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

OK....I've seen this time and time again. "US Imperialism".

Would someone care to explain....not"soap-box" it, explain.

Explain to me where the US is doing anything NEAR what the Romans, The English, the French, the Portuguese, the Spainish, the Russians, the Mongols.....eeerrrrmmm....I think you may be getting my drift by now.

Could anyone here explain the charge against the US government in context with past imperialism?

I DON'T want to hear the crap about US corporations....I'm talking government here!

NM

"I DON'T want to hear the crap about US corporations"

This could be one of the quietest threads on h2g2

They are one in the same. That IS the problem

There are some clues in this thread and MANY links, decide for yourself. My page has many links also.

From h2g2 thread;
Proposed: US Domestic Security Enhancement Act

Abbi...I'm familiar with the POS enhancement act, but I'm not looking for citizen control here....I'm looking for imperialism.

And no, corporate influence and government are not the same, unless you subscribe to a science fiction mentality.

NM

I *do* think, NM, that we're moving into a Roman Empire phase right now, thanks to Mr. Bush's Oil Grab--oops, Containment of Iraq.

But no, we're not importing slaves from the farthest reaches of the Empire to work our sugar plantations or silver mines. I don't know that you can claim a rigid historical-period bound definition of Imperialism.

So the term "imperialism" is to be modified to fit the present situation?

Who gets to define it? Does a standard of history change becauase its' later in history? Why?

Is it because it "furthers the cause" or because its' real?

I'm still looking for evidence of US imperialism....so far all I've gotten is a dance.

NM

Gosho... alias Mr Hackenbacker....yep, this may well be a quiet thread.

I asked a straightforward question, and, so far, I can't get a straight answer!

NM

::waltzes about with NM::

What empires do specifically to expand their borders, gain military/political influence and amass booty differs from place to place and time to time. Does the fact that our culture--diet, movies, music and fashion--permeate much of the world count as imperialism? Or our penchant for installing regimes in Third World countries that develop a decided lean to the left? We're not establishing a Middle Passage, but we are exporting America all over the globe.

Our culture--diet, movies, music and fashion are not forced on anyone at the point of a gun. Thats' not imperialistic, thats' the choice of the native population.

"Or our penchant for installing regimes in Third World countries that develop a decided lean to the left? We're not establishing a Middle Passage, but we are exporting America all over the globe."

HHHMMM....seems to me that if we had so much influence over them, they'd do our bidding once installed instead of thumbing their nose at us.

Sorry, that don't sound too imperialistic to me. If we install them and they don't do our bidding we should un-install them; THAT would be imperialistic......but we don't.

NM

I agree with what FG says on post 9.

American 'culture' has permeated the rest of the world. Some aspects may be good, others bad (the recent 'if you don't agree with us we'll sanction you' attitude [towards France] and 'your government is communist, you are therefore in the axis of evil' [Cuba]) for instance.

As the last superpower, it appears to outsiders that the US uses bully boy methods to gain whatever it wants. If you oppose the US, you will find relations with the rest of the world very difficult due to the pressure the US puts on her "allies".

Is the US Imperialist in the old sense of the word? perhaps not, but its foreign policy can certainly be seen as a modern equivalent.

The US wants the Middle Eastern Nations Democratic.

The corporate climate has moved most US industry to other countries where sweat shops and slave labor are the structure of US capitalism. Where we have no interest in their Democracy, Enviornment, Health.

Those two set the stage for dependance on the US and their ideals or war.

mrs the wife...your arguements are closer to true than any others I've seen, but, if that were true then the UN would be more compliant to US desires than they seem to be ATM. Their very obstanance disproves your point......and that leaves me still in search of true US imperialism.

Abbi...I told you, no corporate crap. Thats' not government.
If other nations wish to offer up their workforce at rediculously(sp) low wages to US corporations, then that is their choice. The last time I checked the US government had nothing to do with labor laws in other countrys(hhhhmmm.....if only we were imperialists, we could!)
NM

Compliance with US desires would show that 'US imperialism' had succeeded. Dissent from UN members shows that is has not... yet. Such dissent does not mean that this new form of imperialsim does not exist, rather that others are still trying to resist it.

The Empires of old were taken gradually, the US has still got time .

"Explain to me where the US is doing anything NEAR what the Romans, The English, the French, the Portuguese, the Spainish, the Russians, the Mongols.....eeerrrrmmm....I think you may be getting my drift by now."

A 'drift' really isn't satisfactory for a successful debate or discussion. Could you tell us *exactly* what you understand as "past imperialism" so that we don't waste time and bandwidth on spurious arguments. That way we'll all be clear on exactly which roads you don't want us to go down

Imperialism in it's strictest sense means a form of government in which the head of government has been given, by the free decision of the senate, imperium, sometimes translated as "absolute power". This definition of course requires the further definition of "senate". The term Imperialism, or Empire, thus defined clearly does not apply to anything other than the state of Rome under Augustus. Even what we think of as the Roman Empire was not an Empire by this definition. Alexander certainly never had an Empire, nor did the Ancient Egyptions, the Babylonions, or even the British. My point is, unless we strictly define the term, Imperialism means whatever we want it to mean. Now, we very often talk of "the Roman Empire" "the Aztec Empire" or even some rich person's "Business Empire". The term Empire in these senses does seem close to the Latin "imperium" whence it derives, perhaps being construed as "overwhelming power". The term "Empire" in this sense, is certainly applicable to The United States, both government and commercial interests, in the modern world. The term was applied to the Soviet Union when it was in nothing like the position of overwhelming power, or Empire, that the U.S. is today. So, with respect, the terms Empire and Imperialism can be considered appropriate in a discussion of the position of America in the world. After all, Empire is really just a Latin word for Superpower. This is also why there is often discussion of Pax Americana, which is an obvious echo of the peaceful situation of Europe under the Roman Empire.
Now, how one feels about the Empire is something else entirely.

"A 'drift' really isn't satisfactory for a successful debate or discussion. Could you tell us *exactly* what you understand as "past imperialism" so that we don't waste time and bandwidth on spurious arguments. That way we'll all be clear on exactly which roads you don't want us to go down"

I take it you are not familiar with "subject lines". Please tell me you are familiar with the imperialistic history of the mentioned nations/tribes...I would hate to think you are so uninformed about world history. If so, please refrain from further comment on this thread.

Also, please understand that this is not a debate or discussion. I asked a question, and am still waiting for an answer.

mrs. wife...."Compliance with US desires would show that 'US imperialism' had succeeded. Dissent from UN members shows that is has not... yet. Such dissent does not mean that this new form of imperialsim does not exist, rather that others are still trying to resist it."

I take it from this quote that you agree with me.....the US has not succeded in being imperialistic...yet.

So why all the "imperialistic US" nonsense then? Is this some form of "pre-emptive accusation"?

Sorry, folks. This whole thing has got on my nerves. I'm deadly tired of being accused of things my country has not done.

Form your peace rallys, march where you will....but drop the propaganda. Put facts and truth up, and no one will question your motives or resolve. Until then, you cannot be taken seriously by those who know and understand history.

Now, its' late and I must be off to bed. The corporate world demands my attendance at 6:30 am....and if I don't show up, my family doesn't eat. I suppose I'm a slave to my imperialistic masters....what a shame!

NM

Reading this thread I have to wonder.

Fairly Strange, do you actually want to know or do you want to ever strictly define Imperialism until it doesn't apply to the US?

anhaga (somewhere north of Montana[and still fed up])....

A quick aside before I retire....


Look, we all know the history of the word "empire". Your entry is very interesting reading, but we all also know the colloqual meaning. That is what is under question here.

"Imperialistic" in the modern accepted sense is the forceful assimilation and rule of one or more nations by a more powerful nation.

Rome set the standard and the European nations perfected it....now they want to pin the label on us. Sorry, but it don't fit. I'm sure their concience would be better served if it did.

I'm still waiting on an example of rampant...or otherwise...US imperialism. And quit using the "McDonalds scenario".

Goodnight folks. Enjoy!

NM

Well put mate

Bye