The Decline and Fall of the American Empire?
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
mostly places like Ft. Benning, Aldershot, Edmonton Garrison, etc.Kirkhill said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I suggest you ALL Download the Guide to Strategy by the US ARMY War College
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps11754/00354.pdf
- read the first 40 pages and whats legal or illegal is shown as what`s right at the time for the individual country or groups of countries
Some extracts - its easy to read as its aimed at the top echelons of the US Military
eg: CHAPTER 3: ETH I CAL IS SUES IN WAR: AN OVER VIEW-
MAR TIN L. COOK.
Martin Cook's essay provides background on the limits, constraints, and criteria that have evolved regarding the use of violence by states and societies. Chapter 3 includes a review of just war thinking and the general history of Western legal and ethical thought. Cook notes the open questions regarding cultural diversity, especially in what many call the age of globalization. How Western thought converges and diverges from other cultural and ethical traditions, customs and laws should be an important area for seminar discussions and future research. This Chapter includes the just war framework and criteria, and highlights the importance of developing a strategist's understanding
In the modern world, a large body of ethical and legal thought attempts to limit, constrain and to establish criteria that sanction the use of violence in the name of the state and society. Through the mechanisms of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Charter of the United Nations, military manuals such as the U.S. Army's "Law of Land Warfare," and similar documents, modern governments and militaries attempt to distinguish "just war" and just conduct in war from other types of killing of human beings. Morally conscientious military personnel need to understand and frame their actions in moral terms so as to maintain moral integrity in the midst of the actions and stress of combat. They do so in order to explain to
themselves and others how the killing of human beings they do is distinguishable from the criminal act of murder.
The public declaration requirement has both a moral purpose and (in the American context) a legal one. The legal one refers to the issue we were just discussing: the role of Congress in declaring war. As we all know, few twentieth-century military conflicts in American history have been authorized by a formal Congressional declaration of war. While this is an important and unresolved Constitutional issue for the United States, it is not the moral point of the requirement.
The moral point is perhaps better captured as a requirement for delivery of an ultimatum before initiation of hostilities. Recall that the moral concern of just war is to make recourse to armed conflict as infrequent as possible. The requirement of a declaration or ultimatum gives a potential adversary formal notice that the issue at hand is judged serious enough to warrant the use of military force and that the nation is prepared to do so unless that issue is successfully resolved peacefully immediately.
But don`t take my word for it - read the first 40 pages and a lot becomes clear on how the deployments are managed from the top end of policy perspective.
I am currently sifting through this doc and will post the notes when they are done.
The US has made its case in spades - stop being an idiot or we will act. Certain targets have refused to listen or moderate their behaviour. At the same time certain neighbours of these idiots do not have the will or the means to moderate their neighbours behaviour.
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps11754/00354.pdf
- read the first 40 pages and whats legal or illegal is shown as what`s right at the time for the individual country or groups of countries
Some extracts - its easy to read as its aimed at the top echelons of the US Military
eg: CHAPTER 3: ETH I CAL IS SUES IN WAR: AN OVER VIEW-
MAR TIN L. COOK.
Martin Cook's essay provides background on the limits, constraints, and criteria that have evolved regarding the use of violence by states and societies. Chapter 3 includes a review of just war thinking and the general history of Western legal and ethical thought. Cook notes the open questions regarding cultural diversity, especially in what many call the age of globalization. How Western thought converges and diverges from other cultural and ethical traditions, customs and laws should be an important area for seminar discussions and future research. This Chapter includes the just war framework and criteria, and highlights the importance of developing a strategist's understanding
In the modern world, a large body of ethical and legal thought attempts to limit, constrain and to establish criteria that sanction the use of violence in the name of the state and society. Through the mechanisms of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Charter of the United Nations, military manuals such as the U.S. Army's "Law of Land Warfare," and similar documents, modern governments and militaries attempt to distinguish "just war" and just conduct in war from other types of killing of human beings. Morally conscientious military personnel need to understand and frame their actions in moral terms so as to maintain moral integrity in the midst of the actions and stress of combat. They do so in order to explain to
themselves and others how the killing of human beings they do is distinguishable from the criminal act of murder.
The public declaration requirement has both a moral purpose and (in the American context) a legal one. The legal one refers to the issue we were just discussing: the role of Congress in declaring war. As we all know, few twentieth-century military conflicts in American history have been authorized by a formal Congressional declaration of war. While this is an important and unresolved Constitutional issue for the United States, it is not the moral point of the requirement.
The moral point is perhaps better captured as a requirement for delivery of an ultimatum before initiation of hostilities. Recall that the moral concern of just war is to make recourse to armed conflict as infrequent as possible. The requirement of a declaration or ultimatum gives a potential adversary formal notice that the issue at hand is judged serious enough to warrant the use of military force and that the nation is prepared to do so unless that issue is successfully resolved peacefully immediately.
But don`t take my word for it - read the first 40 pages and a lot becomes clear on how the deployments are managed from the top end of policy perspective.
I am currently sifting through this doc and will post the notes when they are done.
The US has made its case in spades - stop being an idiot or we will act. Certain targets have refused to listen or moderate their behaviour. At the same time certain neighbours of these idiots do not have the will or the means to moderate their neighbours behaviour.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
no different than is taught on the Law of Armed Conflict Crse.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
paracowboy said:
Maybe so - from what I posted but the Strategy paper ends up planning WW3 - which is beyond most of our experience - it just shows you the hoops to jump through if you want to start an action - the GENERAL CASE is where one side has invaded another - it says the problems with the world community come in when this is not the case - and then the big players take action.
Bear in mind this is aimed at senior staff but the material is common as you say.
The question for us all is where is the official dialogue. Was common in the pre 1989 fall of Berlin Wall era - now its just a deployment until someone gets hurt then the shrieking and hand wringing starts from the political side.
We're not about to get out of this any time soon --- see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Army%20Chief%20Interview ---- but there is an election coming in USA and Canada within a year or two.
No public dialogue = trouble on the way in my view. SO skip ahead to page 203 and see stuff that relates to the Economic, Diplomatic and Military side of the creation of national policy
A quote
"' we can no longer afford isolated or uncoordinated approaches among the domains of strategy-military,
diplomatic, economic, or informational-which often, as Gregory Foster has observed, "manifest themselves operationally as costly bureaucratic and institutional barriers to unity of thought and action."3 Churchill's genius was rooted in his understanding of this reality. Like a painter, he tells us, the strategist must have an "all-embracing view, which presents the beginning and the end, the whole and each part, as one instantaneous impression retentively and untiringly held in the mind.
Civilian leadership identifies the broad political objectives and acceptable levels of cost and risk. Military leadership is responsible for a military strategy to achieve political objectives. Reconciling the two requires a clear delineation of political constraints and an equally clear assessment of military objectives and centers of gravity that must be attacked to achieve both military and political objectives. If centers of gravity, the most vital military targets, lie beyond the political constraints imposed by the nation's leadership, military intervention is unlikely to succeed." ------
------ OSAMA maybe driving a garbage truck in Kandahar or be located BEYOND THE COST we are willing to pay AND RISK to get him (if he exists) --- I see it as an ends, ways and means relationship - ENDS West wants to shut down terror MEANS - Military - Diplomatic and Economic resources --- publicly we only see the Military and a thin slice of other govt depts - Diplomatically we see __________ (fill in if you see it) and economically (fill in if you see it).
WAYS - some sort of a blended application of the three means.
Since we are in a coalition its unlikely we'll get more than part of an area of responsibility because of our limited means and the Diplomatic and Economic sides of the triangle are currently invisible.
I think the public should demand a debate on this.
- Reaction score
- 10,343
- Points
- 1,260
Kirkhill said:
I'm going to disagree with that - "Empire" means much more than simple control through sovereignty. There is something different between the control of the Federal government over my taxable income and the influence that the United States exerts militarily, economically, and politically on the international stage (just as, 2500 years ago, there was a difference between Athens and, say, Melos). I'm sticking to my guns that America is indeed an Empire (along the lines of Ferguson, Kagan, and all those other writers I had to read in "Great Power Politics").
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
Infanteer: I think you are arguing qualitative over substantive differences.
Just been re-reading Davies "The Isles". In the 1500 and 1600's before Britain had established her overseas empire there were government documents referencing the "imperial" nature of the government's control over the various parts of England and Scotland. (Can't find page just now of course
).
While I admit that language evolves and empire now has a particular and pejorative meaning it wasn't always so.
OED "supreme and extensive (political) dominion; (arch.) absolute control (over); (period of) government in which sovereign is called emperor; territory of an emperor:..."
If we accept there are no Emperors, therefore not Empires, then we are left with supreme and extensive, usually political domininion. Only nation-states have supreme dominion therefore any nation-state can be characterized as an empire.
Cheers.
Just been re-reading Davies "The Isles". In the 1500 and 1600's before Britain had established her overseas empire there were government documents referencing the "imperial" nature of the government's control over the various parts of England and Scotland. (Can't find page just now of course
).While I admit that language evolves and empire now has a particular and pejorative meaning it wasn't always so.
OED "supreme and extensive (political) dominion; (arch.) absolute control (over); (period of) government in which sovereign is called emperor; territory of an emperor:..."
If we accept there are no Emperors, therefore not Empires, then we are left with supreme and extensive, usually political domininion. Only nation-states have supreme dominion therefore any nation-state can be characterized as an empire.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 5,962
- Points
- 1,260
I think we are entering another of those pernicious debates on nomenclature.
The Roman republic was an empire, for heaven's sake; just as the US was, almost from its inception, and just as the American republic remains. It (the US) grew into a global empire in about 1898, after the Spanish-American War. In many respects the American empire was like the British empire: it had direct colonies and corporate colonies (the Brits had the East India Company, the Americans had the United Fruit Company) and 'free trade' zones, too.
I would argue that the US empire reached its 'outer limits' in about 1945. Then it settled on to a plateau, challenged, to some degree, by the USSR. The world has changed, as has America, Europe and China have been reconstructed, mostly with American capital, and so, relatively - but only relatively â “ America's power has appeared to wane, not because it has less but because almost everyone else (save Russia) has more â “ in some cases a lot more. Power is more than just the military, it embraces trade and commerce, investment and culture, too. America remains unsurpassed in all areas â “ for now.
I repeat: I see no signs of divine intervention in any empires, including America's; that being the case the American empire will decline, others will rise and supplant it; that will be the work of generations.
The Roman republic was an empire, for heaven's sake; just as the US was, almost from its inception, and just as the American republic remains. It (the US) grew into a global empire in about 1898, after the Spanish-American War. In many respects the American empire was like the British empire: it had direct colonies and corporate colonies (the Brits had the East India Company, the Americans had the United Fruit Company) and 'free trade' zones, too.
I would argue that the US empire reached its 'outer limits' in about 1945. Then it settled on to a plateau, challenged, to some degree, by the USSR. The world has changed, as has America, Europe and China have been reconstructed, mostly with American capital, and so, relatively - but only relatively â “ America's power has appeared to wane, not because it has less but because almost everyone else (save Russia) has more â “ in some cases a lot more. Power is more than just the military, it embraces trade and commerce, investment and culture, too. America remains unsurpassed in all areas â “ for now.
I repeat: I see no signs of divine intervention in any empires, including America's; that being the case the American empire will decline, others will rise and supplant it; that will be the work of generations.
- Reaction score
- 10,343
- Points
- 1,260
You're just shoe-horning the nation-state into the defintion of Empire. I'm not gunning for the literal definition (dictionary definitions, as we've seen throughout these forums, tend to fall short), I'm looking at one that frames "Empires" properly within the socio-political context in which they arise. Your defintion seems to fail because "geographic" falls short in properly explaining what sets "Empire" from the rest. When we look to the history books 400 years from now, we won't be looking at a "Canadian Empire" or a "Kenyan Empire" rather we'll be reading about the British Empire and the dominance of the United States - there is a reason for this.
A useful context to start "framing" empire is to look at the reach. To be considered "Empire", "global" reach is required - global in the sense that their policies, actions and culture have effects that are pervasive both within and outside of their domain. The reach of Empire encompasses most of the (relevent) world known to the people of that time. Indeed, the most durable empires are built around ideas. Rome was an empire, first of the Mediterranean world and than of all Europe. The British (the worlds first global empire) although painting much of the map red - but Britain was far more than just some trading house (Niall Ferguson's Empire does a good job of telling the story). The American Empire is one based almost purely upon idea - its territory is largely confined to the sovereign territory of the USA, but its dominance of ideas (military doctrine, democracy, Bretton Woods, NATO, etc, etc) is all encompassing in today's international arena.
Many empires possessed their reach through purely physical (re: military) means. The Mongols, Alexander and Nazi Germany come to mind. They also tend to be short lived, as the idea seems to possess much more endurance than the sword.
The essence of power and control (political dominion) at the local and regional level is essentially the same as that at an imperial level. You have various people, tribes, clans, groups, and nationalities bickering, co-opting, and all out fighting over who's will sets the agenda. These political arguments transcend moral, political, economic, social and military planes. Most of the time, this is contained - we've managed to box that idea into the political term "sovereignty". This is why you can have largely homogeneous Nation-States (Japan) or culturally fractured ones (like Spain); neither of which would be considered Empire.
Indeed, "Empire" is an interstate concept, not an intrastate one. It is when this essence of power and control goes "global" that the Imperial nature begins to become apparent. The arguments within Canada's Parliament are local - the effect is not global or imperial. However, one keeps attuned to the decisions coming out of Washington (just as one did 100 years ago to London or 2200 years ago to the Senate in Rome) because their reach is global and the consequences are directly or indirectly felt around the world (or at least, the world as those who experienced it knew it).
A useful context to start "framing" empire is to look at the reach. To be considered "Empire", "global" reach is required - global in the sense that their policies, actions and culture have effects that are pervasive both within and outside of their domain. The reach of Empire encompasses most of the (relevent) world known to the people of that time. Indeed, the most durable empires are built around ideas. Rome was an empire, first of the Mediterranean world and than of all Europe. The British (the worlds first global empire) although painting much of the map red - but Britain was far more than just some trading house (Niall Ferguson's Empire does a good job of telling the story). The American Empire is one based almost purely upon idea - its territory is largely confined to the sovereign territory of the USA, but its dominance of ideas (military doctrine, democracy, Bretton Woods, NATO, etc, etc) is all encompassing in today's international arena.
Many empires possessed their reach through purely physical (re: military) means. The Mongols, Alexander and Nazi Germany come to mind. They also tend to be short lived, as the idea seems to possess much more endurance than the sword.
The essence of power and control (political dominion) at the local and regional level is essentially the same as that at an imperial level. You have various people, tribes, clans, groups, and nationalities bickering, co-opting, and all out fighting over who's will sets the agenda. These political arguments transcend moral, political, economic, social and military planes. Most of the time, this is contained - we've managed to box that idea into the political term "sovereignty". This is why you can have largely homogeneous Nation-States (Japan) or culturally fractured ones (like Spain); neither of which would be considered Empire.
Indeed, "Empire" is an interstate concept, not an intrastate one. It is when this essence of power and control goes "global" that the Imperial nature begins to become apparent. The arguments within Canada's Parliament are local - the effect is not global or imperial. However, one keeps attuned to the decisions coming out of Washington (just as one did 100 years ago to London or 2200 years ago to the Senate in Rome) because their reach is global and the consequences are directly or indirectly felt around the world (or at least, the world as those who experienced it knew it).
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
Edward Campbell:
You are correct, sir. It is a matter of semantics. And as such it is a relatively minor matter.
Except in this regard. As noted Empire has become a pejorative. Those that use the word Empire seek to portray the Americans in a particular light. Many of those that describe the world in terms of the Decline and Fall are looking forward to the end of this current balance of power. They seem to seek to encourage others to work towards the decline and fall of the current structure.
I am in no such rush. The period after the fall of the Roman Empire was not particularly pleasant and nor, I wager, has life been particularly pleasant for many after the fall of the British Empire. I think you could probably find some in Sierra Leone and Rhodesia saying please come back, all's forgiven.
If anything I am in Niall Fergusson's camp and am looking for a return to Empire - just who will govern and how it will be governed is an open question.
Infanteer:
What I am arguing is the nature of the polities that constitute a state. I am back to those Colony Forming Units in the Petri dish that we discussed months ago.
The colonies are distinct. Cities are distinct. You know where the centre is. You don't know where the edge is. You don't know where the next colony or city begins. This becomes more true with crowding.
Cities are definable by their centres. Where their influence extends is less definable. The State is a construct where one power has been recognized as having dominion over all the colonies or cities in the area. It makes it easier to negotiate. Now if you want to put layers under and over the State and call them Provinces, Counties, Duchies or Empires that's fine. But they are all one and the same thing.
Cities seldom disappear (Carthage is an exception). But all other organizations, all other borders come and go. A government is a government whether we call it an empire or a dominion. The difference between the British and Roman empires and anything the American's are doing is that the final court of appeal for all people with in those empires was in the Capital City. The judges and senators, lords and privy councilors claimed eminent domain over all of the subjects. They claimed legal authority. The American's for all they throw their weight around don't claim that Canadians or Brits or Frenchmen for that matter must bend the knee to their Supreme Court.
On the other hand they do make that claim within all of their recognized borders, embassies and ships. Exactly as Canada does.
The City of Vancouver is junior to province of BC which is junior to Canada. When a dispute over law comes up which law trumps all others?
By contrast is there any circumstance where Canada, or any other country accepts that US law trumps theirs?
America may be the world's dominant military, economic and cultural force but it is not the world's dominant legal force. In that sense, if America is to be seen as an Empire then it is unlike any other Empire ever seen before.
Cheers
You are correct, sir. It is a matter of semantics. And as such it is a relatively minor matter.
Except in this regard. As noted Empire has become a pejorative. Those that use the word Empire seek to portray the Americans in a particular light. Many of those that describe the world in terms of the Decline and Fall are looking forward to the end of this current balance of power. They seem to seek to encourage others to work towards the decline and fall of the current structure.
I am in no such rush. The period after the fall of the Roman Empire was not particularly pleasant and nor, I wager, has life been particularly pleasant for many after the fall of the British Empire. I think you could probably find some in Sierra Leone and Rhodesia saying please come back, all's forgiven.
If anything I am in Niall Fergusson's camp and am looking for a return to Empire - just who will govern and how it will be governed is an open question.
Infanteer:
What I am arguing is the nature of the polities that constitute a state. I am back to those Colony Forming Units in the Petri dish that we discussed months ago.
The colonies are distinct. Cities are distinct. You know where the centre is. You don't know where the edge is. You don't know where the next colony or city begins. This becomes more true with crowding.
Cities are definable by their centres. Where their influence extends is less definable. The State is a construct where one power has been recognized as having dominion over all the colonies or cities in the area. It makes it easier to negotiate. Now if you want to put layers under and over the State and call them Provinces, Counties, Duchies or Empires that's fine. But they are all one and the same thing.
Cities seldom disappear (Carthage is an exception). But all other organizations, all other borders come and go. A government is a government whether we call it an empire or a dominion. The difference between the British and Roman empires and anything the American's are doing is that the final court of appeal for all people with in those empires was in the Capital City. The judges and senators, lords and privy councilors claimed eminent domain over all of the subjects. They claimed legal authority. The American's for all they throw their weight around don't claim that Canadians or Brits or Frenchmen for that matter must bend the knee to their Supreme Court.
On the other hand they do make that claim within all of their recognized borders, embassies and ships. Exactly as Canada does.
The City of Vancouver is junior to province of BC which is junior to Canada. When a dispute over law comes up which law trumps all others?
By contrast is there any circumstance where Canada, or any other country accepts that US law trumps theirs?
America may be the world's dominant military, economic and cultural force but it is not the world's dominant legal force. In that sense, if America is to be seen as an Empire then it is unlike any other Empire ever seen before.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 10,343
- Points
- 1,260
Yes, I understand your argument and I will reiterate that defining "Empire" around geography fails to properly constitute what Empire is. If I go off your definition, than technically, the City of Prince George is a "government that controls a variety of geographically dispersed communities". Political dominion and power exists at many levels at the same time - from strata by-laws to the Hague War Crimes Tribunal.
As well, defining Empire by "Law" is also tricky, because law is a concept that is extremely dependent upon the society that produces it. As well, Law is an internal process - talking about the Roman Empire strictly along the lines of "legal authority" does not paint an accurate picture of what the Roman Empire really was - how it interacted with the states and peoples around it and how the cultural, economic and military policies within Rome radiated and interacted with the outside world.
Look at regional power struggles - say the Warring States Period in Japan (a conflict amongst a homogeneous people) or say, the conflicts that united Spain or Britain (conflicts between dispartate socio-cultural groups). In the end, you had a unified state. Were any of these Empires? No. Tokugawa's military campaigns or the English colonization of Ireland were local events - nobody else really cared (if they heard about it). But when Rome sent its Legions north, when the British branch of the Rothschilds decided to move some capital or when the Americans produced the Marshal Plan (or GATT, or went into Vietnam or Iraq, or started opening McDonalds everywhere, etc, etc) the World pays attention and states must react and craft their policies around these actions.
I guess one of the principle ideas that is tied with empire is that of hegemony. Empire is hegemony at the "global" level - Empire occurs when the hegemons influence goes beyond its own regional, intrastate boundaries and becomes and interstate phenomenon that all are acutely aware of.
Edward is right, it is largely a game of semantics - but I believe it is important to properly define the fundamental points of the discussion if it is to be meaningful - which is why I challenge the notion that the sovereign authority of Canada and the global dominance of the United States are merely a difference of degrees and that both are Empires.
I do agree with Kirkhill and Edward on many of the other points regarding the durability of Empire.
As well, defining Empire by "Law" is also tricky, because law is a concept that is extremely dependent upon the society that produces it. As well, Law is an internal process - talking about the Roman Empire strictly along the lines of "legal authority" does not paint an accurate picture of what the Roman Empire really was - how it interacted with the states and peoples around it and how the cultural, economic and military policies within Rome radiated and interacted with the outside world.
Look at regional power struggles - say the Warring States Period in Japan (a conflict amongst a homogeneous people) or say, the conflicts that united Spain or Britain (conflicts between dispartate socio-cultural groups). In the end, you had a unified state. Were any of these Empires? No. Tokugawa's military campaigns or the English colonization of Ireland were local events - nobody else really cared (if they heard about it). But when Rome sent its Legions north, when the British branch of the Rothschilds decided to move some capital or when the Americans produced the Marshal Plan (or GATT, or went into Vietnam or Iraq, or started opening McDonalds everywhere, etc, etc) the World pays attention and states must react and craft their policies around these actions.
I guess one of the principle ideas that is tied with empire is that of hegemony. Empire is hegemony at the "global" level - Empire occurs when the hegemons influence goes beyond its own regional, intrastate boundaries and becomes and interstate phenomenon that all are acutely aware of.
Edward is right, it is largely a game of semantics - but I believe it is important to properly define the fundamental points of the discussion if it is to be meaningful - which is why I challenge the notion that the sovereign authority of Canada and the global dominance of the United States are merely a difference of degrees and that both are Empires.
I do agree with Kirkhill and Edward on many of the other points regarding the durability of Empire.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
If you define an Empire as "hegemony at the global level", including economic and political influence of other nations, couldn't we also define certain corporations as empires? Certainly the oil giants can exert quite a bit of control through various means. Any corporation with enough money has quite a bit of political and economic clout. So I think your definition is flawed - despite these abilities I certainly wouldn't consider corporations to be empires.
All empires have had the same things in common - they've exerted supreme dominance over their colonies, by sending lords, barons, magistrates, etc., assisted by military forces, to control the local populations. The US does not - in most cases - do this. They obviously DO have some colonies, however, as you correcty pointed out, they hit a plateou and have not developed any new ones in a LONG time. Building McDonalds franchies around the world, and selling Microsoft software to every nation, cannot be considered examples of Empire building. All nations influence eachother, and in the moder community most nations have corporations which opperate in multiple other nations. Also, fighting wars such as the ones the US fought in Vietnam and Iraq is also not an example of empire building - while their goal may have been to bring about friendly, democratic governments in those nations, they would NOT have had supreme control over them.
So if we only include their early colonies as examples of the American Empire, you gotta wonder how much time needs to pass before an Empire can be considered a country again. The USSR for example would by deffinition certainly have been an empire, however, I can't recall anyone ever calling it that. Once enough time has past, a conquered colony either rebels and splits off from the empire, or they are absorbed and are no longer considered a colony.
All empires have had the same things in common - they've exerted supreme dominance over their colonies, by sending lords, barons, magistrates, etc., assisted by military forces, to control the local populations. The US does not - in most cases - do this. They obviously DO have some colonies, however, as you correcty pointed out, they hit a plateou and have not developed any new ones in a LONG time. Building McDonalds franchies around the world, and selling Microsoft software to every nation, cannot be considered examples of Empire building. All nations influence eachother, and in the moder community most nations have corporations which opperate in multiple other nations. Also, fighting wars such as the ones the US fought in Vietnam and Iraq is also not an example of empire building - while their goal may have been to bring about friendly, democratic governments in those nations, they would NOT have had supreme control over them.
So if we only include their early colonies as examples of the American Empire, you gotta wonder how much time needs to pass before an Empire can be considered a country again. The USSR for example would by deffinition certainly have been an empire, however, I can't recall anyone ever calling it that. Once enough time has past, a conquered colony either rebels and splits off from the empire, or they are absorbed and are no longer considered a colony.
- Reaction score
- 10,343
- Points
- 1,260
48Highlander said:
Well, considering that many US corporations have more resources at hand than many states, I wouldn't say you are far off.
There are always a few different groups/organizations within Empires that are fundamental to the strength of an Empire. In Rome, the Senatorial class was important and a few key families were involved (especially when you considered how Roman law concerning the land outside of Rome evolved) - hell, the Roman civil war was nothing but a few families going at it. Britain had its "movers" (Rothschild, Rhodes, the British East India Company, etc, etc) and "Pax America" is no different; the corporate world of the United States, going at full steam during and after WWII, found unlimited opportunity in the post-war reconstruction and layed the groundwork for over half a century of economic prosperity in the West. In essence, corporations are part of the American "Empire"; since I'd venture that imperial hegemony is based off of ideas, the mechanics of an Empire doesn't always have to be machinery of the State.I don't think "supreme dominance of colonies" is the defining feature of empire. See above; I don't believe the Government of Canada exerting supreme dominance over the Metis was an act of Empire (nor did it make us one). For another example, look at the Ottoman Empire - supreme dominance wasn't really there; sure it existed in law, but the Dey of Algeria or the Mamluks of Egypt probably didn't agree with this. The Ottoman Empire, which existed for half a millennia, wasn't one of supreme dominance.
I use McDonalds as a (somewhat flippant) example of cultural hegemony - Empires radiate culture; concepts like "lingua franca" (a good determinate of imperial status), style and fashion, religious beliefs, cultural norms, market rules and products, etc, etc. You cannot look at the world today and not tell me that American culture is the vanguard of Pax Americana. When I was overseas, there were stupid posters of Britney Spears (the singer, not the member here....) everywhere - get home and what do I see in my sisters room? Just as it was said that a man could walk the length of Europe and be protected by the Laws of Rome, I can travel around the world and grab a Big Mac just about anywhere. As trivial as pop culture icons like McDonalds and Britney Spears seem, they are very powerful symbols of the cultural hegemon.
....a democratic government that is friendly to the liberal democratic world order, is it not? Fighting a war to install a government friendly to your interests (puppet or not) is nothing new - just as the Americans propped up the Republic of South Vietnam, the Romans kept a friendly government in Armenia to offset Parthian strength in the East. Use of the military to expand and enforce the ideal of Empire, no? In the case of Pax Americana, the effort is to support the liberal democratic order, which (as Kirkhill mentioned earlier) is not a bad thing - the left just likes to make Empire seem bad in its never ending goal of self-flagellation.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Infanteer said:Well, considering that many US corporations have more resources at hand than many states, I wouldn't say you are far off.
Granted, corporations can be seen as tools of an empire, and would certainly prosper as part of one, however what I was pointing out is that by the definition you gave, they could actually BE empires. In fact, if anything I'd say corporations are a better example of modern empires - they engage in hostile takeovers, they "colonize" and absorb other corporations. When Microsoft takes over some puny little company, there's no doubt that they are entirealy in control - whereas any control the US government exerts over other countries depends on a variety of factors, meaning it's never absolute.
Infanteer said:
I said that it's something that all empires have had in common, NOT that it's something EXCLUSIVE to empires. Big difference. And I'm not too clear on the history of the Metis, but I beleive Canada wasn't yet a soverign nation at that point - we were still a colony of England, which made it rather difficult for us to be considered an empire
Not important anyway, what I was arguing is that an empire is not an empire unless it has absolute dominance over it's colonies (or at least the majority of it's colonies)Infanteer said:
What about other symbols? Shell is a company known world wide, and is currently the 4th largest corporation in the world. Want to talk about huge corporations and well-known "symbols"? How about Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Toyota Motors - all on the list of the worlds ten largest
Anyway, your argument has some merit to it in that I can see why YOU would cosider the US an empire, and can to a certain extent agree. And no, I also do not consider empires to neccesarily be a negative thing. I just think you're really stretching the deffinition of the word. For every example you come up with of why you think the US is an empire, I can think of at least afew other countries which would fit the same criteria. It's true that the US has a huge influence on most if not all the nations around the globe, however that alone does not an empire make.
- Reaction score
- 10,343
- Points
- 1,260
48Highlander said:
Go over the history of the British East India Company in India. The Dutch East India Company is another good example. Corporations can most certainly be "empires" in their own right. The key is that, although independent in legal terms, their imperial reach stems from a common imperial doctrine that seems to support the notion of Empire. Was there really a difference between the British East India Company and the Crown when it came to ruling India? The same can probably be said today - does it really matter if it is the captial of the United States government flowing into a country, or merely that of an American corporation? As I said earlier, various parts of an "Imperial construct" can exist independently of the State.
I never argued that it wasn't something that they had in common - I simply pointed out that it wasn't the defining feature.
And I'm not too clear on the history of the Metis, but I beleive Canada wasn't yet a soverign nation at that point - we were still a colony of England, which made it rather difficult for us to be considered an empire
Better go over your history books again - here, I'll give you a hand. Pay attention to the dates.
Nobody said that Empires didn't have competition along military, political, cultural, and economic lines. None of this changes the fact that the US is still preponderant in all these aspects.
A stretch? Very well, give me your definition of what an Empire is and how America is or isn't one.
It defines the world economic order, it has the most powerful military force in the globe, it defines, sets, and fuels cultural trends (things like newsmedia, pop culture, and entertainment), and it is a leader in technological innovaton, advancement, and employment. If that ain't "Empire", then I don't know what is.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I'd go with "A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority".
Abstract and unmeasurable "influence" doesn't make for an empire, it's just the way of globalization. All nations influence eachother, so either you define a LOT of them as competing empires, or you can't rightly call any of them an empire. Unless you can show that the US exercises supreme authority over other nations/territories, you can't realisticaly claim that they're an empire. Either that or alternately you have to concede that by your logic, the Dutch, Japanese, Germans, Canadians, and English to name a few could also be considered Empires, just smaller, less succesfull ones. And if we start applying the term that losely, it loses all meaning. It's like when people start calling Bush a Nazi. Or animal rights protestors comparing the treatment of animals to slavery, or the holocaust. Sure, to some extent they have a point, and certain parallels can be drawn. But when you take a term with a clear definition and try to mold it so it'll fit whatever point you're trying to make, well, that term starts to lose all meaning.
Abstract and unmeasurable "influence" doesn't make for an empire, it's just the way of globalization. All nations influence eachother, so either you define a LOT of them as competing empires, or you can't rightly call any of them an empire. Unless you can show that the US exercises supreme authority over other nations/territories, you can't realisticaly claim that they're an empire. Either that or alternately you have to concede that by your logic, the Dutch, Japanese, Germans, Canadians, and English to name a few could also be considered Empires, just smaller, less succesfull ones. And if we start applying the term that losely, it loses all meaning. It's like when people start calling Bush a Nazi. Or animal rights protestors comparing the treatment of animals to slavery, or the holocaust. Sure, to some extent they have a point, and certain parallels can be drawn. But when you take a term with a clear definition and try to mold it so it'll fit whatever point you're trying to make, well, that term starts to lose all meaning.
- Reaction score
- 10,343
- Points
- 1,260
48Highlander said:
But isn't the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, Canada, and England (to name a few) examples of "political units having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority"? What your definition describes is the sovereign nation-state: political units (states) that control extensive territory (Canada is pretty big and full of different groups of people) ruled by a single supreme authority (the Queen? The Constitution?) This was the same defintion I was arguing over with Kirkhill earlier today.
What I'm looking for is what sets the Empire apart from the rest. What set Rome apart from the others. What set the Ottomans apart, or the British, or the Americans. That is why I pointed to hegemony on multiple dimentions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyways, enough of the battle over semantics for me tonight.
Cheers,
Infanteer
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
OED
hegemony: ruling by one State of a confederacy
confederacy: league, alliance, conspiracy
empire: supreme and extensive (political) dominion
dominion: lordship, sovereignty, control; domains of feudal lord, territory of sovereign or government
political: of or affecting the State or its government
sovereign: supreme, unmitigated ..... (editorial comment - ne plus ultra)
State: organised political community under one government
government: 1. system of governing, form of organization of State. 2. body or successive bodies of persons governing a State; the State as an agent; an administration or ministry
And now back to our regularly scheduled debate....
hegemony: ruling by one State of a confederacy
confederacy: league, alliance, conspiracy
empire: supreme and extensive (political) dominion
dominion: lordship, sovereignty, control; domains of feudal lord, territory of sovereign or government
political: of or affecting the State or its government
sovereign: supreme, unmitigated ..... (editorial comment - ne plus ultra)
State: organised political community under one government
government: 1. system of governing, form of organization of State. 2. body or successive bodies of persons governing a State; the State as an agent; an administration or ministry
And now back to our regularly scheduled debate....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Infanteer said:
I get ya. So where we differ isn't on the definition of the word "empire", but on the definition of the phrase "having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations". The way I see it, that phrase refers to areas which differ greately from the original nation we're discussing. So, think England's colonization of India, or North America. One was a soverign nation, which makes it easy to define - the other was a lose collection of tribes, but still a distinctly different society from that of the colonists. I suppose you could argue that by that definition Canada is an empire since we have large areas of land (whole provinces/territories) occupied only by aboriginal people, and I'm too rushed at the moment to think of any way to refute that
I suppose there are many countries which display different characteristics of empires, yet still cannot be classified as such.Similar threads
