| Revision as of 01:21, 15 November 2007 editCultural Freedom (talk | contribs)1,294 edits Getting there!← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:45, 24 November 2007 edit undoAlex2706 (talk | contribs)1,021 edits ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{otheruses2|American Empire}} | |||
| {{AmericanEmpire}} | |||
| '''American Empire''' is a term relating to the political, economic, and cultural influence of the ]. The concept of an American Empire was first popularized in the aftermath of the ] of ]. The sources and proponents of this concept range from classical ] theorists of ] as a product of ], to modern ] theorists opposed to what they take to be aggressive U.S. ]. | |||
| ==Definition of empire== | |||
| {{see | Modern empires}} | |||
| The term ] was coined in the mid-1800s.<ref name="dic">{{cite web | url=http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50112912?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=imperial&first=1&max_to_show=10 | title=imperialism | author=Oxford English Dictionary | year=1989 | accessdate=2006-04-12}}</ref> It was first widely applied to the US by the ], founded in ] to oppose the ] and the subsequent post-war military occupation and brutalities ] in the ]. A leader and founding member of the League was ], who defended its views in the following manner: | |||
| {{cquotetxt|I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to ] of the ]. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an ]. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.|Mark Twain|], Oct. 15, ].}} | |||
| The ] gives three definitions of imperialism: | |||
| # An ] system of government; the rule of an emperor, esp. when despotic or arbitrary. | |||
| # The principle or spirit of empire; advocacy of what are held to be imperial interests. | |||
| # Used disparagingly. In ] writings: the imperial system or policy of the Western powers. Used conversely in some Western writings: the Imperial system or policy of the Communist powers.<ref name="dic2">{{cite web | url=http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50112914?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=imperialism&first=1&max_to_show=10 | title=empire | author=Oxford English Dictionary | year=1989 | accessdate=2006-04-12}}</ref> | |||
| Debate exists over whether the U.S. is an empire in the politically-charged sense of the latter two definitions. | |||
| However, the historians Archibald Paton Thorton and Stuart Creighton Miller argue against the very coherence of the concept. Miller argues that the overuse and abuse of the term "imperialism" makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept.<ref name="miller">{{cite book | author=Miller, Stuart Creighton | title="Benevolent Assimilation" The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903 | publisher=Yale University Press | year=1982 | id=ISBN 0-300-02697-8 | url=http://www.livejournal.com/users/bailey83221/4300.html#miller}} p. 3.</ref> Thorton wrote that "imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."<ref name="thor">{{cite book | author= Thornton, Archibald Paton| title= Imperialism in the Twentieth Century | publisher= Palgrave Macmillan | year= September, 1978| id=ISBN 0-333-24848-1}}</ref> Political theorist ] argues that the term ] is better than "empire" to describe the US' role in the world.<ref>{{cite web| author=Walzer, Michael | title =Is There an American Empire?| work =www.freeindiamedia.com| url =http://www.freeindiamedia.com/america/5_jan_04_america2.htm| accessdate=2006-06-10}}</ref> | |||
| ==American exceptionalism== | |||
| {{main|American exceptionalism}} | |||
| Stuart Creighton Miller points out that the question of U.S. imperialism has been the subject of agonizing debate ever since the United States acquired formal empire at the end of the nineteenth century during the 1898 ]. Miller argues that this agony is because of America’s sense of innocence, produced by a kind of "]" view of America's origins. When European settlers came to America they miraculously shed their old ways upon arrival in the ], as one might discard old clothing, and fashioned new cultural garments based solely on experiences in a new and vastly different environment. Miller believes that school texts, patriotic media, and patriotic speeches on which Americans have been reared do not stress the origins of America's system of government, that these sources often omit or downplay that the "] owes its structure as much to the ideas of ] and ] as to the experiences of the ]; that ] thought to a great extent paraphrases the ideas of earlier Scottish philosophers; and that even the unique frontier egalitarian has deep roots in seventeenth century English radical traditions."<ref>Miller (1982), op. cit. p. 1.</ref> | |||
| Philosopher ] traces the identification of ] as a distinct phenomenon back to 19th century French observer ], who concluded by agreeing that the U.S., uniquely, was "proceeding along a path to which no limit can be perceived."<ref>{{cite web | author=Kellner, Douglas | url=http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/american-exceptionalism.htm | title=American Exceptionalism | date=] | accessdate=2006-02-20}}</ref> | |||
| American exceptionalism is popular among people within the US,<ref>{{cite journal | first = Frederick | last = Edwords | year = 1987| month = November/December | title = The religious character of American patriotism. It's time to recognize our traditions and answer some hard questions. | journal = The Humanist | issue = p. 20-24, 36 | url = http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/hum12.htm}}</ref> but its validity and its consequences are disputed. Miller argues that U.S. citizens fall within three schools of thought about the question whether the United States is imperialistic: | |||
| # Overly self-critical Americans tend to exaggerate the nation’s flaws, failing to place them in historical or worldwide contexts. | |||
| # In the middle are Americans who assert that "Imperialism was an aberration."<ref>Miller (1982), op. cit. p. 1-3.</ref> | |||
| # At the other end of the scale, the tendency of highly patriotic Americans is to deny such abuses and even assert that they could never exist in their country. As a '']'' editorial describes the phenomenon, | |||
| ::"in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent 'white man’s burden'. And in the United States, empire does not even exist; 'we' are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide."<ref>{{cite journal| first =Harry| last =Magdoff| authorlink =| coauthors =John Bellamy Foster| year =2001| month =November | title =After the Attack...The War on Terrorism| journal =]| volume =53| issue =6| pages =p. 7| id =| url =http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101edit.htm}}</ref> | |||
| ==First school of thought: "Empire at the heart of US foreign policy"== | |||
| ]: "Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip" meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a ]) from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. The cartoon contrasts this with a map of the smaller United States 100 years earlier in 1798.]] | |||
| Since the ], ] and the ] tend to view imperialism as an unmitigated obsession. US imperialism, in their view, traces its beginning not to the ], but to Jefferson’s purchase of the ], or even to the displacement of ] prior to the ], and continues to this day. Historian ] argues that | |||
| :"the United States, from the time it gained its own independence, has used every available means—political, economic, and military—to dominate other nations."<ref>{{cite book | author=Lens, Sidney | title=The Forging of the American Empire | publisher=Haymarket Books and Pluto Press | year=2003 | id=ISBN 0-7453-2100-3}} Book jacket.</ref> | |||
| Numerous ], ranging from early actions under the ] to 21st-century interventions in the ], are typically described by these authors as imperialistic. Some critics of imperialism have a more positive view of America's early era, however. Prominent conservative writer ] argues that the modern United States' drive to empire is "far from what the Founding Fathers had intended the young Republic to become."<ref>{{cite book | author=Buchanan, Patrick | title=A Republic, Not and Empire | publisher=Regnery Publishing | year=1999 | id=ISBN 0-89526-272-X}} p. 165.</ref> This latter point of view is often identified with American ], in the tradition of either the ] (Buchanan), or ] (for example, ]). | |||
| ]. "The American flag has not been planted in foreign soil to acquire more territory but for humanity's sake.", president ], ], ]. On one hand, we see how the situation was in 1896, before ]: "]: A run on the bank, ]". On the other hand, we see how the situation was in 1900, after four years of McKinley's rule: "Gone Republican: a run to the bank, American rule in Cuba" (the ] took place in 1898).]] | |||
| Lens describes American exceptionalism as a myth, which allows any number of "excesses and cruelties, though sometimes admitted, usually regarded as momentary aberrations."<ref>Lens (2003), op. cit. Book jacket.</ref> Linguist and political critic ] argues that it is the result of a systematic strategy of propaganda, maintained by an "elite domination of the media" which allows it to "fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns."<ref>{{cite book | author=Chomsky, Noam | title=Manufacturing Consent | publisher=Pantheon Books | year=1988 | id=ISBN 0-375-71449-9 | url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html}}</ref> | |||
| This critical historical view is usually continued to present US foreign policy. Historian ], drawing on the work of ] and ], argues that the end of the ] did not mark the end of an era in US history, because US foreign policy did not fundamentally change after the Cold War. US foreign policy has long been driven by the desire to expand access to foreign markets in order to benefit the domestic economy. The moralistic reasons given for American foreign intervention mask the true economic reasons, and Bacevich warns that US economic imperialism (in the guise of ]) may not be in the best interests of the United States.<ref>{{cite book | author=Bacevich, Andrew | title=American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy | publisher=Harvard University Press | year=2004 | id=ISBN 0-674-01375-1}}</ref> | |||
| This is a common extension of the critique of American empire; Buchanan and, from the opposite side of the political spectrum, prominent writer ], argue independently but similarly that acts of terrorism against the United States, such as the ], are the direct result of the U.S.'s ill-fated attempts to help others out of the nation's endless reserve of kindness and goodwill. Ali claims that "the reasons are really political. They see the double standards applied by the West: a ten-year bombing campaign against Iraq, sanctions against Iraq which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, while doing nothing to restrain Ariel Sharon and the war criminals running Israel from running riot against the Palestinians. Unless the questions of Iraq and Palestine are sorted out, these kids will be attracted to violence regardless of whether Osama bin Laden is gotten dead or alive."<ref>{{cite journal | first = Tariq | last = Ali | year = October 2001 | title = Tariq Ali on 9/11 | journal = ] | issue = 98 | url = http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Ali.html}}</ref> | |||
| Ethnic studies professor ] is almost alone, however, in extending this critique further to argue that at least some of the victims of the 9/11 attacks - the "]" who "formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of the US' global financial empire – the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved" - deserved their fates.<ref>{{cite book| first = Ward| last = Churchill| year = 2003| month = November 15| title = Reflections on the Justice of Roosting Chickens| publisher = AK Press| id = ISBN 1-902593-79-0| url = http://orlandodirectaction.us/churchill.html}}</ref> A different extension is more common; many critics of US imperialism argue, like Marxist sociologist ], that the United States' sole-superpower status makes it now the most dangerous world imperialist.<ref>{{cite journal | first = John Bellamy | last = Foster | year = 2003 | month = July-August | title = The New Age of Imperialism | journal = Monthly Review | url = http://www.monthlyreview.org/0703jbf.htm}}</ref> | |||
| ===U.S. military bases abroad as a form of empire=== | |||
| {{see|List of United States military bases}} | |||
| ] | |||
| Proponents of the idea that the U.S. is an empire point to ] abroad as evidence. As of 2005, the United States had military bases in over 36 countries worldwide.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/basestructure2003.pdf | |||
| |title = Base Structure Report | |||
| |accessdate = 2007-01-23 | |||
| |date=2003 | |||
| |publisher = USA Department of Defense}}</ref> Some see another sign of an empire in the ], a military group composed of forces from two or more services that has the entire world divided into five areas of military responsibility. ] argues that America's version of the ] is the military base.<ref></ref> ] argues similarly that enduring U.S. bases in Iraq suggest a vision of "Iraq as a colony".<ref>{{cite news | author=Pitts, Chip | title=The Election on Empire | url=http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=12930 |publisher=The National Interest | date =], ]}}</ref> | |||
| After WWII, the US allowed many of its overseas territories or occupations to gain independence. The ] (1946), the ] (1979), the ] (1986), ] (1986), and ] (1994) are examples. Some, such as ], and ], remain under U.S. control without all the rights and benefits of statehood. Of those former possessions granted independence, most continue to have U.S. bases inside their territories, sometimes despite local popular opinion, as in the case of ].<ref>Patrick Smith, International Herald Tribune, March 6, 1998, http://www.iht.com/articles/1998/03/06/edsmith.t_0.php</ref> Additionally, the U.S. has often provided direct military and financial support of autocratic rulers in its former possessions who accomplish US military and mercantile objectives, including ], ], ], and ] - though all former US colonies, except Cuba, currently have democratically elected governments. Despite the amount of American military bases overseas, all governments of countries with American military presence retain and, in some cases, have exercised the right to expel all US military personnel from within their borders. | |||
| ===Theories of U.S. empire=== | |||
| Journalist ] divides theories of the U.S. as an empire into 5 broad categories: "liberal" theories, "social-democratic" theories, "Leninist" theories, theories of "super-imperialism", and "Hardt-and-Negri-ite" theories.<ref>{{cite conference | first = Ashley | last = Smith | title = The Classical Marxist Theory of Imperialism | booktitle = Socialism 2006 | date = ], ] | location = ] | url = http://www.socialismconference.org/}}</ref> According to Smith, | |||
| *A "]" theory asserts that U.S. policies are the products of particular elected politicians (e.g. the ]) or political movements (e.g. ]). It holds that imperial policies are not the essential result of U.S. political or economic structures, and are clearly hostile and inimical to true US interests and values. This is the original position of ] and the ] and are held today by a good number of US ] Party critics of US imperialism, whose proposed solution is typically electing better officials. | |||
| *A "]" theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the excessive influence of certain sectors of U.S. business and government, the arms industry in alliance with military and political bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance, a combination often referred to as the "]". The complex is said to benefit from ] and the looting of ], often at the expense of the public interest. ] journalist ] described the position this way. | |||
| {{cquotetxt|The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the ] to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their ].|}} The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure. ] holds a version of this view; other versions are typically held by anti-interventionists, such as Buchanan, Bacevich, Raimondo, and Flynn. | |||
| *A "]" theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the unified interest of the predominant sectors of U.S. business, which need to ensure and manipulate export markets for both goods and capital. Business, on this Marxist view, essentially controls government, and international military competition is simply an extension of international economic competition, both driven by the inherently expansionist nature of ]. The retired ] ] ] took this view when he said that his job had been to be a "]." The proposed solution is typically revolutionary economic change. The theory was first systematized during the ] by Russian ] ] and ], although their work was based on that of earlier Marxists, socialists, and anarchists. Ali, Chomsky, Foster, Lens, ], and the Indian journalist ] each hold some version of this view, as does Smith himself. | |||
| *A theory of "super-imperialism" is similar to the Leninist theory in its view of the roots of imperialism, but asserts that global economic interdependence has superseded the association of businesses with a single country, so that among developed nations economic and military cooperation is now more common than competition. The central conflict in modern imperialism is said to be between the global ] and the global ] rather than between imperialist powers. Political scientists ] and Samuel Gindin hold versions of this view. | |||
| *A "]-and-]-ite" theory asserts that the Leninist theory was valid when formulated, but that the U.S. is no longer imperialistic in the classic sense, because the world has passed the era of imperialism and entered a new era.<ref>Hardt and Negri no longer hold that the world has already entered the new era of Empire, but only that it is emerging. According to Hardt, the ] is a classically imperialist war, but represents the last gasp of a doomed strategy. {{cite journal | first=Michael | last=Hardt | year=], ] | title=From Imperialism to Empire | journal=] | url=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/hardt/3}}</ref>) This new era still has colonizing power but has moved from national military forces based on an economy of physical goods to networked ] based on an informational and ] economy. On this view, the U.S. is central to the development and constitution of a new global regime of ] and ], termed "Empire", but the "Empire" is decentralized and global, and not ruled by one sovereign state; literary theorist Michael Hardt and philosopher Antonio Negri argue that "the United States does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire, but this privilege derives not from its similarities to the old European imperialist powers, but from its differences."<ref>{{cite book | author=Negri, Antonio | coauthors=Hardt, Michael | year=2000 | title=Empire | publisher=Harvard University Press | url=http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/negri/ |id=ISBN 0-674-00671-2}} p. xiii-xiv.</ref> Hardt and Negri draw on the theories of ], ], ], and Italian ]. Critical international relations theorist ] and philosopher ] hold related though less systematic views, as do many in the traditions of ], ] and ]. | |||
| ==Second school of thought: "US empire never existed" == | |||
| Many citizens of the United States, however, defend the historical role of the US against allegations of imperialism. This is especially common among prominent mainstream political figures; former ] ], for example, has said: | |||
| :"we don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."<ref>{{cite news | author=Bookman, Jay | title=Let's just say it's not an empire | url=http://www.dailykos.net/archives/003167.html | publisher=Atlanta Journal-Constitution | date = ], ]}}</ref> | |||
| Military historian ] defends US actions in the Philippines, pointing out that the "atrocities" committed there were relatively insignificant in scope and circumstance, and defending the US motives, which he views as well-intentioned and ultimately beneficial for both America and the Philippines in the long run. | |||
| Boot argues that that the United States altruistically went to ] to liberate Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Filipinos from their tyrannical yoke. If US troops lingered on too long in the Philippines, it was to protect the Filipinos from European predators waiting in the wings for American withdrawal and to tutor them in American-style democracy. In the Philippines, the US followed its usual pattern: | |||
| :"the United States would set up a constabulary, a quasi-military police force led by Americans and made up of local enlisted men. Then the Americans would work with local officials to administer a variety of public services, from vaccinations and schools to tax collection. American officials, though often resented, usually proved more efficient and less venal than their native predecessors... Holding fair elections became a top priority because once a democratically elected government was installed, the Americans felt they could withdraw." | |||
| Boot argues that this was far from "the old-fashioned imperialism bent on looting nations of their natural resources." Just as with Iraq and Afghanistan, "some of the poorest countries on the planet", in the early 20th century: | |||
| :"The United States was least likely to intervene in those nations (such as Argentina and Costa Rica) where American investors held the biggest stakes. The longest occupations were undertaken in precisely those countries--Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic--where the United States had the smallest economic stakes... Unlike the Dutch in the East Indies, the British in Malaya, or the French in Indochina, the Americans left virtually no legacy of economic exploitation."<ref>{{cite journal | first=Max | last=Boot | url=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/boot.htm | journal=Current History | title=Neither New nor Nefarious: The Liberal Empire Strikes Back | volume=102 | number=667 | year=November 2003}}</ref> | |||
| Stuart Creighton Miller states that this more patriotic interpretation is no longer heard very often by historians.<ref>Miller (1982), op. cit. p. 136.</ref> | |||
| ==="The Benevolent Empire"=== | |||
| But Boot in fact is willing to use the term "imperialism" to describe United States policy, not only in the early 20th century but "since at least 1803", though this is primarily a simple difference in terminology, since he still argues that US foreign policy has been consistently benevolent.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5934 | first=Max | last=Boot | title=American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away From the Label | work=USA Today | date=], ]}}</ref> Boot is not alone; as columnist ] puts it, "People are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire.'" This embrace of empire is made by many ], including British historian ], and writers ] and ]. It is also made by some liberal ], such as political scientist ], and ].<ref>{{cite news | author=Heer, Jeet | title=Operation Anglosphere | publisher=Boston Globe | url=http://www.jeetheer.com/politics/anglosphere.htm | date=], ]}}</ref> | |||
| For example, British historian ], a professor at ], argues that the United States is an empire, but believes that this is a good thing. Ferguson has drawn parallels between the ] and the imperial role of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, though he describes the United States' political and social structures as more like those of the ] than of the British. Ferguson argues that all these empires have had both positive and negative aspects, but that the positive aspects of the US empire will, if it learns from history and its mistakes, greatly outweigh its negative aspects.<ref>{{cite book | author=Ferguson, Niall | title=Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire | publisher=Penguin | id=ISBN 0-14-101700-7 | year=], ]}}</ref> | |||
| ==Third school of thought: "Empire was an aberration"== | |||
| Another point of view admits United States expansion overseas as imperialistic, but sees this imperialism as a temporary phenomenon, a corruption of American ideals or the relic of a past historical era. Historian Samuel Flagg Bemis argues that ] expansionism was a short lived imperialistic impulse and "a great aberration in American history", a very different form of territorial growth than that of earlier American history.<ref>Miller (1982), op. cit. p. 3.</ref> Historian ] sees the ] expansionism not as an aberration, but as a culmination of United States expansion westward.<ref>{{cite book| author = Lafeber, Walter| title =The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860-1898 | publisher =Cornell University Press| id =ISBN 0-8014-9048-0 }}</ref> But both agree that the end of the occupation of the Philippines marked the end of US empire - they deny that present United States foreign policy is imperialist. | |||
| Historian ] argues that the US does not pursue ], but maintains worldwide influence by a system of mutually beneficial exchanges: | |||
| :"If we really are imperial, we rule over a very funny sort of empire... The United States hasn't annexed anyone's soil since the Spanish-American War... Imperial powers order and subjects obey. But in our case, we offer the Turks strategic guarantees, political support — and money... Isolationism, parochialism, and self-absorption are far stronger in the American character than desire for overseas adventurism."<ref>{{cite journal | author= Hanson, Victor Davis | year= 2002 | month= November | title = A Funny Sort of Empire | journal = National Review | url = http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson112702.asp}}</ref> | |||
| ] argue that even though the present world order is dominated by the United States, the form taken by that dominance is not imperial. International relations scholar ] argues that international institutions have taken the place of empire; | |||
| :"the United States has pursued imperial policies, especially toward weak countries in the periphery. But U.S. relations with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia cannot be described as imperial... the use or threat of force is unthinkable. Their economies are deeply interwoven... they form a political order built on bargains, diffuse reciprocity, and an array of intergovernmental institutions and ad hoc working relationships. This is not empire; it is a U.S.-led democratic political order that has no name or historical antecedent."<ref>{{cite journal | author= Ikenberry, G. John | year= March/April 2004 | title = Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order | journal = Foreign Affairs | url = http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20040301fareviewessay83212a/g-john-ikenberry/illusions-of-empire-defining-the-new-american-order.html}}</ref> | |||
| ] scholar ] argues that US power is more and more based on "]", which comes from cultural hegemony rather than raw military or economic force. This includes such factors as the widespread desire to emigrate to the United States, the prestige and corresponding high proportion of foreign students at US universities, and the spread of US styles of popular music and cinema. Thus the US, no matter how hegemonic, is no longer an empire in the classic sense. | |||
| This point of view might be considered the mainstream or official interpretation of United States history within the US. The ] writes that, | |||
| :"With the exception of the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, American territory had remained fixed since 1848. In the 1890s a new spirit of expansion took hold... Yet Americans, who had themselves thrown off the shackles of empire, were not comfortable with administering one. In 1902 American troops left Cuba... The Philippines obtained... complete independence in 1946. Puerto Rico became a self-governing commonwealth... and Hawaii became a state in 1959."<ref>{{cite web | author=ed. George Clack | title=A brief history of the United States | url=http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/factover/ch3.htm | year=September 1997 | work=A Portrait of the USA | publisher=United States Information Agency | accessdate=2006-03-20}}</ref> | |||
| A variety of factors may have coincided during the "]", the later part of the nineteenth century, when the US and the other major powers rapidly expanded their territorial possessions: | |||
| *The industry and agriculture of the United States had grown beyond its need for consumption. Powerful business and political figures such as ] believed that foreign markets were essential to further economic growth, promoting a more aggressive ]. | |||
| *Many of the United States' peer competitors (e.g. the ], ], ], ], ], ]) were engaged in imperialistic adventures, and the US felt that in order to be a "]" among "great powers", it had to behave in a similar manner as its peers. | |||
| *The prevalence of ], notably ]'s "biogenic law," ]'s conception of ] racial superiority, and ]'s call to "civilize and Christianize" - all manifestations of a growing ] and racism in some schools of American political thought.<ref>Thomas Friedman, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", p. 381, and Manfred Steger, "Globalism: The New Market Ideology," and Jeff Faux, "Flat Note from the Pied Piper of Globalization," Dissent, Fall 2005, pp. 64-67.</ref> | |||
| *The development of ]'s "]," which stated that the ] was the wellspring of its creativity and virility as a ]. As the ] was gradually becoming less of a frontier and more of a part of America, many believed that overseas expansion was vital to maintaining the American spirit. | |||
| *The publication of ]'s '']'' in 1890, which advocated three factors crucial to The United States' ascension to the position of "]": the construction of a canal in ] (later influencing the decision for the construction of the ]), expansion of the ], and the establishment of a trade/military post in the ], so as to stimulate trade with ]. This publication had a strong influence on the idea that a strong navy stimulated trade, and influenced policy makers such as ] and other proponents of a large navy. | |||
| ==Cultural imperialism== | |||
| The controversy regarding the issue of alleged US ] is largely separate from the debate about alleged US military imperialism; however, some critics of imperialism argue that cultural imperialism is not independent from military imperialism. ], one of the original scholars to study ], argues that, | |||
| {{cquotetxt|So influential has been the discourse insisting on American specialness, altruism and opportunity, that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology has turned up only rarely and recently in accounts of the United States culture, politics and history. But the connection between imperial politics and culture in North America, and in particular in the United States, is astonishingly direct.<ref>Said, Edward. , speech at York University, Toronto, ], ].</ref>}} | |||
| He identifies the way non-US citizens, particularly non-Westerners, are usually thought of within the US in a tacitly ] manner, in a way that allows imperialism to be justified through such ideas as the ].<ref>Idem.</ref> | |||
| Scholars who disagree with the theory of US cultural imperialism or the theory of cultural imperialism in general argue that what is regarded as cultural imperialism by many is not connected to any kind of military domination, which has been the traditional means of empire. International relations scholar David Rothkop argues that cultural imperialism is the innocent result of ], which allows access to numerous US and Western ideas and products that many non-US and non-Western consumers across the world voluntarily choose to consume. A worldwide fascination with the United States has not been forced on anyone in ways similar to what is traditionally described as an empire, differentiating it from the actions of the ]--see the ]--and other more easily identified empires throughout history. Rothkop identifies the desire to preserve the "purity" of one's culture as xenophobic.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Rothkop, David | url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm | title=Globalization and Culture | journal=Foreign Policy | year=], ]}}</ref> ] has a similar analysis, but argues further that the global cultural influence of the US is a good thing.<ref>{{cite book | author=Fraser, Matthew | title=Weapons of Mass Distraction: ] and American Empire | year=] | publisher=St. Martin's Press}}</ref> | |||
| ==Notes and references== | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| <!--please alphabetize any additions--> | |||
| {| | |||
| |valign=top| | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| |width=20px| | |||
| |valign=top| | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| |} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| {{Wikiquote|American Imperialism}} | |||
| {{Wikiquote|American benevolence}} | |||
| *{{cite journal | |||
| | first =Robert N. | |||
| | last =Bellah | |||
| | authorlink = | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | year =2003 | |||
| | month =March 8 | |||
| | title =Imperialism, American-style | |||
| | journal =The Christian Century | |||
| | volume = | |||
| | issue = | |||
| | pages =20-25 | |||
| | id = | |||
| | url =http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2667 | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{cite journal| first =| last =| authorlink =| coauthors =| year =| month =| title =America and Empire: Manifest Destiny Warmed Up?| journal =The Economist| volume =| issue =| pages =| id =| url =http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1988940}} Argues that the U.S. is going through an imperial phase, but like previous phases, this will be temporary, since (they argue) empire is incompatible with traditional U.S. policies and beliefs. | |||
| *{{cite web| title =9/11 and the American Empire| work =| url =http://www.americanempire.co.uk| accessdate=2006-05-05}} A website that looks at the events of 9/11 which point towards government orchestration with the intention of using mass public fear as a catalyst for creating a stronger American Empire.. | |||
| *{{cite web| title =The American Empire Project| work =| url =http://web.archive.org/web/20060829083717/http://www.americanempireproject.com/index.htm | accessdate=2007-07-10}} A series of books from left-wing writers such as ], critical of the "American Empire". | |||
| *{{cite web| title =An American Question| work =''tygerland.net by AS Heath| url =http://tygerland.net/?p=30| accessdate=2006-06-10}} ], ] | |||
| *{{cite journal| first =Max| last =Boot| authorlink =Max Boot| coauthors =| year =2003| month =May 5| title =American imperialism? No need to run away from label| journal =USA today| volume =| issue =| pages =| id =| url =http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-05-boot_x.htm}} Argues that "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century." | |||
| *], {{cite web| title =Imperialism: Superpower dominance, malignant and benign| work =Slate.com| url =http://slate.msn.com/?id=2075261| accessdate=2006-06-10}}, warns that the U.S.—whether or not you call it an empire—should be careful to use its power wisely. | |||
| *], {{cite web| title =America's New Empire for Liberty| work =| url =http://www.hooverdigest.org/034/johnson.html| accessdate=}} Article from conservative writer and historian, argues that the U.S. has always been an empire—and a good one at that. | |||
| *{{cite journal | |||
| | first =Alexander J. | |||
| | last =Motyl | |||
| | authorlink = | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | year =2006 | |||
| | month =July/August | |||
| | title =Empire Falls Alexander J. Motyl | |||
| | journal =Foreign Affairs | |||
| | volume = | |||
| | issue = | |||
| | pages = | |||
| | id = | |||
| | url =http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701fareviewessay85416a/alexander-j-motyl/empire-falls.html | |||
| }} ''Two new books attempt to explain U.S. power and policy in imperial terms.'' | |||
| *{{cite web | url = http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/empireindex.htm | accessdate = 2006-08-07 | title = Empire? | publisher = ]}} | |||
| *{{cite web|url=http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/10/empire200610|author=]|title="Empire Falls"|publisher=]|accessdate=2006-10-01}} | |||
| *{{cite web | url = http://www.monthlyreview.org/0904jbfrwm.htm | accessdate = 2007-03-20 | title = The American Empire:Pax Americana or Pox Americana? | publisher = ]}} | |||
| * Transcript of presentation by Robert Dujarric on April 14, 2004 | |||
| *{{cite web | |||
| | title =On the Coming Decline and Fall of the US Empire | |||
| | work =transnational.org | |||
| | url =http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Galtung_USempireFall.html | |||
| | accessdate=2006-07-30 | |||
| }} | |||
| * | |||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Boot|first=Max|authorlink=Max Boot|year=2002|title=The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power|publisher=Basic Books|id=ISBN 0-465-00721-X}} | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Buchanan|first=Patrick|authorlink=Patrick Buchanan|year=1999|title=A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny|publisher=Regnery Pub|id=ISBN 0-89526-272-X}} | |||
| *{{cite book| last =Card| first =Orson Scott | authorlink =Orson Scott Card| coauthors =| year =2006| title =Empire | publisher =TOR | location =| id =ISBN 0-7653-1611-0}} | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Chalmers|authorlink=Chalmers Johnson|year=2000|title= Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire|year= 2000|id= ISBN 0-8050-6239-4}} | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Chalmers|authorlink=Chalmers Johnson|year=2004|title=The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic|id= ISBN 0-8050-7004-4}} | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Chalmers|authorlink=Chalmers Johnson|year=2007|title=Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic|id= ISBN 0-8050-7911-4}} | |||
| *{{cite book| last=Odom| first=William | authorlink=William Eldridge Odom |coauthours=Robert Dujarric|year =2004|title=America's Inadvertent Empire|publisher=Yale University Press|id =ISBN 0300100698}} | |||
| *{{cite book| last =Perkins| first =John| authorlink =John Perkins| coauthors =| year =2004| title =]| publisher =| location =| id =ISBN 1-57675-301-8}} | |||
| *{{cite book| last =Tremblay| first =Rodrigue | authorlink =Rodrigue Tremblay| coauthors =| year =2004| title =The New American Empire | publisher =Infinty publishing | location =| id =ISBN 0-7414-1887-8}} | |||
| *{{cite book| last =Zepezauer| first =Mark| authorlink =Mark Zepezauer| coauthors =| year =2002| title =Boomerang! : How Our Covert Wars Have Created Enemies Across the Middle East and Brought Terror to America| publisher =| location =| id =ISBN 1-56751-222-4}} | |||
| {{Colonial Empires}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||