Yes, but I wouldn’t call the Philippines and Thailand “banana republics” either.
Anyway, I’m dropping this MS digression… the original mention of it made even less sense than the OP, which is really saying something.
[QUOTE=NiceGuyJack]
Hey! What a coincidence. There is a billion dollar Nissan factory in the Philippines too! And I always get a Starbucks coffee in the morning when visiting the office in Makati City, Metro-Manila’s business district. Almost all the other Japanese and Korean auto manufacturers are present in the Philippines in one form or another. Even Ford has a factory there.
Same thing in Bangkok, I can get a Starbucks on the ground floor of the office building there and Thailand have even more auto factories than the Philippines. If having a Starbucks and a foreign owned billion dollar auto-factory represents an advanced economy, well then Mississippi would compare with Philippines and Thailand.
[/QUOTE]
As noted, neither the Philippines nor Thailand are banana republics either, unless we use your out of the ass definition of banana republic that sets Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana as banana republics (which would make a large percentage of all countries on earth banana republics).
[QUOTE=Grim Render]
My point is: Europes military spending is vastly over the top for any defense need. It is not remotly correct to state that Europe derives any economic benefit from American militry presence, because that would imply that without it, Europe would need to spend more money on the military.
[/QUOTE]
And my opinion is that your point is what’s commonly referred to as ‘wrong’. Europe’s military spending is not ‘over the top’…it’s way under what they need to be spending, and they can do that because the US is carrying the majority of the water for them, militarily.
As a for instance, recently China has gotten frisky with their own military, pushing the limits and claiming large parts of the South China Sea and other areas as their territory. No big deal, since the US simply moves a carrier task force into the area and China backs down. What would Europe do if the US couldn’t so easily nip something like that in the bud? Absolutely nothing. Why should Europe care…it’s not in Europe or part of their ‘defense’, right? Well, do they like that trade stuff? Yes? Well, then they probably would have to care, since some of the area China is playing games in just happens to be some of the richest trade routes on earth, and effect some of the major economic powers in the region (like, oh, South Korea and Japan, not to mention Australia and the southern Pacific rim region. Hell, even Vietnam is a bit tense over this). The US almost casually is able to defuse the situation (well, except for the near collision between a Chinese warship and a US one). Europe? They would have to sit there, thumb firmly up ass and whine about it since THEY DON’T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO SHIT ABOUT IT.
Uhuh. Gods, I wish I lived in the world you do. 
At any rate, as you noted, this is a total hijack. If you wish to discuss this further feel free to start a new thread on it. Your views on military and military force and the necessity in this brave new world are, IMHO, naive in the extreme. The reason things are so (relatively) calm and peaceful with trade just humming along is because the US spends all that money on ‘pork barrel’ military stuff. Take that away and I think the world will resemble your 19th century more than you seem to understand.
Sticking to the point that is germane to this thread: you are following dataguy’s lead in inventing a new meaning for banana republic that is contrary to the way everybody else in the world thinks of it. It is not a single crop economy; it is not poverty alone; it is not a mere lack of infrastructure.
Let me quote from the same Wikipedia page that dataguy used earlier, a better definition that makes it obvious why it was not quoted.
There is nothing in the U.S. future that can possibly be a path to such devolution. There is no possible way to define any individual state in such terms. Your accounts of present day and historic states do not match this, not even in the days of Huey Long’s dictatorship in Louisiana.
You only get to make this claim by taking the most superficial parallels and then unilaterally declaring that to be the equivalent of a banana republic. We are rejecting that because it utterly ignores the deep, critical differences.
It’s true that political commentators sometimes use the term for rhetorical effect. Dataguy’s other link goes to nutty right-wing site lewrockwell.com; the footnotes in that Wikipedia quote go to a superbly nutty column by left winger Christopher Hutchins. That’s what trolling looks like in the real world. Our point in this thread has been consistent: you can’t take a strained ideological metaphor, twist it beyond recognition, apply it randomly and haphazardly, and still expect to have others agree with you. You’re wrong because you started out wrong.
Philippines under Marcos, could conceivably have been a banana republic, and I also think the definition of what a Banana Republic constitutes has changed, but I’m not going to argue those points.
I concede. You guys win. All I did was to suggest that possibly, taken as separate states, some could possibly have been Banana Republics if independent. Personally, I still think that it would have been likely had the Civil War ended differently. But it didn’t as has been clarified. And as also pointed out, as part of the US these states are well supported by the rest so wouldn’t have the same political or economic structure required to be a BR. Speculation is apparently not allowed when criticizing the US.
So, I concede. Congratulations!
And according to another Wikipedia link, the U.S. produces between 80% and 95% of the world’s pecans.
The obvious groaner here is that while the US isn’t a banana republic yet, global warming could make us one.
No.
Florida is already turning into one.
I don’t remember all the details, but more than once citizens of Florida have thrown Bananas at city hall when abuses of power from the state leaders come to light. Citizens do it to make a point on the kind of government some leaders are attempting to impose.
Ugh. Florida is not “becoming” a Banana Republic, and I don’t know why you would put something so preposterous out there. It takes a tad bit more than a few citizens throwing bananas to turn a state into a BR.
This is another one of those cases where: Florida = bad, so whatever bad I can think of to say about it is OK.
Uh… wooosh?
Another article using the words incorrectly? But it’s not the only one and it seems to be used more and more to describe problematic countries in the modern world.
Like all words and idioms, definitions can and do change.
It wasn’t long ago “Gay” only meant happy.
If the term is used more frequently to define something different from its original meaning, then it becomes part of the evolving language.
This article explains the original meaning and what the term is evolving into.
This could obviously be considered an opinion by the author of the article, but as it seems it is being used more and more frquently in articles and discussions elsewhere, it is difficult to deny that the meaning may actually have changed.
A self Wooosh for John Mace, as I pointed out it is what they **attempt **to do. And the Banana incidents are hyperbolic protests.
As pointed, so far they are failing to do so, but there is that “insignificant” detail of eternal vigilance who we have to thank for that. Related to this: The Daily Beast report I linked to was related to the many underhanded efforts to game the vote in Florida, IIRC close to election time the protests did make the governor to backtrack on many of those “great” ideas to “protect” the vote.
It is for that and past underhanded moves that many alternate press publications like the Miami New Times has a category for “Banana Republicans”
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/banana_republican/index.php?page=3
I deny that the meaning of the word has changed.
See? That was easy.
Indeed it was. How very clever you are.
Because “critics of the United States frequently relate its policies…” doesn’t make the United States any more a banana republic than my daughter’s conviction that the current Hobbit movies are the pinnacle of film evolution make them the pinnacle of film evolution.
Again, the term is preposterous. According to PISA (warning: large PDF!), the US scores are not statistically different from Spain, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and others. In this thread US PISA scores are cited as evidence of the US being a “banana republic”, but if I started a thread “Is Norway a banana republic” and cited their PISA scores as evidence, I would be mocked, and rightfully so.
The US is a country where, from 1991 to 2008, the total assets owned by Americans grew one and-a-half (1.5) times the size of the entire 2008 Chinese asset base. Grew. And yet to refute this, all you bring is a cite which does little but show other people don’t understand the term either.
Let me make this clear: “Banana Republics”, regardless of the definition used, do not add $32 trillion to their asset base over a 17-year period. They do not score on a par with Norway on educational assessment tests. They do not own more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Understand now?
That post cries out to be read with a patrician Virginia accent.
I can’t do that, so I substituted Foghorn Leghorn instead. Works very well.
But the meaning HAS changed and I think I see what the OP is on about now. Look here…THIS is the new meaning of Banana Republic, and I agree, the US has become one. Hell, I’ll go further and say that we have set the trend for this sort of thing in fact. Just part of the culture we are bringing to the rest of the world.
Hey, at least we’re Banana Republic and not The Gap or Old Navy. I’m hoping that someday we’re Tommy Bahama.
I am not happy if this has become a nation of skinny jeans and dudes who shave once a week.