The American “Empire” Reconsidered • Hacker News Board

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#51

Post by Apocryphon » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 3:05 AM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #48

nickik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 act…

TR wasn't the only, or best, progressive of that era, but he was a worthy champion of social and industrial justice.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#52

Post by wastedhours » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 10:03 AM UTC

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #33

wastedhours wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

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

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#53

Post by Arnt » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 10:16 AM UTC

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-...

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They try to write a coherent, understandable description of what made the British Empire and the Romans empires while clearly leaving present-day Italy and Britain not-empires.

Current-day Italy can boss San Marino and the Vatican State around, current-day Britain has a scattering of islands around the world. Current-day Italy indubitably has the military force to beat San Marino, Britain did actually win back the Falklands but its victory didn't seem self-evident at the time.

When I squint at the map, the US foreign dominions and military bases look a little on the large side for a plain country, but ridiculously small for an empire. The US military is all over the world and has very impressive weaponry, but was beaten quite thoroughly by the Viet Cong, hasn't beaten the Taliban and and gave up after the first attack by Hizbollah.

"Empire" in quotes looks quite appropriate to me.

Re: The American “Empire” Reconsidered

#54

Post by wu-ikkyu » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:19 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #43

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-...

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, Americ…

>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.

The political control was solidified over the past 100+ years for the benefit of US corporations. Countries which worked towards self-determination because they didn't like seeing the natural wealth of their land expropriated were labeled as communist, and had their governments overthrown with covert coups, assasinations, and mercenary armies.

>I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

-Major General Smedley Butler