Printable View
Spending as much as the rest of the world combined on military matters, having English becoming the de-facto language of international business and relations, with outposts and leased bases all around the globe and carrier battlegroups roaming as necessary... it tends to reinforce the idea of Empire, or whatever character.
If the US doesn't colonise, then what do you call Puerto Rico or Gitmo or Mid Way or US Virgin Islands, to name a few...semantics or splitting hairs here..;)
I think the US and the Europeans have different views on "colonisation" as well as "democracies".
Compared to Britain in it's heyday, that's not really colonization. And Guantanamo is (at least on paper) still something that Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty" over. (In actuality, I consider the designation to be bunk.)
It's not so much "colonize and control" as "build bases and extend the ability to project military power". (I make no value judgement on the latter, emphasis on 'ability'.)
Terr - not to mention Trident-class submarines & the NY Yankees (the finest team 10 uberzillion dollars can buy) :D
My one question is this though. Aren't empires historically autocratic? I would say if anything, I think the US is more an oligarchy (Sparta was an example of an oligarchy).
Sometimes it makes my head spin because the US encompasses so many characteristics that it's hard to say what exactly the US is. (Take a quick look at plutocracy, socialistic democracy, & oligarchy to see what I mean).
Maybe the US is a "plutosocialoligarchy capitalmilitaristic democratic republic"
Try fitting that on a $1 bill.
p.s. - I hate the Yankees :eek:
(I wouldn't say the wankees are the finest team any amount of money could buy. They might look like it to someone that doesn't really know baseball, like Mr. Steinführer, for instance, but not to someone that knows the game).
An Empire basically is any Nation that has grown to such proportions as to effect the known world by it's social, political, and economic power.
I don't see any other Nation today having the all-encompassing affect that the US does on a world-wide stage.
To be an Empire...virtually every country in the known world at the time has to feel your presence...and be affected by it.
In this day n' age..that IS the US. ;)
I think the real difference is that the Europeans conducted the administration of the "host" country in all affairs, which is oppressive to the locals (India for example), the American version of "colonisation" is more about commerce or capatalisim, all those little US bases that dot the planet inject billions into local communities (Germany has a couple) and you have to know that if a local politician of say an island like Luzon (where Subic Bay Naval base is situated) wanted to impose restrictions on the US Navy's ability to conduct it's affairs that a call from the Secretary of Defense to that country's president/dictator/despot/prime minister/chancellor telling them that if their little poppinjay didn't back off that the US would consider removing it's presence from there, how many local people would be affected either through loss of employment or loss of revenue, to this extent it is a form of "colonisation", just the sovereign country doesn't know it...so it's a subtle form, where as the European version was more pronounced...you cannot say that US economics does not in some form or another dictate another countries domestic policies, to the detriment of their own citizens (farmers for an example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr
Bad Saddam...gone for good...:halo: (trying to stay OT here)
Well...actually...the economic benefit from any US presence, be it a military or tourism, be it economic development or trade, is not really being colonial...it's being capitalistic. ;)
The US capitalizes upon their economic and military interests around the world, sometimes countries benefit from it, sometimes not...exertion of political power again is not really colonialism...
we could argue that the effect could be the same...the effect upon the host country could be the same as if it was colonized...
but...still...it's not really the same thing. ;)
Hi EG~, when I was studying economics at highschool and university this was called "neo-colonialism" :)
True...the effect can be the same.