While I have no desire to hijack, and will not participate further in any discussion of the fact, I do find it essential that someone pop in and reminds everyone for the record that Crimea is not a part of Russia; it is a part of Ukraine.
No nation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organziation (NATO) pays any other nation in NATO “tribute”.
NATO is a group of nations organized for collective defense that by treaty imposes a requirement on its member nations to put a certain percentage of their GDP towards their military.
There’s no reason to accept the ravings of an idiot ex-president as having any relationship to reality, let alone being the source of a “current controversy.”
I’d put the start at 1823 and the Monroe Doctrine. It stated the US was powerful enough to stand up to Europe if need be.
‘The 13 British colonies’ were a thing-in–itself that could be distinguished from ‘the French colonies’ or ‘the Spanish colonies’ or ‘the rest of the continent’ or ‘Britain’ or ‘France’. That they were themselves composed of multiple moving parts doesn’t mean they couldn’t, themselves, be considered as acting as an entity for the purposes of Empire building. Empires with multiple metropoles existed before, too.
I vote- never. America has never had an “empire” in the classic sense.
I’m finding the variety of definitions of the word “empire” to be fascinating. My thinking coming into the thread was influenced, as I mentioned, by Peter Cooper’s Fall of Civilizations, in which every chapter is preceded by a map of the extent of the “empire” surrounded by other competing or conquered empires, along with beginning and ending dates. The beginning dates were not - could not - be dates in which an empire magically sprang into existence, but the date at which a historian could point to as the creation of a centrally-ruled whole.
Most people in the 18th century would have used the word in that sense, but I know that “empire” has accrued meanings in the interval to the point that ruling, even controlling, is no longer a necessary foundation for “empire.” “American Empire” redirects to American Imperialism in Wikipedia, a very long page that hits on almost every point that posters have made here. In it, every use of American power or threat of such is subsumed within the term imperialism. (I would have expected that the critique be mostly from left-wing writers but many right-wing writers are included, some with a more favorable outlook.)
Using “imperialism” that broadly makes the term incoherent, although it is the favored term of the day and slapped on every action that someone disapproves of. I also disapprove of just about everything that’s in that article, but heaping all condemnation under one blanket term kicks context out the door and includes such large wads of presentism that I get itchy.
“American” “imperialism” surely predates “American empire” because it predates anything that is functionally American; at no time until after the Treaty of Paris were the original 13 colonies truly legally and recognizably differentiated from the other contiguous British colonies and the arguably more important British colonies in the West Indies. No effective central control existed for another half-dozen years.
More than 200 years of historians put the origin date of the USA within this span, and I agree. When and if an American Empire emerged proves to be a squirmy fish of a subject, difficult if not impossible to grasp, more so than I expected. In fact, empire as a word may be obsolete.
How on earth do you explain Hawai’i, then, particularly in the period from the 1890s through the 1940s?
Yep. I mean sure, under some definitions the USA might have had some sort of “imperial” visions. But then- look at the real empires and the so-called “American empire” pales to insignificance.
From your wiki cite-
By one contrast, however, the United States claimed to colonize in the name of anti-colonialism: “We are coming, Cuba, coming; we are bound to set you free! We are coming from the mountains, from the plains and inland sea! We are coming with the wrath of God to make the Spaniards flee! We are coming, Cuba, coming; coming now!”[51] Filipino revolutionary General Emilio Aguinaldo wondered: "The Filipinos fighting for Liberty, the American people fighting them to give them liberty. The two peoples are fighting on parallel lines for the same object
and the cite is pretty biased-
King Kalākaua would die in 1891 and be succeeded by his sister Lili’uokalani. In 1893 with support from marines from the USS Boston Queen Lili’uokalani would be deposed in a bloodless coup. Not mention is the fact that the Queen abrogated the Constitution, and wanted to impose Autocratic rule, along with the Kapu or Taboo system, and taking the vote away from any white person, even if they had been born on the islands. And no one supported her. Not a single one of her followers or guards raised a hand to defend her (no one wanted that stuff coming back but her, and most thought she was crazy), and the Marines didnt do anything at all.
Our two “colonies” (Cuba & the Philippines) were freed from Spain. Cuba was given it’s independence within a year or so, in the Philippines it took about 30, due to constant revolts. Some “empire”.
See above. No one wanted the crazy Queen. The natives and the whites who had been born there realized Hawaii was incapable of defending itself. The British and the Germans were looking to annex it. The decided they wanted American protection, instead. America gained nothing from the islands.
Glossing over or outright ignoring the fact it was a Corporate action is weird.
Several major businessmen convinced the US to take over a sovereign country. Not a great look for the US.
As to gain, secured a coaling port at very least.
Describing Liliʻuokalani as “the crazy Queen”, claiming that the natives sought annexation, and particularly the claim that “America gained nothing from the islands” are so at odds with historical fact and grossly disrespectful that it is difficult to choose where to start dismembering this confabulation but for the sake of brevity I’ll note that the US Congress passed a joint resolution in 1993 in which it was acknowledged that to the previously recognized independent Kingdom of Hawaii “…the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii…”, “…in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government…”, allowing the conspirators to form a Provisional Government, then followed by “…informed of the risk of bloodshed with resistance, Queen Liliuokalani issued the following statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather than to the Provisional Government…”, an act that then-President Grover Cleveland as “act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress.’’
The subsequent and repeated attempts by Congress at annexation, resulting claims on land by the Standard Fruit Company, appointing James Drummond Dole (cousin to one of the conspirators, Sanford Dole) as governor and shortly thereafter head of the Hawaiian Pineapple Company, later renamed to Dole, plc, appropriated and essentially divvied up the land for fruit and sugar cane plantations, and later for military use, tourism, and massive estates for haole billionaires, while the native Hawaiians live in rates of severe and extreme poverty far exceeding the general population. The notion that “America gained nothing from the islands” is risible given the lengths the US has gone to oppose even basic accommodations or recognition of native rights.
Or, more succinctly (and with suitably gallows humor for wrong that will never be rectified):
Stranger
That was a robber-baron era takeover, without dispute. Not directed from Washington, but so what? The Muckden Incident was done on the hook of renegade army officers, not fruit planters; but the upshot was still the same: imperialism.
Though I would cite a different source than thejuicemedia. Their videos are technically made with facts, true: you could even say that they’re “right Yuan the money.”
California and Texas were similar takeovers by non-government-backed Americans that nevertheless resulted within a couple of decades in the enlargement of the USA at the expense of Mexico, and the subjugation of various non-American peoples, Indigenous and Mexican.
Maybe we should just agree on what an empire is first. What distinguishes empire from multi-ethnic nation where some of those ethnicities have traditionally territory and are largely disenfranchised, either de jure (historically) or de facto (e.g. Hawai’ians, particularly Hawai’ian-speaking Hawai’ians, are a minority in their own country)?
What’s the definition of an empire? I can give one definition of an empire: a nation that sends its young people into foreign lands, and when some of them get killed, according to what’s expeditious, hails them as heroes and names things after them; of it that’s counter to what’s convenient, tells the surviving young people to keep quiet if they want to stay out of prison, and claims the fatality was a “training incident.”
Remember how Reagan called the USSR the “evil empire?” But did you catch the implication that we were therefore the “good” empire? Or else why not just use “evil” or “empire” as standalone pejoratives?
The definition of empire is what it comes down to. What is the argument for supporting a more restrictive definition for the territory that is being conquered? Why is it an empire when the Spanish conquered and took land form he Aztecs and Inca, or when the British conquered and took land from the Ndebele in what is now Zimbabwe or the various groups in what is now India and Pakistan, but it isn’t an empire when the United States conquered and took land from the Cherokee, Sioux, or from Mexico? Whether or not conquered territory is or is not fully annexed doesn’t seem to me like a good criteria to draw a dividing line between empire vs. not an empire.
Unfortunately that attitude isn’t confined to a single man. Too many people share his view that our NATO allies owe us that money. The same people who think China should pay a tariff to have access to our markets, thinking that a tariff is a form of tribute they pay us for that privilege.
It’s currently under Russian occupation. I don’t feel any confidence that it’s going to end anytime soon.
There is also another term in these discussions: “hegemon” – a power that dominates and can impose its will over a broad area beyond what it controls de jure or by occupation.
Throat-clearing in Guam and Puerto Rico. Hey we came in that same grab! (“Unincorporated Territory” yeah, right, a euphemism SCOTUS pulled out of their robes) .
I missed this quote earlier. How can you state “freed” and still account for the period between 1898 and 1946? 1. United States/Philippines (1898-1946) . I don’t think you can be considered “free” when you’re fighting a multi-year war with your liberator and have to wait nearly fifty years beween “freedom” and independence.
I never claimed the natives wanted annexation. Read what I said. And yes, she was nutso. Bringing back absolute monarchy? Basing stuff on racism? The Tabu system? All the land belongs to the queen?
Yep. 100 years after. It was pure politics.
You think the California Republic was real? And the Californios despised the corrupt Mexican government.
Texas was one of about six Mexican states that declared independence after Santa Anna tore up the Constitution and made himself dictator. Texas succeeded and so did the Republic of Yucatán for a time.
The USA bought the land from a nearly bankrupt Mexico that couldn’t govern those lands anyway. They were happy to get the money- then.
Yes, true, but somehow, those arent often including in “the American Empire”.
In 1916 with the Jones Act, the Philippines became mostly self governing, and The Commonwealth of the Philippines was formally established on November 15, 1935. From 1941 to 1946 there was this little thing called the Japanese occupation, and trust me the Philpinos were very happy when the USA freed them from the Imperial Japanese. So mostly self governing from 1916, proclaimed as a Commonwealth with their own president in 1935. In other words, on their way to full independence less that 20 years after the USA took it from Spain.
Because they wanted slavery and Mexico forbade it. There was nothing noble about it, it was a slave state expanding at the expense of a non-slave state.
So very untrue. The Mexican Constitution excused Texas from their general ban on slavery, and
did the Republic of Yucatán and the handful of other Mexican states that declared independence when Santa Anna declared himself dictator leave due to slavery? No, Texas had only a few slaves and was guaranteed them anyway. All those mexican states declared independence as Santa Anna was a depostic dictator.
This is just another of those myths pushed from the 'all of American History was slavery all the way down" crowd.