also a moral coercionist who favored intervention in Mexico to overthrow a very bad dictator; his interventions did not end the instability in Mexico in 1914-16, and exacerbated Mexican-American relations. This was the first time that the US tried regime changeand it was on ideological grounds as much as anything else. In many ways George W. Bush has been in this same tradition. The good things that America does in the world mustnt be forgotten, but at the same time, the trajectory of American power needs to be dispassionately assessed.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Underrated Sociologists:
08 Oct 2008 12:45:50pm
Pathological delusions of grandeur might be a more accurate headline. It's the mixture of medieval ignorance and digital arrogance that has caused the huge gulf between what America says and what America does. The things that made America a great society a century ago are now redundant. Their philosophy has failed. Hstory suggests that sharp decline is now inevitable.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
michael:
08 Oct 2008 1:36:09pm
America is my favourite reality show. Every week i cant wait to see what the producers come up with. It gets weirder every week.
But seriously a country full of heavily armed unemployed, unhappy people, many with no houses.
Wait for the food, fuel and power shortages to really hit.
Can anyone say October 1917 comrade?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
08 Oct 2008 4:22:47pm
"But seriously a country full of heavily armed unemployed, unhappy people, many with no houses. Wait for the food, fuel and power shortages to really hit. Can anyone say October 1917 comrade?"
Also sounds like Scotland of that era. It's a little known fact that Scotland came perilously close to a Communist revolution in 1918. It was only averted by sending 20,000 English troops over the border when it was feared the Scottish regiments might support a revolution.
In the case of the US, posse comitatus notwithstanding, you can imagine what would happen if there was any attempt to use federal troops in the same way. Some Americans take the right to bear arms very seriously.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
vm:
09 Oct 2008 10:13:11am
Disintegration is the more likely scenario for the US future. I'd give it 15-20 years to commence.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Az:
08 Oct 2008 1:39:13pm
"Its military spending is larger than the next 20 countries combined."
Not for long.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
in for a penny:
08 Oct 2008 1:44:42pm
Americans are by and large decent people, their governments may be the place to point the finger, also look at our own. At the end of the day it might well be the decline of the 'Western Empire' we talk of, not the American Empire.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
G:
08 Oct 2008 9:47:06pm
Perhaps, but I hate to be the one to point out that, in name, at least, the usa is a democratic republic.
Meaning that the "decent" people vote..
It seems reasonable to me, to quantify the mentaility of the general populace by the behaviour of their elected representitives.
Therefore, if you say that the government are nasty, then you are also saying that, statisically, the populace are also (or at least, the majority are).
Therefore, your first statement is incompatible with your second comment.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
vm:
09 Oct 2008 10:15:32am
'people vote' - true, but Courts decide the outcome of elections? - very democratic indeed.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Retiree:
08 Oct 2008 1:59:52pm
I would think that The USA "Does Empire" by default. The current world financial crisis is clearly down to the US money grubbers effectively holding sway over what goes down on world markets and impacting the lives of billions of people worldwide.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brainer:
08 Oct 2008 2:05:03pm
I'm sure that not being a political scholar, I'm missing how America's use of military force is an overall positive thing for Americans. They generate their own enemies simply by virtue of their foreign policy and behaviour.
The truly bizarre thing, in my estimation, is that through their consumer society, and by proxy ours as well, massive power to change the world in their favour goes unused.
As an example take their dependence on foreign oil. They prop up oppressive regimes, wage wars and polute on an unprecedented scale in order to maintain their "standard of living'. This very behaviour empowers nationalist whack-jobs like Putin, lines the pockets of the corrupt Saudis and fuels anti-American countries like Iran.
All America has to do is focus on the steady reduction of dependence on oil and specifically foreign oil via use of their strong technology and manufacturing base and they would simultaneously remove funding for the Russian war machine, turn the middle east back into the largest sand sales lot outside Soils Aint Soils and help to save the planet at the same time!!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Merlin 23:
08 Oct 2008 3:11:40pm
Like all empires the U.S. will fall. George W. contribution will be he and his cronies accelerated the process
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Errol:
08 Oct 2008 4:15:27pm
If the US does "fall", I don't think you are going to like what replaces it. Revival of the old Roman Empire in a modern context is probably not as far fetched as it seems. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see both economic and even military power return to Europe as this century grinds on.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gweneth:
08 Oct 2008 5:29:46pm
What will replace it? Interesting that no-one has considered the rise of Islam as a possible site for a future empire. The Nation as a concept is already seriously eroded. Another possibility that may already be a reality is the Corporation as empire.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Cricket:
08 Oct 2008 4:19:49pm
The word 'empire' usually denotes the existence of an emperor, something which the United States hasn't had since the reign of George III. I think the distinction between the American definition of empire, and the distinction favoured by those with vested interests in hating America or bringing it down, is highly illustrative. Americans associate 'empire' with monarchy or similar non-democratic systems of government, and with European absolutism. Those who claim America is an imperial power are being very loose with their definition.
I've noticed a lot of people here highlighting America's military and martial traditions and culture, but not a single mention of the obvious reason why this is so: America is a revolutionary nation, born and forged in war.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Billie:
08 Oct 2008 5:08:07pm
Stirring words, those. 'Empire' and 'imperialism' are political concepts, and do not require someone calling themselves Emporer in order to exist. The constitutional powers of the President of the US might indeed be compared to those of an emporer.
The US ambition of converting all nations into a democracy and unfettered trade, and thence into its own image, regardless of cultural or geographical differences, is what is being discussed here.
If that's not imperialism, I don't know what is.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Cricket:
09 Oct 2008 9:09:02am
The powers of the US president cannot be compared to that of emperors past. US presidents do not have absolute power. They are subject to checks and balances, and election every four years.
"The US ambition of converting all nations into a democracy and unfettered trade..."
It is hardly 'imperialist' to foster self-determination among peoples. A democratic world is in everyone's interest, not just that of Americans.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
vm:
09 Oct 2008 10:22:59am
'imperialism' is also a potent socio-economic framework conceptualised by Lenin.
Funny, but it deals pretty well with the current global 'turmoil' - albeit with questionable conclusions.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Giovanni T:
08 Oct 2008 5:42:58pm
Many nations born of revolution and bloodshed have not marched over the face of the Earth as the Americans have.
The foreign policies of successive American governments since the unprovoked invasion of Mexico in the 1840s has nothing to do with the Revolutionary Wars from 1776 to 1812 and everything to do with the demands of American capital. Adventures in Cuba, the Philippines, Vietnam, Panama, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua have been motivated by the economic interests of American elites, not by the spirit of George Washington.
Claiming a monarchy or emperor is necessary to refer to an empire isn't pedantry, it's simply wrong. The Roman Republic was an "empire" for at least 200 years before Augustus took power. Empire is about power and influence beyond your borders, particularly when backed by a form of coercion; either military or financial extortion. In practical reality empire is about material conditions - not about the title 'King' or 'President'. Arguments about the flaws in the American "democratic" system aside, an elected government can still "do" empires.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Cricket:
09 Oct 2008 9:18:43am
I haven't claimed America is or isn't imperialist. What I have said is that those who claim America is imperialist are being very loose with their definition of empire, and so far this hasn't been challenged. Indeed, Giovanni T has invented yet more definitions for it.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Zibethicus:
08 Oct 2008 5:56:11pm
My 1st Edition Macquarie Dictionary defines an empire as an aggregate of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor or other powerful sovereign or government.
Provisionally accepting this definition, which you will note does not require an emperor, we then turn to the extremely influential 2000 paper of the ultra-conservative think-tank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.'
In this paper, we read that Americas goals should be maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.. In order to achieve this goal, the authors feel that American should perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions and be prepared to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.
I do not hate America, and I do not intend to enter here into the question of whether Americas goals particularly insofar as they are reflected in this paper are right or wrong or good or bad.
However, I do invite the reader to consider whether and in what measure this foreign policy stance, which implicitly assumes an absolute right to intervene with decisive military strength - "shaping the security environment in critical regions" - in the internal affairs of any other nation, differs from an imperial ambition as defined above. If other countries cannot decide their destinies for themselves, possibly proceeding in directions which America deems mistaken, then how is America not attempting to exercise an imperial rule?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
the pope:
08 Oct 2008 4:54:20pm
If Karl Marx was right capitalism in the US has reached its end. Its inherent 'faults' have led to a crisis and communism would now be the next logical step.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
vm:
09 Oct 2008 10:25:39am
'communism' does not work in practice - fact.
Sorry, but we need to find another solution.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
whitelephant:
08 Oct 2008 6:17:05pm
Hey! everyone - stop one minute-think about it!-whether the U.S. is an empire or not is largely irrelevant, (although I happen to think that it is) because empire henceforth is unsustainable given the state of the worlds environment. Economic expansion, war, environmental rape and pillage either stop and we learn to live together or we are dead as a species-or at least massively reduced in number. The current economic meltdown is part and parcel of environmental meltdown and there are not enough resources for another empire to replace America. Past empires collapsed because they used up the resources that their level of technology utilised in any given geographic area and the people could go elsewhere and start again-now we have filled the planet and there is nowhere to go.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Savvas:
09 Oct 2008 9:16:35am
Whitelephant and the following posts by Root and mikej have, I think, addressed what is the real situation of this so-called 'empire' - the exponential depletion of the world's essential resources. The characteristics of 'empire' discussed here - the good, the bad, the ugly - are just the outward manifestations of what we all necessarily ignore 99% of the time - the fact that we are resource consuming organisms. The political empire bit is just part of the fantasy we adopt to imagine some sense of order and control over what is essentially chaos, and of course such imaginings are inevitably bounded by the constrained outlook of individual human lives (as evidenced by Rumsfeld's comments). If we really want to understand the US predicament (and indeed the situation of all other potential 'empire' builders) we need to look beyond crude political and financial frameworks to those modelled by biology, resource use and indeed mathematics. Essentially what did for Rome & the Aztecs and many other empires is what every laboratory biologist is familiar with - demand for resources based on steady state 'growth' is governed by the formula T2 = 70/p. 'T2' being doubling time, '70' being the required factor and 'p' being percentage growth rate. Thus at 2% p.a growth (or depletion) rate, doubling (or halving) times are 35 years. It happens in the Petrie dish just as it happens on national and international scales. The world's population is increasing at around 1.5% I believe (T2=56yrs). Our supplies of oil - the essential transport and deployment fuel of 'empire' - are depleting at around 4% p.a. (T 0.5= 17 yrs). The world's supply of agriculturally essential phosphorous is falling through the floor. Although I have enjoyed reading Ian's excellent article and much of the discussion that has followed I believe that the concept of empire is now irrelevent and useless. I have no idea what the future holds but it will not be like either the recent or the ancient past.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Root:
08 Oct 2008 7:25:37pm
Must we be forced to believe that an Australian University Professor has taken the words of a politician literally?
I am surprised there appears so little to comment about in the world these days.....
Look at Ian run.
Run Ian run.
Why is Ian running so fast?