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

Well I looks like I was right

It was a "We're clean" thread

Gee, Fairly Strange has left the building. That's too bad. I'd hoped to find out what he thought of my post (#16). It really does seem to me, ApparÏtÏon, that it all comes down to definitions, as you suggest as well. In any case, the twentieth century was filled with examples of de facto American military governors of little countries (Honduras, El Salvador, Panama, Iraq, Iran). It was a cleaner form of Empire than the Mongol one, perhaps (there was plausible deniability), but it was messier than the Roman one (Thanks to Rome there was peace for most of the inhabitents of a huge portion of Europe for four centuries). As for the British Empire, for all its racist attitudes, the real mess for most subjects started when the Empire was dismantled. Empire has been many things through history, and I would argue, without condemning anyone or any country, that America is now an Empire. I hope that Fairly Strange will not be offended by my understanding of the situation, for I certainly mean nothing other than description, and certainly not moral condemnation. The morallity and judgement would rise out of what is done with Empire, not with the fact of holding it. I admire and respect the wisdom of Augustus, the first Roman to hold Empire, but I abhore the viscious madness of Gaius Caligula, who was the third. I'm not going to judge America today.

Anhaga

Good point. An empire is not nessarily built with bad deeds in mind.

oops, while I was composing, you came back. I'm afraid I disagree with your response: one coloquial definition of imperialism is the one you give. As I mentioned, we also talk of business empires, of music empires, and, yes, of fast-food empires. And you are the one that suggested a number of historical examples without analyzing the huge actual difference between those examples. I brought up history because you did. I brought up comercial empires because you did. Now, your definition of Empire doesn't apply to the Soviet Union, but in very recent history it was memorably described as a certain type of empire. What do you want? Do you want us to say, "okay, you're right"? Fine, Okay, you're right. Your definition of Imperialism doesn't apply to the United States. But one of mine does. And the funny thing is, I went to great lengths to simply be descriptive, not judgmental (unless it was somewhat positively.) Well, again, fine; the United States isn't what you'd call an Empire. I guess that's settled.

I'm not sure I buy the US imperialism argument, but it seems to me that to refuse to consider the role of corporations would exclude historical examples of imperialism. Think of the East India Company for example.

"I'm not looking for citizen control here"

Um er..have U read the acts?
Titles are decieving.
The National Security Strategy,The Patriot Act, Total Information ACT reach far beyond citizen control. It reachs beyond the US. That IS the point!

"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."

Noriega, Saddam. I'm afraid sometimes the American superpower does remove the installed governors who refuse to do its bidding. Is one removed and one about to be (maybe) removed enough to satisfy your definition of what "would be imperialistic."?

I tried to be nice about this, to suggest that imperialism is a term that does not have a fixed meaning and that according to some reasonable and historically justifiable definitions an awful lot of systems could be deemed imperial, but you seem to be ready to dismiss even the suggestion that America is similar to some great and noble systems simply because they have been named Empires. What's your issue, FS? You've asked us to show you evidence that America is imperialistic. When we do it you say "no that's not what I meant." Well, it's what we mean. You asked the question; if you impose the answer then it might seem, I don't know, imperialistic (in the way you mean).

I'm pretty tired of this, really.

okay, I know I said I was tired of this, but FS did address a response to me concerning my first post and he made a rather silly historical error:

"Rome set the standard and the European nations perfected it"

In fact, the standard of forcibly assimilating weaker nations was set (in the context of Rome, I mean) by the Republicans. The Empire came hundreds of years later. If you're going to ask a question based on history (which your question is), get your facts straight. Maybe you should be asking us for evidence that America is a republic.

off to look up actual definition of Imperialism

"The last time I checked the US government had nothing to do with labor laws in other countrys"

That is why the USS IS in those countries. They cannot abuse their own people legally, as others do. They cannot pollute home any more in the same way they do others. It is bigger than wages!You will not find the US trying to make those areas democratic or humane at this time,we USE THEM!

There are many ways to control.

hey, abbi. I thought you were looking up imperialism. I was hoping you would post what you found.

anhaga

i've just looked up a defintion of imperialism, but really i can't see any point in posting it here. however as i think the question of imperialism and the US is a very interesting one, i think i'll go start a new thread where 'debate and discussion' are allowed.

"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."

Manuel Noriega in Panama. Supported by US until he "thumbed his nose" at us, at which point we invaded and un-installed him.

Not sure how many of these could be called "installed," but if I can generalize a little and point out the number of villains who were previously given aid by the US, I can think of a few off the top of my head.

Ho Chi Minh. Given money by US and Allied Forces during World War II (since Vietnam was occupied by Japan). Later attempts to "un-install" Ho Chi Minh's forces cost millions of Vietnamese, French and American lives over several decades.

Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban, given aid by the US when they were fighting Russia, even as recently as Summer 2001 in the case of the Taleban, money given to them as an incentive to stop opium growers in Afghanistan. We've certainly been trying to "un-install" Bin Laden, apparently succeeded in un-installing the Taleban.

Saddam Hussein. Given economic and military assistance when Iraq fought Iran. US military actually gave Iraq information about Iran's troop movements, knowing that Saddam had used chemical weapons, knowing that their information would likely help more people be killed by chemical weapons. None of this caused a moral problem for the Reagan administration at the time, even when Congress tried to begin sanctions against these war crimes. In fact, US resumed diplomatic relations with Iraq shortly afterwards. Can't remember if that's the same instance when Donald Rumsfeld was sent as a special envoy, or if they met later. Now we're pushing to "un-install" the regime we helped.

We can quibble about what constitutes an empire, but it's not difficult to prove that US foreign policy has mainly attempted to make the world safe for capitalism, not safe for democracy or safe for people. Our assistance in coups in Guatemala, Chile, training South American generals how to torture at the School of Americas, this is only the last 50 to 100 years. It gets even easier and less debatable if we want to talk about 100-200 years ago.

There's no need for the United States to have direct control of other countries in the way that Rome or Britannia once ruled. All we have to do is ensure that money flows swiftly in these places and, with a few dollars slipped in the pockets of a few friendly locals, we know which way the money will flow.

It's true that the US is not in the process of building a political empire in the same way that, say, the British or other European powers did. That is, to rule directly.

However, (and some Classicist will correct me if I'm wrong about this), the Roman Empire was successful because it conquered territories and then left new local elites in charge with Roman backing. It was then in the interests of the local elites to back Roman rule, because it propped up their power and because of the benefits of Roman civilisation (see Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' - "What have the Romans ever done for us?").

I've heard it argued very persuasively that this is what America is doing now. During the Cold War, America sought to control the local elites in South America in order to counteract the percieved threat of communism. America overthrew democractically elected leaders such as Allende in Chile and installed murderous dictators like Pinochet instead. This is a fact. Now, this isn't quite the same thing as invading south America, but if replacing democratically elected leaders with a more pro-US alternative isn't imperialism, then I suggest that the word is so narrow as to be almost meaningless. This was a systematic attempt to control the internal and external policies of another sovereign state.

I agree with earlier comments about US corporations - it's not quite fair to claim that they're a completely different thing to the US government, and therefore nothing to do with them. The international trade rules are set by national governments, and the World Bank has a habit of forcing developing countries to open up their markets to free trade competition, without requiring the US or the EU to do the same. The globalisation agenda at the moment is about trying to force other countries to adopt a particular economic free market route which may not be appropriate for their culture or level of economic development.

Okay, this might come over as an anti-US rant, but it's not meant to. You did ask .

Otto

Oops

Missed an entire page of the thread so far. Apologies for any repetitions....

Well, it certainly seems Fairly Strange objects to the description of the US as an imperial power as it doesn't fit 'his' defininition of the word 'imperialism... and many others here agree their definition of the term is an appropriate description.

A definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Imperialism: Imperial rule or system (usu. derog). Policy of extending a country's influence by acquiring dependencies or through trade, diplomacy, etc.

That definition alone suggests you cannot discount commercial interests.

And if we're making comparisons to historical imperialist examples... The British Empire was not built on military conquest but on commercial enterprise. Private companies (such as the East India Company) would acquire resources, land, etc, to enhance its enterprise, profit and the like. If succesful, British troops would then be sent to 'protect' these commercial interests, usually at the cost of the private company.

The US has been and still is extending its influence through commercial means across the world. Sometimes, the US sends troops to protect these and other political interests (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Kuwait)... also ensuring US friendly regimes are in place and making it possible to extend these commercial interests and increase the wealth and power of the home nation.

Now I for one, do not agree American Imperialsm has any relation to the older model of enforced military conquest, but, as the definition above states, the USA is an Imperialist power and with many commonalities with Imperialism of more recent European history (Nazi Germany aside...)

FF

"Now I for one, do not agree American Imperialism has any relation to the older model of enforced military conquest".....

...but then...

"And if we're making comparisons to historical imperialist examples... The British Empire was not built on military conquest but on commercial enterprise. Private companies (such as the East India Company) would acquire resources, land, etc, to enhance its enterprise, profit and the like. If successful, British troops would then be sent to 'protect' these commercial interests"

Seems to me that's the stage we're at now, whether the US goes on to create a full blown military and political empire remains to be seen, but I can't see anyone who could stop them if they want to. It just remains to be seen if there is the political will in the country to send their young men and women to die on the battlefield to achieve it.

Rearrange my words to take them out of context why don't you... are you a journalist or something

Perhaps I should clarify... when I say 'older model', I mean the much older model of the Romans, Mongols etc... and similar to Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany... I think it is these types of Imperialism that defines Fairly Strage's view and hence his objections... I consider him to hold a very narrow definition of the term and that the USA does indeed compare to other forms of empire he has mentioned.

And no, political will or not, I feel there are enough intelligent and concerned people in the US that would halt the government before it went too far... The US is after all a democracy with inherent checks and balances built within the system... you only have to see the numerous films, books, and other arts coming from the US to know there are enough people with moral views who have an ability to influence opinion... just look at the glut of anti-vietnam/war films of the 80's...

With modern communications, I think we've seen the last of democratic powers embarking on Napoleonic adventures of conquest for the time being...

FF

Thanks, all. Good, clean discussion. I hope I haven't stepped on too many toes here. Appologies to any whom I may have offended, as that was not my intent. I must admit, you folks do make a convincing arguement.

While I cannot yet, personally, accept the thought that the US is a governmental empire, it seems I am forced to recognise that my definition of the term is incomplete.

The US, as a coercive trade empire, is an obvious fact. Blackmail and bribery appear to be most effective in achieving US goals globaly. Whether those goals will be for the good or bad, only future historians will know.(acknowledgement to the Researchers who made this point earlier)

Once again, thanks. I believe I may understand world opinion, and its' reasons, a bit better now. It is also possible I will be able to take the term "US Imperialism" without as much offense in the future.

NM

Hi FS!

I don't think you've offended anyone - I think you asked a reasonable question and got a reasonable answer! In fact, if ever asked to justify my claim that H2G2 is one of the most civilized sites on the internet, I'd cite this thread as evidence.

Otto

"Nation shall speak unto Nation"