|
Zonie63 -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/27/2013 9:16:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: YN
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.
This is pretty much the same point I was making, so I obviously agree with this. World War I was not an English attempt at empire building, because they already had a large empire. Instead, they were trying to defend what they had and keep other countries (namely Germany) from doing the exact same thing that they did. For this reason, Germany is usually blamed for starting World War I, since they were gambling on trying to expand their empire. England's fault lies in being too selfish in not wanting to share global hegemony with Germany.
Perhaps empires fall because they get too greedy and bite off more than they can chew.
quote:
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.
"Goon squad" might be an apt phrase to use, although listening to the English and other Europeans tell it, they seem to think that it's all America's fault. They act like they're all a bunch of poor, innocent victims of American hegemony and that they (Europeans) had nothing to do with it.
quote:
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.
Perhaps he was speaking geographically, since Latin America shares a 2000 mile long border with the United States. It makes more sense for U.S. policy to focus on situations closer to our own territory, rather than worry so much about what's happening on the other side of the planet. We also have much longer history in dealing with Latin America than with the Middle East or East Asia.
The problem for U.S. policymakers is that, prior to the World Wars, we didn't know much else about the outside world beyond our borders. For that, we relied on Britain's guidance, since they had far more experience, diplomatic knowledge, and intelligence about other areas like the Middle East and East Asia. Their empire was more far-flung than America's regional hegemony at the time.
quote:
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.
Some of this may be wordsmithing. Politicians like to manipulate language not just to fool the masses, but also to fool historians later on, since all they'll have is the documents we leave to posterity. Whatever is shredded or burned is lost forever.
When people talk about U.S. "imperialism," I view it more as a propagandistic political slogan, not anything factual or descriptive. It makes as much sense as those who call us "The Great Satan."
quote:
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 small republics are also prone to breaking down or falling under the thumb of a larger power. If nothing else, the World Wars taught us that it doesn't pay to be a small, weak, and defenseless nation.
quote:
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.
The United States were able to join together successfully initially by focusing more on what they had in common. For one thing, they had a common enemy, and a shared fear of reverting back to colonial control, either by Britain again or some other great power in Europe. At that time, we were relatively underpopulated and weak compared to the major powers across the Atlantic. This was a strong motivation towards the conquest and expansion that dominated the first century of America's existence.
At first, the States were culturally similar to each other, as they all started out as colonies of Britain. Economically and politically, though, there were differences that were never completely resolved until the Civil War, at which point the United States became more unified under a centralized government. A lot of our patriotic songs, legends, myths, and other elements commonly associated with "Americanism" came to pass in the period between the Civil War and World War I. We felt we had been cleansed of our past sins, and we were starting to come into our own, industrially and economically. We were becoming a major player on the world scene, taking on a self-righteous hubris which the world would soon know and love about us.
But that's the trap that we put ourselves into. We were built upon expansionism and conquest, and in order to sustain ourselves and remain viable, we have to keep doing that. But of course, it's easier to do that when we're not hampered and hindered by a global alliance system and entanglements with the interests of other nations. That's an even worse trap we put ourselves in, which has led us to the no win situation we face today. There is no way out, and even when we win, we lose.
quote:
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.
Basic human greed is the killer of most empires. It's not because large empires lack the ability or the willingness to use force. Greed seems to cloud their reasoning and causes internal confusion as to where to actually use the force they have at their disposal. They pick their battles based on how much wealth they think they can gain (or protect assets already gained), without really thinking strategically about the long term. U.S. policymakers seem to be making the same mistake.
One thing that seems common of all failed empires is that, once they reach a certain plateau of success, they become blind to the next challenge and fail to see where to go next. All they can think to do is follow precedent, go along with business as usual and the status quo just for the sake of the status quo. That's pretty much what we're facing here in the United States. We're going through an identity crisis where we just can't figure out what to do with ourselves. We don't recognize the challenges that face us in the 21st century, and we've picked the wrong battles.
quote:
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.
They thought they were invincible and invulnerable, didn't they? There's a certain arrogance and overconfidence that also seems to come with it.
quote:
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 article posted by the OP is actually classic American political rhetoric which is commonly used to justify American interventionism and much of what we do around the world. The classic argument is that "without American leadership, the rest of the world would fall into chaos and anarchy." That was similar to what McCain was talking about in a speech I posted about in an earlier thread.
The policy itself is flawed, although whether we call it "hegemonic" or "imperialist" or "manifest destiny" or "making the world safe for democracy," it seems to come down to the same thing.
quote:
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.
Perhaps it may happen that way, although I'm beginning to doubt whether it would happen on any national basis where you can compare the United States with the ranks of Russia, China, India, Brazil, etc. Nationalism and patriotism will just be so much bunkum for the masses (if it even exists at all), while the elites of these countries will all be in bed together.
quote:
It s only the arrogant ignorance of your 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.
I don't think anyone literally means that the United States has an "empire," which would imply a monarchist government. The Stratfor article posted by the OP is pretty much par for the course as far as "timeworn Comintern propaganda" goes, so that's about as good as it gets around here.
Perhaps there are shades of "manifest destiny" and "white man's burden" that comes with it. I wouldn't deny that, but when you grow up surrounded by this rhetoric and countless people who believe it, it becomes an uphill battle to argue for changing our direction as a nation.
It's not because we've become soft and weak (although that's undoubtedly a factor here), but the biggest problem I see around me is confusion and misdirection. We're picking the wrong battles. We're picking the wrong friends and the wrong enemies. We're blowing it ourselves, and I'm not just talking about the government or the elite. The arrogant ignorance of which you speak goes in all different directions, and no one is spared, not even Americans. We're just as arrogant with each other as we are with anyone else, which is why our political rhetoric can get so heated at times. Arrogance vs. arrogance, but at least it makes things interesting.
I'm not sanguine about your predictions, though. Trying to predict global events in the future is like trying to predict who's going to win the Super Bowl 20 years from now. Predictions are almost always wrong, especially when it involves guessing the actions and choices of people who haven't even been born yet.
|
|
|
|
