
The American “Empire” Reconsidered - samclemens
https://notevenpast.org/the-american-empire-reconsidered/
======
aaron-lebo
This is really good, as in there isn't anything really to disagree with good.

I've found Edmund Morris's books about Teddy Roosevelt to be a great insight
into this time because he was such an epitome of the Gilded Age generation
that wanted empire. 1898 really does seem to be a crucial year, prior to that
the US had not gone much past enforcing the monroe doctrine (see Cleveland's
disagreements with the Germans over Venezuela). Teddy is front and center
during this time when the US conquers Cuba and the Philippines. Within a few
years Hawaii is conquered/stolen (this is the colony that never got away),
Panama is basically annexed so the US can get the canal.

It was a weird kind of imperialism. The US actually gave Cuba its independence
really quickly (02-03?), but it was economically dependent. When Castro came
to power like 80% of the Cuban economy was owned by US holders. In the
Philippines, horrible things were done to the Filipinos who resisted. This was
done under the auspices of Roosevelt and Taft who otherwise were very moral
men. See their actions domestically. They just had a very paternalistic view
about the US's role of spreading civilization. Mark Twain (who apparently
posted this link) was a huge critic of these actions. The US was very aware
that it was getting into the empire business and there was lots of debate
about it.

There were many holdouts and it took both world wars for the isolationist
sentiment in the US to be completely broken. Not surprisingly, maybe, by FDR,
who modeled himself after his older cousin in more ways than one. After WW2
the ship had sailed and the US had so much global power (all the old empires
save Russia dying), that it no longer really had a choice.

Someone on HN recommended Oliver Stone's Untold History of the Unites States.
It's a really good look at the other end of this empire. It's obvious where
his biases lie (check out his Putin interviews for some real ass kissing).
Sometimes he says cringeworthy stuff like "this particularly American sin of
xenophobia" (like really dude, you know this much about history and you're
gonna say that), but it's great criticism and something lots of people would
do well to watch.

Not to be too pretentious, but we must know our history. So many things that
are currently happening have deep roots in the past. Hopefully someone will
find these recommendations useful.

~~~
alsetmusic
> Someone on HN recommended Oliver Stone's Untold History of the Unites
> States. It's a really good look at the other end of this empire. It's
> obvious where his biases lie (check out his Putin interviews for some real
> ass kissing). Sometimes he says cringeworthy stuff like "this particularly
> American sin of xenophobia" (like really dude, you know this much about
> history and you're gonna say that), but it's great criticism and something
> lots of people would do well to watch.

He’s a great filmmaker, but I couldn’t get into this series. It really seemed
to me that the goal was to spoon feed me ideas rather than to educate me and
cause me to think. I love history and have a pretty dim view of US behavior
towards the rest of the world (I have lived in the US all of my life), so it
could have been a great match. The tactics felt very manipulative, however.

Documentaries shouldn’t use background music to inform me of who the hero is
or who the bad guys are. They should be relatively dry and factual. This
series is a fantastic example of how it should not be done.

~~~
aaron-lebo
I can only take it in doses, but it's invaluable from the perspective of if
you wanted to represent the US as poorly as possible based on its own actions,
how could you do it?

He's a guy you can't watch with your blinders on, but the raw amount of
material there is, and the coverage of events like Iran in 53, Chile in 73 is
a good counterpoint to anyone who wants to suggest the US cares particularly
about democracy, or has only been a force for good, that kind of rhetoric.

Is there something similar that has less of a slant?

~~~
ABCLAW
I find Chomsky's critiques of US Imperialism to be fairly dry, lucid and
unemotional. However, it is difficult to perform a critique of America's moral
standing and not be accused of having a slant, regardless of the sufficiency
of your evidence or the strength of your argument.

------
woodandsteel
Good article. I would just add that the US took the lead in setting up the
post-WWII political and economic order in part because it wanted to avoid a
repeat of the chaos of the previous two decades, and that had in fact been
characteristic of much of the world for many thousands of years. And a great
many other nations joined in this order because they had some similar motives.

It is important to explain this because many on the left believe that the
world was a peaceful, just, and prosperous paradise until Western imperialism
came along, which is completely false. And lately many on the far right have
been falsely claiming that the West was ditto a quite wonderful place until
modernity.

------
yogthos
why is the word empire in quotes?

~~~
pjc50
America does not officially have colonies or call itself an Empire. It does
however have states that are second-class citizens (what is Puerto Rico?),
weird extralegal exclaves (Guantanamo), tiny occupied islands (Guam), and lots
of other countries which are independent but also to some extent economically
and militarily subordinate, in which the US State Department feels entitled to
influence policy, from the famous "banana republics" to Europe and the Middle
East.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Empire: an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme
authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.

>It does however have states that are second-class citizens

Colony: a country or area under the full or partial political control of
another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that
country.

>lots of other countries which are independent but also to some extent
economically and militarily subordinate, in which the US State Department
feels entitled to influence policy

~~~
wastedhours
Rounding the point off - hence why "Empire" was in quotes and not just written
as Empire. It's not a technical empire, but is making a point (using
conversational context).

~~~
wu-ikkyu
What specifically disqualifies it from being defined as an empire?

~~~
Arnt
It's not really large enough. The no-quotes empires had subject peoples and
areas at least comparable in size to their own people.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Where in the dictionary definition of empire does it state this?

Anyways, it still seems to meet your criteria:

>the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70
countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar
facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign
bases combined.

[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-
military-...](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-
bases-around-the-world-119321)

~~~
wastedhours
Although tiresome to argue dictionary pedantry, I think the crux of it is that
the implication is that the the US doesn't have any defined role in the rule
of a lot of the countries (as in, they don't claim ownership, or even
influence), but that it's exerted either overtly or covertly by other means.

The point in this context is that the US's web of influence extends outside of
the areas in which they have a direct structure of power in place (and isn't
consistent within those that it does) - those points, in this sense, imply an
"Empire" (quotes, as nebulous), rather than an Empire (the defined thing).

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Very well then. Seems quite analagous to the supposed difference between
"enhanced interrogation" and "torture".

~~~
wastedhours
Well, yeah - "enhanced interrogation" is the "air-quotes" version of torture.

------
olivermarks
For 'post-colonial globalisation' IMO read offshore global oligarchs with no
allegiance to any nation state...and their corporate armies...

------
PricelessValue
Why is empire in quotes? We are most definitely an empire - the largest
that'll ever exist on earth. We are the only global superpower.

~~~
tdb7893
I'm under the impression that empire is generally a collection of nations
being administered collectively, generally under a single ruler called an
emperor, rather than just being a term for a powerful nation. The British
Empire ruled the UK and numerous colonies and the Holy Roman Empire ruled over
a collection of Germanic states. Except for a few exceptions (e.g. Guam and
Puerto Rico) the US is all one nation and governmentally not an empire

