Talk:Step You/Is This Love? and US imperialism: Difference between pages

Revision as of 07:21, 17 November 2006

Revision as of 00:29, 9 June 2007

Line 1:

{{otheruses2|American Empire}}

{{WikiProjectSongs}}

[[Image:American empire.PNG|thumb|right|350px|American military intervention since 1950.]]

'''American Empire''' is a term sometimes used to describe the historical expansionism and the current political, economic, and cultural influence of the [[United States]] on a global scale.

It is usually part of a politically charged debate which involves three basic questions:

== Charts:Dates ==

# Is the United States currently an [[empire]]?

# If the United States is an empire, when did it become one?

# If the United States is an empire, is that good or bad?

However, there are also more neutral uses of the term.

The dates in the charts section are horribly wrong! The single was released in April 2005, but those dates are from September 2005 and onwards, still the information claims it is the 6 first weeks the single charted.

[[User:Chsf|Chsf]] 17:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

:I'll find the correct dates and fill in the rest of the chart. It looks like someone put in the [[Heaven (Ayumi Hamasaki song)|HEAVEN]] dates o.O

:--[[User:Stzr3|Stzr3]] 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

{{AmericanEmpire}}

== "is this LOVE?" = "Is This Love?" ??? ==

has this song anything to do with the famous song ''Is This Love?'' by legend [[Bob Marley]] on his [[1978]] [[album]] ''[[Kaya (album)|Kaya]]''? -- [[User:CdaMVvWgS|CdaMVvWgS]] 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

==Definition of empire==

The term "empire" has two meanings. In one sense, the U.S. is not an empire, because it lacks a legal [[emperor]], [[Monarch|king]], [[despot]], or other [[hereditary]] [[head of state]]. In another sense, the U.S. satisfies the definition of an empire, because it possesses [[sovereignty]] over territories which it has not [[annexation|annexed]] as states, such as [[Puerto Rico]], [[American Samoa]], [[Guam]], [[U.S. Virgin Islands]].<ref name="American">{{cite web | url=http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~fasawwu/resources/maps/american-empire.htm | title=American Empire | publisher=Western Washington University | accessdate=2006-03-20}}{{cite web | url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empire | title=empire | publisher=Dictionary.com | accessdate=2006-06-13}}</ref> As of 2006 the U.S. maintains over 702 military bases in 36 foreign countries, and has active-duty military personnel in 135 of the 195 sovereign independent nations of the world<ref>Lawrence M. Vance "The US Global Empire" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html)</ref>, due to practices such as posting active-duty military personnel in US embassies.

Controversy exists over whether the U.S. consistently behaves like an empire across the world, and if it would be accurate to describe it as such. The term [[imperialism]] was coined in the mid-1800s to describe empire-like behavior, carried out by states which might or might not be formal empires.<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> The [[Oxford English Dictionary]] gives three definitions of imperialism:

# An imperial 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 Communist 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>

The term was first widely used refering to the US by the [[American Anti-Imperialist League]], founded in [[1898]] to oppose the [[Philippine-American War]].

:"I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the [[Philippines]]. 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 [[anti-imperialist]]. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land." - [[Mark Twain]], [[New York Herald]], Oct. 15, [[1900]].

Debate exists over whether the U.S. is an empire in the politically-charged sense of the latter two definitions. Some have suggested that this use of the term is an abuse of language. Historian Stuart Creighton 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> Historian Archibald Paton 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 [[Michael Walzer]] argues that the term [[Hegemony|"hegemony"]] 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==

Stuart Creighton Miller points out that the question of US 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 [[Spanish-American War]]. Miller argues that this agony is because of America’s sense of innocence, produced by a kind of "[[immaculate conception]]" view of America's origins. When European settlers came to America they miraculously shed their old ways upon arrival in the [[New World]], 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

:"[[United States Constitution]] owes its structure as much to the ideas of [[John Locke]] and [[Thomas Hobbes]] as to the experiences of the [[Founding Fathers]]; that [[Thomas Jefferson|Jeffersonian]] thought to a great extent paraphrases the ideas of earlier Scottish philosophers; and that even the allegedly unique frontier egalitarian has deep roots in seventeenth century English radical traditions."<ref>Miller (1982), op. cit. p. 1.</ref>

Philosopher Douglas Kellner traces the identification of [[American exceptionalism]] as a distinct phenomenon back to 19th century French observer [[Alexis deTocqueville|Alexis de Tocqueville]], 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=[[2003-04-25]] | 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 US 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.

* 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 ''[[Monthly Review]]'' 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 =[[Monthly Review]]| volume =53| issue =6| pages =p. 7| id =| url =http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101edit.htm}}</ref>)

* In the middle are Americans who assert that "Imperialism was an aberration."<ref>Miller (1982), op. cit. p. 1-3.</ref>

==First school of thought: "Empire at the heart of US foreign policy"==

[[Image:10kMiles.JPG|thumb|350px|right|1898 [[political cartoon]]: "Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip" meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a [[bald eagle]]) 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 [[Spanish-American War]], [[Marxism|Marxists]] and the [[New Left]] tend to view imperialism as an unmitigated necessity. US imperialism, in their view, traces its beginning not to the [[Spanish-American war]], but to Jefferson’s purchase of the [[Louisiana Territory]], or even to the displacement of [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] prior to the [[American Revolution]], and continues to this day. Historian [[Sidney Lens]] argues that

:"the United States, from the time it gained its own independence, has used every available means—political, economic, and military—to help and nurture 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 [[List of United States military history events|U.S. foreign interventions]], ranging from early actions under the [[Monroe Doctrine]] to 21st-century interventions in the [[Middle East]], 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 [[Patrick Buchanan]] argues that the modern United States's 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 [[isolationism]], in the tradition of either the [[paleoconservatism|Old Right]] (Buchanan), or [[libertarianism]] (for example, [[Justin Raimondo]]).

[[Image:Promises.JPG|250px|left|thumb|1900 Campaign poster for the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]. "The American flag has not been planted in foreign soil to acquire more territory but for humanity's sake.", president [[William McKinley]], [[July 12]], [[1900]]. On the left hand, we see how the situation allegedly was in 1896, before [[United States presidential election, 1896|McKinley's victory during the elections]]: "[[Democratic Party (United States)|Gone Democratic]]: A run on the bank, [[History of Cuba|Spanish rule in Cuba]]". On the right hand, we see how the situation allegedly is in 1900, after four years of McKinley's rule: "Gone Republican: a run to the bank, American rule in Cuba" (the [[Spanish-American War]] took place in 1898).]]

Lens describes American exceptionalism as a myth, which allows any number of "excesses and cruelties, though sometimes admitted, usually [to be] regarded as momentary aberrations."<ref>Lens (2003), op. cit. Book jacket.</ref> Linguist and left-wing political critic [[Noam Chomsky]] 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 [[Andrew Bacevich]], drawing on the work of [[Charles Beard]] and [[William Appleman Williams]], argues that the end of the [[Cold War]] 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 [[globalization]]) 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 left-wing writer [[Tariq Ali]], argue independently but similarly that acts of terrorism against the United States, such as the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], 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.

Ethnic studies professor [[Ward Churchill]] is almost alone, however, in extending this critique further to argue that at least some of the victims of the 9/11 attacks - the "little Eichmanns" 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 [[John Bellamy Foster]], 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>

As the surviving superpower at the end of the [[Cold War]], the U.S. could focus its assets in new directions, the future "up for grabs" according to former [[Under Secretary of Defense for Policy]] [[Paul Wolfowitz]] in 1991.<ref>ERIC SCHMITT, "Washington at Work; Ex-Cold Warrior Sees the Future as 'Up for Grabs'" ''The New York Times'' December 23, 1991.</ref>

From this, the U.S.S.R.'s existence does not explain the U.S. pattern of war making, except negatively, as a deterrent. What the U.S. may have faced all along is a series of nationalist insurgencies -- for want of a better explanation covering both periods, during and after the Cold War. These were against U.S. acquiring natural resources by political device, [[colonialism]] by [[Proxy_war|proxy]], whereby the U.S. organizes and arms elite minorities in those countries, who then let U.S. companies and military in. Soviet use of the same device, in this view, was largely reactive. The nearly inevitable insurgencies against the elites, and U.S. or Soviets, were (and continue to be for the U.S.) linked out of necessity, with religion or political ideology being only secondary. Mere practical necessity explains much. Soviet advisors helped set up the [[Kuomintang]] who then allied with the U.S. when Japan threatened. [[Ho Chi Minh]] patterned his Vietnamese constitution on the U.S. until turning to the Soviets and Chinese for aid against the U.S. Only immediate, practical necessity explains such apparently fundamental shifts in ideology.

===U.S. military bases abroad as the neo-colony===

{{see|List of United States military bases}}

Proponents who claim that the U.S.A. is indeed an empire point to American military bases abroad (which currently number over 700), as a sign of an empire. Some see another sign of an empire in the [[Unified Combatant Command]], a military group composed of forces from two or more services that has the entire world divided into five areas of military responsibility. One author, [[Chalmers Johnson]], notes that America's version of the [[colony]] is the military base.<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm America's Empire of Bases]</ref> Professor [[Chip Pitts]] accepts U.S. empire as an empirical reality, but argues that empire is profoundly at odds with the better instincts of U.S. citizens and policymakers, and that rejecting neo-colonialism by military means such as those employed during the [[Iraq War]], is a prerequisite to restoring domestic civil liberties and human rights that have been infringed upon by the [[imperial presidency]] -- while simultaneously being crucial to promoting peace and stability in the Middle East and beyond.<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 =[[November 8]], [[2006]]}}</ref> When asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace is opposed to US occupation and want US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis support attacking US troops.<ref>[http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf US commissioned opinion poll in Iraq, Jan.'06]</ref>

===Theories of U.S. empire===

Left-wing journalist [[Ashley Smith (socialist)|Ashley Smith]] 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 = [[June 24]], [[2006]] | ___location = [[Columbia University]] | url = http://www.socialismconference.org/}}</ref> According to Smith,

*A "[[liberal]]" theory asserts that U.S. policies are the products of particular elected politicians (e.g. the [[George W. Bush administration|Bush administration]]) or political movements (e.g. [[neo-conservatism]]). These policies are not an essential product of U.S. political or economic structures, and are straightforwardly counter to U.S. interests. Liberal theories are held by most [[United States Democratic Party|Democratic]] critics of U.S. imperialism, whose proposed solution is typically electing better officials.

*A "[[social-democratic]]" 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 "[[military-industrial complex]]". The complex is said to benefit from [[war profiteering]] and the looting of [[natural resources]], often at the expense of the public interest. The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure. Johnson holds a version of this view; other versions are typically held by right-wing anti-interventionists, such as Buchanan, Bacevich, and Raimondo.

*A "[[Leninist]]" 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 [[capitalism]]. [[Smedley Butler]], a retired general in the [[United States Marine Corps]], took this view when he said that his job had been to be a "muscle man for big business." The proposed solution is typically revolutionary economic change. The theory was first systematized during the [[World War I]] by Russian [[Bolsheviks]] [[Vladimir Lenin]] and [[Nikolai Bukharin]], although their work was based on that of earlier Marxists, socialists, and anarchists. Ali, Chomsky, Foster, Lens, and Zinn 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 [[core countries|core]] and the global [[Third World|periphery]] rather than between imperialist powers. Political scientists [[Leo Panitch]] and Samuel Gindin hold versions of this view.

*A "[[Michael Hardt|Hardt]]-and-[[Toni Negri|Negri]]-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. (However, see note.<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 [[Iraq War]] is a classically imperialist war, but represents the last gasp of a doomed strategy. {{cite journal | first=Michael | last=Hardt | year=[[July 13]], [[2006]] | title=From Imperialism to Empire | journal=[[The Nation]] | 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 [[biopower]] based on an informational and [[affect (philosophy)|affective]] economy. On this view, the U.S. is central to the development and constitution of a new global regime of [[Power (international)|international power]] and [[sovereignty]], 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 [[Spinoza]], [[Foucault]], [[Deleuze]], and Italian [[autonomist marxism|autonomist marxists]]. Critical international relations theorist [[James Der Derian]] and philosopher [[Jean Baudrillard]] hold related though less systematic views, as do many in the traditions of [[postcolonialism]], [[postmodernism]] and [[global justice|globalization theory]].

==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 or other "evil." This is especially common among prominent mainstream political figures; former [[Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]], 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 = [[June 25]], [[2003]]}}</ref>

The early 20th century [[Philippine-American War|US occupation of the Philippines]], by contrast, is perhaps the most frequently cited evidence that US military intervention abroad had an imperial character. War crimes by US soldiers, conducted by orders from superior military officers, have been documented. General [[Jacob H. Smith]] told his officers:

:"I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States."<ref>Miller (1982), op. cit. p. 220. See also [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War Wikiquote: Philippine-American War Quotes].</ref>

Nevertheless, conservative military historian [[Max Boot]] 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 [[Spanish-American War|war with Spain]] 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 claims that this more patriotic and comprehensive 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=[[May 6]], [[2003]]}}</ref> Boot is not alone; as [[American conservatism|conservative]] columnist [[Charles Krauthammer]] puts it,, "People are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire.'" This embrace of empire is made by many [[Neoconservatism|neoconservatives]], including British historian [[Paul Johnson (writer)|Paul Johnson]], and writers [[Dinesh D'Souza]] and [[Mark Steyn]]. It is also made by some liberal [[War Hawks|hawks]], such as political scientist [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]], and [[Michael Ignatieff]].<ref>{{cite news | author=Heer, Jeet | title=Operation Anglosphere | publisher=Boston Globe | url=http://www.jeetheer.com/politics/anglosphere.htm | date=[[March 23]], [[2003]]}}</ref>

For example, British historian [[Niall Ferguson]], a professor at [[Harvard University]], argues that the United States is an empire, but believes that this is a good thing. Ferguson has drawn parallels between the [[British Empire]] 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 [[Roman Empire]] 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=[[June 2]], [[2005]]}}</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 [[Spanish-American War]] 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 [[Walter LaFeber]] sees the [[Spanish-American War]] 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.

[[Right-wing politics|Right-wing]] historian [[Victor Davis Hanson]] argues that the US does not pursue [[world domination]], 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>

[[Neoliberalism (international relations)|Liberal internationalists]] 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 [[John Ikenberry]] 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>

I.R. scholar [[Joseph Nye|Nye]] argues that US power is more and more based on "[[soft power]]", 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 [[United States Information Agency]] 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>

==Cultural imperialism==

The debates about the issue of American [[cultural imperialism]] are largely separate from the debates about American military imperialism that are the subject of this article.

However, some critics of imperialism argue that cultural imperialism is not independent from military imperialism. [[Edward Said]], one of the founders of the study of [[post-colonialism]], claims that,

:"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."

He identifies the way non-Americans, particularly non-Westerns, are usually thought of within the US in a tacitly [[racism|racist]] manner, in a way that allows imperialism to be justified through such ideas as the [[White Man's Burden]].<ref>Said, Edward. [http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/barsaid.htm Culture and Imperialism], speech at York University, Toronto, [[February 10]], [[1993]].</ref>

Opponents of theories of cultural imperialism argue that it is not connected to any kind of military domination. International relations scholar David Rothkop claims that alleged cultural imperialism is the innocent result of [[globalization]], which allows many consumers across the world who desire US products and ideas access to them. 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 [[British Empire]] 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=[[June 22]], [[1997]]}}</ref> A similar analysis can be found in [[Matthew Fraser]]'s ''Weapons of Mass Distraction: [[Soft Power]] and American Empire'' (St. Martin's Press, 2005), though Fraser joins the [[neo-conservative]] thesis by arguing that America's global cultural influence is a good thing.

==Economic imperialism==

Some very important centrist, [[capitalist]], US leaders, including [[Presidents of the United States]] and US [[General]]s, have expressed support for an economic view of [[war]].

:"Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?" - [[Woodrow Wilson]], [[September 11]], [[1919]], St. Louis.<ref>''The Papers of [[Woodrow Wilson]], Arthur S. Link, ed.'' (Princeton, N.J.: [[Princeton University]] Press, 1990), vol. 63, pp. 45–46.</ref>

:"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class [[enforcer|muscle man]] for [[Big Business]], for [[Wall Street]] and the bankers. In short, I was a [[racketeer]], a [[gangster]] for [[capitalism]]." - simultaneously highest ranking and most decorated [[United States Marine Corps|Marine]] (including two [[Medals of Honor]]) [[Major General]] [[Smedley Butler]] (also a [[GOP]] primary candidate for [[Senate]]) [[1935]].<ref>[[1935]] issue of "the non-[[Marxism|Marxist]], [[socialism|socialist]]" magazine, ''Common Sense.''</ref>

:"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the [[military-industrial complex]]. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." - [[Dwight Eisenhower]], Farewell Address, Jan. 17, [[1961]].

Many commentators have stressed the close relationship between military expansionism and economic hegemony, arguing that warfare is only undertaken in order to obtain profit. Proponents of this point of view suggest that risky expansionist military adventures, current [[Iraq War]] excluded, are conspicuously absent from American history, and that, far from being a powerful military country, the US has assiduously avoided war unless it was with a wholly insignificant opponent. Instead, the US prefers to wait on the sidelines until both sides have fought themselves to a stalemate, while profiting by selling arms and other essential services. US actions in both World Wars are cited in support of this view, together with the tendency of the US military to make excessive claims for their weapons systems which are not fulfilled in practice.{{Fact|date=May 2007}}

According to this thesis, American power is a temporary and illusory phenomenon. The powerful position which the US occupies in world affairs was handed to it after the World Wars as a result of the disruption of all other major trading countries, and the US has done its best to maintain this position by fostering a 'status quo' during the Cold War. Once this ends, the old Power Blocs in Europe and Asia will reassert themselves.{{Fact|date=May 2007}}

==Notes and references==

{{reflist|2}}

==See also==

<!--please alphabetize any additions-->

{|

|valign=top|

*[[American Century]]

*[[American exceptionalism]]

*[[American foreign policy]]

*[[Anti-imperialism]]

*[[Bush Doctrine]]

*[[Carter Doctrine]]

*[[Globalization]]

*[[Overseas expansion of the United States]]

*[[Imperialism]]

*[[The empire on which the sun never sets]]

*[[Soviet Empire]]

|width=20px|

|valign=top|

*[[List of United States military history events]]

*[[Manifest Destiny]]

*[[Military history of the United States]]

*[[Monroe Doctrine]]

*[[Neocolonialism]]

*[[Project for a New American Century]]

*[[Truman Doctrine]]

*[[United States and South and Central America]]

*[[Use of the word American]]

*[[War on Terrorism]]

*[[Wolfowitz Doctrine]]

|}

==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://www.americanempireproject.com/index.htm| accessdate=2006-06-10}} A series of books from left-wing writers such as [[Noam Chomsky]], 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}} [[July 25]], [[2005]]

*{{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."

*[[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens, Christopher]], {{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.

*[[Paul Johnson (writer)|Johnson, Paul]], {{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 = [[Global Policy Forum]]}}

*{{cite web|url=http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/10/empire200610|author=[[Niall Ferguson]]|title="Empire Falls"|publisher=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]|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 = [[Monthly Review]]}}

*[http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/events/bbl/04041401.html Is President Bush Destroying the American Empire? An Update on America's Inadvertent Empire] Transcript of presentation by Robert Dujarric on April 14, 2004

==Further reading==

*{{cite book| last =Perkins| first =John| authorlink =John Perkins| coauthors =| year =2004| title =[[Confessions of an Economic Hit Man]]| publisher =| ___location =| id =ISBN 1-57675-301-8}}

*{{cite book| last =Zepezauer| first =Mark| authorlink =| 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}}

*{{cite book| last =Tremblay| first =Rodrigue | authorlink =| coauthors =| year =2004| title =The New American Empire | publisher =Infinty publishing | ___location =| id =ISBN 0-7414-1887-8}}

*{{cite book| last =Card| first =Orson Scott | authorlink =| coauthors =| year =2006| title =Empire | publisher =TOR | ___location =| id =ISBN 0-7653-1611-0}}

*{{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=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}}

{{Colonial Empires}}

[[Category:Foreign relations of the United States]]

[[Category:History of the foreign relations of the United States]]

[[Category:Empires]]

[[Category:International relations]]

[[es:Imperio Estadounidense]]

[[eo:Usona Imperio]]

[[fr:Empire américain]]

[[ja:アメリカ帝国]]

[[ko:아메리카 제국]]

[[vi:Đế quốc Mỹ]]

[[zh:美利坚帝国]]