Talk:American imperialism

Archive One, May 6, 2005 to May 2006

Very bad wording

"the U.S. is uncontroversially not an empire, because it lacks a legal emperor, king, despot, or other hereditary head of state". S hereditary head of state is in no way a necessity for being an Empire, as our article Empire makes clear. However lacking any other reason to say that the US is "uncontroversially not an Empire" I find it hard ton know what to change this phrase to. DJ Clayworth 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel is correct, the defintion does state that to be an empire you have to have an emporer or emporess. What is interesting is that historically, this is not the case. I was just listen to a lecture series on the British Empire, and Queen Victoria was made an emporeress around the 1890's. No historian would argue that the British empire was not an empire before then. In addition (and please correct me if I am wrong) there were several empires, such as the German and French empires which did not have any royalty at all. Just something to think about. I think JereKrischel contribution should stay.Travb (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth: You're cutting out the crucial words "in one sense." I would argue that in all important senses the U.S. is an empire - but nevertheless in the sense in which an empire requires an emporer, which is at least one use of the term, the U.S. is not one.

Teach me to respond to the talk page before looking at the article. "One sense" and "another sense" is not very informative, but it's not true to say that "has an emporer" is a more literal definition than "has sovereignty over foreign territory." Both are simple literal definitions of an empire - for the latter, see the reference linked in the article, and remember how "the Empire" in the UK used to refer to just those territories.

Travb: The British empire had a hereditary head of state, the King/Queen. The German empire had a Kaiser. You're right about the French empire, at least 3rd republic and after. Kalkin 04:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kewl, thanks for taching me this, I didn't know.Travb (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we already made clear, both in the discussion and the article, that there are three definitions of the word "empire".

1) A de jure empire, i.e. a state ruled by an emperor or empress, or that describes itself as an empire.

2) A de facto empire, i.e. a large and powerful state exerting influence over other countries.

3) An empire in the pejorative sense, i.e. an oppressive state that exploits other nations; this is what leftists mean when they say "imperialist".

(I apologise for repeating this, as I've said it before, but I think it's relevant to this question.) What the sentence in question is saying is that the US is uncontroversially not an empire according to definition 1, i.e. it has no emperor or empress. However, the next sentence reads In another sense, the U.S. satisfies the definition of an empire, because it possesses sovereignty over territories which it has not annexed as states, such as Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and in the past the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and the Philippines. This satisfies definition 2. The main question in the rest of the article is whether or not it satisfies definition 3. Walton monarchist89

I am not going to argue about How many angels dance on the head of a pin. Although playing the definition game (a very common debate tactic: lawyers use it all the time) has made the article better, I have lost interest in this particular argument.

User:Walton monarchist89 Please make the changes to the wikipage you wish, and stop talking about it. If User:DKalkin disagrees, I am sure he will quickly make his objections known. He is the only one who ever works on this article anyway, whereas me and you discuss issues on the talk page into eternity. Travb (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Empire does not mean the country must be governed by the emperor, a country implement Imperialist diplomatic policy = Empire, U.S.A. is a good example.

Historical fudging

Numerous interventions and gunboat diplomacy in Latin America justified by the Monroe Doctrine in countries such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua during the late 19th century and early 20th century

Since Monroe himself is not late 19th Century, you'd think someone would have clued in that "late" is not required here; and I'm thinking of the Nicaraguan campaign; sure it wasn't the US directly, but American adventurists are always proxies, even though Nicaragua didn't wind up as a state (although that was proposed). I'll come back to this to reword the above, and also to add some stuff to Filibuster (military) about the post-Nicaragua careers of some of the merc regiments who served there; but the Monroe Doctrine also didn't "justify" anything; it's a purely US policy, not recognized by other powers; but Americans thiknk that it's like Manifest Destiny, something right and valid because God gave America the torch or whatever; so to me, speaking as a non-American, that "justified" word has got to go.Skookum1 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome User:Skookum1 look forward to your edits. Please make all major insertions are verifiable (Wikipedia:Verifiability), it saves me an others time having to find authors which share your views.

Please Be Bold. Change the page as you wish. Then justify your changes on the talk page, if you wish.

Too many people on wikipedia talk about what they want to happen to a page, and never actually change the page. Please, be our guest....

Welcome.

Signed:Travb (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I will; I'm just in the habit of fielding ideas and possible text on Discussion pages first, since my personal writing style is kinda florid and I'm really good at going off on tangents ;-). I'll source the bits above later and add them, as brief as possible; also I'll put in something about US pressure on the British Empire re the Aroostook War, the Oregon boundary dispute and the Alaska Boundary Dispute - all instances where the US used a threat of war to get its way. Also since the Trail of Tears is there, the US' wars in the former Oregon Country/Columbia District - the Nez Perce War, the Yakima War, the Cayuse War and the Palouse War - all deserve mention, although in terms of the paperwork the area was already American on the map (if not in a practical sense, until these wars were over).Skookum1 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to curb your enthuism, but the list here is very limited, in fact I would personally prefer no list here. There is a long list on other pages in this topic: See Template:AmericanEmpire which your very specific examples of American imperialism would be more apt. I work on almost all of them, so you will probably see me there too.

Thanks for fielding ideas on the talk page first--that shows a willingness to work with others, which is unfortunatly rarer than it should be on wikipedia.

Look forward to working with you in the future. welcome to the page.

Maybe List_of_United_States_military_history_events would be more apt... Travb (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Travb, although there's incidents of U.S. foreign interventions that are not listed, I feel also that its not really necessary to list them all because a simple click will lead to a much more comprehensive list that's far more established and has the necessary citations and peers to maintain it. Also, the Monroe Doctrine although used for imperialist purposes often could be seen as anti-imperialist in nature, it's original purpose to prevent the recolonization of Latin America by Europeans was against imperialism and was nearly a joint declaration with Great Britain so then wouldn't they have accepted it in its original form if they almost made it a joint reply. Good luck editing and don't go too far on a tangent. - Patman2648 08:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I will add a further tag {{further|}}

Best wishes all.

Hope to see your continued good and valued work on the Template:AmericanEmpire series.Travb (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1 here, starting a new parag because of the multiple indents going on above. Patman said:

it's original purpose to prevent the recolonization of Latin America by Europeans was against imperialism and was nearly a joint declaration with Great Britain so then wouldn't they have accepted it in its original form if they almost made it a joint reply.

That's not what we (Canadians) were taught, nor what I remember being said by British diplomatic historians (AJP Taylor, for one; others I'd have to think what else I'd read), nor any retrospective in our papers/media that might address the Doctrine. Britain was very averse to the US declaration except insofar as it discouraged other Great Powers from meddling in Mexico, but never did they endorse the Doctrine; which for it part was worded carefully so as to exclude relations with Canada or the British Caribbean; and Washington was careful never to invoke it in that regard, although it remains popular myth (only in the United States, and US-originated Wikipedia pages) that the Monroe Doctrine mad something to do with the Oregon and Alaska boundary disputes and the US' assertion of outright ownership to 54-40; but that's not the case, as Britain/the British Empire was exempted from the Doctrine by, as I understood it, careful wording. This also concerns Alaska as well as St. Pierre and Miquelon, although France retains the latter; in Alaska's case the Russians could just as well have sold Russian America to Britain, had they so chosen to; it was not a former colony, it was still a colony. Likewise with the British Caribbean and the remaining Dutch and French Caribbean (and S Am of course). So on the one hand you have Britain accepting and even endorsing it (according to the one USian story I'm hearing here) and on the other you have it being used in territorial aggrandizement against Britain (as explained). Interesting also that it wasn't invoked in the case of Louis Riel's declaration of a new republic and accompanying rebellions, given that he actively sought US support for it (see http://www.dickshovel.com/two.html and two2.html for more on that). One last comment: the US protested the Second Empire's creation of a proxy Empire of Mexico under Maximilian I but there's no way France even sniffed at the idea that it was bound by the Monroe Doctrine; and this from a historic US ally, no less.Skookum1 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved list of interventions to larger article

I moved the list of interventions on this page American_Empire#US_foreign_interventions to the Talk:List of United States military history events.

It is awaiting someone (probably myself) merging it into the larger article, to complete the massive merger of several other pages which I did today.

I think having a comprehensive list in one place is incredibly beneficial. Every wikiuser can focus their attention on this list, instead of smaller, less comprehensive lists scattered throughout wikipedia. This small list has been the most tweeked and popular section of the entire American Empire article. I am excited to see how List of United States military history events now evolves. As explained in the book The Wisdom of Crowds the more people that work on this list, the better the list will become. Thanks to the work of hundreds of wikipedians, List of United States military history events appears to be the most comprensive list of foreign interventions ever written.

If anyone fiercly disagrees to me moving the list of interventions to Talk:List of United States military history events, they can restore the information, now found here, waiting to be merged into the larger article.

Roosevelt Corollary & Monroe Doctrine

I kept the Roosevelt Corollary and Monroe Doctrine on this page, by adding them to the {{further| }} tag because I was facinated by the idea of the Roosevelt Corollary, which I had never heard of until the user added it recently. I think the Roosevelt Corollary and Monroe Doctrine are important elements in the history of American expansion abroad.

These can be moved down to the "see also" section, if someone objects to them being in the {{further| }} tag.

Signed:Travb (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

American Empire Map

The map basically just shows the Americas and the British Empire with a few other european states. It suggests that by virtue of an alliance with the UK the Americas in some way controlled the British Empire or was a part of it in 1958. I wouldn't warrant its removal but perhaps this needs to be explained more or the map ammended to show the US and Allies in green perhaps, and its allies colonies as well as its own colonies in two seperate colours. It currently appears that africa was a US colony in the 1958 picture because of this. Equally, note how the UK and Argentina are shown in green on the 1982 map. Lest we forget that Argentina and the UK fought a war over the falkland islands in 1982 ending diplomatic relationships between the two. This kind of detail is mis represented on the map as it seems to suggest all these nations in green/blue are united under one alliance. I find it highly misleading without further explanation of what the map ACTUALLY shows.

I think also this article may benefit from being flagged as a controversial and disputed topic. I personally wouldn't agree that the US is an empire in any sense and I think this view would be supported elsewhere to. However I praise the fact that its explained that the US is not in everyones view an empire, and to flag the article as controversial would reinforce that this concept of an 'American Empire' is a controversial and somewhat isolated one. Infact the USA has always been fairly isolationist until recent years in the opinion of many historians.

My view on this article is that in its current state it doesn't help anyone better understand anything, and thus on an encycolpedic level is fairly useless. However it does have potentinal with a few key changes and ammendments. - Ogricken

I agree that the map is misleading and needs to be contextualised, for the reasons stated by the anonymous contributor here. --BobFromBrockley 10:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do the maps actually add anything to the article, i'm wonderign now whether actually they should just be deleted, they are so significantly misrepresenting information that its farcical.

I have now removed the maps as they are excess to the requirements of the article and convey the wrong idea about all 3 arguements contained here in. I have also flagged the article as disputed due to multiple and contradicting arguements on the same subject matter. This is simply to alert readers that the views they read on this page are not a fact or historial detail.

In replacement can we have an actual map of the land the USA owned (Im not so lazy I dont want to do it myself, I just dont know what land they owned)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.97.134 (talk • contribs)

Temporary, but not an aberration

I have a number of problems with the section entitled as above. First, the title doesn't completely make sense. Secondly, the attribution of postcolonialist, postmodern and globalization theory to Hardt and Negri is not really true - altho the links to Foucault, Deleuze and autonomism are. Third, it underemphasises the massiveness of the difference between Hardt and Negri's position and the idea of an American empire. I would seriously edit, but don't want to be seen as blanking. --BobFromBrockley 10:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit, be bold.

Hardt and Negri are a problem with the organization of this article, because it uses a three-way categorization derived from Stuart Creighton Miller into which they don't really fit. The categorization also has problems dealing with open advocates of American empire like Niall Ferguson, etc. However, if we abandon it, anything we replace it with is likely to be controversial, and won't have a reliable academic source to give it credibility.

The attribution of postcolonialism, postmodernism, and globalization theory is literally true, because it uses the phrase "builds on," which could mean anything, but you're right that it's imprecise. If it's removed, those terms should still be mentioned nearby, because there are a lot of other people within those vague areas who hold positions similar to Hardt and Negri in that they believe there was once something like an American empire, but we have passed it for some new sort of structure of domination.

Kalkin 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Did a little, but more needs to be done. --BobFromBrockley 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Empire not well defined.

I does not appear that the word empire is defined well enough for this article to have much merit. There was a deeper meaning to imperium, the origin of the word, than what it currently means today. The conquest of other nations and ethnicities, existence of an emperor, or presence of supreme authority is only one plain of power.

According to Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, the Greco-Roman world he called Classical Civilization had no concept of separation of religion, state, or commerce. All were deemed the exclusive power of whatever government existed, republic, polis, imperium did not matter. An imperium was government that controlled spiritual, financial, and military affairs. The notion of government being separate was impossible. What freedom existed was only social, but not commercial as it is in Hong Kong, or religious as it is in most of the Western world today. At one point people had to worship their emperor as god in Rome, just like in Egypt and Sumer.

Is America an empire? Not by ancient definition. The separation of church and state, and the free economy would have to be complete usurped for that to be applicable. But my modern definitions the name would not be inappropriate, as long as America continues to influence and police other countries. Whether that is good or bad remains irrelevant to the word, as empires are generally both or neither. Even if the United States began to add more states and commonwealths to its Union under the current government, no real imperial power would exist.

But if the United States adopts an official religion, as well as assume total power over commerce and finance, then indeed we might see the rise of a true empire in the ancient sense. Many barriers would have to be broken for this to happen. A major invasion to ossify the people as 9/11 did on a much smaller scale, a breakdown of the separation of church and state (possibly elevating atheism or agnosticism to a dogmatic and fanatical state as the Soviets had done), and the obvious changing of the constitution and elimination of any state sovereignty. Jcchat66 05:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your view that it is not an empire. I would also like to add that classically an empire stretches distance, although not a specific or quantafiable criteria it is none the less valid of an empire. However the US is effectivley contiguous with itself with only two or three minor exceptions like a) alaska and b) hawaii. Take the British Empire for example (the architypal and largest empire in history) which spanned immense distances and was most certainly NOT contiguous with itself. The only control the US has over other sovereign nations is political, that alone does not warrant it to be termed an empire. Putting political pressure on a sovereign nation doesn't make one an emporeur. The British Empire did this to many sovereign nations including Germany...it was one of the contributing factors to WWI. I strongly move that this article be flagged as a disputed topic as many people have voiced concerns over its highly dubious logic and reasoning in calling the US an 'American Empire', down to the very term 'American Empire'...America is two seperate continents...The USA is a nation, they should NOT be confussed.- Ogricken

You're thinking only in terms of modern Empires; the immediate example that comes to mind is the Athenian Empire, so-called, which entirely consisted of one sovereign nation (poleis) putting political pressure on others and bringing them to heel (the members of the "alliance"-cum-empire were all theoretically sovereign poleis themselves (er, that's not the right plural; my ancient Greek is rusty...). Similarly the Roman Empire included proxy states, as did the British as well as Napoleon's and Hitler's...and Alexander's and Genghis', too; and the Chinese Empire was all about putting power on neighbouring kings/emperors, whether it was the Dalai Lama or the kings of Thailand, Vietnam, Korea etc. The idea of a contiguous polity (even if contiguous is joined by sea, as with the British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Danish and Swedish empires... and the Japanese one, too) being a defining paramater is a bit of a modern conceit rooted in ideas of the nation-state. The empires of Carlos V, the Athenians, and more were NOT rooted in anything resembling a nation-state-turned-empire as seems to be the onus being placed on the term "American Empire" here.Skookum1 20:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is America an empire? Not by ancient definition. The separation of church and state, and the free economy would have to be complete usurped for that to be applicable.

Whic ancient definition is that? A definition that had to do with unity of church and state? Look, that ONLY applied in relation to the Roman (pagan and Christian empires) and not really anyone else. OK, OK, the Egyptian pharaohs, of course, but it's their model the Roman Emperors were partly emulating (as well as Alexander's, born demigod that he was and all...but he never imposed a state religion, either). The Holy Roman Empire also contained a separation between church and state (i.e. the dynasty), although there was a lot of intermixing (the appointment of dynastic scions as archbishops and cardinals, for example); it was only in the Eastern Orthodox Christian Empires were state and church were truly inseparable (the Byzantine and Russian Empires); but even there the church was at the heel of the Emperor, not the other way around as the Popes preferred to have it in the West (but rarely got their way).Skookum1 21:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going by the definition of imperium as studied by Carroll Quigley in his book Tragedy and Hope. Since I own the book I have no online citations, but I’m sure a Google search will bring something up. The word had more meaning than just empire as defined today, as the ancient world perceived it much differently then. As you mentioned, the Eastern empires like Byzantium and Russia are examples of church, state, and commerce being under the power of the government, though certainly not as complete or absolute as the case with the pharaohs and Sumerian city-states. The Japanese Empire, and most of its history, does seem to correlate more with a Sumerian-pharaonic system, as the emperor was also deemed the spiritual leader of the people. All empires, no matter how much power the emperor has, puts responsibilities upon its lesser governors and provincial leaders, so that has no bearing on the meaning. The healthiest empires naturally creates a balance between the crown and the autonomy of the regional authority, otherwise the Ottoman Empire, with its many diverse cultures, would have collapsed long before it had.

If America is to be deemed an empire, then it would be more like the Athenian or British empires, as neither was an imperium. The Athenians Empire evolved from the Delian League, which was very much like the modern League of Nations or United Nations. So it would not be too far a stretch to see America’s power increase substantially by way of the UN today, as it does finance most of its funding as Athens did with the Delian League.

Oh, and please leave the “use of the word American” to that other Wiki debate raging out of control. I have already asserted that America is the proper name of a country, as per the Articles of Confederation, in addition to it being the name of two continents. “American Empire” is completely valid, especially since all of Latin America would most likely be conquered first if it did become a true imperium, for military and strategic reasons. Jcchat66 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this argument. I think I am simply burned out by it. Every few weeks someone comes along, usually an American, but sometimes not, and says, America isn't an empire, so therefore this article doesn't have merit, etc. They all play the definition game, or variations on it. Most, like the users above, never seem to read past the introduction, or selectively ignore sections, where three conflicting points are made:

1. America is an empire, yes.
2. America was once an empire.
3. America never was an empire.

All bases are covered. Since there are several historians (2 dozen plus) listed explaining all of their viewpoints, defending each of the three viewpoints above, this page is very well sourced, So why does this subject keep coming up!.

Maybe it is just best for me to ignore these arguments on the talk page as a natural consequence of having this page on wikipedia. I tend to overreact. Signed:Travb (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is saying "American isn't an empire so therefore this article shouldn't exist" - But they are saying that they personally, and several of the historians have disagreed with it. It seems so be a significant number of people who aren't in any level of agreement here. This article NEEDS to be flagged as a disputed topic ASAP. What does it tell you if every few weeks/days someone comes here and raises these points - there is clearly a high level of disagreement over the fundamental concepts of this article. I find it to be of a highly dubious nature to suggest that the US constitutes anything more than a sovereign nation as any control it has over other soveriegn states is purely economic or political. Imposing a level political infulence over a sovereign nation doesn't constitute an empire. There are serious fundamental misunderstandings here as to what actually is 'an empire'. This article currently lacks any positive encyclopedic qualities, and on an encylopedic level is misleading and therefore of use to NO ONE. As I raised earlier the map is an absolute farce for one thing, it suggests that Africa was in someway part of a giant US empire. It suggests that all of the nations shown are in some singular alliance and that they are all diplomatically active with each other when this is not the case. I'm absolutely stunned this article has made it this far without being flagged. - Ogricken

Sigh. What does it tell you if every few weeks/days someone comes here and raises these points - there is clearly a high level of disagreement over the fundamental concepts of this article.

As the quote says on the page: "...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." I think that answers your question clearly. If you want a more clearer answer, I will be happy to give you one.

Or this:

"Americans are enamored with our own goodness. We like to think of ourselves as peace-loving, law-abiding, virtuous—a model to the world. "America has not started a war in this century," Newsweek proudly declared at the end of the last century, summarizing 100 years of warfare and encapsulating our belief in our purity" History News Network: Has the U.S. Ever Started a War?

What does it tell you if every few weeks/days someone comes here and raises these points - there is clearly a high level of disagreement over the fundamental concepts of this article. All the disagreements are covered in the article. Just because you don't like some of the articles conclusions, doesn't mean that this article has "use to NO ONE". In fact, you ignore that there are three, distinct arguments in this article, including your own--that empire never existed--(which Miller says most historians disagree with). The problem is not the balance of the article, because there are clearly three point of view here, it is not the encyclopedic nature of the article, because this is one of the most well referenced articles on wikipedia, the problem is that (it appears) you want only one argument presented: your own. That America is a "beacon on the hill" And you appear intolerant of other's views. You are probably one of those people who are "enamored with (the US's) own goodness", and who accepts Newsweeks statment: "America has not started a war in this century," , which is preposterous.

When a person makes absolute statments such as yourself, their ideology is usually showing. I have seen the same tone on religious sites where some wikipedian dares to question their religion.

If you do not like the maps, please change them. If you do not like the text of any of the three views, including your own, change them with verifiable sources. But please do not attack an article that dozens of wikipedians have spent hundreds of hours on, simply because you disagree with two of the three arguments presented evenly here. Travb (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well I have deleted the maps as they are excess to the requirements of this article and convey the wrong concept that an American Empire is a factual detail not a controversial opinion. Please see the talk detailed above regarding this. If anyone has a problem please talk about it first rather than rushing to re-instate them. I also wanted to say to whoever made the drawings they were well drawn, but simply do not help the article in their present form and that re-drawing them simply won't benefit the article in my opinion. Furthermore I have flagged the entire article as POV: Because - Multiple and Contradicting arguements contained there in. - Ogricken

User:80.176.155.90/Ogricken, thanks for your continued contributions to this article.

I personally liked the maps, but I can understand why they could confuse others. Maybe a better explanation of what the maps are? I have no problem keeping the maps out if there is a consesus that they should remain off.

Can you explain the "Multiple and Contradicting arguements contained" in the article? An article is flagged for POV usually because it has only one argument, here we have three different distinct arguments, well argued.

Again, thanks for your time. Travb (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a total re-wording of the opening paragraph to clearly identify the views held there in. I've flagged it as POV for the reasons above but to save you some scroll bar action it was because the article is full of weasel words, improperly identified opinion and is (I hate to say it) over citated in an attempt to add credibility to it. With some contributors using their citations as solid fact... Just because Noam Chomsky said it doesn't make it a fact and although I have no problem with such sources being cited, they need to be given in context as opinions not a factual basis for the confirmation of an American Empire. Note how the Oxford English language dictionary is cited...twice!? The article generally smacks of people (usually Americans) editing it in small chunks which has made it bity and uncohesive. I can honestly say, I dont think this article would be of any use, absolutely none at all, to anyone researching modern America, the concept of an American Empire or any of the concepts discussed in its present form.

I'm sorry some people feel i'm being harsh as many 'wikipedians have contributed hundres of hours to this article' but there efforts aren't good enough. In a perfect world I'd have it deleted simply because its in such a sorry state but none the less rather than whine I shall persevere with it to make it a better article worthy of being read by an educated individual. Rather than wasting well needed space on a server. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.155.90 (talk • contribs)

I look forward to your edits 80.176.155.90. Thank you for your concern. I hope that we can build this article into a great encyclopedia article. Travb (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Empire is of course, dishonorable.

Empire means others are subjegated. Subjegation, of course, does not have to be by force. And subjegation means some kind of slavery. I would say when political units, as opposed to individuals, are subjegated, that is empire.

Trghula 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

To say that "empire" is dishonorable is too rigid. Though slavery is certainly dishonorable in that it convinces a person that they are unfree to act on their own, that is not the same as subjugation. Empires can form in many ways, most notably as a response to hostilities initiated by others. It is not always greed or the desire for more land and slaves, but the desire for peace that drove many of the more advanced empires. Once a nation conquers another out of necessity, however, it is like a bear tasting human flesh for the first time. Power is craved thereafter. The act of defending a nation by routing the source of the warmongers entirely results in power. And power corrupts.

Honor is simply honesty, or in its simpliest form, a state of not lying. This, of course, is corrupted by many cultures. But honor is nothing more than telling the truth ... always. What does that have to do with empires? Jcchat66 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned defintions

The defintion of empire for some reason was placed in the references section:

1. 1. "The domain ruled by an emperor or empress."
   2. "A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority."
   3. "Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control."

I am not sure were someone would like to move these. Travb (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the 'pending deletion' folder on the server? Or failing that the far side of the moon would do. Ogricken.

Yes I think the above captures the extension of 'Empire'. The confusion comes with an equivocation on the extension of 'Empire' and that of 'imperialist state (possibly including client states )'. Clearly the latter can be both a republic and an empire as for example Rome was before the principate or before Caesar for that matter. Lycurgus 18:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill 'little Eichmanns' reference

This section on Ward Churchill is irrelevant to defining the "Empire is at the heart of US foreign policy" school of thought. This is not an article on Ward Churchill or on reactions to the 9/11 attacks. I'm removing the reference. 134.153.182.143 15:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"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."

It seems a valid citation - Churchill is not be critiqued, he is being quoted, showing a point of view that exists regarding the American Empire. I don't think that just being quoted makes the article about anyone...and the relevant part of the quote is "at the very heart of the US' global financial empire"...perhaps we can address your concerns without removing the quote entirely? --JereKrischel 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote

I removed the "Quote" section from the article, but it was restored. That quote isn't even a famous quote by any notable person... it's just a line from a magazine editorial. Surely it must be possible for the idea behind the quote to be expressed by prose elsewhere in the text rather than copied verbatim in its own section. Coffee 23:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:TheCoffee thanks for your work on this article, and pointing this out. For example, in articles such as Colombian Armed Conflict, with ten quotes, there are so many quotes that the quotes deserve their own section. I usually add a quotes section hoping that other people, over time, will add more quotes, even quotes which are contrary to my own POV. Since this quote has been orphaned and alone at the very bottom of the article for so long (months and months), I moved it up to the relevant section, when you intuitively point this problem out.

In your studies, if you find relevant quotes which can be included in this article, please don't hestiate to add them. Maybe someday we can restore the quotes section, but for now, I agree with you that there is no point in this one quote having its own section. I look forward to your future edits and continued hard work. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

New edit

Their book builds on neomarxist, postcolonial, and postmodern ideas and globalization theories, rooting itself in the work of Foucault, Deleuze, and Italian autonomist marxists.

Their work draws on the theories of Spinoza, Foucault, Deleuze, and Italian autonomist marxists.

I don't know what this sentence was talking about in the first place, so I don't know if the edit is factually correct or incorrect. I will contact User:DKalkin who probably wrote this sentence. Travb (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See above [1] --BobFromBrockley 17:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Also slightly modified to leave mention of postcolonialism, etc, as suggested by DKalkin. --BobFromBrockley 17:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kewl. Have a good day. Travb (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From the page

It contains multiple and contradicting arguments

The {{POV-because}} was deleted, so I moved all the info here. Travb (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Planned changes

I have a new organizational plan. I'm going to move Hardt and Negri to the "heart of U.S. policy" section, in a new subsection entitled "theories of empire." 2 reasons. First, I have a source for a new subclassification - a talk by Ashley Smith, a left-wing journalist, for which audio should soon be available online. He divides theories of the U.S. as an empire into 5 general versions: liberal 'it's the neo-cons', social-democrat or right-isolationist 'military-industrial complex', traditonal Leninist 'universal effect of monopoly capitalism', Hardt & Negri-ite, and U.S.-centric 'super-imperialism'. I think that would be useful to include, though at only slightly more length. Second, I recently learned that Hardt himself has written that the Iraq War shows we are not yet out of the age of 'imperialism' and into the age of 'Empire', but only beginning the transition. I'll do this when the talk shows up online and I have more time. But first, any comments? Kalkin 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful Kalkin, nice to see you back on this page. I have to see the work in progress to comment, but you have worked hard on this article, and I am sure it will look great.

Second, I recently learned that Hardt himself has written that the Iraq War shows we are not yet out of the age of 'imperialism' and into the age of 'Empire', but only beginning the transition.

Interesting, I didn't know their was such a fine distiction. Travb (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a really ambitious page and one that you should be commended for. One important note, however: have you considered differentiating between "empire" and "imperialism" in the standard (e.g., not H&N) sense? These are, in my view, two separate categories. The first refers to a form of political organization, the second to an ideology and/or policy of expansion through some combination of subordination of previously independent polities and colonization. Regardless, a good essay on the subject of American Empire that you might want to look at is Alex Motyl's "Empire Falls"--DN 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That distinction is alluded to in the article, in the section on the definition of empire. As that section should make clear, this is really an article on U.S. imperialism, but since "empire" is slightly less loaded, "American Empire" parallels the titles of articles on earlier empires, and very few people keep strictly to the distinction between an imperialistic state and an empire anyway, the article goes with "empire" where possible.

I've seen that Foreign Affairs essay before and I'm not a fan. Motyl is disingenuous about how power can be exercized to the extent that I have a hard time believing even he takes his argument seriously. Take the following, one of the only criticisms he makes of the traditional military-economic imperialism thesis (which he tends to unfairly conflate with the "cultural imperialism" thesis):

U.S. military bases dot the world and may facilitate Washington's bullying, but they would be indicative of empire only if they were imposed and maintained without the consent of local governments.

Please. Isn't the point of the power to bully that it allows one to obtain expressed consent? If the local governments did not consent, that would be a state of war, not an empire. More generally, the fact that control is maintained through proxies is a sign of strength of an empire, not evidence against its existence (if of course control is really maintained). The Roman empire did so, usually; the British empire did so, in the early part of the 19th century when it was effectively unchallenged in global supremacy. Proxy rule is cheaper. Direct rule is historically usually a last resort to prevent losing control to locals or another empire, occuring most commonly in periods of competition like the Scramble for Africa. You can see the dynamic today in Iraq, where the Bush administration wanted to install a friendly government and leave only a few permanent military bases, but has been forced by the insurgency to maintain an indefinite full military occupation.

Well, anyway. Off to work on the article... ;) Kalkin 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My problem with your answer, which isn't necessarily impossible to defend, is that you claim to be surveying different positions on US empire, yet your schools of thought do not cover important existing alternatives. Motyls argues (see the Empire page) that the US has engaged in imperialism, but still rejects some of the claims about American Empire you discuss (basing policy, etc.) on clear analytic grounds. You may not agree with Motyl, but that does not mean he's being "disingenuous" (for the record, he's not being disingenuous; this is the position he comes to after a great deal of thought on the matter). Specifically, you arguably conflate indirect/direct rule with indirect/direct influence. Motyl's position is that none of the examples commonly used to describe American empire fall under the category of indirect rule at all; he elaborates the position in his Comparative Politics review of Ferguson and Hardt and Negri. For the record, I disagree with him (and say so in a forthcoming article-length treatment of the question of American Empire), but the issue hinges on what threshold we use to describe a relationship as one of rule not, to repeat myself, on the indirect/direct distinction -- --DN 22:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done

Done. Unfortunately, the Smith talk is still not online, but I have my notes. Kalkin 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there not be a link to some related article

Following through the same objective LOGIC of this and other related articles - should there not be a link to an article of the form 'white imperialism'? I believe that previous conflicts and present current day conflicts warrant an analysis that is very much in the spirit of observing the similarities of America's undue influence throughout the globe and how this is concommittant with wars whost outcomes determine racial survival (for example, the Vietnam war, and also the Iraqi war - both of which have/had strong racial elements to them that determine the capabilities of respective peoples in regards to survival). Read the book "Towards land,work & power" NukeMason 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

File:2006 Nickel Proof Obv.png

WP: Be Bold If I had a nickel for everytime a wikipedian asked someone else to add information to a wikipage, I would be rich..

Signed: Travb (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Um yeah. The existing redirect at white imperialism pretty much sums up what I think of your suggestion. heqs 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't know why there's a "neutrality disputed" tag at the top of this page, but I would just like to record that I thought the page was fascinating, well informed, well written, and extremely balanced, representing the opposing sides of what is obviously a difficult and complex debate in what seemed to be a very even-handed way. No doubt some people will feel that some bits can be improved, but it would be very hard to see a political bias towards either liberal or conservative views here, I would have thought. So I would remove that tag. Just the view of a passer-by, who has nothing to contribute himself! --Doric Loon 21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been up a while and no one's argued, I'm going to remove the tag. Kalkin 14:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Decline

How about a section on the decline of the american empire as described by Gore Vidal and Morris Berman, among others? — goethean ॐ 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) User:Travb/If I had a nickel

Snide remarks aside, WP:BB. Knock yourself out. I look forward to your edits! Best wishes. Signed: Travb (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How might America not be an Empire

FOr advocates of american empire I am curious what the defining properties of american empire are and what properties would be need to be taken away for america not to be an empire. Mrdthree 16:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For example how many of the items below would wipe the slate clean? (A) have all overseas U.S. territories vote for independence or statehood; (B) not give money to foreign governments; (C) Not own military bases overseas; (D) Not own nuclear weapons; (E) Not try to negotiate 'free trade' treaties with other countries; (F) Cease broadcasts such as the voice of america or other propaganda aimed at influencing foreign governments; (G) apologize for past act of imperialism; (H) Establish Tribunal to determine damages from past acts of imperialism and establish equivalent benefits or reparations; (I) Substantial reductions in military spending. Mrdthree 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate subject for the article talk page, unless you're proposing some kind of change, but I'll reply on your talk page. I'd ask anyone else interested to do the same, rather than getting into a political debate here.Kalkin 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was curious if the arguments for imperialism were 'invertible' or 'fuzzy'. I mean does 'imperialism' truly have necessary properties such that if they were removed then imperialism is removed or is it a family resemblence concept-- what is the nature of the boundary between being imperial and not. Im not sure what the article impact is since I got one vote for ACGI with a qualified B,E. From your perspective it might be curious to find the properties that make a country imperialistic.Mrdthree 01:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Again, please take this there. Kalkin 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Map

a world map of the countries which USA has occupied/protected via its military would explain better. past and present examples like Vietnam and Iraq etc. Idleguy 12:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed some wording -- in a minor sense. I took out "(see: Commies)" after the phrase "New Left" in one of the earlier sections of the Article. It's a biased observation of the ideology of the New Left and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia entry.

Fil-Am War

While this maybe a page about American Imperialism in general, I think it would do good to include references on the American Imperial adventure in the Philippines.

Mexican-American War

Since Russian territorial aquistions in Central Asia (for example) are considered imperialist, I suggest we should apply same logic to Mexican-American War to avoid double standarts. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Map update

I have updated the map - it was based on a map by Clevelander that didn't take into account the very difficult relationship between France and NATO (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO )

I believe that the honest coloring of the map would reflect this with a medium blue for France, especially since Sweden and ROI are shown in an extra light blue.

Deipnosopher 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this update is incorrect though. I think France SHOULD be included as full time NATO ally.

1st, because it only quit the NATO military command but officially stayed in NATO as a political entity (and we are talking about politics, not military here)

2nd, because it only did so in 1967, and before that it was a full-time ally.

Sweeden and ROI are shown in extra light blue because they were not allies per se, but they were part of American-led Marshal Plan/OEEC/OECD organization.

I reverted the map and put France back in NATO for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kami888 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

But this page is not about NATO membership. The NATO dispute simply outlines the issues regarding France. France's socialism always pulled it towards the Soviet bloc. France was a key US ally during the second world war, but with regards to the cold war, it cannot honestly be described as such! I maintain that the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anti-Communist-Block.png would be more accurate

Deipnosopher 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to change the map again, but given that it is disputed, I'm going to change the text underneath it. It looks highly official, and has the authoratitive statement "Map showing key US allies during the Cold War."

The fact is that the map is a subjective analysis by a Wikipedia user. Such a thing is highly controversial. There are states there that are certainly more blue than "gray", and vice versa. It puts in black and white (or gray and blue) things that are a lot more complicated.

I've changed the title to "User-submitted map indicating key US allies during the Cold War."

It would be better to have references to US government documents. Then the title could say "Map showing key US allies during the Cold War."

Deipnosopher 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've fixed it. "User" has no meaning in this context. If you believe the map is in violation of WP:OR (which it may well be, I have no idea), why not bring it to WP:IFD? That'd be the appropriate place to deal with it. Or the map's talk page. WilyD 16:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WilyD, the description of the image is misleading. It does not reflect official US policy, and that should be reflected in the description of the image. Prepending the word "unofficial" is not editorialising. Deipnosopher 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's simply not true. The word unofficial is there to lead the reader to a conclusion. The map doesn't pretend to reflect any official list, nor is there any implication that it's somehow official. The description without qualifiers is neutral. If you think the map is wrong, discuss it at the map's talk, or nominate it for deletion. WilyD 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The word 'unofficial' is precisely so that the reader is not led to the false conclusion that the map is academically sound. The map itself is unreferenced information. I am trying to find some way to express that fact. I don't want the map deleted; it is useful. But I would prefer that it was referenced academic information. I will add a citation needed tag, although I suspect you will also find that unacceptable. Deipnosopher 12:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Academically sound things are unofficial all the time (and conversly, official things are often academically unsound). If you have a content dispute with the map, you should really take it up on the map's talk page. Stuff tagged with "citation needed" usually gets deleted after a bit ... I'm kind of lost on what you're trying to do, so I'm not sure how you'll feel about that. WilyD 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed! It should be one or the other though - academically sound or official, despite the failings of each. Surely the research could be done. Or perhaps if it's too hard for the State Dept. to come up with such a map, it's too hard for Wikipedia too

Sure, the map is controversial, and so is more than half of material here on Wikipedia. That's no reason to put "citation needed" there though, if you feel like the map is incorrect, you are free to explain your point of view here and correct it. Of course there is no official list of all US allies besides official political blocs like NATO, SEATO, and CENTO, but including only the members of those blocs on the map would not be sufficient for the topic this map strives to illustrate. I made this map similar to the map in "Soviet Empire" article, and originally I described it as "Map showing key US allies during the Cold War in blue and other states US believed to be friendly in light blue", which, I believe, was more accurate than just "Map showing key US allies" because it reflected the fact that many of those light-blue countries were not officially allied to United States or not allied at all. I ask that "citation needed" thing be removed, and caption changed to reflect the purpose of the map more broadly than just "key US allies". -- Kami888

Regarding the issue of France... Yes, France did have certain Socialist elements, one could say, French Communist Party was rather strong, and France was one of the few NATO countries which maintained relatively normal relations with USSR. Yet France WAS, despite all this, a key American ally in Europe during the entire Cold War, even when the American troops were forced to withdraw. My intention was to reserve the dark blue color for official US allies (which France was), and lighter blue to unofficial US allies (which France wasn't). Therefore, I believe France should stay as dark blue. But I am not categorical in this - if you really feel like there is a need to reflect the Franco-American relations better than they currently are reflected, feel free to make necessary modifications and perhaps change the meaning that "dark blue" color stands for. On a related note, I'd appreciate if someone added a small legent to the map itself, explaining the colors. --Kami888

mistaken edit

I made a mistake in editing, trying to redirect American_empire to American_Empire Those two pages seem to be different. Why is that? 80.229.242.179 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

I excised the whole legacy section, as I tried to edit out the original research and blatently false facts and was left with essentially Cuba has a represive government and no clear idea of how that's connected to American Imperialism there. WilyD 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-americanism?

It just seems that this and other pages are intentionally biased against America. Nuetrality tags should definatly be added.

• This isn't a problem on this page, it's actually quite good. If you have a problem with some specific issue, you should identify this issue and discuss it with other editors, or fix it yourself. WilyD 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• This page is an interesting read and is well written, however it does seem to lean slightly Anti-American. There definitely seems to be more Marxist/Socialist/Leftists historians quoted, especially in the section that argues that the US is an empire. I believe this is just because for the most part, only these leftists historians believe the US to be an empire. The other sections seem relatively neutral. Cbambrick 19:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

New picture

I added a new picture that shows American military intervention since 1950s as well as U.S. itself, I hope it helps. User:Daniel_Chiswick 16 April, 2007

I don't quite get the picture. What counts as an intervention? Chile is highlighted clearly because of funding rebel groups. Yet, Cuba is not when the US was also funding groups there (Bay of Pigs). Why aren't Taiwan (heavy US involvement in the 1950's) and former Soviet Georgia (US involvement in 2001-2002) and Kuwait (Gulf War I) highlighted? Not to mention the coup of '53 and the failed US rescue of hostages in Iran, Albania in the 50's, Greece in the 60's the 70's, Zaire in the 60's, Germany in the 60's and a bunch of other places.Hoshidoshi 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mexican-American War

The Mexican-American War should be mentioned somewhere as this is the first time where America begins to expand (militarily at least). Zachorious 16:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion Polls

I removed the sentence on opinion polls from Iraq, see http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf, for several APOLITICAL reasons. Firstly, the wording was unprofessional. Secondly, the author incorrectly cited the polls and changed the wording to reflect--what I am assuming--was his own inclination. While the polls are valuable, there are too many variables at stake in them--not to mention the caveats and qualifiers that he left out. The author translated a poll saying 87% "Would support the Iraqi government in setting a timeline for the exit of US-led troops?" to "87% of Iraqis want the US to leave." Further, this is support for domestic legislation that can be (mis)construed in any way, not necessarily dealing directly or usefully with American Empire. I'm not trying to argue either way, but the polls can be misleading in both directions and need to be used delicately. For instance, this particular data seems negative. Yet in the same poll, 77% of Iraqis see the occupation and current violence as "worth it" to oust Hussein and 64% see Iraq going in the right direction. Thus, it could be argued, there is some support for intervention. Other polls show widely varying statistics. Thus, with so many different variables and structures playing into these (and other related) polls, I don't think they contribute to this article and should be placed elsewhere.

Quotes

The quotes section seems a little ridiculous. Much of it seems like anti-American masturbation. I'd suggest limiting it to 4 or 5 meaningful quotes on the topic.. if not delete the section entirely. Seriously, what does a quotes section possibly add to the quality of a wikipedia article? --unsigned

I again moved all of the quotes to wikiquote.[2]

see: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/American_Imperialism

After being accused of "vandalism" for doing the same thing and explaning it last week. I support the quotes, and think almost all of them are relevant (except the Bush quotes), but they better belong on wikiquote then here. 68.89.128.160 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading

The statement "As of 2006 the U.S. maintains over 702 bases in 135 of the 195 sovereign independent nations of the world." is extremely misleading. It is the synthesis of two unrelated facts: the USA has 702 overseas military bases, and the USA has active-duty military personnel in 135 different countries. This does NOT mean the USA has military bases in 135 different countries!!! NEARLY EVERY US EMBASSY HAS ACTIVE DUTY MILTARY PERSONNEL. The presence of a US embassy in a country does not constitute the presence of a military base, neither does it provide evidence of an American Empire!!!--71.206.185.209 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the quoted source for this statement, and traced the numbers to the "Department of Defense Base Structure Report Fiscal Year 2003 Baseline". In fact, the 702 military bases listed in this report are found entirely and exclusively in the following countries:

1. Antartica
2. Antigua and Barbuda
3. Australia
4. Austria
5. Bahama Islands
6. Bahrain
7. Belgium
8. British Indian Ocean Terr
9. Canada
10. Colombia
11. Cuba
12. Denmark
13. Egypt
14. France
15. Germany
16. Greece
17. Greenland
18. Honduras
19. Hong Kong
20. Italy
21. Japan
22. Kwajalein Atoll
23. Luxembourg
24. Netherlands
25. Norway
26. Oman
27. Peru
28. Portugal
29. Saint Helena
30. Singapore
31. South Korea
32. Spain
33. Turkey
34. United Arab Emirates
35. United Kingdom
36. Venezuela

The active-duty military personnel located in the "135" countries claimed by one of the contributors to this article are obviously not all located on US military bases, but are either staff of US embassies around the globe or participants in military exchange programs (even during the Cold War it was common for the US and the USSR to exchange military officers for the purpose of preventing World War III).--71.206.185.209 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Antarctica?! Are you SURE?! I'm going to look this up myself because I am pretty certain there's a treaty that America is party to where Antarctica is not to be used for military purposes... John 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A copy of the DoD report can be found here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/basestructure2003.pdf

The Antarctica facility appears to be tiny and quite likely it's use and infrastructure comply with the treaty which allows some military presence in narrowly defined roles.Zebulin 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

American military intervention since 1950.

The map lists no sources, failing W:V. There are numerous error, the US has not intervened in for example Indonesia, Thailand, Angola or Tchad. On the other hand, the US has intervened in Cuba, Iran, and Congo. More importantly, all such personal attempts to list interventions, using some personal definition of this, are Original Research.Ultramarine 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be necessary to create a new map as I've having tremendous trouble locating maps of US intervention that clearly state their sources and which have images suitable for upload to wikipedia. A better map concept might be a map that illustrates the distribution of US military bases in the world. Three examples with sources could be found here[3], here [4] and here [5] although the first one might be a better basis for a new map as it doesn't try to illustrate murkier concepts like troop presence in the absence of a base (which might merely reflect embassy staff). All three images appear to be freely distributable but I don't think they are good upload material as is since they all have unencyclopedic captioning.

Unless explicitly stated somewhere, maps are copyrighted. It is not very difficult to create a new map if there is a reliable source. Just download one of the blank maps and paint it with the basic paint program that is included in every operating system. The DoD should have a recent list somewhere which could be used.Ultramarine 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The DoD appears to have only one "Worldwide List of Military Installations" [6] and nothing else that comes close to the same information. Unfortunately the link to the pdf of that list is non functional. An older version (for information up to October of 2002) of the list was found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/basestructure2003.pdf as "DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BASE STRUCTURE REPORT (A Summary of DoD's Real Property Inventory)" for fiscal year 2003 but it's just old enough that it shows no US facilities in Iraq whatsoever. For that reason I suspect that the report may be too old for a map intended for this article as I imagine many readers will take note of the absence of iraq on the map as evidence of it's invalidity. Hopefully someone can find and post here a more recent source for a list of US bases.

Roy's list

From the article: "The following list appears to show increased military activity by the U.S. since the end of the Cold War. Published by current affairs writer and novelist Arundhati Roy as an opinion piece in the Manchester Guardian (10/23/01), she writes, "Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and bombed - since the second world war:" China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Vietnam (1961-73), the Belgian Congo (1964), Laos (1964-73), Peru (1965), Cambodia (1969-70), Nicaragua (the 1980s), El Salvador (the 1980s), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99, 2003-07), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001-07). From this, one can calculate (however, Roy did not) that the years 1947-49, 1955-57, 1974-79, 1990 and 2000 were the only peaceful ones. 73% of the years, from World War II's end until 1989, the U.S. was militarily intervening somewhere. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 (not counting conflicts like Colombia where governing elites request help against rebellious subpopulations) the U.S. was actively militarily intervening in a foreign country at least 88% of the years into 2007. (However, many of these claimed wars with bombings, like the claimed war with China in 1945-46 or the claimed war with Indonesia in 1958, are not found in the Congressional Research Service report "Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2004." Note, removing China and Indonesia from her list only increases the disparity in U.S. military interventions before and after the Cold War. However, such variations from officially published U.S. government information may cast doubts on her claims, for those so inclined, especially since she lists no sources.)

From Roy's list, it could be argued, by those so inclined, (however, Roy did not) that 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, 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. Maybe 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. (However, it can be argued, again by those so inclined, that this is a dubious theory, since wars such as the Korean and Vietnam wars were enormously expensive and studies of the resource curse show that having natural resources is harmful for economic growth, until one remembers the "Domino Theory" used to justify so much U.S. military intervention at that time. However, that is an ideologic theory which does not fit well with supposed wars for natural resoruces. Also such does theory does not expalin why not relatively weak but wealthy nations with abundant natural resources ,such as Canada and Autralia, has not been invaded in order to plunder them. Also, some research shows, to the contrary, that the fall of U.S.S.R. was accompanied by a decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons.)"

First, much of this massively violates Wikipedia:No original research. Second, an unsourced opinion piece by a novelist is at best a doubtful source. Third, if including such argumentation, both sides should be included, as per above. If you argue that there is further argumentation, then that should be added, instead of simply deleting opposing views.Ultramarine 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

This map should be removed immediatly. Never have these countrys ever wanted to be in a "American Empire". This is article is totally an american made article, and its extremly biased

Countries Hosting US Military bases in October 2002

This map? What does your comment "Never have these countrys ever wanted to be in a "American Empire". got to do with that map? The map has a caption that clearly shows it is just illustrating the distribution of US bases.Zebulin 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

However, it is somewhat misleading. Perhaps one could be drawn with just the bases represented, not entire countries. For instance one might think all of Australia is a US military base. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have such a map but of course I'm not sure if it would be orignal research to create such a map from the source document since it doesn't seem to specify the precise locations of the individual bases.Zebulin 05:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes this map makes these countries look as if they are under military ocupation (except for maybe Japan, germany, and south Korea, and are all part of an Empire ruled by america.

Don't you think the caption should say "countries under military occupation by the United states" if it were to convey that impression? Do you think *every* map we might include in this article will somehow look like everything displayed must be ruled by the USA? Do you think people form opinions on maps without reading the captions? Also do you think this article is describing a theory of some sort of glorious US globe spanning empire?Zebulin 05:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In any case I think the problem you are having may not be the map but rather the entire article. The entire article seems to be making the leap that such bilateral relationships as agreements allowing the presence of a base somehow constitute an 'empire'. If you find that an innocent map of which countries host one or more US bases seems to be suggesting such bases somehow constitute rulership of those countries, I daresay it is the article rather than the map which is responsible for suggesting such an absurd conclusion.Zebulin 06:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Then remove it then. The map is insulting to all those countrys.

What is insulting about the map? such a map could be made for any given country. It's not like the map mentions or even hints at 'empire' anywhere.Zebulin 03:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Its just another biased picture to made by an American to show how our country is greater that everyone else. The US intervention map is a whole lot better.

I prepared the map myself from the given source! It actually saddens me to see how many bases the US maintains so your assumptions about the map are grossly unfounded. Nonetheless, I do want to see the intervention map returned to the article but I need help sourcing it. So far I have started from the documentary "Why we fight" which the preparer of that map has said he consulted as it's source. I think if I can find either an alternative source or an online transcript of the documentary somewhere we can put the intervention map back in with it's sources cited and even use it as the main picture. I'm also hoping to find location information on US bases detailed enough (working from nearest city listed in source currently) so that the map of US base distribution can display according to individual base locations rather than just by countries hosting bases.Zebulin 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the map is not that it's lying. Those a countries with US military bases. The thing is, the map is right at the top of a page named "American Empire", it's one of the first thing you see in this article and when I saw it the first thing I thought was "Would Norway be a part of the American Empire, if it's considered one?!". Of course, after a closer inspection I saw that this was not the case, Norway only had American military bases. But having it at the top of the page, gives, when only giving it a quick look, the impression that all those countries are part of an "American Empire". My suggestion is to move the map down to the part of the article about military bases. 81.225.4.84 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Point?

What exactly is the point of this article? It reads like a historical thesis, not an encyclopedia article. Also, the title is misleading, this isn't about the United States actual empire, more to discussing the philosophy behind the term "American Empire". Wouldn't this be properly titled "American Imperialism"? - MichiganCharms 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that 'American Imperialism' would be a more accurate title given the content of the article. Is there any reason not to change the name at once?Zebulin 04:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

====

I was just wondering if it would be at all possible to get an updated map of locations of American military bases around the world. It should now include both Afghanistan and Iraq, where new bases have been established in the past 5 years or so. Just wondering if someone could look into this. -- Jessmasta [2:20PM, June 18, 2007]

This is absolutely asinine

Why are people making articles on things that do not exist? There is no "American Empire." You can argue that it is a certain type of philosophy, and thus, like say existentialism or nihilism, it exists as an abstract thing or concept, but in truth it is simply one big POV. This seems to me to be the biggest breach of Wikipedia's stance against POV (as it is an entire article) and yet the most ignored. The USA is not an "empire," no matter how many people have to stretch and reinterpret the term to make it fit. It is not an empire in practice nor in concept. John 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is biased towards America. Its just a way patriotic Americans say how they live in the greatest country, and it is above all others.

• • • Um... no? You missed my point entirely though it soudns like you did it on purpose because of your own biases...John 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

yes the article sucks and has no justification for existing. No it's not even remotely biased towards the US. Either someone who believes that hasn't read the article or is trolling. Just check out the sources. Do the sources that try to paint the US as some sort of empire seem even remotely pro-US to you? Do the sources that *deny* the US is any sort of empire seem remotely anti-US to you? The premise of the article is about as anti-US as they come. Unless of course you think modern imperialism would be a wonderful wholesome thing.Zebulin 06:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

An article called "American Empire" should relate to the only time America actually held an empire... unless someone rewrites this whole article it should be deleted as it is POV. Would make a nice dissertation but it's not encyclopedic. - MichiganCharms 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)