The American “Empire” Reconsidered

https://notevenpast.org/the-american-empire-reconsidered/

by samclemens • 8 years ago

77 50 8 years ago

aaron-lebo4• 8 years ago

This is really good, as in there isn't anything really to disagree with good.

I've found Edmund Morris's books about Teddy Roosevelt to be a great insight into this time because he was such an epitome of the Gilded Age generation that wanted empire. 1898 really does seem to be a crucial year, prior to that the US had not gone much past enforcing the monroe doctrine (see Cleveland's disagreements with the Germans over Venezuela). Teddy is front and center during this time when the US conquers Cuba and the Philippines. Within a few years Hawaii is conquered/stolen (this is the colony that never got away), Panama is basically annexed so the US can get the canal.

It was a weird kind of imperialism. The US actually gave Cuba its independence really quickly (02-03?), but it was economically dependent. When Castro came to power like 80% of the Cuban economy was owned by US holders. In the Philippines, horrible things were done to the Filipinos who resisted. This was done under the auspices of Roosevelt and Taft who otherwise were very moral men. See their actions domestically. They just had a very paternalistic view about the US's role of spreading civilization. Mark Twain (who apparently posted this link) was a huge critic of these actions. The US was very aware that it was getting into the empire business and there was lots of debate about it.

There were many holdouts and it took both world wars for the isolationist sentiment in the US to be completely broken. Not surprisingly, maybe, by FDR, who modeled himself after his older cousin in more ways than one. After WW2 the ship had sailed and the US had so much global power (all the old empires save Russia dying), that it no longer really had a choice.

Someone on HN recommended Oliver Stone's Untold History of the Unites States. It's a really good look at the other end of this empire. It's obvious where his biases lie (check out his Putin interviews for some real ass kissing). Sometimes he says cringeworthy stuff like "this particularly American sin of xenophobia" (like really dude, you know this much about history and you're gonna say that), but it's great criticism and something lots of people would do well to watch.

Not to be too pretentious, but we must know our history. So many things that are currently happening have deep roots in the past. Hopefully someone will find these recommendations useful.

jacquesm4• 8 years ago

There were many holdouts and it took both world wars for the isolationist sentiment in the US to be completely broken.

This is seeing something of a revival right now and I highly doubt that it was ever 'completely broken', it merely got overruled by a substantial majority.

aaron-lebo4• 8 years ago

You're right to an extent, but there's some difference to it. Isolationism wasn't something poor xenophobes held, it was something people like Joe Kennedy held firmly to and that's 20 years after WW1 when the US went all out in getting involved in the global order.

Someone like Trump might talk some isolationist talk because it wins votes, but do you think those people who make hundreds of millions projecting American power really want that to stop? Not many people thought Brexit would happen, though, so maybe...

wavefunction2• 8 years ago

Great post! It's always instructive to me how the primary purpose and usage of the US military from inception was truly centered around global commerce rather than defending the national territory.

Unburdened by a legacy of monarchy but well-acquainted with mercantilism, the merchant paternalists of the early US instead decided to focus on unfettered (for them) trade even if that meant fetters for others both iron and more structural.

I refer of course to the numerous examples stretching back to the Barbary Pirates, United Fruit etc. Military force was also used internally in the US to protect monied interests against more democratic forces, like the Ludlow Massacre.

emodendroket2• 8 years ago

This was in some sense preordained, given that it was Shay's Rebellion that motivated the creation of a strong federal government and the Whiskey Rebellion was one of the earliest usages of the standing army. But the other obvious purpose was expanding the territory of the United States. Hogeland's Autumn of the Black Snake details how defeating Indians in Ohio was the impetus to create a standing army, an idea that was quite controversial.

ameister142• 8 years ago

The Barabary Pirates wasn't really a paternalist imperial action - the Pirates had a better navy than we did and were enslaving our sailors when they caught our ships, so it's funny that you talk about fetters for others.

alsetmusic• 8 years ago

Someone on HN recommended Oliver Stone's Untold History of the Unites States. It's a really good look at the other end of this empire. It's obvious where his biases lie (check out his Putin interviews for some real ass kissing). Sometimes he says cringeworthy stuff like "this particularly American sin of xenophobia" (like really dude, you know this much about history and you're gonna say that), but it's great criticism and something lots of people would do well to watch.

He’s a great filmmaker, but I couldn’t get into this series. It really seemed to me that the goal was to spoon feed me ideas rather than to educate me and cause me to think. I love history and have a pretty dim view of US behavior towards the rest of the world (I have lived in the US all of my life), so it could have been a great match. The tactics felt very manipulative, however.

Documentaries shouldn’t use background music to inform me of who the hero is or who the bad guys are. They should be relatively dry and factual. This series is a fantastic example of how it should not be done.

aaron-lebo4• 8 years ago

I can only take it in doses, but it's invaluable from the perspective of if you wanted to represent the US as poorly as possible based on its own actions, how could you do it?

He's a guy you can't watch with your blinders on, but the raw amount of material there is, and the coverage of events like Iran in 53, Chile in 73 is a good counterpoint to anyone who wants to suggest the US cares particularly about democracy, or has only been a force for good, that kind of rhetoric.

Is there something similar that has less of a slant?

emodendroket2• 8 years ago

No work of history is entirely straight. Even if the presentation is dry, if you read two different historians on the same era you're likely to get a wildly different account. Was the War of 1812 a rousing success that united Americans more than they had been and demonstrated the ability of a republic to wage war without compromising its principles, or a catastrophic, foolish decision? I've seen both takes.

nickik2• 8 years ago

Roosevelt and Taft who otherwise were very moral men

What? Roosevelt was a despicable war monger, an extreme racist and he had little respect for the lives of his own soldiers (the more die the bigger the glory) or anybody else.

aaron-lebo4• 8 years ago

What's that based on?

Roosevelt was not a racist, at least not compared to his contemporaries. Booker Washington ate at the executive mansion (a first) with him. He gave African-Americans federal positions they had not previously held and tried to limit some of the lynching going on. He was not always right about this, see his actions in Brownsville, but he was way ahead of others. Wilson, for example, who was an actual racist, but hated war.

He was one of the few people who saw the rising power of the Japanese and respected them. He helped them and the Russians make peace and won a Nobel for that. Never actually went to war as president. He was an unabashed lover of war, but even learned that lesson (too late), when his son died in WW1. It broke him and he ended up dying within a couple years.

He was full of himself, but for someone full of himself, he actually did more for the working class with regulations and anti-trust action then any of the presidents preceding him.

He's guilty of some of what you say, but it's not by any means th full pictures, and ultimately we can only understand people within the context of their time. Roosevelt was way better than most.

skybrian• 8 years ago

I would question why the Mexican war and westward expansion, and Alaska and Hawaii don't count as empire-building. They are states now, but not at the time.

PricelessValue2• 8 years ago

Because empire is what the british or europeans do. We were born out of freeing ourselves from an evil empire. So since birth, empire had negative connotations. To say we are an empire means we are just as evil as the british empire or the french empire or the spanish empire. But we are the beacon of freedom, liberty and democracy. So we can't be an empire...

Every nation lies to itself.

yogthos• 8 years ago

why is the word empire in quotes?

greggarious• 8 years ago

Sarcastic finger quotes?

pjc50• 8 years ago

America does not officially have colonies or call itself an Empire. It does however have states that are second-class citizens (what is Puerto Rico?), weird extralegal exclaves (Guantanamo), tiny occupied islands (Guam), and lots of other countries which are independent but also to some extent economically and militarily subordinate, in which the US State Department feels entitled to influence policy, from the famous "banana republics" to Europe and the Middle East.

GCU-Empiricist• 8 years ago

tiny occupied islands (Guam)

Guam is a territory (second class citizen like Puerto Rico in some ways) . Having lived there for two years (about a decade ago) there is/was a interesting generational dichotomy. The WW2 survivors and their children are generally very happy to be part of the USA as they were liberated from Japanese. The younger generations see: a third of the land off limits for military bases, housing prices being driven by generous military overseas housing allowances, and an influx of young (mostly male) service members affecting competition a dating pool already affected by being the equivalent of Hawaii for Japanese tourist, and don't have as pro USA opinion.

(edit: formatting)

wu-ikkyu5• 8 years ago

Empire: an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.

It does however have states that are second-class citizens

Colony: a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.

lots of other countries which are independent but also to some extent economically and militarily subordinate, in which the US State Department feels entitled to influence policy

klipt• 8 years ago

Fun fact: US citizens overseas still have to file US federal income tax. The only place in the world where they don't have to do this, is Puerto Rico, because of its special status as a US territory.

Bjorkbat• 8 years ago

Not to mention that not all states were created equally. Some states have a pretty crazy history relative to the others.

New Mexico's history is arguably the state with the craziest history. Weird fact: slavery didn't end here after the civil war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/us/indian-slaves-genizaro...

Besides that, it was a territory administered by the Spanish Empire and the Mexican Empire before eventually falling into the hands of the United States who really weren't sure what to do all these new citizens and Native Americans (they wouldn't really get citizenship until 1924) until the strange place was given statehood in 1912.

Hawaii is my close pick for 2nd place given that it was once it's own nation and even had it's own crazy war of unification.

mc32• 8 years ago

While Guam is of strategic importance, as much as Kadena is, I doubt most Porto Ricans would vote for independence. I just don't see that happening. But who knows, maybe they would. If they did vite for independence I don't think the USG would oppose it.

dragonwriter• 8 years ago

It does however have states that are second-class citizens (what is Puerto Rico?)

Not a state. Though, not for lack of voting for it.

olivermarks• 8 years ago

For 'post-colonial globalisation' IMO read offshore global oligarchs with no allegiance to any nation state...and their corporate armies...

PricelessValue2• 8 years ago

Why is empire in quotes? We are most definitely an empire - the largest that'll ever exist on earth. We are the only global superpower.

tdb7893• 8 years ago

I'm under the impression that empire is generally a collection of nations being administered collectively, generally under a single ruler called an emperor, rather than just being a term for a powerful nation. The British Empire ruled the UK and numerous colonies and the Holy Roman Empire ruled over a collection of Germanic states. Except for a few exceptions (e.g. Guam and Puerto Rico) the US is all one nation and governmentally not an empire

woodandsteel• 8 years ago

Good article. I would just add that the US took the lead in setting up the post-WWII political and economic order in part because it wanted to avoid a repeat of the chaos of the previous two decades, and that had in fact been characteristic of much of the world for many thousands of years. And a great many other nations joined in this order because they had some similar motives.

It is important to explain this because many on the left believe that the world was a peaceful, just, and prosperous paradise until Western imperialism came along, which is completely false. And lately many on the far right have been falsely claiming that the West was ditto a quite wonderful place until modernity.

The American “Empire” Reconsidered

Related Stories