10 ms·

The American “Empire” Reconsidered

77 points by samclemens 9y ago

aaron-lebo 9y ago
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.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > There were many holdouts and it took both world wars for the isolationist sentiment in the US to be completely broken. This is seeing something of a revival right now and I highly doubt that it was ever 'completely broken', it merely got overruled by a substantial majority.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    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 American power really want that to stop? Not many people thought Brexit would happen, though, so maybe...
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      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.
      - ataturk 9y ago
        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.
    - sremani 9y ago
      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 just hot air.
yogthos 9y ago
why is the word empire in quotes?
- 23443463454 9y ago
  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.
- greggarious 9y ago
  Sarcastic finger quotes?
- pjc50 9y ago
  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.
olivermarks 9y ago
For 'post-colonial globalisation' IMO read offshore global oligarchs with no allegiance to any nation state...and their corporate armies...
PricelessValue 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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
woodandsteel 9y ago
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.

77 points by samclemens 9y ago

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.

jacquesm 9y ago
> There were many holdouts and it took both world wars for the isolationist sentiment in the US to be completely broken. This is seeing something of a revival right now and I highly doubt that it was ever 'completely broken', it merely got overruled by a substantial majority.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  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 American power really want that to stop? Not many people thought Brexit would happen, though, so maybe...
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    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.
    - ataturk 9y ago
      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.
  - sremani 9y ago
    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 just hot air.

yogthos 9y ago

why is the word empire in quotes?

23443463454 9y ago
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.
greggarious 9y ago
Sarcastic finger quotes?
pjc50 9y ago
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.

olivermarks 9y ago

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

PricelessValue 9y ago

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 9y ago
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

woodandsteel 9y ago

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.