English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Ask any political scientist what an empire is and they will say its a government that controls its geographical borders, or other territories in has under its control, through military means.

The United States Of America has never done this and is not doing this now.

Yet people still call America an empire, or they say it has imperialist objectives in the mid-east.

So, are we changing the definition of 'empire'?

Perhaps we are including political and economic means among the ways that an empire is built and held on to.

2007-11-08 13:23:59 · 10 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 in Politics & Government Politics

10 answers

No, and no.

'Empire' just sounds good when you're leveling an accusation. Reagan called the USSR "The Evil Empire," for instance. It wasn't really an empire, it just sounds scary. Simiarly, the USA has been accused of "Imperialism" even though it hasn't exanded it's possessions through force since the all-but-forgotten Spanish-American War, and had, in fact, through the 20th century, divested itself of some of those possessions. (Others, like Puerto Rico have been given every opportunity but just won't leave).

2007-11-08 13:29:01 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3 1

I am a political scientist, what you are defining as "empire" is actually sovereignty. Under international law all recognized nation states have a right and obligation to exercise sovereignty. All governments do this, some more heavy handed than others.

To say that the US is not doing this is silly. Of course the US military, the most powerful in the world, ensures that the US government controls US territory.

An empire is a government system where a single ruler exerts total control over several territories/peoples. Think of it as a Super Dictatorship. Argueably Russia under Putin is the best modern example of an empire. The US is clearly not. ...in my professional opinion.

Now one could argue that the US is Imperial, because one definition of Imperial is to exert sovereignty over other countries. However, the US has not technically done this since Teddy Roosevelt. Even post WWII we were very cautious to put a German or Japanese face on the governments we installed there. Governments who have remained stable and prosperous for many years. The same is true in Iraq, to our credit and at the cost of many American soldiers we have not attempted to exert control over the Iraqi government. So in my professional opinion, were also not Imperial.

There are some who argue that the US exports our culture so vehemently that this is a form of "cultural imperialism" others claim that American business engages in a kind of "economic imperialism" but there is little scientific evidence to support these theories, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the US culture and economic/legal system is just superior to others. Again that's just my professional opinion.

bigjon55.. So we are an empire because our elected leader doesn't want the most unstable government on earth to have a nuclear weapon?! You've got to be...

I can't say what you are or I would violate YA rules of conduct.

2007-11-08 13:40:36 · answer #2 · answered by smartr-n-u 6 · 3 1

The USA actually had it's stage of imperialism back when we fought mexico and such but we are by no means considered an empire any longer. If we were an empire every country we defeat in war (such as Germany, Japan, Iraq) would then become part of our nation. Instead we always give the land back to the native people.

2007-11-08 13:44:37 · answer #3 · answered by halofan373 2 · 3 1

Ask any historian and they will tell you that the United States has divulged into imperialism in the past. To say that the USA "has never done this" is just mind-boggling. Think about our conquest of the Philippines, of half of Mexico, of the West, of Florida, and it goes on and on. We even tried to invade Canada twice.

Today, I would say the US maintains economic imperialism. Many would say we have imperialist aims in the Middle East because we have a long history of intervention there.

2007-11-08 13:35:58 · answer #4 · answered by yo yo yo 3 · 1 2

If we had 'Imperial" aims. We would dominate the globe. Think about how many places American Soldiers have shed blood. Are we running those countries now? And if you look closely at our actions in the middle East, we are spending a great deal of money trying to rebuild the national Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. Something no "Empire" would ever do if domination of the area was its only aim.

2007-11-08 13:52:21 · answer #5 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 3 2

If we re imperialist we would own Japan and Germany. We could take over everything bit by bit by the might of our military. We are strong beyond belief because we have brought liberty to other parts of the world and those people become our allies and trade partners.

Don't believe that our strength makes us the bad guy, we should be proud of our restraint.

2007-11-08 13:54:02 · answer #6 · answered by Lilly 5 · 3 1

are we not still stuck at the old meaning of word "empire".I ask myself very often what can be an empire these days.Is it influence (any) or something other yet undefined but practised as anything ( say a concept)at evolution?then is t necessary to define as something we know not in depth( like the Gods we are made to know)?

2007-11-08 13:58:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

I don't believe it is, I believe the people referring to America as an imperialist nation are referring strictly to Americas tendencies to intervene in other countries affairs, as we are expected to intervene in Pakistan now.

Further, I believe unfair intervention is only genuinely debatable when it comes to oil, other than oil it seems to me that America has had the best of intentions.

EDIT- ASHLEYRO... You have clearly never been to any of those bases.

2007-11-08 13:31:23 · answer #8 · answered by in pain 4 · 1 2

well just look at what bush is doing in the world.he;s pushing our way of life on other countries.where is he any different then Hitler was.he;s doing the same thing.invading countries and threatening to invade if they don;t conform to our way of thinking.what right has he got to tell a country, that it can;t have a nuclear bomb to protect it;s people from invasion.hell he can;t even protect our borders.or he does;nt care.he;s trying to control the oil in the world.so i guess you could say that yes we may seem to be a imperialist country to the rest of the world.and we are by no means an empire.because we can;t control our own borders.

2007-11-08 13:46:01 · answer #9 · answered by bigjon5555 4 · 0 4

what do you call having 800 military bases in 130 countries if not an empire is the question?

2007-11-08 13:28:39 · answer #10 · answered by ashleyrobinson 2 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers