why is the word empire in quotes?
The American “Empire” Reconsidered
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered
#12This 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…
Great post! It's always instructive to me how the primary purpose and usage of the US military from inception was truly centered around global commerce rather than defending the national territory. Unburdened by a legacy of monarchy but well-acquainted with mercantilism, the merchant paternalists of the early US instead decided to focus on unfettered (for them) trade even if that meant fetters for others both iron an…
This was in some sense preordained, given that it was Shay's Rebellion that motivated the creation of a strong federal government and the Whiskey Rebellion was one of the earliest usages of the standing army. But the other obvious purpose was expanding the territory of the United States. Hogeland's Autumn of the Black Snake details how defeating Indians in Ohio was the impetus to create a standing army, an idea that was quite controversial.
Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Trump is doing and what Obama did to some extent is Retrenchment rather than Isolationism. US is hyper-extended and pulling back is pretty natural reaction after two decades of engagement in Middle East and Afghanistan. That is not Isolationism, my rule of thumb is when US Navy vacates Diego Garcia (naval base in Indian Ocean), I will consider they are becoming Isolationist until then the talk of Isolationism ju…
Isolationism is much more than giving up foreign territories, it is as much about that as it is about solely looking after your own interests rather than a more global view. Places where you would see this are treaties, entities like NATO, the United Nations and so on and by that yardstick the US is becoming more isolationist by the day. Diego Garcia being vacated would be a sign that America is no longer a world pow…
> it is as much about that as it is about solely looking after your own interests rather than a more global view
I find it very, very hard to believe that the "global view" was ever more or different from "solely looking after your own interests". You may find nuance simply because there were and are many people involved with their own respective different ideas and goals, but even when something looked altruistic on the surface I'm sure you can always trace it back to someone benefiting financially. For example, giving aid but binding it to conditions leading to money returning to you (plus interest, when it's a loan). Altruistic would be giving up some of your own rights, e.g. on patents or IP, or giving the other party an advantage in trade - it does not even have to be giving "money" (which often just fuels corruption).
Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered
#14This 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…
> 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 criti…
No work of history is entirely straight. Even if the presentation is dry, if you read two different historians on the same era you're likely to get a wildly different account. Was the War of 1812 a rousing success that united Americans more than they had been and demonstrated the ability of a republic to wage war without compromising its principles, or a catastrophic, foolish decision? I've seen both takes.
Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered
#15why is the word empire in quotes?
Because this piece is a half-baked amateurish attempt to mask immature spite and malice for America and western culture in a veil of authority so thin only the most naive would fall for it.
The reason that empire is in quotes is because the author is spiteful and will not provide the satisfaction of calling the American "empire" and empire, because that would mean giving it even just a theoretical modicum of acknowledgement of achievement, success, or accomplishment.
Among all the rather transparent tropes rammed into these few words embellished with illustrations that easily unmask the author's clear intentions, is the biggest farce, equating the USA as a colonialist power in spite of the fact that what America did not do is far more telling than what it did.
The history books will possibly tell one day, of the folly of restraint and reservations that present and open up vulnerabilities that the recipients of such affections will not once pause to exploit as they are today. The problem with sympathies and co-dependence is that it makes one vulnerable to the manipulations of abusers. As such, the author takes no pause in only further digging in, injecting further self-doubt and cancerous self-loathing in an ill fated outcome that will see the world burn, all in order to just soothe the self-hate of a cancerous and suicidal mentality that is festering in all of the western world and tears us all down with it evermore with every passing day.
Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered
#16why is the word empire in quotes?
Sarcastic finger quotes?
Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered
#17why is the word empire in quotes?
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.
Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered
#18This 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…
Great post! It's always instructive to me how the primary purpose and usage of the US military from inception was truly centered around global commerce rather than defending the national territory. Unburdened by a legacy of monarchy but well-acquainted with mercantilism, the merchant paternalists of the early US instead decided to focus on unfettered (for them) trade even if that meant fetters for others both iron an…
The Barabary Pirates wasn't really a paternalist imperial action - the Pirates had a better navy than we did and were enslaving our sailors when they caught our ships, so it's funny that you talk about fetters for others.
Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered
#19why is the word empire in quotes?
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…
>tiny occupied islands (Guam)
Guam is a territory (second class citizen like Puerto Rico in some ways) . Having lived there for two years (about a decade ago) there is/was a interesting generational dichotomy. The WW2 survivors and their children are generally very happy to be part of the USA as they were liberated from Japanese. The younger generations see: a third of the land off limits for military bases, housing prices being driven by generous military overseas housing allowances, and an influx of young (mostly male) service members affecting competition a dating pool already affected by being the equivalent of Hawaii for Japanese tourist, and don't have as pro USA opinion.
(edit: formatting)
Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered
#20why is the word empire in quotes?
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…
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