Comments on: AMERICAN EMPIRE http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/american_empire/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:35:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Dean Esmay http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/american_empire/comment-page-1/#comment-1805 Dean Esmay Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1907#comment-1805 One of the things I hate about this argument is that 2/3rds of the time it becomes a meta-argument, while the participants don't realize it. So they stop talking, and they just start arguing. For starters, you must mutually agree on your definition of "Empire." If you have a common basis of agreement ont his, then you can go forward. If you don't, you'll run around in circles forever. Then, you have to agree on whether or not Empires are morally good, bad, or neutral. Also, are they an inevitability of the human political process? Most people don't go deep enough to have constructive arguments about this. One of the things I hate about this argument is that 2/3rds of the time it becomes a meta-argument, while the participants don't realize it. So they stop talking, and they just start arguing.

For starters, you must mutually agree on your definition of "Empire." If you have a common basis of agreement ont his, then you can go forward. If you don't, you'll run around in circles forever.

Then, you have to agree on whether or not Empires are morally good, bad, or neutral. Also, are they an inevitability of the human political process?

Most people don't go deep enough to have constructive arguments about this.

]]> By: Kevin Klemme http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/american_empire/comment-page-1/#comment-1806 Kevin Klemme Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1907#comment-1806 Here's a URL (http://slate.msn.com/id/2075261/) to an essay by Christopher Hitchens on the meaning of American "Empire." He thinks we may have to come up with another term. Like Dean, I think the terms are critical. When I was taking my doctoral classes, there were endless debates about empire, formal vs. informal empire, and probably a dozen others. Just to make sense of history, I decided that "empire" has to involve physical conquest of territory with an intent to keep control of it. Otherwise, the term becomes meaningless, and almost any foreign policy move made at the expense of any other nation can be defined as imperialism of some kind--political, economic, cultural, and so on. So I don't see the war against terror as empire-building. It's aggressive, it involves temporary control of territory, it's interventionist, but it's not imperial. Here's a URL (http://slate.msn.com/id/2075261/) to an essay by Christopher Hitchens on the meaning of American "Empire." He thinks we may have to come up with another term.

Like Dean, I think the terms are critical. When I was taking my doctoral classes, there were endless debates about empire, formal vs. informal empire, and probably a dozen others.

Just to make sense of history, I decided that "empire" has to involve physical conquest of territory with an intent to keep control of it. Otherwise, the term becomes meaningless, and almost any foreign policy move made at the expense of any other nation can be defined as imperialism of some kind--political, economic, cultural, and so on.

So I don't see the war against terror as empire-building. It's aggressive, it involves temporary control of territory, it's interventionist, but it's not imperial.

]]> By: Kelli http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/american_empire/comment-page-1/#comment-1807 Kelli Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1907#comment-1807 Kevin and Dean, I am with you %100. And Hitchens, a fair historian himself, is also in the right. Several months ago, when Fergusson first appeared on the mainstream media radar screen, I was thrilled. A first rate scholar willing to reexamine old shibboleths about empire and history. Now I'm sick to death of him (how fickle is the public) and what's more think he's barking up the wrong tree. He is increasingly calling for a new, improved British Empire under the U.S. flag. Forty years in Iraq? God forbid. Where is the American Clive? Rhodes? Raja Brooke of Sarawak? Americans are not interested in ruling other peoples, and other peoples are extremely touchy (do I really need to say this?) about the idea of anyone telling them what to do. This renders all "empire building" impossible, ergo Fergusson is either a fool or a damn fine self-promoter with a single "controversial" idea to sell. The latter, surely, is true. Fergusson the capitalist has defeated Fergusson the honest historian. --- Kevin and Dean, I am with you %100. And Hitchens, a fair historian himself, is also in the right. Several months ago, when Fergusson first appeared on the mainstream media radar screen, I was thrilled. A first rate scholar willing to reexamine old shibboleths about empire and history. Now I'm sick to death of him (how fickle is the public) and what's more think he's barking up the wrong tree. He is increasingly calling for a new, improved British Empire under the U.S. flag. Forty years in Iraq? God forbid. Where is the American Clive? Rhodes? Raja Brooke of Sarawak? Americans are not interested in ruling other peoples, and other peoples are extremely touchy (do I really need to say this?) about the idea of anyone telling them what to do. This renders all "empire building" impossible, ergo Fergusson is either a fool or a damn fine self-promoter with a single "controversial" idea to sell. The latter, surely, is true. Fergusson the capitalist has defeated Fergusson the honest historian.

---

]]>