Modern empires

[sydhe]

Adler17: You also might want to include Pakistan in the same category as Iran.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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

So you made sweeping generalizations about American Imperialism...when you're not up to date enough to know what its like in these so called "colonies"

 

[Adler17]

Sydhe: Yes, I forgot them. Thanks. As they have nuclear weapons they truly are in.

Adler

 

[Virote_Considon]

So you made sweeping generalizations about American Imperialism...when you're not up to date enough to know what its like in these so called "colonies"

The ones in the Americas, at least.

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem with applying the term "Empire" to the US is that it's rooted in outdated terms in perceptions. The US holds little direct power, as an Empire would, but exercises subtle political and economic powers, as well as it's passive cultural influence. It's valid to compare the USA to an Empire, but to act as if it has ever consciously aimed to be one- as Britian or France did- is highly questionable.

 

[innonimatu]

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

The afghan government was overthrown before the soviet army entered, replaced by one that "invited" it in... that was the intervention I was referring to.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Right, one is a military invasion, one isn't. Thats the difference.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The ones in the Americas, at least.

Allright, so tell me about some of these other colonies that we supposedly have.

The problem with applying the term "Empire" to the US is that it's rooted in outdated terms in perceptions. The US holds little direct power, as an Empire would, but exercises subtle political and economic powers, as well as it's passive cultural influence. It's valid to compare the USA to an Empire, but to act as if it has ever consciously aimed to be one- as Britian or France did- is highly questionable.

QFT.

 

[El Justo]

those who are denying that the US is an 'empire' clearly have not differentiated (or even answered direct questions re same) between classical imperialism and neo-colonialism.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Because its a loaded question.

 

[El Justo]

no it's not. it's completely legitimate.

your silence on the question speaks volumes btw...

 

[Adler17]

Indeed it is a legitime question. That it is loaded does not make it to a taboo.

Adler

 

[Marla_Singer]

But we're only in two of those, Puerto Rico and Guam.

Right. Then you can add to this American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, having dependencies do not necessarily make an Empire, otherwise Denmark would be an Empire in owning Greenland and Faroe Islands.

Afterwards, if we assume that an Empire is the rule of an area encompassing various culturally different people, then there's a high subjectivity in where we put the border between what is culturally different and what is not. No matter the case, a several dozens of countries, if not the majority of them, could be considered as such.

In the end, I would say that the best way to define an Empire nowadays would be in considering any independent entity having a significant influence at a worldwide scale. Though this is generally considered as a "power" in today's vocabulary.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Oops, I thought the thread ended in page 2 but actually it was not. Adler's post was rather good already in its clarification.

I would say that the raise of democracy and nation states has made old-school Empires more and more illegitimate. However, that doesn't mean that the major powers have renounced of their imperialistic ambitions because of that.

Adler is true, there are very few powers that could be considered as having an influence at a global scale, however, the list is getting slightly bigger when it's about influence at a regional scale. So now let's have fun and try to mention some names.

At a global scale, I would be actually even more strict than Adler and I would mention only the 5 permanent members of the UN security council : The United States, China, Russia, France and Britain.

India has a really strong influence, and it also represents nearly one fifth of the world population, but it couldn't interfere in any country as easily as the other 5. The status of permanent membership gives a huge advantage in global scale diplomacy. That's the determining elements explaining why significantly smaller countries such as France and Britain continues to support a military able to intervene worldwide.

Now, at a regional scale, there are many powers that should not be neglected: Japan, Germany, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Israel, South Africa and Australia are certainly the first names to think about. Some deserves a place thanks to their military capacity, some others because of their influence at the WTO.