h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In regards to our borders, we had a bit of that as we expanded to the west. We kept all that. We also kept a few possessions from the Spanish American War. That was our one true attempt at Imperialism. It didn't suit us very well. So we had to wait fifty more years until we discovered chain stores and franchises.

"Ambling back to the topic, doesn't it all depend on what an empire is for?

Surely it is to ensure a 'good' life in your home country?"

An empire is a large political division, usually with a supreme central government. I think Who? summed it up well, talking about the US as an "empire" isn't only wrong and lazy, but misunderstands how it's power works. It's about networking, as Who? pointed out, the US has been forced to withdraw from foreign wars before (as have most great powers) because conquest, or even control, is more difficult now than it's ever been before. Making deals with the economic or political elite of a country doesn't secure the power or dominance of annexation, but can reap similar commercial benefits.

I thought an empire was a nation that consisted of multiple distinct semi-sovreign nations.

What I understand an Empire to be is a collective of countrys/provinces under one authority. The political system being a monarchy that rules from a central point installing viceroys to oversee and bring into the fold the exsisting hiarchy of each single country/province and their individule goverments.

The united states being a republic that is combined of commonwealths under one goverment that forms one nation.

That is my humble interpertation and thoughts however.

"I thought an empire was a nation that consisted of multiple distinct semi-sovreign nations."

Empires are often not nations, just extents of state-control (the Roman Empire and British Empire being good examples). For practicle reasons, the provinces of an empire are often self-governing but this is usually not constitutionally guaranteed - the central government can exert full control at any time.

and

"The USA has land borders only with Canada and Mexico and has fought both, but not occupied. Anywhere the USA has invaded, it has either withdrawn from as policy or been forced out one way or another."

Didn't the US "take" areas of north Mexico and still have them?

"Didn't the US "take" areas of north Mexico and still have them?"

Yeah, I think that was during the US-Mexico war, some time during the 19th century (I'm pretty sure the President of the USA was President Polk), hence all those towns and cities in the south-eastern USA that have Mexican names (and probs a lot of Latin American people).

"hence all those towns and cities in the south-eastern USA that have Mexican names"

"south-western", I meant

That's okya. Florida is southeastern and it has a lot of 'spanish' names.

"hence all those towns and cities in the south-western USA that have Mexican names"

Hence Baja California (in Mexico) and Alto California (= California in the USA) being rudely interrupted by an international border about 10 miles away from where I'm sitting in St. Davi.., er San Diego. LA is actually called "El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de la Porciuncula". It's a good job the USA nicked California off the Mexicans and tidied up the city names a bit.

Ste

Well I read the piece after having seen Zagreb's 1st posting. And thinking about what he said on "Empire's" gathering that he was not talking about the magazine, I read the Guardian thing.
The impression that I got was that everyone that want's to think of the US as the new Rome may just be romantisizeing (forgive crap spelling please, not my 1st language) a bit. What I got out of the article was mostly about the US military power and prowess, and not as Zagreb pointed out it's Taxation and governmental control of other countries. This may be percieved today as a US control of the world economy and stock market, so to this I'm not so sure as they are not my subjects. Sure they try to influence other governments decisions on the world stage and their home affairs in order to benefit the US petty cash box. So I pose something a bit different to what the buz word of today is, has anybody tried to look at the similarities between the US and the Mongols. After all the mongolians never really cotrolled anything did they????? But they sure ran around stealing, waring and making a complete pest of themselves, so are they also an Empire of old, or just a bunch of random nuts with a bit of military skill.

For not being your first language you are adept enough in your revilement of an entire people. One can only hope your coming inclusion in the world of academia will elucidate your perception's as biased and nesient.

No knowing a lot about the Mongols myself, what you describe sounds a lot like Vikings. They never really kept much but still used influence in their own way.

"has anybody tried to look at the similarities between the US and the Mongols"

Well, the Mongols did a lot of pillaging so the cynic might see some connection

Oh no there you go. And here we were trying not to use the "p" word

The vikings (those warring, raping, pillaging savages from whom I descent) actually had control over Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Iceland, Greenland and a (very very very) small part of India during a period of 300-400 years.But I don´t know if it could be called an empire.


TD.

Not to mention Normandy and Minnesota . . .

Oh my head

India? Never heard that one.

No not "India"....just a very very very very very small part on the southcoast, as they happened to find their way down there somehow......probably got lost

And it´s just mentioned as a curiosity


Td.