Printable View
Another thing the British did in India was to portray Britain on a full (double)page of an atlas whereas India was shown as part of a continent on a page, thereby giving the local population that Britain was indeed a large formidable country not to be challenged.
Great idea. A lot better than slaughtering a few thousand to make the point - as did Sadam, Gengis, Attila, Stalin, Mao et. On reflection, cheaper too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
Proves my point, humanitarian and thrifty colonists. Pax Brittania!
Just as an aside, one of my all time favourite movies is 'The mouse that roared':D :D :D
Was Mr Sellers US bashing:rolleyes:
This is from Wikipedia on the subject of American Imperialism. Note it doesn't make a call one way or the other, as it is intended to have a neutral point of view:
Some critics of the Marshall Plan (Aid to Western Europe after WWII) reckoned it was American Imperialism.Quote:
There is a contemporary debate surrounding the United States and whether or not the power it exerts upon much of the world and its policy amounts to imperialism — hence sometimes the U.S. is referred to as the "American Empire."
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States is now the dominant power in the world. That argument seems difficult to refute, as the U.S. has many times over the past century used both military intervention and economic or political influence to shape the countries within its domain in the Western Hemisphere. Though opinions vary greatly between hawkish and dovish political powers in the U.S., the more hawkish may regard imperialist-style expansionism as simply part of the nation's "responsibility," "interest" or "Manifest Destiny."
The term is naturally controversial — the term "empire" is largely limited to descriptions of history (rather than contemporary events) and likewise the historical examples of empire tend to be more familiar and evocative of the concept. As such, modern examples of coercion and militarism may be viewed differently.
The United States has also only had very few years of status as "sole superpower," without the Soviet Union to be its dominant political, military, and ideological foe. The Cold War battle for geopolitical supremacy tends to be cast in terms of 'freedom versus repression,' thereby diminishing the imperial aspects of both powers. Further, as "imperialism" tends to have negative connotations of tyranny and repression, such a claimed empire's "subjects" may be naturally disinclined to use it in any reference to themselves.
In the early 21st Century, the U.S. has turned its military, political, and economic ambitions towards oil-rich countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. Beginning with the end of World War II, the U.S. largely took over from the UK certain roles by which it controlled the Middle East. Through United States-instigated and assisted assasinations and coups, several Middle Eastern nations have felt the strong influence of Western societies: Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel have been directly or otherwise substantially influenced by U.S. policy. (This does not include prior or continuing British Empire holdings of the time — notably in India and Pakistan.)
As there are few other countries with such a capability, it has been said by some that U.S. military actions are partly or mostly acts of militarist imperialism. Others simply believe that such allegations are used as groundless criticism against the U.S. whenever it takes a military action. Two uncontroversial facts are that the U.S. currently has a much larger and more sophisticated military than any other country — operating over 100 bases in every part of the world. The U.S. has also used its military to control its interests. It is debatable whether these things alone constitute imperialism, or whether such "imperialism" adequately resembles past incarnations — Roman, British, German or otherwise.
Quote:
The U.S. has also used its military to control its interests. It is debatable whether these things alone constitute imperialism, or whether such "imperialism" adequately resembles past incarnations — Roman, British, German or otherwise.
And that, of course, is what we have been debating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
Er ... Bodgy: At the risk of repeating myself: that was Santayana. George Santayana. :rolleyes: Not Savanorola, not General Santa Anna and definitely not me.
and George's brother Carlos Santana said:
But then, what would a musician know.Quote:
The most valuable possession you can own is an open heart. The most powerful weapon you can be is an instrument of peace.
Carlos Santana
P
:D :D :D
I don't know anywhere near enough to contribute much to this debate. At a very simplistic level, I can see both sides of the argument. From what I can tell, a lot of it comes down to semantics. No-one disputes that the US has it's tentacles every where and that it uses them to control and influence other countries either covertly or openly. The only question really is whether you can define their behaviour as imperialistic and whether you could call it an empire. So I suppose you need to define and agree the definitions of those two words first.
Wikipedia says:
In it's etymology, the word 'empire' implies the existence of an Emporer. Britain never had one of those but I suppose a King or Queen would do. In that strict definition, the US cannot qualify.Quote:
Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.
Maybe what is needed are new terms so that comparisons with historical empires don't muddy the waters.
I'd like to suggest 'Super Sizing' and 'Big Macdom'.
I'm quoting you, quoting a quote. It's maybe a quote to the power of 3, but still a quote. I'm good at obfuscation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver
Probably not original anyway, George probably overheard heard it in the local cantina after too much Sangriya.
Incidentally, sorry for your loss. Been in same situation more times than seems fair. Never learn't how to cope.
Silent
Looking at your last definition from Wikipedia, if you exempt the last sentence about colonies, I think you have exactly defined the current United States.
How about:
'Emperor Dubya' - Defender of the Incorporated, Protector of the Evangelist.
Incidentally one of Queen Victoria's many titles was 'Empress of India'
Oi, don't pick on Queen Vic. Any monarch played by Judi Dench ('Her Majesty Mrs Brown') has to be a goodun :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
Richard
(that's about as constructive as I can be in this debate. Pathetic isn't it :rolleyes: )
Heres my opinion... 99.99% of this thread is way over my head!
And thats how I like it... the reason TV news does not interest me, a ignorant life is less stressful.
I only have 2 things against the ol'USA
1. Utes are not minitrucks!
2. Real hamburgers have beetroot!
I'm loving it, keep it going chaps.
3. Caravans are not TrailersQuote:
Originally Posted by Harry72
4.Campervans are not RV's
P
:D
5. We are Aussies not OSSSSieeeessss.
6. The Governor of California is not from Australia.