6 ms·

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 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.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      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 power by any measure. It might come to that, but not in the next 30 years or so.
wavefunction 9y ago
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 and more structural. I refer of course to the numerous examples stretching back to the Barbary Pirates, United Fruit etc. Military force was also used internally in the US to protect monied interests against more democratic forces, like the Ludlow Massacre.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  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.
  - ataturk 9y ago
    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.
- ameister14 9y ago
  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.
alsetmusic 9y ago
> 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. He’s a great filmmaker, but I couldn’t get into this series. It really seemed to me that the goal was to spoon feed me ideas rather than to educate me and cause me to think. I love history and have a pretty dim view of US behavior towards the rest of the world (I have lived in the US all of my life), so it could have been a great match. The tactics felt very manipulative, however. Documentaries shouldn’t use background music to inform me of who the hero is or who the bad guys are. They should be relatively dry and factual. This series is a fantastic example of how it should not be done.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  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, or has only been a force for good, that kind of rhetoric. Is there something similar that has less of a slant?
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    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.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  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.
nickik 9y ago
> 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.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  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.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    TR wasn't the only, or best, progressive of that era, but he was a worthy champion of social and industrial justice.
skybrian 9y ago
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.
- PricelessValue 9y ago
  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.

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.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    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 power by any measure. It might come to that, but not in the next 30 years or so.

wavefunction 9y ago

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 and more structural. I refer of course to the numerous examples stretching back to the Barbary Pirates, United Fruit etc. Military force was also used internally in the US to protect monied interests against more democratic forces, like the Ludlow Massacre.

emodendroket 9y ago
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.
- ataturk 9y ago
  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.
ameister14 9y ago
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.

alsetmusic 9y ago

> 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. He’s a great filmmaker, but I couldn’t get into this series. It really seemed to me that the goal was to spoon feed me ideas rather than to educate me and cause me to think. I love history and have a pretty dim view of US behavior towards the rest of the world (I have lived in the US all of my life), so it could have been a great match. The tactics felt very manipulative, however. Documentaries shouldn’t use background music to inform me of who the hero is or who the bad guys are. They should be relatively dry and factual. This series is a fantastic example of how it should not be done.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
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, or has only been a force for good, that kind of rhetoric. Is there something similar that has less of a slant?
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  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.
emodendroket 9y ago
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.

nickik 9y ago

> 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.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
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.
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  TR wasn't the only, or best, progressive of that era, but he was a worthy champion of social and industrial justice.

skybrian 9y ago

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.

PricelessValue 9y ago
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.