Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The American “Empire” Reconsidered

notevenpast.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#31

Post by ataturk »

jacquesm wrote: post #7
aaron-lebo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right to an extent, but there's some difference to it. Isolationism wasn't something poor xenophobes held, it was something people like Joe Kennedy held firmly to and that's 20 years after WW1 when the US went all out in getting involved in the global order. Someone like Trump might talk some isolationist talk because it wins votes, but do you think those people who make hundreds of millions projecting America…

I see isolationism as the run up to the next world war, those who make 100's of millions projecting American power will make 100's of billions on the next big war.

What do you consider isolationism? Having the US scale back its meddling in other nations' affairs is hardly xenophobia. If anything, it is a great improvement. Think: Not having CIA goons meddling in political and commercial affairs.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#32

Post by ataturk »

emodendroket wrote: post #12
wavefunction wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everyone is pissed off about the Whiskey Rebellion as if those farmers didn't understand the basic aspects of what was agreed upon and what it means to pay taxes. It was a moment where Washington had to put his foot down in order to demonstrate that the new government meant something and was capable of collecting taxes. But everyone is so butt hurt about it as though it was unethical when in fact the only people being unethical were the distillers playing fast and loose with law, just like always.

As far as defeating Indians goes, my own family history includes a story about an Indian raid that went pretty badly for the settlers in NY. I don't think a lot of people had much sympathy for the savages back then. Having your wife/daughter scalped or kidnapped makes a man rethink his civilized nature.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#33

Post by wu-ikkyu »

wastedhours wrote: post #29
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

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…

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

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#34

Post by breatheoften »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #24
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically disqualifies it from being defined as an empire?

An empire would have held on to Iraq after the Gulf War. An empire would have held on to the Philippines after [edit: World War II]. An empire would have held on to Japan after World War II. The US is not an empire because it doesn't act like one, not really. Yes, it has some overseas possessions. No, it's not the expansionist conquer-the-world Borg that many people mean when they call it an empire.

Your argument presupposes that the empire’s maximal influence would be attained by domination through overt use of force.

In reality — the us military empire doesn’t maintain those conquered possessions as conquered possessions because it can’t — it doesn’t have sufficient military power and attempting to do so would increase the front on which conflicts requiring use of that military power would be required (further diminishing direct conquering capacity).

The us military empire building strategy differs from your suggestions for tactical reasons not as evidence of a policy that does not involve pursuit of empire building.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#35

Post by Retra »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #28
Arnt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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-...

Empires traditionally rule over much more sizable peoples and lands, and if that weren't a requirement, then we could probably consider every nation an empire.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#36

Post by klipt »

pjc50 wrote: post #17
yogthos wrote: post #11

why 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…

Fun fact: US citizens overseas still have to file US federal income tax. The only place in the world where they don't have to do this, is Puerto Rico, because of its special status as a US territory.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#37

Post by ABCLAW »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #9
alsetmusic wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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,…

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.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#38

Post by wavefunction »

ameister14 wrote: post #18
wavefunction wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're missing my point that we didn't fight the Barbary Pirates because we particularly cared about them enslaving people (even our own) but because they were disrupting our commerce through the Mediterranean.

And the Barbary Pirates and American slave trade could and did coexist. You seem to be quite emotional on that point.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#39

Post by flowersoldier »

wastedhours wrote: post #29
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

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…

Similar to the concept of Lawfare. When a government can impose their laws or economic leverage on a foreign country thereby occupying them without troops or a military presence.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#40

Post by Bjorkbat »

pjc50 wrote: post #17
yogthos wrote: post #11

why 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…

Not to mention that not all states were created equally. Some states have a pretty crazy history relative to the others.

New Mexico's history is arguably the state with the craziest history. Weird fact: slavery didn't end here after the civil war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/us/indian-slaves-genizaro...

Besides that, it was a territory administered by the Spanish Empire and the Mexican Empire before eventually falling into the hands of the United States who really weren't sure what to do all these new citizens and Native Americans (they wouldn't really get citizenship until 1924) until the strange place was given statehood in 1912.

Hawaii is my close pick for 2nd place given that it was once it's own nation and even had it's own crazy war of unification.

Post reply on HN