|
YN -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/27/2013 5:52:30 AM)
|
If the English started last centuries world wars to promote their empire it was an epic failure, for in the case of the second world war, who ever might have "won" that conflict, the English certainly lost their empire as a result.
Even a decade after WW2 the English had lost much of their"empire" and 50 years later they had a fragment of the property they stole and the people they enslaved, today they barely cling to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
And in actuality, WW1 cost the English so much in the way of blood and treasure the second war was bound to lead where it did, a whole generation of English peasants died fertilizing European soil, and the English was in a decline since the Armistice concluding that event.
As Realone noted, the role of the United States has been as the English goon squad since the 1950's, a role the United States is relinquishing.
More than a few of us were laughing at that WASP idiot Kerry's statements as to how Latin America is the United State's back yard, those days are long over as well. The English inspired Middle Eastern adventures has cost the Anglo-Americans more then most of them know, and the end is nowhere in sight yet.
As for United States hegemony and/or imperialism, it never existed (at least in the form the English, Spanish, French, Portuguese or Italians did,) and as a result history will not look at it in any similar manner. These vast empires have been in large part a European phenomena, and each carry the seeds of their own failings, as Bolivar noted you can have either a bunch of small happy republics, or a large autocracy which is doomed to break down. The federal government which the United States pioneered is hoped to be a solution, but one cannot build a federal government of the representative type by conquest, you need willing political subdivisions who are culturally and economically similar to join together successfully.
And every European empire has broken down for the same basic reasons, rule imposed by force lasts as long as the rulers can impose that force, and the amount of force needed to hold down a large empire is tremendous both in terms of money and blood. Rome's legions, English troops, the Spanish could not afford to subjugate their conquests indefinitely. In WW2 nether the Germans nor the Japanese could afford the human costs, many millions of their young men were needed merely to hold their conquered lands.
As for economic "empires," there have been several of those in history, Venice, the Phoenicians, etc, come to mind and others. None really amounted to being either empires or hegemonies, while they could mobilize powerful military forces, in support of their economic interests, they did not spend their efforts in conquest, and their "empires" quickly fell when faced with powerful military attacks, though the conquerors discovered the victory was killing the goose laying the golden eggs..
So the premise of the thread is flawed, in first where the United States actually has an empire or ever did, and in the second that hegemony flows from economics practiced by the United States, or anyone else, for history shows this "economic hegemony" is false.
The demonstration of this will be during your lifetime, the United States will survive as a larger and still relatively powerful modern nation among the ranks of Russia, China, India, Brasil, and smaller nations will continue to advance and prosper while the imperial and colonial European remnants around the world will continue to either revolt and expunge the invaders or diminish.
It s only the arrogant ignorance of your (speaking of the neo-conservative and nationalistic proponents of this thinking, and not you personally ) lumpenbourgeoisie mouthing timeworn Comintern propaganda which suggests there is or was a United States empire, much as their predecessors discussed the "white man's burden" and how they imagined Europeans improved the planet with their colonialism.
|
|
|
|
