4 ms·

This entire article is based on the false premise that the American empire was given up. If anything, it became more powerful and pernicious across the world fo

This entire article is based on the false premise that the American empire was given up. If anything, it became more powerful and pernicious across the world following WWII, though its power is obviously waning right now.

bawolff 2mo ago
For some reason, modern americans dont seem to understand that there are other ways to control people than putting a gun to their head, and that is in fact one of the weakest forms of control.
- BirAdam 2mo ago
  The gun is there. It’s just pointed at that dictators’ heads. If a vassal gets too out of line, the US initiates “regime change” or there’s an assassination or there’s a color revolution.
mathgeek 2mo ago
I read the introduction as referring to the effects on those regions that gave up their status as members of the empire, rather than what you’re saying.
- stanleykm 2mo ago
  The article seems to regard some of these places as failures without examining _why_ things might be the way they are. Would life for Cubans have been better under American rule? Perhaps, but its not like life under Cuban rule was given much of a chance… Like how is there a section on Cuba that does not mention the American embargo on Cuba for the past 50 years? How can we take this analysis seriously?
- suddenlybananas 2mo ago
  Of course, but the article writes as though the US just left these places to their own devices, even though they constantly meddled in these countries after the fact, and meddled in many more countries across the world. It's not like these countries were fully sovereign after the fact. The US backed dictators in every single one of the countries discussed: Marcos, Noriega, Batista, the Duvaliers (and of courses many others in different countries). The author fails to understand that decolonization can be a pretext for continuing exploitation of foreign territories while abandoning the nominal moral obligation to develop them. In the counterfactual where the US maintained control of these countries, they would not have been developed to first-world standards, they would have just been exploited overtly.
  - wredcoll 2mo ago
    > n the counterfactual where the US maintained control of these countries, they would not have been developed to first-world standards, they would have just been exploited overtly. Since you state this so confidently, surely there's an example in our current timeline where it happened this way, right?
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
jleyank 2mo ago
Yup. They traded hard power over some small area in return for soft power over the West. One would think this was a good trade, maintaining status without a whole lot of effort. If they're really trying to colonize Venezuela, they're going to learn about the colonial unrest they (mostly) managed to avoid after WW II.
piloto_ciego 2mo ago
Well, I'm certainly not in favor of empire... especially as an Alaskan I find the fact that I live in an oil/minerals/fisheries resource extraction colony somewhat distressing. I will say that "Empire" in the "get land and make the people who live there your people" is probably better than "empire" as in "control resources of far flung distant lands and give the locals no say in the matter." If you're from American Samoa, you're probably better off as a somewhat disjoint and weird (the relationship the US has with AmSam is kind of strange) colony than if you're from Samoa proper. At least from the standpoint of GDP. I haven't been to either to be clear (though I have significant amounts of friends who have and have lived there), by all accounts the conditions in AmSam are quite a bit better and I don't think that's just people mad at opposing Ali'is or whatever. I don't know, but my big gripe as an Alaskan is that most of the land up here is owned by the feds or the state and is locked up and unavailable for development because of choices that people from the lower 48 make. People down south think they know what's "best" for us up here and it's infuriating. That said, at least I have a slight choice in who I vote for etc. Compare that with say, Venezuela or Iraq or wherever. Those people are having their resource policies largely dictated to them and have exactly zero say in the matter. They're "free" to decide what they do with their area on paper, but not really. Does anyone here really live under the illusion that Panama could really decide to close the canal to American ships? Or just look at Cuba. Empire is probably pretty bad, yeah, I ain't gonna dispute that, but "empire" with inclusion in the empire and some representation is probably (probably) better than having terms dictated to you from the imperial core and enforced by the barrel of a gun. I don't know. I totally understand people not really wanting to be a part of the empire - hell, I don't even really consider myself an American as an Alaskan, so I get it, but also, when I travel I'm pretty glad I've got an American passport than say, a Russian one, or even an independent Alaska one...
cm277 2mo ago
Yes, this simplifies history a lot. The US chose to run a different kind of empire, based on international rules/norms/orgs that it more or less controlled, directly or indirectly: the World Bank, IMF, the UN (mostly), but also banking/USD payments and infra, telecom (AT&T and ARPAnet), oil (7 sisters) and the US Navy (and its bases and carriers) are all imperial infrastructure. I am probably forgetting a ton more. The brilliant part of this is that they don't look like that and that they also need (some/a lot) the consent of the protectorates or allies --but so did previous empires. The problem is the same: having an empire has responsibilities, not just benefits. And that's what we've forgotten (both in the US and the West in general).

bawolff 2mo ago

For some reason, modern americans dont seem to understand that there are other ways to control people than putting a gun to their head, and that is in fact one of the weakest forms of control.

BirAdam 2mo ago
The gun is there. It’s just pointed at that dictators’ heads. If a vassal gets too out of line, the US initiates “regime change” or there’s an assassination or there’s a color revolution.

mathgeek 2mo ago

I read the introduction as referring to the effects on those regions that gave up their status as members of the empire, rather than what you’re saying.

stanleykm 2mo ago
The article seems to regard some of these places as failures without examining _why_ things might be the way they are. Would life for Cubans have been better under American rule? Perhaps, but its not like life under Cuban rule was given much of a chance… Like how is there a section on Cuba that does not mention the American embargo on Cuba for the past 50 years? How can we take this analysis seriously?
suddenlybananas 2mo ago
Of course, but the article writes as though the US just left these places to their own devices, even though they constantly meddled in these countries after the fact, and meddled in many more countries across the world. It's not like these countries were fully sovereign after the fact. The US backed dictators in every single one of the countries discussed: Marcos, Noriega, Batista, the Duvaliers (and of courses many others in different countries). The author fails to understand that decolonization can be a pretext for continuing exploitation of foreign territories while abandoning the nominal moral obligation to develop them. In the counterfactual where the US maintained control of these countries, they would not have been developed to first-world standards, they would have just been exploited overtly.
- wredcoll 2mo ago
  > n the counterfactual where the US maintained control of these countries, they would not have been developed to first-world standards, they would have just been exploited overtly. Since you state this so confidently, surely there's an example in our current timeline where it happened this way, right?

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

jleyank 2mo ago

Yup. They traded hard power over some small area in return for soft power over the West. One would think this was a good trade, maintaining status without a whole lot of effort. If they're really trying to colonize Venezuela, they're going to learn about the colonial unrest they (mostly) managed to avoid after WW II.

piloto_ciego 2mo ago

Well, I'm certainly not in favor of empire... especially as an Alaskan I find the fact that I live in an oil/minerals/fisheries resource extraction colony somewhat distressing. I will say that "Empire" in the "get land and make the people who live there your people" is probably better than "empire" as in "control resources of far flung distant lands and give the locals no say in the matter." If you're from American Samoa, you're probably better off as a somewhat disjoint and weird (the relationship the US has with AmSam is kind of strange) colony than if you're from Samoa proper. At least from the standpoint of GDP. I haven't been to either to be clear (though I have significant amounts of friends who have and have lived there), by all accounts the conditions in AmSam are quite a bit better and I don't think that's just people mad at opposing Ali'is or whatever. I don't know, but my big gripe as an Alaskan is that most of the land up here is owned by the feds or the state and is locked up and unavailable for development because of choices that people from the lower 48 make. People down south think they know what's "best" for us up here and it's infuriating. That said, at least I have a slight choice in who I vote for etc. Compare that with say, Venezuela or Iraq or wherever. Those people are having their resource policies largely dictated to them and have exactly zero say in the matter. They're "free" to decide what they do with their area on paper, but not really. Does anyone here really live under the illusion that Panama could really decide to close the canal to American ships? Or just look at Cuba. Empire is probably pretty bad, yeah, I ain't gonna dispute that, but "empire" with inclusion in the empire and some representation is probably (probably) better than having terms dictated to you from the imperial core and enforced by the barrel of a gun. I don't know. I totally understand people not really wanting to be a part of the empire - hell, I don't even really consider myself an American as an Alaskan, so I get it, but also, when I travel I'm pretty glad I've got an American passport than say, a Russian one, or even an independent Alaska one...

cm277 2mo ago

Yes, this simplifies history a lot. The US chose to run a different kind of empire, based on international rules/norms/orgs that it more or less controlled, directly or indirectly: the World Bank, IMF, the UN (mostly), but also banking/USD payments and infra, telecom (AT&T and ARPAnet), oil (7 sisters) and the US Navy (and its bases and carriers) are all imperial infrastructure. I am probably forgetting a ton more. The brilliant part of this is that they don't look like that and that they also need (some/a lot) the consent of the protectorates or allies --but so did previous empires. The problem is the same: having an empire has responsibilities, not just benefits. And that's what we've forgotten (both in the US and the West in general).