I go for “it is an empire of sorts and has been for a very long time” position.
I don’t think so. It wasn’t imperialistic, it was genocidal; the goal was to exterminate the original inhabitants, not conquer them. Imperialism would have been a moral step up from what actually happened.
Empire from Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine (do they still even teach this?). A brief Isolationist Movement at WWI passed quickly, and we were establishing permanent military bases around the world* and putting nukes aimed at Moscow in Turkey (now you know why a non-Christian, non-White country is in NATO). We didn’t like it when they put missiles in Cuba, and came damned close to destroying the planet over it. Read up on the USSR sub off Cuba.
But we’re not imperialistic - just ask any dead Iraqi or Afghan.
I voted “Not a US citizen, but the US used to have an Empire and now it doesn’t”.
As a few people have mentioned, the Manifest Destiny thing (pushing westwards), the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Purchase, the result of the Spanish-American War (Cuba, acquisition of the Philippines) and then the annexation of Hawaii means that, certainly until the mid-late 1950s, yes, the US had an actual Empire with overseas colonies and so on, much like the British and the French and the Portuguese.
Nowadays, I would say the US doesn’t have an Empire (no notable colonies, no Empire, basically) but it does have a lot of influence. But influence on its own isn’t enough to be counted as an Empire, or else the Vatican would rank as one of the world’s great Imperialist nations which patently isn’t the case.
But it still has some of the acquired properties you listed - Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, various Pacific islands…did they stop being colonies at some point? They didn’t gain independence.
That is not even touching the issue of various Native American territories.
Influence isn’t enough to be counted as empire, I think - actual direct hegemony is required, and the Vatican exercised control second-hand (through the Spanish, Portuguese and the French) not directly. You can’t have Empire without Hegemony, IMO, and threat of spiritual punishment doesn’t qualify the Pope for hegemon status. Actual threat of violence is required (again, IMO)
It’s a co-prosperity sphere. We lift the beleaguered, backwards nations up from the morass of communism and authoritarianism into the shining age of neo-liberalism and uh, let’s call it free trade.
For the U.S. not to be an empire would require a narrow definition. So one can bomb, occupy, assassinate leaders, fund and train guerrillas, install puppets, and bring to bear economic might to bribe or coerce nations to do your bidding but it doesn’t count unless they get a star on the flag? So I guess we stopped being an empire in 1959.
There’s the more contemporary “hyperpower.” Sounds like a superpower with extra RAM. More appropriate for the digital age.
Hegemony is a popular buzzword, though it seems like a distinction without a difference. I guess it’s like empire, but with blue jeans and coke.
The Confederacy was not originally annexed by force. Holding territory is not the same thing as taking it.
The Roman Empire expanded two ways: it would fight another state and take all or part of that state’s lands and turn it into a Roman Province; OR it would form ‘offer they can’t refuse’ alliances with a local King, with the understanding that if the King every stopped being sufficiently pro-Roman, the legions would come in and the king would be dead, all hail the new Roman-loving king (and conversely, if the king’s subjects ever got tired of him selling out to the Romans and tried to install someone else, the legions would also arrive to maintain the status quo).
I think Allende and Sandino could testify about how the U.S. had the second part of the playbook down, even through the 20th century (well, except for the inconvenient fact that they’re suffering from severe lead poisoning…). Santa Anna and just about any Native American could have testified to the first part.
So, yeah. It walks like an Empire and quacks like an Empire.
:dubious: Oh, R’lyeh?
Those aren’t the same people who made up the Confederacy - as your link indicates, they’d largely been expelled already. Perhaps you meant “tell that to the Native Americans.”
Actually it’s mine, since I didn’t take the time to properly proof the poll.
I did vote but I won’t comment on that.
Instead I want to congratulate you on your inclusion of Asbach. I was stationed not too far from Rudeshiem and I’ve been to the distillery several times. An excellent weinbrand IMHO.
True, dat.
Pretty much, although technically it was 1946 with the liberation of the Philippines. By then, both Alaska & Hawaii were officially “Territorites”, or basically States-in-Training.
The literal definition of an “empire” is the subjugation of weaker, inferior cultures for the sole purpose of resource exploitation. In that regard the U.S. was very late to the game, with only a few Pacific Islands remaining for the taking, and imperialism itself was falling out of fashion by then.
From the halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli
We will fight our Country’s battles
In the Air, on land and sea…
Not “we will defend our Country”, we will fight it’s battles against all for any reason.
And we actually brag about it.
(the is the Official USMC Anthem, taught to school children).
Oops, just posting to say I made a mistake. I clicked on “I’m a US citizen of Native descent” and I’m not. Nothing to add other than that.
Alaska and Hawaii stopped being colonies when they were admitted as states of the union, while Puerto Rico is something akin to a “Dominion” - it has self-government so it’s not really a colony in the traditional sense.
According the UN, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands and Guam are effectively colonies (“non-self governing territories”), but the thing is, even if we accept they’re colonies, they’re not useful or significant colonies. It’s not like Britain ruling India or France controlling most of West Africa, or even the US ruling the Philippines.
So, I’d say the US no longer has an Empire, since (like the other Great Powers) its “colonies” are largely small islands with little significant strategic or geopolitical value.
Interestingly, of the former Great Powers, the only one with any notable and significantly populated overseas holdings still remaining is France (French Guyana, New Caledonia, French Polynesia in particular) - IIRC there’s about 2.5 million people across the various French overseas territories, versus about 350,000 in what remains of the British Empire and about 250,000 in the Dutch Caribbean.
So, all those Native Americans and Mexicans were from stronger, superior cultures, then? Or land isn’t a resource?
Seriously, though - my point is that the territory that made up the Confederacy was forcibly taken. That it then had a different ethnic make-up is of no moment, any more than the different ethnic makeup of the Romano-British at 400A.D. makes it Not The Britain That Caesar Conquered.
I would say the US is the center of modern civilization; a title it took from the UK perhaps starting in 1941 when it entered the second great war.
Well, he’s a good example, but not typical of all Cherokee. From what I understand, among the “Five Civilized Tribes,” the Seminole were (mostly) pro-Union, the Choctaw and Chickasaw were Confederate, and the Creek and Cherokee were mostly Confederate, but with significant amounts of Union sympathizers (I believe the Creek were slightly more Union-aligned).
