Modern empires

[El Justo]

sure we're "in" those countries. however, i think you're failing to see that despite there not actually being any boots on the ground per se, the US has absolutely meddled in the internal affairs of just about every nation in the Americas. that, in itself, is a de facto form of imperialism imo.

 

[ParkCungHee]

sure we're "in" those countries. however, i think you're failing to see that despite there not actually being any boots on the ground per se, the US has absolutely meddled in the internal affairs of just about every nation in the Americas. that, in itself, is a de facto form of imperialism imo.

If that is true, then empires are the rule, not the exception. In fact that would mean almost none of the European Empires have collapsed. Can you have an Empire within an Empire? Can two nations coexist as subjects and rulers of each other.

 

[El Justo]

If that is true, then empires are the rule, not the exception. In fact that would mean almost none of the European Empires have collapsed. Can you have an Empire within an Empire? Can two nations coexist as subjects and rulers of each other.

i'm not sure what you mean by this. i'd recommend that you brush up on american foreign policy initiatives in Latin America and the Caribe to fully understand the gist of my statements

 

[ParkCungHee]

i'm not sure what you mean by this. i'd recommend that you brush up on american foreign policy initiatives in Latin America and the Caribe to fully understand the gist of my statements

I have, but my point is that if you want to start counting that as an empire, you'd have to count the Libyan Empire meddling in Uganda, the Cuban Empire meddling in Angola, the Vietnamese Empire Meddling in Cambodia and Laos, The various Nato Empires meddling in the Balkans, The Iranian Empire Meddling in Lebanon and Iraq, etc. etc. until everyone has an empire.

 

[El Justo]

well, i'm not sure if you can use the examples unless you're being fecitious. the fact of the matter is that the US has casted a huge shadow over the western hemisphere and elsewhere for the better part of the last 100 years. that includes coersion, meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations, and implicit notions of regime change and support for coups.

does that all add up to the traditional notion of imperialism? probably not. but the point i'm trying to make is that the US has sought to greatly influence the affairs of its neighbors and that imo adds up to a sort of hybrid imperialism.

 

[ParkCungHee]

well, i'm not sure if you can use the examples unless you're being fecitious.

but the point i'm trying to make is that the US has sought to greatly influence the affairs of its neighbors and that imo adds up to a sort of hybrid imperialism.

Contradiction much?

 

[El Justo]

dude, quit trying to bait me

your references are one time affairs or instances which were clearly not sustained. US efforts, on the whole, have been a sustained effort.

if you refuse to admit that the US has had quasi-imeprialistic ambitions then you're only kidding yourself.

furthermore, please stop misinterpreting what i'm trying to put forward here. that kind of crap belongs in the OT forum...

 

[ParkCungHee]

if you refuse to admit that the US has had quasi-imeprialistic ambitions then you're only kidding yourself.

No, that means I understand what Imperialism is, and don't go for stretched comparisons because its popular to do with the U.S., if you follow your definition of "quasi-imperialism" almost every Nation is an empire. Therefor the term is functionally useless.
Do you not think Vietnam has had sustained involvement in the affairs of Cambodia and Laos? Or that Iran has been involved in other middle eastern countries "one time"?

 

[El Justo]

vietnam? that is one small area on the map and you comparing that to American influence abroad is like comparing apples and oranges. same for iran.

your definition of imperialism is what then? and how do you differentiate classic imperialism from modern imperialistic endeavors? or don't you?

 

[ParkCungHee]

vietnam? that is one small area on the map and you comparing that to American influence abroad is like comparing apples and oranges. same for iran.

I didn't say very large empires, But empires none the less.

your definition of imperialism is what then? and how do you differentiate classic imperialism from modern imperialistic endeavors? or don't you?

Attempts to establish direct hegemony over a region, which is exceedingly rare. I'm not saying what America does in those countries is right, but I dislike the term using the term "Imperialism" "Quasi-Imperialism" "Neo-Imperialism" etc. because its a poorly used term. I don't know what you'd call it, but its not imperialism.

 

[biggamer132]

I'd say Iran is still an empire in the traditional sense. It's not only Persians, after all. The country controls at least four different "sub-states" in Kurdistan, Khuzestan, Iranian Azerbaijan, and Baluchistan, all of which are non-Persian (at least linguistically, since I've seen a DNA study showing the Azeris are pretty close to the Persians).

 

[Rambuchan]

I have, but my point is that if you want to start counting that as an empire, you'd have to count the Libyan Empire meddling in Uganda, the Cuban Empire meddling in Angola, the Vietnamese Empire Meddling in Cambodia and Laos, The various Nato Empires meddling in the Balkans, The Iranian Empire Meddling in Lebanon and Iraq, etc. etc. until everyone has an empire.

I believe there is a tangible distinction, with many faces, between the case for Libyan, Vietnamese and Cuban Imperialism and that for the USA. The others are a little less clear cut.

Firstly, the USA exercises, and has exercised, sovereignty over many disparate and distant nations and peoples around the world, especially in Latin America and often using direct force to do so; from Puerto Rico to Panama, from Cuba to the Philipines, from the Virgin Islands to Paraguay, and right across their present national borders ever since Independence. That's direct sovereignty and often with clauses in constitutions to grant the USA the right to intervene in their internal affairs, such as in Cuba's.

Secondly, US military interventionism. The list of Southern and Central American nations that have had a taste of direct US military interventionism - ie. boots on ground - is quite lengthy: Panama, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, Cuba, Puerto Rico, El Salvador and so on and so forth. And that's just in their backyard.

Feel free to add Korea, China, Indonesia, Belgian Congo, Libya, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet era and now), Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia and so on. And that's also just the overt interventions, which saw boots on ground.

There's a whole other list of CIA manned covert operations to bring nations under USA influence and / or sovereignty. Many are within their backyard again, but there is also a lengthy list in far flung places around the world, with Operation Ajax in Iran (toppling a democratically elected government) taking pride of place perhaps.

These are all examples of the USA 'extending its dominion over populations that are markedly distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power'. They are all examples of US military, hegemonic power in action.

Thirdly, the military bases. If the USA isn't an imperial power then why all the military bases all over the world? Why are their numbers growing? What purpose do they serve exactly?

- So, can we really say all this about Libya's imperial ambitions? Or Vietnam's? Or Cuba's?
- If this isn't Imperialism in action, then what the hell is it?

 

[El Justo]

ParkCungHee,

Ram's post pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.

and i'll ask you yet again:
what is your definition of "empire" or "imperialism"? and are you able to make distinctions between the classical imperialism and the modern day imperialism/empire?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Firstly, the USA exercises, and has exercised, sovereignty over many disparate and distant nations and peoples around the world, especially in Latin America and often using direct force to do so; from Puerto Rico to Panama, from Cuba to the Philipines, from the Virgin Islands to Paraguay, and right across their present national borders ever since Independence. That's direct sovereignty and often with clauses in constitutions to grant the USA the right to intervene in their internal affairs, such as in Cuba's.

This I agree is Imperialism. Philipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc. etc.

Secondly, US military interventionism. The list of Southern and Central American nations that have had a taste of direct US military interventionism - ie. boots on ground - is quite lengthy: Panama, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, Cuba, Puerto Rico, El Salvador and so on and so forth. And that's just in their backyard.

And how many of them had their sovereignty taken away.

There's a whole other list of CIA manned covert operations to bring nations under USA influence and / or sovereignty. Many are within their backyard again, but there is also a lengthy list in far flung places around the world, with Operation Ajax in Iran (toppling a democratically elected government) taking pride of place perhaps.

That is Espionage, not imperialism.

These are all examples of the USA 'extending its dominion over populations that are markedly distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power'. They are all examples of US military, hegemonic power in action.

No there not, there meddling in foreign countries, which has gone on before, after and concurrently with imperialism.

Thirdly, the military bases. If the USA isn't an imperial power then why all the military bases all over the world? Why are their numbers growing? What purpose do they serve exactly?

Refuelling stations? Airbases in case of war? Exactly what they say they are. We're not the only ones who do this.

- So, can we really say all this about Libya's imperial ambitions? Or Vietnam's? Or Cuba's?

Libya - Military, Financial, and Intellegence support for dictators that are unpopular in their own country and fearing overthrow, in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. OMG LIBYA IS AN EMPIRE!
Vietnam - Establishing military bases in neighboring countries against their will, then launching a military invasion to install a friendly government. OMG VIETNAM IS AN EMPIRE.
Cuba - Sending troops into multiple civil wars on another continent, to prop up friendly governments. OMG CUBA IS AN EMPIRE.

If this isn't Imperialism in action, then what the hell is it?

If this is Imperialism in action, then what the hell isn't?

 

[innonimatu]

That is Espionage, not imperialism.

No, espionage is the collection of information. Overthrowing and replacing a government goes well beyond that (unless you want to argue that the soviet intervention in Afghanistan was "espionage").

Refuelling stations? Airbases in case of war? Exactly what they say they are. We're not the only ones who do this.

War against whom? Half the US bases in the world have no obvious defensive purpose. In fact the US would not need any base outside its territory to defend it, surrounded as it is by an ally to the north, oceans to the East and West, and a weak and friendly country to the south (unless you fear a Cuban invasion ).
Those bases serve the purpose of power projection - imperialism, certainly. The tactic is centuries old and has been used by many previous empires.

OMG LIBYA IS AN EMPIRE!

It certainly sought to become one, extending its influence over some african countries (and it failed). But there's the small matter of scale...

Vietnam - Establishing military bases in neighboring countries against their will, then launching a military invasion to install a friendly government. OMG VIETNAM IS AN EMPIRE.

...like when you make this absurd comparison. Vietman only invaded one neighboring country and left quickly. And it never estabelished any lasting influence over that country.

Cuba - Sending troops into multiple civil wars on another continent, to prop up friendly governments. OMG CUBA IS AN EMPIRE.

Again, influence... what lasting influence has Cuba gained, what influence does Cuba currently possess over those countries? Next to none. Therefore it's not an empire (or you can say in failed to build one, or it never aimed for that).

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, espionage is the collection of information. Overthrowing and replacing a government goes well beyond that (unless you want to argue that the soviet intervention in Afghanistan was "espionage").

Only if you're going to argue that the CIA is an army.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I think what everyone is trying to say, is that there is a difference between the extent of the meddling. When empires such as the British Empire, the Portuguese Empire, or this new "American Empire" idea meddle, they take the sovereignty of the target nation away. They may allow it to run partly autonomously, such as giving the nation its own government, but that government is ultimately a puppet, with no real power of its own. There will almost always be troops from the "homeland" on standby, too, to curb unrest, and to keep the government in line.

I would not say, however, that meddling=empire and Imperialism. Take Cuba meddling in Cold War Africa, for example. Here, they supplied their generals, their troops, and their finances, but ultimately, what they were setting up had nothing to do with them, apart from ideological differences. In Angola, after the civil war, it was definatley ran by an Angolan government, which did not have to answer to Cuba, or China, or any nation that had been "meddling".

I hope that is readable...

 

[Adler17]

It depends here on which you define an empire. An empire must have other peoples than the majority. But if it is strictly seen then nearly all countries are empires as everywhere are minorities. No, only if there is a major part of that nationality part of the empire. So a lone Pole living in Ouagadougou does not make Burkina Faso an empire. But the Sorbs living in Germany could be counting.
However then all states with many ethnicies could be counted as empires. That is also not alone a valid point. However it must be fulfilled.
Another point must be power to influence other nations. And here it does not mean Switzerland is also ruling de facto Liechtenstein. The influence must be strong, but it is not necessary to have total control. However colonies and other incorporated terrains does not hurt, too.
The next factor is a military able to act world wide or at least in a great radius around the country. Bases abroad are also useful here. Alliances should not count as much.

Also a strong economy is a valid point.

So if most of these points are fulfilled you can speak about an empire.

So let's see if the nations are able to be called empires.

No doubts we do have with these nations:

USA
Russia
China
India
Britain
France

So what about the other nations?
Netherlands: Yes, they have colonies, but a few islands in the Caribbean are hardly enough to call them empire as they do not have considerable force to project.

Japan: They have several islands still being not in the vicinity of the Japanese main islands. Indeed the Ryukyu islands, Volcano, Bonin, Daito and the Marcus islands are Japanese. They also have a strong military, although they could do here more. They have a stron economy and can influence other nations. IMO it still fits the definition of empire.

Germany: The Germans do not have any land outside their country, except perhaps for the Neuschwabenland in Antarctica, which is still claimed since 1939. However there are still some small peoples living in her border of non Germanic origin, like the Sorbs. But that is still only a small people. OTOH they do have some bases abroad. One if at Djibouti, Termes in Usbekistan, the German sector of the Kosovo and the Northern part of Afghanistan as direct influence areas. They have a strong military and an economy and have massive influence in the EU and other states. IMO also still or again an empire.

South Africa has much influence in Southern Africa and a military to dominate this part of the world. But they have still a relative weak economy. Also the army is not as big to cope with other more important nations already mentioned.

For Brazil and Argentina could be said the same.

Iran has great influence in the Middle East. Like also Saudi Arabia. It is military strong but still has economical problems. Egypt can be added someway, too.

The term empire is seldomly used for these nations (except Britain perhaps). It is most likely in most of these countries still not very political correct.

Adler

 

[ParkCungHee]

I think what everyone is trying to say, is that there is a difference between the extent of the meddling. When empires such as the British Empire, the Portuguese Empire, or this new "American Empire" idea meddle, they take the sovereignty of the target nation away. They may allow it to run partly autonomously, such as giving the nation its own government, but that government is ultimately a puppet, with no real power of its own. There will almost always be troops from the "homeland" on standby, too, to curb unrest, and to keep the government in line.

But this does not describe America at all. Are you saying Panama, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, Cuba, & El Salvador have no real power of their own? That they don't exercise sovereignty?

 

[Virote_Considon]

I'm not really up-to-date enough with my Latin American politics to answer that.