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

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#41

Post by mc32 »

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…

While Guam is of strategic importance, as much as Kadena is, I doubt most Porto Ricans would vote for independence. I just don't see that happening. But who knows, maybe they would. If they did vite for independence I don't think the USG would oppose it.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> It does however have states that are second-class citizens (what is Puerto Rico?)

Not a state. Though, not for lack of voting for it.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#43

Post by rhino369 »

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-...

Having military posts doesn't make that territory part of an Empire if the US doesn't exert much political control over the host country.

I'd probably call Gitmo part of an empire, since the presence is hostile. But the rest of those bases is more or less volunatry. Ok maybe Japan and can't really say no, but the rest of those bases are voluntary.

If America has an empire, it's rather small. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Somoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#44

Post by skybrian »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #2

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…

I would question why the Mexican war and westward expansion, and Alaska and Hawaii don't count as empire-building. They are states now, but not at the time.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#46

Post by ameister14 »

wavefunction wrote: post #38
ameister14 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not emotional about the Barbary Pirates. I simply think that pointing out that a country cared more about its merchant interests than another country's citizenry isn't exactly deeply insightful. Also, I don't agree that a country that had freed itself from monarchy less than a generation earlier can be described as 'unburdened by the legacy of monarchy' particularly given the origin of common law in the US.

To be a merchant paternalist, you generally need to be powerful. I thought it was important to point out that the United States was not powerful at that time, and barely managed to protect its merchant's interests some of the time. Your comment about merchant paternalists not caring about leaving others in fetters, both iron and structural, doesn't really apply to that particular conflict.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#47

Post by PricelessValue »

skybrian wrote: post #44
aaron-lebo wrote: post #2

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…

I would question why the Mexican war and westward expansion, and Alaska and Hawaii don't count as empire-building. They are states now, but not at the time.

Because empire is what the british or europeans do. We were born out of freeing ourselves from an evil empire. So since birth, empire had negative connotations. To say we are an empire means we are just as evil as the british empire or the french empire or the spanish empire. But we are the beacon of freedom, liberty and democracy. So we can't be an empire...

Every nation lies to itself.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#48

Post by aaron-lebo »

nickik wrote: post #26
aaron-lebo wrote: post #2

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…

> Roosevelt and Taft who otherwise were very moral men What? Roosevelt was a despicable war monger, an extreme racist and he had little respect for the lives of his own soldiers (the more die the bigger the glory) or anybody else.

What's that based on?

Roosevelt was not a racist, at least not compared to his contemporaries. Booker Washington ate at the executive mansion (a first) with him. He gave African-Americans federal positions they had not previously held and tried to limit some of the lynching going on. He was not always right about this, see his actions in Brownsville, but he was way ahead of others. Wilson, for example, who was an actual racist, but hated war.

He was one of the few people who saw the rising power of the Japanese and respected them. He helped them and the Russians make peace and won a Nobel for that. Never actually went to war as president. He was an unabashed lover of war, but even learned that lesson (too late), when his son died in WW1. It broke him and he ended up dying within a couple years.

He was full of himself, but for someone full of himself, he actually did more for the working class with regulations and anti-trust action then any of the presidents preceding him.

He's guilty of some of what you say, but it's not by any means th full pictures, and ultimately we can only understand people within the context of their time. Roosevelt was way better than most.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#49

Post by 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.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#50

Post by tdb7893 »

PricelessValue wrote: post #45

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.

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
Post reply on HN