I watched an absolutely top notch show tonight. Not Dr.Lectur in Hannibal, though that was top notch too ("Oh, and while we're on the topic.. I'm giving serious thought to eating your wife" - brilliant), but a show by a particularly enjoyable British writer/journalist whose show I previously watched about ancient empires. Anywho, this latest programme was titled "American Colossus", and the bloke was trying to argue that America was actually an empire. The 68th official world empire, infact.
He wasn't some anti-Yank trashy Euro. He was pro-American, and made the case that the American empire made the world a better place than the British one, and had the capacity to do far more good if it realised this fact. And I have to say, he made a bloody good case.

He started with, obviously, the creation of the United States of America. As most empires begin, so did the USA. As a relatively small group of cities or states, stretching out across a portion of continent. This occured for USA when it declared its independence, fighting, but in most cases, buying native peoples out of their land and spreading from East to West. And it's this very fact that most of the effort was achieved through cash, rather than arms, that people do not view the origins of USA as an imperial state stretching out to gain more land. But that, he argued, is exactly what happened. As with every empire, it garnered settelments and colonies across the continent, and he highlights the example as with Texas. Illegally populating land belonging to Mexico brought around the conflict of the Alamo (small version of Rorke's Drift, replacing Zulu's with Mexicans and a victory with defeat). Minor conflicts follow and the colony of Texas is incorporated in to the growing empire. More land is brought up, Lousianna from France and Alaska from Russia, and the mid-North of the continent is pretty much conquered.
The entire process wasn't even slightly as bloody as most origins of empire, but, he went on, this was achieved through cash. Pretty much astounding real estate deals.
And then came the spreading of the empire, over-seas. War with Spain to aquire Carribean islands, war with Phillipines. Some, what, 5000 Americans dead, 14000 natives?
The US, he suggested, was every bit an empire as the ones before. The tactical reach of Alexander's empire, the economic pursuit of the British empire, the expansion of the Golden Hoarde. But there was something, he suggests, different. The conflicts abroad, especially the high casualties in the Phillipines, gave Americans a distatse for imperial empire. So the argument was coined that US begun fighting imperialism, and won its freedom, and thus it was not an imperial power itself. And so it changed from "conquering", to fighting for democracy. Instilling freedom - whether it was welcome or not. America had adopted a form of imperialism suited to itself, distinguished from previous methods to conform to its needs.
WW1 props up, and after a while, US joins in. But this, he argues, brought no benefit. There was nothing to gain for the American empire, and afterwards a period of isolationism begun. Not until the second world war was the American empire re-awakened, the sleeping giant.
And so it took to Europe and Far East with its form of imperialism, installing democracies and rebuilding countries that created gigantic advantage. Americanisation of the world. Ronald Mcdonald, he argued, was a general of the empire. Quite a cracking thought :P
He went on to state that Vietnam was a war America could have - and should have - won. Through it's "You'll have freedom, or we'll kill you" America has managed to become a hyper power, with most of the world changed through its presence and actions. For the better, he concludes, and when the American people realise its imperial approach and empire foundations, it could do far more.

Anyway, I'll wrap it up there. I found it quite a unique approach to the US. Of course there's the existing train of thought of Americanisation and so forth, but never really heard it presented as a form of imperial empire.
"America acts like an empire, looks like an empire, and grows like an empire. So why shouldn't it be?" was how he concluded.

Whatchya reckon? It was quite a compelling argument.

That actually sounds interesting to watch. Thanks!

That guy had an article (or maybe someone else wrote an article about his views? donno) in a Newsweek issue last december / this january titled Empire in Denial if I recall correctly.

The case was that the USA is an empire in every aspect but it's name. Drew a paralel between British empire at it's height and compared the area controled, the GDP produced relative to the whole world, the standing military power compared to the rest of the world etc etc (lots of other factors) and through that it established the case pretty well.

As for my opinion, the US is already the policeman of the world and has an immerse influence over everything that happens anywhere on this planet (even if it is only political or economic influence) however I don't think it will openly declare itself as an empire in our life.

I think he's close to actuality in a few points but is missing in a few areas.
Interestingly, Americas involvement in Imperialism came from its fight against Imperialism in the Spanish American War. The goal was a free Cuba, and we succeeded in that, and went further, kicking the Spanish out of the Pacific completely with Deweys victory in Manilla Bay.
We left Cuba free, but under great pressure from all sides to keep the Phillipines, articulated by Rudyard Kipling in White Man's Burden (http://www.historywiz.com/burden.htm). America however was DEEPLY divided and there was much domestic opposition to it, personified by Mark Twain in his famous anti-Imperialst writing The Person Sitting In the Darkness (http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/marktwain-darkness.htm)
At first there was such strong domestic opposition to the claiming the Phillipines that the majority of Americans STRONGLY opposed it, but by some act of dishonesty, A story was manufactured that the Filipinos started the hostilies, a lie that created enough public support to ratify the Treaty of Paris that gave the US possession of the Phillipines.
The point im trying to make here is that yes, the United States CAN take possession, but by its very nature it is EXTREMELY resistant to it. American people will by and whole reject intanglements in foreign affairs unless some action wakes them. And that only has a life span that lasts so long.
This National tradition has roots with George Washington. No doubt, one of the greatest figures in history. Here was a man, who was wildly popular with his people and his Army, the people basically begged him to take a crown, become a leader for life. Here was a man that on his own, gave up power, because he thought it was the right thing to do.
This may seem like not a big deal. But stop a second, think about it. At what point in world history had a leader WILLINGLY given up power to make his nation stronger.
Washington then put his firm mark on American policy and mindset with his brilliant Farewell Address in 1796. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm)
The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
How true that rings, even today.
basically though he begs future americans to avoid 3 things.
*1 Avoid Party Politics
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. (Akipt, Crist0, Osgliliath.. )

*2 False Patriotism

*3 and Foreign Entanglements

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

So having this bedrock, we move onto the Monroe Doctrine. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/monroe.htm) That basically told Europe to stay the fuck out of the Americas, and we will stay out of Europe. Even back then, the resources of America were seen as a unbalancing factor in any conflict.

So we stay out of the world affairs. Even during our Civil War, foriegn nations were EXTREMELY apprehensive about getting involved. The Confederate tried desperatly to get England to join on thier side, but the prospect of facing a Irate Lincoln after the war discourged them, as well as Americas natural inclination to avoid all foreign entanglements. For that alone we should be grateful to Washington and Monroe for giving us the leeway to work our problems out for outselves.

Moving on we come to World War One. We enter this war extremely late. Americans just did NOT want to get involved. World War One was a meat grinder. 10,000,000 dead in 4 years. The world had never seen anything like it.
Germany overplayed its hand a bit and sunk the Lusitania, which had 100 Americans on it. There we have the event that broke Americas unwillingness to enter the War. So we enter the War. Germany upon our entrance, launches a massive offensive, attempting to win the war before the flood of fresh American forces inevitably turn the tides of the War. This fails and Americas entrance in the war ends it within a year.
Once again America fades away from the world scene, content with its isolation. Safe and happy behind the most massive walls that could ever be concieved. The Atlantic and the Pacific. More formidable than the walls of Jericho and Troy combined. Americans know that a attack on America by a foreign force is completly impossible. Let the world work itself out.

Even as World War Two raged, American will kept us out of the war, no matter how desperatly FDR wanted to help out Britian, he met strong opposition even for the smallest assistance to Britian. Let the world set itself on fire. We are safe behind our walls.
Then Pearl Harbor. And the American will is created for war.
We enter and change the course of human events. Had we not entered the world would have been divided into 3 parts. Greater Asia (China, Korea, the Pacific Rim) under Japanese Control (except Pearl and the Phillipines), The Reich, basically all of Europe and the Middle East, And North America, under American protection. I cringe at the thought of what this world would have looked like. A certain march toward Orwells vison would have been inevitable.

After WW2, we are not allowed to lapse back into slumber, Communism declares its intent to dominate the globe. The Cold War begins and Democracy is threatened. One of the two sides will win this war. Nikita S Khrushchev, Soviet Premier, takes off his shoe in front of western Ambassadors, pounds it on the desk screaming "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!"
That woke up the American People.

After the end of the Cold War, things looked pretty good, and America was starting to lapse back into slumber. We avoided conflict. Reluctant in Bosnia, reluctant in Somalia, reluctant in Iraq, once again content to let the world take care of itself.

Then 9/11, and the American political will is created, Afganistan is swatted away like a fly, the poltical will is capitalized on and Iraq is invaded. The world is awed at the speed and efficency and will of the US. And some, frightened.
But political Will has subsided, and the natural American tendency to want to be free of such intanglements is on its way back. The Giant wants to slumber.

This "War on Terror" is an attempt to change basic foundations and tenets of American character and beliefs. Is it necessary? Some would argue it is, some would argue it isnt.

This "War on Terror" is an attempt to change basic foundations and tenets of American character and beliefs. Is it necessary? Some would argue it is, some would argue it isnt.

While we might not have openly participated in global conflict, we have continued our low grade policies of political manipulation and aid to those who support our goals- such as the Taliban at one point in time.

However, the global structure has changed so much- the Atlantic and the Pacific no longer keep us safe from invasion. Indeed, small groups are willing to carry their fight against us to our shores- something that was never a factor until now.

You forget Japan?
Threat of invasion/attack on home soil has always been something that's existed, to everyone, even the most remote.
The US had it continuously, from the British, mainly, Canadians, Spanish, Mexians, Japs, so forth.

One thing I would not do, however, is lump terrorist attacks in the same group. Terrorist attacks are not offensives of war. A terrorist group isn't a nation state, it's a concept sprung from a group of ideals. And they've been happening for years and years. Yet domestic terrorism appears to be tolerated because of shared lineage?
Seems odd.

But I do agree.. America does keep up a global form of dominance that corresponds with past empires. Though it does it in a different way, placing freedom/democracy in the driving seat where imperialism once stood. But the results are the same, American dominance. Look at Europe.. it's a hamburger shaped American product.

Look, the British empire conquered under the pretext of European thinking back then that these places *needed* European ideals and civilization, because it was better for them. And boy god, they'd get it even if they didn't want it.
You see the similar elements?

When you scratch the surface, America does act like an empire. Of course, whether or not it is one, isn't so black and white. But it certainly isn't the opposite of imperialist empire.

You forget Japan?
Threat of invasion/attack on home soil has always been something that's existed, to everyone, even the most remote.
The US had it continuously, from the British, mainly, Canadians, Spanish, Mexians, Japs, so forth.


Not quite so. I grant you that the early and later parts of our history had these threats.

However, our policy of isolationism was largely based around the fact we felt secure that nobody was going to invade our shores (in the late 19th and early 20th century). As stated, we took a stance of "let the rest of the world figure it out, we are safe where we are". We've only deviated from that policy when something has shaken us up in most cases.

Since that time, we've had Japan who did have a strike against US held land. We've also had the threat of Soviet long range bombers that *could* have taken an attack to our soil. Dealing with the threat of the Soviets shaped US policy to almost the exclusion of all else. The whole "communist scare" thing that led us to pile into Vietnam.

By and large, these have been the exceptions rather than the rule. We've not used our military to take new lands. We've not acted like the Romans.

Since Vietnam, post-9/11 has been the only era in which the US military been sent after foes who *might* present a threat to national security. It is also the only time we have acted un a unilateral fashion, if I recall correctly.

One thing I would not do, however, is lump terrorist attacks in the same group. Terrorist attacks are not offensives of war. A terrorist group isn't a nation state, it's a concept sprung from a group of ideals

Like the ideals that had a bunch of upstart colonists succeede from the British Empire? It is every bit a war- it is just highly unconventional. People wind up just as dead.

The problem is that we can't zero in on one piece of land and say "the bad guys are here". This isn't a case of "you crossed our border, now we are at war" or "you have the resources we want, we are going to invade". It is an all new kind of war- a war of ideals.

How do you fight an ideal? The problems with this are mind boggling. Fight to hard, and you risk strengthening opposition. You could try a system of "re-education" but that can be as chilling as genocide. Hell, how can you identify your foes? Not like they wear a big letter "E" on them for enemy. This is a complete and total mess.

You see the similar elements?

Oh, I agree. It just think the "hand off" approach to spreading our ideals is over and that we might start acting more like a real "empire".