Talk:American imperialism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removal of Okinawa from list of colonies

I removed Okinawa from the list of former U.S. colonies recited in the article, because as far as I can discern no one ever intended Okinawa to become part of the national territory of the United States. That territory is occupied by a military of a particular country, does not itself cause the occupied territory to be a "colony;" rather, at least some intention to make the occupied territory a part of the occupying country (or at least an intention never to relinquish control of the occupied territory) should be present in order for the term "colony" to properly apply.

Thus even Gibraltar might be termed a colony, or even Holstein in Germany (a stretch perhaps) because these territories (which were formerly under the administration of a foreign sovereign) are now either under permanent occupation or integrated into the national territory of the occupier, but I've seen no evidence that the U.S. ever planned to make Okinawa a U.S. territory or possession (or even to occupy it forever). --Ryanaxp 22:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

misrepresenting

Your map is misrepresenting America, there are no social historians mentioned. The article is invalid, and you schools of thought are wrong. It seemed as though you only copied and pasted quotes from dfferent books without understanding actual historical concepts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.238.15.252 (talk • contribs). March 10, 2006

Iraq

Shouldn't the list of former colonies include Iraq?

Iraq was never officialy a colony. And besides it is not a former one ;-)

Turrican

Dispute of neutrality

I hereby dispute the neutrality of this article. While the author mentions that "America's military presence by itself is breathtaking and influential", I as an uninformed Reader would believe that the term is only used by some freightened people who do not want the US to bring Peace just because they prefer some undefinable form of diversity. Look how much the US has messed with the interior politcs of "Former" Colonies like Cuba or the Dominican Republic. There is a difference between calling a state independent and being independent - the current example is the recent "indepence" of Iraq.

I also believe that the millions of live lost because of american wars of agression and because they supported questionable regimes, for example in order to support the financial goals of US Companies ( United Fruit) should be mentioned in this article.

Turrican 22:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So, go ahead and do it. Remember: Wikipedia:Be Bold in Editing. --Ryanaxp 22:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Someone wrote: "Most of America's former colonies have since become independent countries, states of the American union, or self-governing commonwealths"

Ahem. While this is true, it is still false. Most of these (notably the Philippines) didnt get to be "independent countries" by the simple tutorship of America. Nonsense -- read up on the Phillipine-American war, Cuba.-戴&#30505sv

It never said "thanks to America most of these former colonies have since become..."

I as an uninformed Reader would believe that the term is only used by some freightened people who do not want the US to bring Peace just because they prefer some undefinable form of diversity. Sure, sure, the USA is the sheriff of the world, bringers of light and paladines of all that is just and good. Who wouldnt want them to bring peace and salvation to your country? LtDoc 17:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of paragraph?

What exactly does this passage mean:

"Often by exporting America's self popularized political system to a conquered territory with false promises of self-government, only in exchange for America's military occupation and total control of its natural resources. Such can be seen where America's post Cold War military involvements are primarily focused on mineral rich regions of the world."

I think I understand the gist, but its wording is a little confusing. user:J.J.

The "gist" of it is "America is evil." So much for a NPOV. This article is a masturbatory fantasy of the American extreme Left and for America-haters (or maybe not 'hate' as much as envy) around the globe. The article's very title betrays a horribly slanted POV. It is a political pamphlet pretending to be an unbiased source. Much like the American and European media. The real debate is whether it deserves a massive re-write or deletion. It's a disgrace. Nhprman 02:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Note please that the paragraph quoted above has not been in the article for some time. Do you believe that the present version fails NPOV? Can you be more specific? (The title was changed from "American Empire" to "American Empire (term)" to avoid precisely the criticism you make, if you look at the talk and history.) Do you believe that criticisms of America as imperialist should not be described on Wikipedia? Kalkin 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "term" does mollify me somewhat, and there are some good qualifiers here, but is Wikipedia the place for this? Well, maybe, if Wikipedia is a compendium of every political argument. Frankly, I think this kind of article turns Wikipedia into more of a "chat board," complete with flame wars (disguised as 'talk pages') than a true encyclopedia. Nhprman 04:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For major academic and political disputes? I think yes, Wikipedia is the (or a) place. Notice the number of citations for each point - and I've already removed most of the book title mentions in my recent reorganization, because they were crowding the article, and this is a sample only. I've generally never understood the preference many Wikipedians have for removing "unencyclopedic" and/or "obscure" material; it seems to me that since for something like Wikipedia there's very little cost to having extra articles, it should rather be used to expand the idea of an encyclopedia. But regardless, Wikipedia covers (1) historical facts, theories, and controversies, and (2) major political ideologies. The subject matter of this article falls into both categories. Kalkin 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Today, what many consider to be the "American Empire" does not fit historical definitions of imperialism and colonialism, but the United States influence takes on different and discrete forms.

Did you mean discreet as in secretive? Discrete also would make sense because of the modular, sequential nature of US intervention.

Further dispute of neutrality

I also dispute the neutrality of this article. Its thesis is that the United States is in actuality or effect, or acts like, an empire. It then proceeds to offer support for this argument. While I would not argue with most of the points made here, I don't think that this sort of polemics has a place in an encyclopedia.

Name, Split

If this article is to be about a political and rhetorical view of the United States and not about some actual entity (the United States territory outside of the 50 states), then the article title needs some kind of qualification. In that case, information from this article about American imperial territory should be removed to some other article. -Acjelen 18:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I would think this article should be about American imperialism and how they incorporated their empire directly into their main territories - Josquius

How that would be different from the article History of United States imperialism? --Kevin Myers 13:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Since the half of this article about actual extra-state territories is duplicating the article History of United States imperialism, that half should be merged there. The article will need a clear qualifier to its title and a good see reference at the top. -Acjelen 16:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This Is A Joke

This is totally politically charged, anti-American stuff as usual. In order to be imperialist, you would need an imperial family, or some sort of oligarchy to use that qualifier. From its inception, it has been a democracy. Not some kingdom with expansionist aims.

The United States of America is the only country in the history of the world to give back territory which it won in war, back to the people living there (i.e., Germany, Japan, Iraq, etc.)

This sucks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.22.195 (talk • contribs).

Are you kidding, plenty of countries have given back territories they conquered in wars. And besides, how does the fact that it's a democracy mean it could never have been expansionist?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Star (talk • contribs)

Also, saying that we cant qualify the US as imperialistic because it hasnt an imperial family just shows how ignorant of the subject the user is.LtDoc 22:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Imperialistic" and actually being an empire are two very different things. Where's our imperator? The United States is, and always has been, a republic. Senatus Populusque Americanus. GreatGatsby 05:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Being a republic does not automatically exclude a nation-state from being an empire. Great Britain adopted a form of democracy certainly in 1832, and depending on personal opinion its roots go as far back as the Magna Carta. However, this did not prevent them from conquering and holding the British Empire.

Your first point is a semantic difference; usually, having intentions toward empire will lead to becoming one, in name or not.

Also, for the top comment: It is a regular occurance for countries to return conquered territory, for a variety of reasons. For example, in the Franco-Prussian War the Prussian armies conquered most of northern France, but returned it in 1873 after reparations were made. The only territory they kept was Alcase-Lorraine. Tommyknockers 15:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you not get the reference I was making in the last part of my post? GreatGatsby 01:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no. Please enlighten me. Tommyknockers 12:33 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, indent when you respond to something. And my Latin phrase was in reference to the Roman Republic, whose full name was Senatus Populusque Romanus (The Senate and the People of Rome). GreatGatsby 02:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

An empire doesn't need a emperor though. Infact the Roman Republic and America would fit most of these definitions. [1] 12.220.47.145 20:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted and applied. However, while thanks are duly awarded from this novice of Wikipedia, I would appreciate it if you addressed the statement rather than the means of delivery. Tommyknockers 11:15 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the end of the Cold War, the proliferation of military bases in over 130 countries in the world, and the use of a standing army, every time the United States has meddled with it's military abroad it has done so solely in order to expand it's global sphere of influence and impose it's capitalist and political systems on other nations, and is therefore explicitly imperialist, and thus, and empire.

In relation to the comment that a government can not be expansionist and a democracy I would like to point out the obvious example of the annexation of Hawaii. Hawaii was a self governing island with it's own government a queen to be exact. She opposed United States control of the islands and sought to make her nation more self reliant by controlling the influence of foriegn merchants. When this happened pineapple planter Sanford Dole (Dole bananas ring a bell?) with the help of U.S. marines staged a coup and had the queen removed from power. Three years later the U.S. had a new territory if this isn't a example of imperialism by America for corporate interests I don't know what is. L337wm2007 19:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Merged

So I merged some material from this page to the article History of United States imperialism and removed other details that were duplicated there. I also reworded the see reference at the top. In these ways, this article will be more focused on its subject of "American Empire" as a rhetorical device. -Acjelen 03:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Serbia?

The argument that the U.S. only intervenes in "mineral rich" nations is unfounded...Yugoslavia 1999 anyone? The cost of the war in Iraq far exceeds whatever "oil profits" might be made.

The wording was 'primarily', not 'only'. A semantic but important difference. Tommyknockers 17:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

expansion and reorganization

I did a fair amount of expansion and reorganization, as of 1/18/06. My main goal was to remove the excessive reliance on Stuart Creighton Miller in the body of the article, and to fix some resulting NPOV problems (the previous version was fair to neither defenders nor opponents of American empire... biased towards the middle is not the same thing as balanced.) I ended up making a fair number of other, relatively minor, changes as well. Kalkin

I believe that it's useful to include a little history in this article, even if it's primarily an outline of modern political positions and the major history is elsewhere. Therefore I've left in the defense of the occupation of the Phillipines and put in an abbreviated list of American interventions (pre- and post- 1945) on the other side. I think this gives a better sense of what both sides rationales are, without being too redundant, since for details, links are relied on. I'm not sure, however, whether even this little might be too much.

Also, John Ikenberry really deserves a bio of his own... maybe I'll do that some other day.Kalkin

Keep up the good work. Missing from the "American imperialism is driven by capitalism" section are two godfathers of that interpretation, Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 07:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I should add that those guys are mentioned in the "Recent literature" section. That section and the main body of this article were originally in two different articles. Perhaps now the "recent literature" section should be removed, and the material integrated into the main body of the article. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea (actually, I'd accidentally started editing only the main section, and didn't notice that there was also the recent literature section until I was part-way through... otherwise I might have done that already). I'll do it tonight.Kalkin P.S. Also I made my promised Ikenberry article.

Kalkin 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Done.

Good job on the ongoing merger. I don't think Andrew Bacevich should be described as left-leaning, though. He's hard to classify, but he's more of a paleoconservative, isn't he? --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I assumed he was a lefty from the description of his argument, not being familiar with him, but the interview linked from his Wiki page makes it clear he considers himself conservative. Kalkin

Use of the word America

I'm confused as to why, throughout this article, the United States is referred to as simply "America"? As a Canadian, and familiar with the customs of many other people from the continents of the Americas, most people from this side of the world do not refer to the country of the United States of America as America. It would probably be more proper to just call them "the states" or "the U.S.".. but America is not universally accepted. Can we get this cleaned up a little bit? Andem 05:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A good point. I tried to watch for this when doing my earlier reorganization but I didn't change it everywhere. I see you've cleaned it up more - I approve. Kalkin

I think I've now removed every use of "America" as a noun - there's not a good alternative as an adjective. I may have missed some. Kalkin 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to sign my original post. Thanks, Kalkin. Andem 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

cultural imperialism

I moved a paragraph from the introduction to a new section on cultural imperialism. I outlined a little bit of that debate, mostly just enough to put in links to other articles. I also removed one clause entirely: They point out that the U.S. has not actually expanded overseas with new territories in over 100 years, This is simply false. Besides countless (officially) temporary occupations, the U.S. gained new territories in the South Pacific after World War Two, and if we're talking about actual annexation, I believe Alaska and Hawaii became states in the 20th century, though they were already territories. Kalkin 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Map

Could we a global map that shows all the land the US ever controlled?Cameron Nedland 16:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The "too many cooks spoil the broth" phenomina

My original contributions

Hi, I original added much of the information from the excellent book "Benevolent Assimulation" when the article was called History of United States imperialism, because of constant attacks and nominations for deletion, myself and others felt like the article should be renamed and split into three or four parts. User:Kevin Myers split and renamed the article.

Article is split and I lose track of the article

The problem was, when the article was split, I forgot to click the "watch this page" button for American Empire (term).

Today I stumbled on this site. I was refering to this article in regards to the word War crimes and came to this site, and I was shocked to see how much this entry has been effected by the "too many cooks spoil the broth" phenomina. But I am impressed by the new authors and new ideas added.

The biggest current problem with this article

Although most of the additions are top notch, such as:

• portions of the introduction,
• the maps and
• additional authors listed,

...the article still needs a lot of work.

The biggest problem I see with this article is there are no references. This is common throughout wikipedia. The words "some" should not appear in this article. "Some people say this" "Some people say that" Who? If a wikipedian cannot state who says such things, the sentence does not belong in the article.

Rewriting this article

I am rewriting portions of this article for clairity. I am impressed by the number of additions and wondeful ideas which have been added.Travb 18:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs which have been made invisibile, awating references

Certain sections have been made invisibile using <!-- -->, I was going to add the footnote, but this is really not an issue of citing your sources, because I am not arguing the facts, it is more of citing examples of who said this. Please state who advocates these views, and use quotations if possible.

If someone else knows of a better footnote/template other than which adresses this problem, please make these paragraphs visible and add this footnote.

Sections made invisible <!-- --> because of lact of source material:

Proponents of the idea that the United States is an empire point to the unrivaled superpower status of the United States since the end of the Cold War, arguably making the country a hyperpower. Some believe that the westward expansion of the United States in the 19th century was the beginning of an American empire, and that subsequent overseas expansion and foreign intervention (military and non-military) are part of a legacy of American imperialism.

Opponents of the terms generally believe that, while the United States flirted with the possibility of an American Empire at the time of the Spanish-American War, the United States has since rejected the role of empire, and to equate the superpower status of the United States with empire or imperialism is incorrect. Some believe that accusations of "American imperialism" are rooted in anti-Americanism, and take offense at the use of such terminology.

Cultural imperialism is not entirely independent from military imperialism. Some critics of American empire argue either that cultural imperialism consists of fundamentally the same exercise of power as more obviously coercive modes of imperialism, or simply that cultural imperialism is what provides intellectual cover for direct imperialism, through such racist ideas as that of The White Man's Burden.

Opponents of theories of cultural imperialism argue that it is the innocent result of consumers across the world desiring American goods and the "American lifestyle." A worldwide fascination with the United States (and Hollywood) has not been forced on anyone in ways similar to what is traditionally described as an empire, differentiating it from the actions of the British Empire and other more easily identified empires throughout history. These defenders of what is described as "cultural imperialism" may identify the desire to preserve the purity of one's culture as, in fact, fundamentally racist.

A closely related debate is that over globalization, which is described by many, defenders and critics equally, as the successor to traditional imperialism. These thinkers generally fall into the category of those who believe that imperialism is a past stage in American history.

Signed Travb 19:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sentences which I don't understand what the author is trying to say

I will contact the author

It is a logical consequence of the neorealist view that the primary motivation of nearly all states, namely self-interest in order to survive in an anarchic world, is fundamentally identical.^[2]

I'm the author of that sentence. I'll try to expand it and see if you understand and can maybe suggest better wording. Neorealists think that all states determine their foreign policy on roughly the same basis, namely by determining what is in their national interest - which is not always well defined, but seems to be economic, military, and generally material - and carrying that out without much consideration of ethics or other ideological considerations. This view is supported by the Hobbesian argument that the anarchic nature of international relations forces actors to be self-interested; ethics only works when you have an enforcer of some kind. One of its consequences is that distinctions between "empires" and "non-empires" don't have much theoretical import; any such differences are matters of quantity of power not quality. Kalkin 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, this is starting to feel less like a hobby/escape and more like my International Affairs class. I can pull this idea out of my textbook and post it here in a couple of days.Travb 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Certain sentences deleted

All of these sentences have a lot of weasel words in them and need to be rewritten and cited. No "some people" "Others", "many people"...etc...

one

The key point of agreement common to these thinkers is their critical view of the alleged imperialism in present American foreign policy. Some in the U.S. call this being "the world's policeman," while others refer to it as "imperialism".Travb 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The latter sentence is, I agree, weasely and not important. The former is a (fairly obvious) summary statement of fact about the views of the people who have just been discussed above, I think it should stay.Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Some in the U.S. call this being "the world's policeman," while others refer to it as "imperialism".

Please cite authors. "Some" is a weasel word.

I will add back and reword the first sentence.Travb 20:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Kalkin Excellent observation BTW. Nice job.Travb 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

two

These actions, it is alleged, make up a pattern of aggression too consistent to be ignored and too bloody to be accepted, and require a theory of imperialism (Leninist, isolationist, or otherwise) to explain them.Travb 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a sentence which draws the (rather obvious) inference from 'lots-o-interventions' to 'empire', to make clear its relevance to the article. I guess it may need citation.Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Kalkin I am honestly rather confused what you are trying to say. Can you clarify?Travb 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

three

It is much more popular outside of the United States than within it.Travb 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Weasely and sourceless, drop.Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

four

All three authors agree with those who deny a role for imperialism regarding the essential benevolence through history of American power, but differ on the proper semantics.Travb 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary sentence similar to the first. Clarifies why "benevolent empire" theorists and "no empire" theorists just discussed are in the same section. Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Even in context, I am not sure what you are trying to say. That is why I moved this sentence to talk. You seem incredibly intellegent, but need to polish your thoughts a little better for clarity. You remind me of User:Tyler Nash on Plausible deniability.

The original paragraph is here:

Some who hold an essentially identical view on American foreign policy are willing to call the United States an empire, but believe that it is a benevolent one; for example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Michael Ignatieff, and Niall Ferguson. Ferguson has drawn parallels between the British Empire and the imperial role of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, though he describes the United States' political and social structures as more like those of the Roman Empire than of the British. He argues that all these empires have had both positive and negative aspects, but that the positive aspects of the American empire will, if it learns from history and its mistakes, greatly outweigh its negative aspects. All these authors agree with those who deny a role for imperialism regarding the essential benevolence through history of American power, but differ on the proper semantics.

Can you explain what you mean, and maybe edit the idea for clarity when you edit it back into the article?Travb 21:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

five

Others may put the start and end of the period of American empire at different historical locations, but what they hold importantly in common is the view that the United States no longer exercises imperial power in any significant fashion.Travb 15:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Parallel summary sentence for the third category. I added each of these; the point is to define what makes a thinker fall into a section. Perhaps it could be done better - if you have a better idea please use it, but some definition is necessary. Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you rewrite this, clarifying what you wrote? I need to go pick up my son and do my homework. Thanks for your efforts.Travb 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

six

==The denial of exceptionalism== Some argue that the United States is exceptional neither in good nor in evil. These thinkers agree with leftists that a naive American exceptionalism misleads many into ignoring the United States' flaws, but argue that at the other end of the scale, overly self-critical Americans tend to exaggerate the nation’s flaws, failing to place them in historical or worldwide contexts, falling prey to an inverted American exceptionalism that sees only American problems. The United States is a nation-state much like any other, on this view. Travb 15:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe this remains from when the article was largely a paraphrase of Stuart Creighton Miller. It should be cited to him, probably.Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I added the Miller stuff. I don't know where this came from. The word "some" makes my skin crawl. This paragraph, whoever wrote it, needs to be reworded and sourced.Travb 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Essay not an article

This is an essay, not an article! And not just an essay, but an essay espousing the views of Stuart Creighton Miller. His name appears eight times in the text. "This idea of a completly unique social system makes it difficult for many Americans to come to grips with American social flaws associated with the 'Old World,'". Says who? "American exceptionalism is a popular view of most Americans" Oh, really? Where's your poll? This article reads like mediocre international relations student's dissertation. Gsd2000 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The article relies too much on Miller, but it's hardly just an exposition of his views. That's primarily true in the first section, on American exceptionalism, which is indeed a problem that needs correcting. You got other sources on the subject? (It's also hardly an essay; what do you think the thesis is supposed to be?) Kalkin 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Miller is the only author I know who broke down the three types of way America its place in the world. There may be more than three, as other wikipedians have added, such as cultural imperialism. The majority of this article is based on the 3 pages of Miller, it started out as Miller stating their are three types of ways Americans see the world.

I left for a few months, and it grew into something more. I like the majority of the additions, but some of the additions are not cited and the ideas of the authors have been watered down to the point where I have no idea what the wikiauthor is trying to say.

How can Stuart Creighton Miller espouse three views of American imperialism simultaneously? How can he be an anti-imperialist an imperialist at the same time? All Miller is espousing is three different views of seeing American foreign policy. I think he does a damn good job of it too, in a very even-handed matter.

"This idea of a completly unique social system makes it difficult for many Americans to come to grips with American social flaws associated with the 'Old World,'" Says Miller. It his quote. Other social scientists have argued the same thing, if you insist, I can add these references.

"American exceptionalism is a popular view of most Americans" This is not Miller. I did not write this sentence. Another Wikipedian did. I added footnotes to this sentence, talking about how patriotic Americans are, and how Americans views are like a religion. If you want more arguments for this, I can cite them. Remember, we are talking about ideas, ideas are POV by nature. This article gives equal time to three competing ideas. In this strict context: citing sources, allowing different views, not using weasel words, these POV ideas are very encyclopedic. If you feel that "imperialism never existed" please add more authors who espouse this idea, and quote and cite them here.

Gsd2000 Whether you agree or disagree with Miller, Chomsky, Churchill or Zinn doesn't ultimatly matter. I attempted to give all three views equal time, as Miller did. This is an article about three competing ideas, not which idea is the "correct one".

That is for each person to decide for themselves, without weasel words and with cited authors.

I appreciate your criticism Gsd2000, what would you suggest instead? What are the ways America sees the world? What author can you cite which list the way that Americans see the world?Travb 20:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that discussion of subjects such as "the way America sees the world", whether or not empires were "benevolent", philosophical debates about whether the perceived imperialism exists or not, are subjects for historians, not encyclopaedians/Wikipedians. It is indisputible that "American Empire" is a term that is used by some, and that it is a loaded term, so there should unquestionably be an entry for it in Wikipedia. However, I think this article should stick to a factual description of the way in which the term is used: historical colonialism vs cultural imperialism, and a brief mention of the disagreement surrounding it. Readers interested in United States colonial antics should be quickly and clearly redirected to History_of_United_States_overseas_expansion. The whole article could be condensed into a couple of concise paragraphs. I would have a go, except it would entail severe reworking and rewording, which would undoubtedly offend those who have spent time writing the article! Gsd2000 21:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views, your opinion is welcome. History_of_United_States_overseas_expansion used to be part of this article. After surviving a sucessful vote for deletion, we reached a consesus on the talk page to split it up and rename it from imperialism to empire, to lesson the attacks and revert wars, and votes for deletion. Kevin did the dirty work. There will always be Americans who don't want this article to exist. (I am not saying you are one of them--I am just saying that some Americans don't want to critically question there own culture) My wife is yelling at me, gotta go.Travb 21:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not American by the way.  ;) Gsd2000 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

Given the fact that there are articles named British, French Spanish Empires, a reader interested in the territorial aspects of US colonialism may well end up looking at this article instead of the correct one). Indeed, the Colonial Empires template linked to American Empire until I changed it. I know "History of United States overseas expansion" is also listed on the right, but it's not redundant to make an explicit statement at the top directing readers to that page, especially so given Travb's statement above that the two articles are a result of being split up. Gsd2000 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, what does the other user think? Excellent point. What country are you from? I will check your user page.Travb 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede the point. I was the one who removed it as redundant. Kalkin 02:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the existence of the article, I think that the amount of literature on the topic justifies including much of the argument. "American imperialism" isn't just a phrase that people throw around casually - though it's that too - it's also something historians and intellectuals have debated extensively, and as such should be given as in-depth a treatment as Wikipedians are prepared to write. Kalkin 02:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points Kalkin, go ahead and add it back Gsd2000, what country are you from?Travb 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Check my (recently updated :)) user page! Gsd2000 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

re "as in-depth a treatment as Wikipedians are prepared to write": the right depth of the article, IMHO, should be tailored to the average reader, not to the depth to which those with specialised knowledge of or interest in the topic are prepared to write. Admittedly, it takes the latter to write the article in the first place, but the test of a "good" article is one that keeps the interest of someone with zero background knowledge of the topic. For that it needs to be concise, relevant and easy to read. This article is a little heavy going. And I'm not an idiot; a cursory glance at my recent edits should reveal which university I attended :-) Gsd2000 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 110% please edit the work as you feel fit. i have rewrote a lot of the article already to make it more reader friendly. A lot of international affairs students have obviously written some of the article. I think we should keep in the important terms of International affairs, but explain them in such a way that everyone understands them.Travb 03:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article may be a little heavy going. I think that's a problem of language rather than amount of content, however. The overviews of particular standpoints are really quite short. I think a collaborative effort to improve the clarity and quality of the writing would be in order.

By the way, don't blame international affairs students. I think you and I, Travb, are responsible for most of the substance of the present article. I'm no international affairs student, let alone professional, just an interested amateur.Kalkin 04:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, for an "interested amateur", you sure have the vocabularly--I am impressed. I am actually just stated International Affairs this semester, so some of the lingo is vaguely familar to me.

So Gsd2000's initial critism really stung: This article reads like mediocre international relations student's dissertation. I guess being an international affairs major in his first semester would qualify me as a mediocre international relations student :(

Kalkin wrote: I think that's a problem of language rather than amount of content, however. I agree 100%. I actually tried to simplify Millers argument from his original, making the vocabulary simplier to read, rewriting sentences for clarity, but maybe I failed. This article is infintly easier to read than my dense International Affairs textbook, but that is not saying much.Travb 15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My pet sentence

Deleted: "This idea of a completly unique social system makes it difficult for many Americans to come to grips with American social flaws associated with the "Old World," such as militarism, imperialism, inequality, and the misuse of power"

This is actually from Miller:

The notion of such a cultural metamorphosis is entirely romantic, but the concept of a totally unique social system fashioned solely by the experiences of colonial Americans is in harmony with the prevailing pragmatic (practical) style of America. It also makes it difficult for many Americans to come to grips with social flaws associated with the “Old World,” such as militarism, imperialism, inequality, and the misuse of power. The tendency of highly patriotic Americans is to deny such abuses and even assert that they could never exist in their country. At the other end of the scale, overly self-critical Americans tend to exaggerate the nation’s flaws, failing to place then in historical or worldwide contexts.[3]

...but I can see why you feel it is POV Kalkin.

There are some books I would like to read that address this subject, but I don't have the energy to pursue this now. Some of the books include:Seymour Martin Lipset's American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. I have come across this deleted idea before in scholarly journals too.

But again how can you quantify what all Americans feel? Too broad. It just feels like POV. So I have to agree with your edit.

How to quantify such ideas? A poll? That is the problem with the social sciences, broad statments like this are hard to accuratly measure, especially when the author is talking about an entire society's views, beliefs, and ideas.

Goodbye pet sentence, I will miss you!Travb 07:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's POV not because it asserts what Americans feel, but because it asserts something most Americans would disagree with. I think it's fine to assert, as the article does, that most Americans believe that America is exceptional in some way; I don't know anyone who would dispute that. But I know lots of people who would dispute the idea that Americans have a hard time coming to grips with militarism, imperialism, inequality, etc. The sentence shouldn't necessarily be deleted - but if it stays it should go under one of the "schools of thought" sections rather than the intro which is supposedly neutral between them. I suppose it would most likely be in the first, although Miller himself does not seem to be. Kalkin 20:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You right. Thanks for your comments.Travb 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

recent changes

travb, your removal of weaseliness is mostly very useful, but I have two basic problems with the current state of the article, which I think involve a disagreement with your edits:

(1) less importantly, I think it is perfectly legitimate to make unattributed claims about what "some" say in the introduction to the article. The point is that these claims will be sourced in the detailed sections below. We can't mention every author in the intro, any selection would be arbitrary, but also the basic positions should be outlined. If there are claims in the intro that aren't sourced below, those should be removed, but some weasel-words might stay.

(2) more importantly, I think that Miller should not be used as a source for a description of any of the three schools of thought, in their particular section. Each should POV-describing section should base its description of the POV directly on those who hold it, not mediated through the position of someone who has his own, differing POV. For example I have a problem with including the claim that anti-imperialists are "overly self-critical Americans" in the section describing the anti-imperialist argument. That's a POV position, and its not the anti-imperialist POV which is being described, so including it there makes it sound like its supposed to be objective. I think problems like that are likely to be inevitable as long as we use opponents' characterizations of positions; this should be minimized to the greatest extent possible if not eliminated.

What do you think? For now, I'm just going to restore a new and improved cultural imperialism section, I'll wait to make changes along the lines above till I get an ok. Kalkin 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your comments and sensitivity to my feelings, edit away, I will let you know if I have objections. I agree that "overly self-critical Americans" is probably POV. You can take out the name Miller, but I suggest leaving the footnote to him, since the format was originally created by him and the idea of this format was inspired by him. Edit away, I will comment as I have time. Need to take my son to school. Again, thanks for your courteousy.Travb 13:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of quatifying a sentence by "some say" why not simply write the statment? "It is argued..." this is still a weasel type format, but it sounds less weaselly then "Some" and "others"....Travb 14:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can rephrase in passive voice. With regard to Miller, I'm not by any means advocating taking him out of the article. His discussion of American exceptionalism should stay sourced to him, and so should even the division into schools of thought. But he shouldn't be used for the actual description of those schools of thought in their sections, that should be left to people who fall under those schools. Kalkin 17:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But he shouldn't be used for the actual description of those schools of thought in their sections I would have to disagree, unless you can find an author who writes much clearer than Miller, then I am all for it.Travb 22:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

19:12, 1 March 2006 160.39.236.156

... was me. Right now the first school of though is a little disproportionately long, but I'm planning to expand the second and third as well, when I get a chance. Kalkin 19:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge American Empire and History of United States overseas expansion

I know these articles were originally split, but their content is now verging back to the same topics. I believe that the American Empire article should be massively condensed and merged into History of United States overseas expansion.

There are three types of imperialism being discussed in these articles: (1) territorial imperialism in the mould of European empires of yesteryear (1898-1946) (2) political/military "imperialistic" characteristics of America's behaviour as a superpower, both during the Cold War and now as the world's only superpower and (3) cultural imperialism. Both articles cover all three. (2) and (3) definitely do not belong to an article entitled History of United States overseas expansion even though they are discussed. Furthermore, discussion of (1) and (2) are confusingly intermingled in American Empire. See the "Second school of thought", which refers to US reasons for going into the 1898 war and whether or not its rule of Spain's old colonies constituted imperialism in the traditional sense of the word - ie what I refer to as (1). There is then a subsection entitled "Benevolent Empire", about the "role of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries" - this is the subject of (2) - and is far more controversial than (1), because it is indisputable that America ruled over, and without the consent of, other peoples from 1898-1946 - if you can deny that this was imperialism because it was supposedly for the good of the people being ruled over, you can deny that the British Empire was imperialist. Whether or not the hegemony that America enjoys today is an "Empire" is the controversial question here.

So I propose using History of United States overseas expansion as the article to use as the base, and then very judicious integration of portions of American Empire into it. I know certain Wikipedians have put a lot of hard work into the American Empire article, but I say again that it really does read like a mediocre international relations dissertation, made worse by the "too many cooks spoil the broth" observation made above. Why? The introduction is completely garbled - it says that "American Empire ... [is a] politically charged term used to describe the historical expansionism ... of the United States" yet a couple of lines later it says "Occasionally, the term "American Empire" is used to only refer to U.S. possessions which were once or are currently in the possession of the United States". What is the difference?! Then it goes into a long ramble about American Exceptionalism that seems completely out of place, save for the reasonable comment "American imperialism has been the subject of agonizing debate ever since the United States acquired formal empire at the end of the nineteenth century during the Spanish-American war". Now we get into international relations student territory. Lots of paragraphs going on about Joe Bloggs arguing X and John Doe arguing Y, all the time referring to one historian, this Miller bloke. Bold statements speaking for the views of "...many Americans". When we are done with that, we get to a section on Cultural Imperialism, yet there is also a section on Cultural Imperialism here History_of_United_States_overseas_expansion#Cultural_imperialism. The icing on the cake is a random and completely out of place quote.

Gsd2000 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000, I disagree, Kalkin has included a lot of other Internatial affairs theories which I think makes this article deeper, and despite my wishes, Kalkin has started to take out any reference to Miller. I am concerned by your critisms. I appreciate them, but I don't see you actively working on the article, adding anything to its content. This is the second time you have called this article a "mediocre international relations dissertation", maybe this is true, but what edits can you make to make this article go from a "mediocre international relations dissertation" to what you consider a "great international relations dissertation"? It is easy to criticize someone elses work, harder to make something better yourself. Some of your comments are right on target, instead of complaining about the problems with the article here, or insisting it be condensed, why not be bold and begin to edit the article as Kalkin has? I have been incredibily impressed with a lot of Kalkin additions. I await some of your additions too. Travb 16:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I normally am bold in my edits. However, in the case of this article I feel as though I would have to take a sledgehammer to it. I wanted to spark further discussion and it seems I have done so. Gsd2000 17:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I just looked over the two articles: American Empire and History of United States overseas expansion. It is ironic that you propose to combine the two articles when before people were saying before that we should split them up because the original article was two long. I guess this just shows you can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try.

There is a stark diffence between the two articles American Empire deals with ideas (albiet maybe "mediocre" ideas), whereas History of United States overseas expansion deals with actual events. I have actually taken a couple of sentences from History of United States overseas expansion and put them here because the sentences had more to do with the idea of "American empire" than an actual event dealing with the History of United States overseas expansion. Travb 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the ideas are mediocre. Gsd2000 17:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000 wrote: "philosophical debates about whether the perceived imperialism exists or not, are subjects for historians, not encyclopaedians/Wikipedians." I think this is your major contention, and correct me if I am wrong, the reason why you want to merge the article. Again, I strongly suggest editing the article, be bold. I fear if this merger does not go through, your next step will be to attempt to delete this article. I thought by changing the names of these articles the delete wars were behind us. I really hope that it does not come to this.Travb 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I would not delete the article. At the very least, discussion of whether US imperialism 1898-1946 was actually imperialism should go on the page devoted to the facts (the original state of History of United States colonialism). A separate article should be created for whether modern-day United States constitutes an empire. Gsd2000

(Wrote the following at the same time Travb was writing his post above, so I don't respond to it):

I think that it's ok for articles with closely related subjects to copy small parts of each other's contents; overlap isn't always bad or avoidable. I don't think that's sufficient reason to merge the articles.

I haven't been paying much attention to History of United States overseas expansion but I agree that it does seem a little heavily influenced by your (2), and that should be reduced. That (3) exists in both is I think perfectly justifiable; it's doing different things in each. In neither should the debate about whether it's bad be given much, if any, space - that's for the original article. But any discussion of the role of American imperialism should include a discussion of the role of cultural imperialism as a compononent or support of military imperialism - which the Said section does. And any discussion of United States overseas expansion should include a discussion of how US cultural influence has expanded overseas - the current version is bad, I'll grant you.

You describe some flaws some of which are real, but which don't seem to me to have anything to do with a need for a merge. The benevolent empire subsection refers to authors who admit that the US is an empire and has been for a long time, but otherwise generally agree with those who deny that it's an empire - both in analysis of the Phillipines, etc, and analysis of US policy today - the only reason I think it seems out of place is that it's in the context of that somewhat out-of-place discussion of the Phillipines at the start of the section. The intro to American Empire needs re-wording, yes. The American exceptionalism section seems relevant to me; it frames why there's a debate about American empire and what form it takes. The article relies too much on Miller; that's something I've been trying to go through and systematically reduce - my goal is that he only be in the exceptionalism section. What do you think of the first subsection, from which I've eliminated him? That quote is random, I'll remove it now.

I strongly disagree with the merger because I think that a moderately detailed discussion of views on the question of American imperialism is worth including on Wikipedia, but not appropriate, at least not in sufficient length, in any article on the history of US overseas expansion. I think for example a reference that goes through the intersections and divergences of right-wing and left-wing critics of empire, that lists some of the important writers and associates them into categories by arguments they make, is useful, but wouldn't make sense in an article that wasn't specific to the topic.

Kalkin 16:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gsd2000 that these two articles aren't very good (yet?), and that they overlap in odd and confusing ways. I think the solution is not a merger, but rather a clearer definition of what each article should address (which should facilitate better writing), as well as the creation of a third article.

First of all, a clarification: these two articles were never actually part of one single article. Although there was some cutting-and-pasting from one to the other, they've always been two separate entries. I slightly renamed both of them with the hope that this would make the distinction between the two topics clearer. There is still some confusion, as Gsd2000 points out. I should have made the intended scope of the articles (or at least what I thought the scope should be) much clearer.

Personally, I expected History of United States overseas expansion to be a tightly focused article about the overseas territorial acquisitions of the United States (i.e. primarily about territory acquired from 1898 to 1917, with a smattering of islands acquired in WW2 -- Gsd2000's #1 of the three types of imperialism). I suggested that the article should be merged with United States colonization outside North America, which covers the same basic material, though lacking in detail. I didn't expect an article with this title to be about Cold War or present-day foreign policy (the #2 type of imperialism), and certainly not about cultural imperialism (#3). Maybe "United States colonization outside North America" would have been a better title choice so as to avoid confusion.

I also proposed that a new (as yet non-existent) article called History of United States foreign intervention be created to cover the Cold War and superpower stuff. This is a big topic -- maybe too broad -- and perhaps needs a better name, but I think keeping it separate from the "overseas expansion" topic might be helpful since, as Gsd2000 says, these are arguably two different types of "imperialism". I should have created this article earlier, but I'm easily distracted.

Finally, American Empire (term) is about the longstanding debate about whether or not the United States is an empire. It could just as easily be named American Empire debate. By definition, it's about "Joe Bloggs arguing X and John Doe arguing Y". Clearly Gsd2000 doesn't like that approach, but, as Kalkin has written above, the amount of material written about this topic justifies its existence. It's a tough article to write, because it requires familiarity with a large body of writing in order to write an accurate overview of the debate. I think the contributors have been heading in the right direction, but the article is still disjointed and uneven. Will this improve? I hope so. I consider these articles to still be in the early stages of construction. Too early to pull the plug yet. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

United States colonization outside North America is another lightning rod for debate. I suggest we stay clear of that title. United States colonization outside North America is also a lightning rod for debate. The current title, although vague, avoids the delete votes and the POV fights. It is intentionally vague for a reason.

History of United States foreign intervention is also a title that should be avoided. I have had a long fight with CJK about what is "intervention" over at List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945 anything that does not include American troops on the ground, CJK wants to delete. He also wants to include humanitarian projects too.

I think the current titles are great. I agree with Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) that the existing article should be maybe split up to cover post WW2.

But what about US expansion between WWI and WW2, since your suggestion only covers between 1800's to 1917 and 1945-present day? Travb 22:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A clearer definition of what each article should address

So who agrees with Kevin Myers? I think this is better than a merge, having read his reply. Therefore I propose two pages: (A) one to talk about the history of United States overseas acquisitions and debates at the time about whether this constituted an Empire, and (B) another page to deal with post-1945 United States overseas interventions and control, and whether this consitute/constitutes an Empire? The two debates are both legitimate but separate, the latter arguably more controversial than the former. This would mean that much of the content of American Empire (A) would move to the history page, (B). Gsd2000 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The difference between this page and the other page is that this page argues whether empire exists, which is relevant to both the pre-WW2 era and the post WW2 era.

Remember the three central debates on this page:

• there has never been a US empire (now or ever),
• US empire has always existed (pre WW2 and post WW2),
• US empire was only during the Spanish American war.

These three debates definatly covers post WW2 also. Travb 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that lines can be blurred between debate about whether US inheritance of the remnants of the Spanish Empire constituted an empire, and the debate about whether post-WW2 influence abroad through military bases, political pacts, economic investment etc constitutes an empire? That is like discussing the British Empire, and confusing the debate about whether it was a benevolent one and the debate about whether areas Britain exerted economic/political influence over (e.g South America and China) formed part of its formal empire (usually referred to as "informal empire"). Gsd2000 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the lines could be blurred. Think about a Marxian theory of empire, which states that imperialism is necessarily connected to capitalism. Debates about this would involve evidence from all periods, and would involve arguing about similarities or differences in character of those periods. For example think about Hardt and Negri (referenced in the article), who argue that there's Empire now and empire then, but that they're different, versus traditional Marxists or Marxian theorists who argue empire is basicaly constant. Where would this kind of debate be outlined in your proposal. I think that I agree with Kevin Myers but disagree with you, Gsd2000, here. The article on US overseas expansion should probably be split, the specific debates about the Philippines should be switched to it. However there should remain an article on the American Empire debate or American Empire (term). All need improvement, yes, but that's a seperate question. Kalkin 00:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The other page is a laundry list of specific episodes of US expantion. Again, I am troubled by your words: "philosophical debates about whether the perceived imperialism exists or not, are subjects for historians, not encyclopaedians/Wikipedians."Travb 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I am rather troubled by the thought of you with your first term international relations materials, and staying up late at night paraphrasing them as you type into Wikipedia, rather than doing the assignments that your lecturers have given you. Can you show me another, good quality, Wikipedia article that reads like American Empire? This article just doesn't feel encyclopaedic. Gsd2000 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal insults have no place here. If I had a nickel for everytime someone online said that I somehow was not a good law student because of episode x or episode y. (I am a dual major) Now I have to endure peity insults from you about international relations.

You took off the gloves, so here it goes:

The fact remains that you have contributed nothing to this article. You criticize and criticize and criticize and add nothing to this article (cutting and pasting a photo from another wikipage doesnt count).

I have noticed in your edits you contribute to many other empire articles. That is wonderful.

The sad reality is unlike those empires of the past, the vast majority of Americans deny that America has ever had an empire, so this article is different, because most Americans see themselves as different. Remember, large sections of this article are from an old article which was called History of United States imperialism and because of the title, a lot of people wanted to delete it[4], the same can be said for List of United States foreign interventions since 1945[5]. I dont think any of the former European colonies deny they were empires, whereas most Americans do.

Nhprman's contibutions

When I read: "unlike those empires of the past, the vast majority of Americans deny that America has ever had an empire" I think it's a rather foolish statement, since America never was an empire, and certainly isn't now, except in the eyes of its enemies (or from a "Marxian" view, as one poster has the audacity to have said above, years after the "Marxian" view of history was discredited completely - except in American classrooms, that is.) I suppose my rejection of the term strikes at the very "orthodoxy" of the entire article, which is meant to portray America from an outsider's point of view, but it's a fact. As for "other" empires of hte past, Britain WAS an empire. France WAS an empire. Germany WAS an empire. Spain WAS an empire. All were, both in name and in deed, and were, for centuries. Despite the tortured logic and (sometimes subtle) hatred dripping from this article towards its subject, despite the beliefs of a tiny minority, very few people have ever labeled America as such, and most never wanted or sought any such thing. Even if we grant that in the past some did, today that is clearly not the case, if anyone bothers to read the polls. Also, I'm curious, is there an article "List of nations brutalized by the Soviet Empire"? Just asking. Nhprman ^UserLists 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If "Spain was an empire", did its overseas colonies suddenly cease to be colonies when the USA attacked and annexed them during the Spanish American War? Was America not acting like an imperial power when it brutally put down all forms of Filipino resistance? Anyway, Nphrman, I think you're missing the point somewhat. This article, as much as I dislike its current state, is about exactly this debate. Gsd2000 01:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If the Spanish-American War is what you have to dredge up to 'prove' America had colonies, great. I think your answer proves the point of the article quite nicely. The debate "should we/shouldn't we" become an empire with literal colonies is about 100 years out-of-date. (By the way, don't blame me for turn-of-the-last-century expansionism, I voted for Bryan). Nhprman ^UserLists 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Here you are contributing to a debate about whether America is/was an empire, and yet you are claiming that the debate is "100 years out-of-date". Deliciously ironic. Gsd2000 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your sense of irony needs work. I'm just pointing out that you folks just won't "let it go," despite it being a rather academic and dry topic, and yes, very out of date. Nhprman ^UserLists 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst you are on your soapbox, is there anything else that you consider "out of date", "academic" or "dry"? History by definition is "out of date", as it is history. Should we cease discussion of the past? EVERYBODY THE WORLD OVER - STOP TEACHING HISTORY TO OUR KIDS!!! NHPRHMAN SAYS IT'S OUT OF DATE!!! And perhaps you should write to academic institutions the world over and instruct them to stop discussion of the topics that you don't like because you consider them academic or dry. Looking at your Wikipedia edits I see this is not your field of interest - you are obviously an American with strong views, but I suspect that you have not done any background reading in this subject (especially if you accuse me of "dredging up" the Spanish-American War to support my arguments, when this war is critical to the debate - for starters it's why today the US owns islands in the Pacific and Carribean - just like Britain does because they were the remnants of its Empire unwilling or too small to form a nation state). Try reading the piece [[6]] in the Economist linked to in the main article, published in 2003. The debate wasn't out of date then, and it certainly ain't now. You are absolutely within your rights to deny that America ever was or is an empire, but by doing so you are participating in the very debate whose existence you deny, demonstrating that it is alive and kicking. Gsd2000 13:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is brilliantly twisted. Clearly, I didn't say history should never be taught. What's out of date is the old fashioned mindless America-bashing this article represents. And if I dare to question it, I'm giving it legitimacy? Again, twisted. But the America-haters are twisted by their rage and hate. Thanks for more evidence, you and those who build this article into a towering pile of POV garbage. Nhprman ^UserLists 05:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If "Spain was an empire", did its overseas colonies suddenly cease to be colonies when the USA attacked and annexed them during the Spanish American War? Still waiting for an answer. You definatly fall firmly within the "disneyland version of history", the third category, that american empire never existed. Gsd2000 paints you into a corner, asks questions which you ignore, and points out your own irrationailty, and all you can say is that our arguments are "twisted".

In case you didn't read this entire article there are 3 points of view. How can all three points of view be simultaneously anti-american, especially when two of them are complete opposites?

I think what really makes you so irrational and hysterical is that anyone would even suggest that the US was an empire. God forbid. Please read the wonderful article about how most Americans, see America as a second religion: The religious character of American patriotism. I might as well had said that Jesus was a man-whore, I would get the same irrational and hysterical reaction.

Oh, by the way, you remembered to call us "anti-Americans", and "American haters", but you forgot to call us "Communists" and "terrorists". Please make a point to throw out these 2 labels too next time as a last ditch defense when you are painted in a corner. A person can really tell when rational conversation is finished when one party is reduced to childish name calling.

By labeling us something horrible in your mind: "American haters" you appear to attempt to invalidate our argument, regardless of its merits.

"What should one write to ruin an adversary? The best thing is to prove that he is not one of us -- the stranger, alien, foreigner. To this end we create the category of the true family. We here, you and I, the authorities, are a true family. We live in unity, among our own kind. We have the same roof over our heads, we sit at the same table, we know how to get along with each other, how to help each other out. Unfortunately, we are not alone."--Ryszard Kapuscinski in Shah of Shahs

Nhprman you present another simplistic "you-are-either with-us-or-against-us" argument. We are not "true Americans" for suggesting such rubbish and we "hate America". We are "strangers, aliens, foreigners". Very simplistic logic but unfortunatly usually very effective.

Let me remind you of the first question you consistently ignore, and a follow up question that you will probably also ignore. (It is much easier and much less intellectual work to just call someone names):

1. If "Spain was an empire", did its overseas colonies suddenly cease to be colonies when the USA attacked and annexed them during the Spanish American War?
   
   
2. How can all three points of view on American Empire (term) be simultaneously anti-american, especially when two of them (America was never an empire) and (America has always been an empire) are complete opposites? Travb 10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to be a sideline critic and nitpick other people's work, that devolve into peity, irrelevant insults. It is harder to get off your sorry ass and edit the article. Lets see more of the later, and less of the former. You have contributed nothing, absloutly nothing to this article, except empty criticism. I have my work up for examination, where is your work on the American empire?---I havent seen it. How do I know you know anything more about international relations than I do? All I hear is peity insults and empty criticism.Travb 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the insult. I overstepped the mark there. But I hardly think my criticisms are empty. I didn't just write on the talk page "this article is crap" and leave it at that. That would be empty. I justified my criticisms, and rather than radically alter large swathes of your (ongoing) work, and risk you undoing it, I attempted to explain my arguments on the talk page. I hardly count that as contributing nothing. Gsd2000 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about blowing a circuit, and being so uncivil.

I think we should just move over and let Kalkin do his magic. He obviously knows much more about the topic than I ever will. It is amazing where he digs up all of these authors and sources.

Nhprman could not have come at a better time in this conversation. It is as if I created him myself as a sock puppet to prove a point. Nhprman exemplifies and embodies why this article exists, the best damn "case in point" ever created.

Gsd2000, you gained so much respect in my eyes with this really brilliant, simple question: If "Spain was an empire", did its overseas colonies suddenly cease to be colonies when the USA attacked and annexed them during the Spanish American War? Excellent point, which I never thought of. Three cheers. One day these countries are oppressed Spanish colonies and *poof* the next day they aren't. I don't think any American apologist can satisfactorily answer that question. Nhprman simply ignored it.Travb 07:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Term empire used with pride

In response, it has to be said that Spain in its colonial period considered itself to be an empire, just as the British Empire did. The term was used with a degree of pride. On the other hand, the term American Empire is politically charged and controversial, just as the article said, and should definitely not be merged with a general article on US history. The fundamental difference here is that colonial Spain (informally) called itself an empire, and the historical term is fairly non-controversial, just as no one would dispute that the British Empire existed. America may have acquired colonies (although I don't believe that America ever described itself as a colonial nation), and may have been a de facto empire, but it is not, and has never been, a de jure empire. This simple statement of fact does not make me an American apologist. I am not saying that the US was any less 'oppressive' in its colonial expansion than the Spanish were. I am just saying that the term 'American Empire' should not be used as an indisputable historical term, nor should it ever be used in anything other than an informal or interpretative context. The job of Wikipedia is not to make moral judgments about the Americans; it is to state the relevant legal and historical facts, and, where necessary, to cover different interpretations. We do not need to decide whether the US 'oppressed' its colonies or not. Walton monarchist89 10:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You cite a difference between de jure vs de facto empires, but can you explain to me in what way legally the British Empire differed from the "American" one? Your argument rests in large part on the fact that there was some set of laws that defined European empires as "empires" but did not do so for the US possessions. Please cite the evidence for your statement. Gsd2000 11:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Great point Gsd2000, once again. I am familar with the term De facto, but not the term De jure until today. Walton monarchist89 seems like an excercise in semantics, nothing more. This is a common tactic of lawyers and courts. Travb 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

At the height of the British Empire (between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War, the term was in widespread use among British people and foreigners, and would not have been considered a controversial or pejorative description. To put it simply, the British were proud of their empire. Americans, on the other hand, have had a historical distaste for the term 'empire' and the principles of imperialism. Many Americans would profoundly disagree if their nation were described as an empire. Furthermore, to answer Gsd2000's question, Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India in the 1870s (I can't remember the exact date off the top of my head), making her a de jure empress, as well as a de facto one. I am quite certain that no US President has ever been crowned Emperor of Guam or Puerto Rico. As such, there is both a legal and a factual difference between the British Empire and the American "Empire". The two cannot really be viewed as historically comparable. Walton monarchist89 11:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay let me see if I understand what you are trying to say. Yyou write: Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India in the 1870s (I can't remember the exact date off the top of my head), Therefore to be an empire, an empire citizens must:

A) accept that they are empire

B) have a queen/president/king that is crowned as an empress/emporer of one of its territories. In other words, the country must admit by crowning its leader as emporer/emporess, to be an empire.

So, by your reasoning, if a country does not meet those two criteria, they are therefore not an empire? If I understand you correctly, I don't know where you get this definition, but it sounds, on its face, highly dubious.

• Before the queen of the British Empire was crowned emperess was the British empire not an empire?

• If only 30% of Britians believed their country was an empire, would this still make them an empire?
• What about the other empires?
• Does everyone meet this defintion that you present here? They would have to be, otherwise your narrow definition fails.

My questions are absurd, simply because I am trying to illistrate how your narrow definition, on its face, is absurd.

Where do you get this defintion, if I look up the defintion of empire in the dictionary: which is:

"A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority."

I don't think it mentions your two conditions:

1. a certain percentage of a country's people must consider there country an empire to be an empire

2. a country must crown its leader emporer to be an empire.

The dictionary makes no mention of popular opinion, nor of crowning an emporer/emporess. America fits very well into the empire category, by the dictionary definition. Your erroneous defintion, on its face, can be dismissed out of hand. Travb 16:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You and your ilk are very good at "dismissing out of hand" those inconvenient comments you wish to ignore. The bottom line is America is not, and has never been, as self-described "empire" even though some have advocated very much the same concept from a mercantile point of view. On that final point, I'll grant that there is an imperial element to the way some in America view their power, but that's a very imperfect definition of "empire." In truth, for many who use it today it is simply a term of derision, and it mostly comes from those who are jealous of, or hateful towards, America, its people or its successes. Nhprman ^UserLists 17:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Typical simplistic rationality

Ahh Nhprman, what I love about (the majority of) Americans is they all think they are so different, yet they all think the same. One of the many ironies (maybe hypocricies) of (many) Americans.

As the French classic "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville explained about America in the 19th century, and which still rings true today:

It seems, at first sight, as if all the minds of the Americans were formed upon one model, so accurately do they correspond in their manner of judging. A stranger does, indeed, sometimes meet with Americans who dissent from these rigorous formularies; with men who deplore the defects of the laws, the mutability and the ignorance of democracy; who even go so far as to observe the evil tendencies which impair the national character, and to point out such remedies as it might be possible to apply; but no one is there to hear these things besides yourself, and you, to whom these secret reflections are confided, are a stranger and a bird of passage. They are very ready to communicate truths which are useless to you, but they continue to hold a different language in public...

...In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them....

...In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.

Nhprman wrote:

In truth, for many who use it today it is simply a term of derision, and it mostly comes from those who are jealous of, or hateful towards, America, its people or its successes.

Thats right, anyone who doesn't think like you do, "hates America". When logic fails, and you are painted into a corner by others showing how irrational and illogical your statments truly are (and maybe how little you truly know about your own country's history), go to the old standby: name calling.

Dismiss the complete argument out of hand because those who espouse that view are not "one of us" "they" "hate America" "they are just jealous of how great we are". (As I said in the Shah of Shah quote above, did you read it?)

Your irrational defense would be funny if it wasn't so common today in America, and I haven't heard it so many millions of times before. Since I have heard it a million times before: it isn't funny, it is simply pathetic. A naive defensive delusion which allows you to escape real intellectual thought and avoid potentially troubling questions about your irrational ideology.

I know that you will not give any of these words any weight, and will probably just glance over them quickly. Because in your mind, you have dismissed anyone here who that does not think like you as "hating America". Your mind is already closed to any further intellectual discussion and debate. I will ask you the same questions again, and will continue to ask the same questions, for as long as you post here:

1. If "Spain was an empire", did its overseas colonies suddenly cease to be colonies when the USA attacked and annexed them during the Spanish American War?
2. How can all three points of view on American Empire (term) be simultaneously anti-american, especially when two of them (America was never an empire) and (America has always been an empire) are complete opposites?

Uncomfortable questions, which you would rather ignore, because they threaten the very foundation of your ideology and world view.

I will continue to ask these uncomfortable questions until either one of three things happen:

a) you go away in denial,

b) your irrational name calling becomes so intense that I stop answering you in disgust, or

c) you answer the question.

I have gone on for months on chat boards, asking the same question dozens of times, over and over and over, until one of the three things above happen. The choice is up to you.

Your programmed response makes me wonder if you even read what I wrote above, it is a mindless rehash of what you had written before. In otherwords, your reasoning goes like this: "You (Travb) are questioning my (Nhprman) ideology, so therefore you (Travb) hate America, so therefore anything you (Travb) say is garbage, and can be disregarded as garbage."

It is much easier and stable to intellectually rehash learned "truths" then rationally defend and test those learned "truths".

I hope our converstaion with Walton monarchist89 does not devolve into such childish irrationality and name calling. Maybe Walton monarchist89 will surprise me, I hope so. Unfortunatly, based on past experience, I don't hold out much hope.

I am going to go watch Along Came Polly with my wife who I yelled at about 5 minutes ago for closing and erasing an earlier version of this discussion. Travb 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting words in my mouth (never said "how great we are") but that's a tactic, I suppose, in your rhetorical jousting. To you, every American is an arrogant, nationalistic bastard, and I don't see any point in arguing with people who generalize like that. I think your 'choices' show that you are simply trolling for reactions, and will continue to attack until you get the "right" answer. I'm not biting. It's pretty obvious that you and others have come here with biases to create a POV article and your POV is that "America is an evil empire" and you see your mission as "exposing" and defaming it. Good luck with that. You'll find a lot of support from America-haters online. And yes, it's largely hate, although some are clearly innocently sucked in by the obstensible initial desire for "balance" in a discussion. The discussion itself is rather poisonous, as we've seen on this page, and the article that has resulted from it. The fact that any defense of America someone may mount is an "irrational defence" tells us enough about where you're coming from = a visceral, measurable hatred. Get help for that. It will eat you alive. Nhprman ^UserLists 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for putting words in your mouth. I do find it ironic that you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, and then in the very next sentence, you put words in my mouth, every American is an arrogant, nationalistic bastard. Actually, yesterday I realized how narrow my view of Americans truly is. I always knew defining all Americans a certain way was narrow, especially in a country of 280 million people, but I had yet, except in a few rare exceptions, to meet people who thought differently than yourself. Now that I am in the masters program of international relations, I realize that there are tens of thousands of Americans who don't see America with a "Disneyland version of history" and their view is often even more balanced than my own, which is humbling. Again, I apologize for generalizing, it is, in fact, "a tactic...(of my)...rhetorical jousting". It is a common tactic on all talk pages, a tactic which you use also. But that in no way justifies my behavior. So again, I apologize if you don't feel that America is great, or you don't feel the way I generalized you feeling. Travb 14:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually do feel that America is great, but I am absolutely certain that if I had been born elsewhere, I would likely think that nation was great, too. You generalize again in thinking that I (or most others in America) take some kind of "Disneyland" view of history. Personally, I don't. But I also don't take a "Hellhole" view of American history either. There is a happy medium, and I hope editors of a NPOV article would try to find it. While some try to sanitize history (point granted) others set out to emphasize ALL of the negatives and focus solely on them. One can easily do both, but people should avoid the temptation. America is powerful, and that lends itself to the "empire" label from critics who hate or envy or fear it as a superpower. But I would say that a vast majority of Americans (not just 'tens of thousands') do NOT EVER want to oppress other peoples and nations, do not want to dictate to others how they should live, or permenantly occupy other nations. That's why any talk of "empire" seems forced upon us, and doesn't really reflect the total reality of today's America, though in times past it may have been more relevant of a definition, and perhaps there are shades of this in the rhetoric and actions of some of our leaders and would-be leaders. Nhprman ^UserLists 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To Travb, I would like to say that I have no intention of practising "childish irrationality and name-calling", nor am I going to call anyone irrational or prejudiced. I accept that on one level, America does fit the definition of an empire, and it's quite valid to use the term "American Empire", in a purely interpretative/historical sense, to refer to one interpretation of US history. However, I was looking at two main points:

1) America does not call itself an empire. The only country that still refers to itself as an empire, ruled by an emperor, is Japan - which, incidentally, doesn't fit your definition of an empire, as it isn't a particularly large or multi-ethnic state.

Facinating, I didn't know that about Japan. Travb 14:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2) In my mind, using the term 'empire' in an interpretative sense tends to have connotations. It implies a nation that is authoritarian or semi-authoritarian, in which power is vested in the centre, and in which authority rests on a combination of military force and hereditary or traditional legitimacy. I would also feel that calling a nation an empire tends to imply (though I understand that it isn't universally true) that that nation is a monarchy.

I accept that a nation can fit the dictionary definition of 'empire' without being a monarchy, or being authoritarian, or calling itself an empire. But nonetheless, using the term 'empire' tends to imply all these things, in my mind at least. To use the term of a federal republic, which has never had a royal or imperial house, has never been a military dictatorship or authoritarian nation, and vests its sovereignty in the people, seems to me to be misleading (although not necessarily wrong). I am not saying that America is 'morally superior' to an empire or a monarchy, in fact I am a staunch monarchist, as my username implies. I am also not an American. But, speaking as someone who is interested in law, titles and constitutions, America doesn't fit my idea of an empire. Walton monarchist89 10:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Great points. We changed some of the article's names from imperialism to empire, because, as I argued on Talk:History of United States overseas expansion:

"Miller concludes that the term "imperialism" recent overuse and abuse makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept. Historian Archibald Paton Thorton wrote that "imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where Colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."[7]

The same can be said with the term "American empire" to a lesser degree: the term empire "must contend with crusaders for and against". Although I fervently advoacted the name change from imperialist to empire, I don't feel we should change the name of this article, because as you water down a term, I feel it starts to become more and more, a meaningless concept. Some controversy is good. Calling america imperialist caused many American wikipedians to advocate the article's deletion. Hopefully the article's name change will cause American wikipedians (and non-Americans) to debate the term, but not be so offended as to advocate this article's deletion.

I apologize for assuming that you were American. I am often more wrong than I am right, especially when I make broad generalizations in debates. When people like Nhprman say that I hate America simply because I disagree with their view of America, that causes me to respond with often irrational and broad generalizations in-kind. Often my views are either: a) refined as I continue to debate someone, and we eventually find common ground --or-- b) we devolve into a screaming match --or-- c) either myself or the other person leaves with their feelings hurt. You appear to have chosen (a), Nhprman appears to have choosen (c).

Anyway, thank you for your intellegent comments. I apologize for thinking mistakenly you were American because of your views.Travb 14:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been thinking this over, and looking at all the past debates on this page. I think that everyone's disagreement on the issue comes from the fact that there are three different (though overlapping) definitions of Empire.

1) A "de facto" empire; a large and powerful state that exerts power or influence, either formally or informally, over large areas of territory.

2) A "de jure" empire; a nation styling itself Empire or ruled by an emperor or empress.

3) "Empire" in the pejorative sense; an authoritarian state that exercises dominion over different nations or peoples by use of force. This is the normal use of the word imperialism.

I think we all agree that America fits Definition 1 (as did the former Soviet Union). Equally, it has been established that it does not fit Definition 2. Whether it fits Definition 3 is mainly a matter of opinion, depending on individual political perspective. But we should all try to examine this issue as historians, not as politicians, and no one, on either side of the debate, should be offended by any comments that may seem to be "anti-American" or "pro-American". As I am not an American, I feel I can treat this issue in an objective light. Walton monarchist89 10:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds accurate to me. I would add that the dispute about whether the US fits (3) is the subject of this article; as you say with regard to the first two the answer is fairly obvious and so doesn't seem worthy of much attention.

In fact, that's well enough put that I think it would be helpful to put it in a 'terminology' section at the top of the article. But it would be good if you could first find a scholarly or otherwise good source backing it up. Kalkin 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Compared too?

Nhprman wrote: I actually do feel that America is great, but I am absolutely certain that if I had been born elsewhere, I would likely think that nation was great, too. You generalize again in thinking that I (or most others in America) take some kind of "Disneyland" view of history. Personally, I don't. But I also don't take a "Hellhole" view of American history either. There is a happy medium, and I hope editors of a NPOV article would try to find it. While some try to sanitize history (point granted) others set out to emphasize ALL of the negatives and focus solely on them. One can easily do both, but people should avoid the temptation. America is powerful, and that lends itself to the "empire" label from critics who hate or envy or fear it as a superpower. But I would say that a vast majority of Americans (not just 'tens of thousands') do NOT EVER want to oppress other peoples and nations, do not want to dictate to others how they should live, or permenantly occupy other nations. That's why any talk of "empire" seems forced upon us, and doesn't really reflect the total reality of today's America, though in times past it may have been more relevant of a definition, and perhaps there are shades of this in the rhetoric and actions of some of our leaders and would-be leaders. Nhprman ^UserLists 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually do feel that America is great, but I am absolutely certain that if I had been born elsewhere, I would likely think that nation was great, too.

No way to test this thesis.

You generalize again in thinking that I (or most others in America) take some kind of "Disneyland" view of history.

We are all taught a very patriotic version of our nations history. In worldwide polls, Americans are consistently considered the most patriotic and most religious (for industrialize nations) contry in the world. There is a correlation to this, as others have argued.

But I also don't take a "Hellhole" view of American history either. There is a happy medium, and I hope editors of a NPOV article would try to find it.

Since I have not seen your edits, I cannot confirm this one way or another. I assume that you do have a disneyland version of history and aplogize for Americas crimes, probably often calling them "mistakes". Sorry to bunch you into a group which maybe you don't fit into. People generalize all the time, it is how people think. I run into people who have a disneyland version of history and aplogize for Americas crimes all the time, and my unscientific experiences throughout my life confirm that most, but not all Americans think this way. Add my observations to polls and books I read on American sociology, and I think I have a convincing, albiet possibly flawed thesis about Americans in general. Yes there are generalities, and when I begin to debate, I do not point out those genralities. Could we both agree that the majority of Americans are very patriotic people who are taught and retain a very version of our nations history? That is my point I am trying to make.

There is a happy medium, and I hope editors of a NPOV article would try to find it. While some try to sanitize history (point granted) others set out to emphasize ALL of the negatives and focus solely on them. One can easily do both, but people should avoid the temptation.

I will not repeat what I have argued elsewhere, you are welcome to read what I wrote, it is an artile entitled: Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history, Bill Bennett vs. Naom Chomsky I think your argument falls within one of the four categories nicely.

I just got done debating another wikiuser about this article I wrote, and I brought up many of the issues we have brought up here. He was a good debater. I was impressed. The debate is here.

But I would say that a vast majority of Americans (not just 'tens of thousands') do NOT EVER want to oppress other peoples and nations, do not want to dictate to others how they should live, or permenantly occupy other nations.

If you ask an American do you want to oppress other peoples and nations? The vast majority of course would say no.

But if you asked those same Americans if it is okay to practice manifest destiny, or if it is okay to free the people of the Spanish colonies, or if it is okay to go to the agressive war with Mexico, or if it is okay to contain communism, or fight the war on drugs, or fight the war on terror, most would say yes.

So America has a rich and bloody history of oppressing other people's and nations, but most Americans either don't care, or they are frame this oppression in a different light. Every empire throughout history, to my knoweledge justifies its expansion and its oppresion.

Lets compare Americans justifications and Britians justifications. The only unique thing about our empire and empires of the past, is that as I quote in the article:

"...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."

In otherwords, to my knowledge, America is the first empire whose people actually deny that it is an empire.

I believe a little bit of studying would make a non-American realize that America is NOT protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide. In fact, that is what has happened throughout the world, people seriously question whether America is "protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide".

For example, of the 35 countries America has intervened in, only one, the basket case Colombia, is a democracy ten years after our intevention. That is a pretty poor record of importing freedom and democracy. Please see the study: http://www.hooverdigest.org/042/bdm.html BUT if you look at it from the perspective of American business's controling and exploiting third world natural resources, America's interventions have been an astounding success. America supports and has supported many brutal and bloody dictators consistently throughout its history. Many of these dictators America puts in power through military intervention or covert ops, sometimes even overthrowing democratically elected governments in the process. Anyway, I am repeating myself again. I could name a million examples of this, but I am bored with this discussion and need to do some homework. PS, America is not a hellhole. I am happy and thankful that I am born here, in this time.Travb 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is ridiculous. I try to meet you half way and you show you are not Assuming Good Faith, and frankly, your words make it hard for me to, either. If Americans deny we're an empire, you say that "proves" somehow, that we're in denial about being an empire? In-fricking-credible!!!! This Leftist doublespeak has a long and bloody history in your favorite regimes - Cuba, USSR, GDR, Cambodia, and now Venezuela - where questioning the State means you're clearly insane, proven by your denial. In fact, every statement you make above represents an extreme anti-American bias and a clear POV, which you admit you've tried to incorporate into the article. This shows us all that you shouldn't be editing this supposedly NPOV article or anywhere else on this encyclopedia, since you're POV-pushing. Get this straight: YOU ARE NOT HERE TO GIVE "A MILLION EXAMPLES" OF YOUR POV - you're here to edit an UNBIASED encyclopedia. (Of course, you're probably and Administrator here, knowing how this place works.) I'm done with this discussion, too (Extremists on a Mission are what bore ME.) You can stop repeating yourself now - and yes, you NEED to do some homework on American history, from the looks of it. (p.s. The biased think-tank article of "35 interventions" lies about the number of nations that remain democracies 10 years after US interventions.) Nhprman ^UserLists 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We haven't heard the last from Nhprman

Nhprman wrote:

Okay, this is ridiculous. I try to meet you half way and you show you are not Assuming Good Faith, and frankly, your words make it hard for me to, either. If Americans deny we're an empire, you say that "proves" somehow, that we're in denial about being an empire? In-fricking-credible!!!! This Leftist doublespeak has a long and bloody history in your favorite regimes - Cuba, USSR, GDR, Cambodia, and now Venezuela - where questioning the State means you're clearly insane, proven by your denial. In fact, every statement you make above represents an extreme anti-American bias and a clear POV, which you admit you've tried to incorporate into the article. This shows us all that you shouldn't be editing this supposedly NPOV article or anywhere else on this encyclopedia, since you're POV-pushing. Get this straight: YOU ARE NOT HERE TO GIVE "A MILLION EXAMPLES" OF YOUR POV - you're here to edit an UNBIASED encyclopedia. (Of course, you're probably and Administrator here, knowing how this place works.) I'm done with this discussion, too (Extremists on a Mission are what bore ME.) You can stop repeating yourself now - and yes, you NEED to do some homework on American history, from the looks of it. (p.s. The biased think-tank article of "35 interventions" lies about the number of nations that remain democracies 10 years after US interventions.) Nhprman ^UserLists 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of debating Americans such as yourself Nhprman, because the unoriginal arugments and lack of logic are always the same. I am taking steps today to intigrate all of my arguments into one. I wrote on my webblog, addressing Americans who wish to debate me:

If after reading my arguments, you can come up with a novel argument which has not been rehased between myself and other apologists, please share it. If it is not suffiecent new, and if I havent heard if a million times before, please forgive me if I completly ignore you.

You accuse me of not assuming good faith. I must acknowlege that I am guilty of this. I did not assume good faith.

From the beginning there has been a constant thread through this discussion: You compare my ideas to communists, and call me anti-American for my views.

Gsd2000 and I come up with historical examples to support our POV, and you respond with more insults and no historical examples youself. You ignore my repeated questions, and dismiss my "35 interventions" as being leftist. You state "The biased think-tank article of "35 interventions" "lies" but give no examples, because you have none.

Please read Web pages: Logical fallicies & Top Ten Dodge List. Your argument style is replete (full) with logic fallacies. When I have repeatedly called you on these fallacies, you respond with more irrational fallacies.

I think the brutal bastard Stalin once said you can't argue with an ideology, the only thing you can do is shoot it. Truer words cannot be said, as illustrated here. You epitimize this saying.

I have debated people like yourself for to long to believe that I have heard the last from you, Nhprman. I have threatened your entire belief system, and I have not allowed you to get away with pat, simplistic, black-and-white answers to my troubling questions.

I await your typically irrational response, filled with a lot of rhetoric and absolutly no historical evidence.Travb 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll try again. I'm open to having a decent discussion about America's faults. As with any nation with a long history, it has many, admittedly. But not if it's going to result in an article that's simply a smear-job. I'm not sure a fair article's going to happen here since the very point of the article is to "stick it" to America and anyone who disagrees with that mision is labeled and dismissed as "irrational" or a "typical American" (i.e. name-calling.)

This isn't the place to throw down the political gauntlet and beat back the Neoconservatives - or whomever else you're targeting. It's an unbiased encyclopedia. An Anti-American (or "Anti-Republican/Conservative", if that makes you feel better) view shouldn't be expressed in ANY article here, without sufficient counter-balance. It's called "undue weight" when one side overwhelms the other side in an article. Will edits I make be mercilessly reverted if I add this balance? Should I even bother, knowing you're zealously pushing the other side?

I don't want to change your mind, politically, and of course that's irrelevent to our purpose here. Again, POV-pushing IS NOT ALLOWED on Wikipedia. That means your POV *AND* mine. Yet it's rampant in this and other articles created by the extreme Left for the sole purpose of taking America down a few notches. (What reaction do you expect, by the way, with that attitude?) So my advice is to keep your attitude and opinions on your blog, where they can be respected and read by "fans." Wikipedia is not a blog.

We come back to my question which you never answered:

1. 1. How can all three points of view on American Empire (term) be simultaneously anti-american, especially when two of them (America was never an empire) and (America has always been an empire) are complete opposites?Travb 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the 35 nation intervention article, it mischaracterizes the facts, somewhat. Nicaragua, Columbia, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia and (to a lesser degree, and so far, 7 years later) Kosovo, all ended up - or remained - democracies 10 years after interventions. So the article lies to make a point, which may or may not have some merit, by the way (you must assume I favor interventionism, just like you think I support a "Disneyland" view of history.) Nhprman ^UserLists 19:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the article's author, and he supplied his study behind the information. He never provided a list of the 35 countries, despite me asking. So I assumed that he meant the following 35 countries, which other leftist have provided:

35 countries

35 countries which America has intervened in since since 1945

Between World War II and the present, the United States intervened more than 35 times in developing countries around the world. But our research shows that in only one case—Colombia after the American decision in 1989 to engage in the war on drugs—did a full-fledged, stable democracy with:

1. limits on executive power,
2. clear rules for the transition of power,
3. universal adult suffrage, and
4. competitive elections emerge within 10 years.

That’s a success rate of less than 3 percent.

--Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work

The list the authors use in the article "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work" is from Patrick Regan:

"Our analyses focus on military interventions between 1948 and 2001. Patrick Regan (2000) has amassed a comprehensive dataset of such military interventions." INTERVENTION AND DEMOCRACY^[8], Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs

On page 153-158 of Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict, available on Google print, is the Appendix: Cases of Civil conflicts and interventions. Since I am manually entering this information and our conversation is only about America, I will only re-type American interventions.

* "ongoing" means the conflict was ongoing as of 1994, the year this information was compiled.

Time span*	Country	Casualties	Intervenor(s)	Target	Outcome
1948-1949	Greece	200,000	US UK Albania Yugoslavia Bulgaria	Government Government Opposition Opposition Opposition	Sucess Sucess Failure Failure Failure
1946-1950	China	300,000	US Taiwan	Government Opposition	Failure Failure
1949-1962	Colombia	30,000	US	Government	Failure
1950-1952	Philippines	3,000	US	Government	Success
1954	Guatemala	2,000	US	Opposition	Success
1956-1960	Indonesia	50,000	US China	Government Opposition	Success Failure
1958	Lebanon	30,000	US UK Syria	Government Government Opposition	Success Success Failure
1960-1965	South Vietnam	300,000	US North Vietnam	Government Opposition	Failure Failure
1960-1962	Laos	30,000	US USSR South Vietnam	Opposition Opposition Opposition	Success Success Success
1962-1991	Ethiopia	45,000	US Cuba Cuba USSR USSR Sudan	Government Opposition Government Opposition Opposition	Failure Failure Failure Failure Failure
1963-1973	Laos	18,000	US France North Vietnam	Government Government Opposition	Failure Failure Failure
1965	Domitican Republic	1,000	US Hondoras	Government Government	Success Success
1965-1985	Thailand	10,000	US China Malaysia	Government Opposition Government	Failure Failure Failure
1966-1972	Gutemala	45,500	US	Government	Failure
1967	Zaire	2,000	US Belgium	Government Opposition	Success Failure
1970-1994	South Africa	14,500	UN US UK USSR	Government Opposition Opposition Opposition	Failure Success Success Failure
1970-1975	Cambodia	150,000	US North Vietnam South Vietnam	Government Opposition Government	Failure Success Failure
1971	Sri Lanka	1,000	US UK USSR India Pakistan	Government Government Government Government Government	Success Success Success Success Success
1974	Lebanon	125,000	US France Syria Israel	Government Government Opposition Government	Failure Failure Failure Failure
1975-Ongoing	Indonesia	200,000	US Canada	Opposition Opposition	Failure Failure
1975-1991	Angolia	102,000	US Cuba USSR Zaire South Africa	Opposition Government Government Opposition Opposition	Failure Failure Failure Failure Failure
1978-1984	Guatemala	21,000	US USSR	Government	Failure
1978-1992	Afghanistan	200,000	US USSR Iran Pakistan	Opposition Government Opposition Opposition	Failure Failure Failure Failure
1978-1979	Nicaragua	30,000	US	Government	Failure
1979-1982	El Salvador	60,000	US Honduras	Government Government	Failure Failure

--restricted page--

Time span	Country	Casualties	Intervenor(s)	Target	Outcome
1991-Ongoing	Somalia	300,000	UN US	Neutral Netural	Failure Failure
1991-Ongoing	Iraq	500,000	UN US	Opposition Opposition Opposition	Success Success Success

Here is another list:

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.

* = successful ouster of a government

China 1949, 1950s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * (1) Guatemala 1954 * (2) Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * (3) Iraq 1963 * (4) North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * (5) Laos 1958 *(6), 1959 *(7), 1960 * (8) Ecuador 1960-63 * (9) Congo 1960 * (10) France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * (11) Dominican Republic 1963 * (12) Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * (13) Indonesia 1965 * (14) Ghana 1966 * (15) Chile 1964-73 * (16) Greece 1967 * (17) Costa Rica 1970-71

Bolivia 1971 * (18) Australia 1973-75 * (19) Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * (20) Jamaica 1976-80 * (21) Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * (22) Grenada 1983 * (23) South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * (24) Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * (25) Panama 1989 * (26) Bulgaria 1990 * (27) Albania 1991 * (28) Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * (29) Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * (30) Ecuador 2000 * (31) Afghanistan 2001 * (32) Venezuela 2002 * (33) Iraq 2003 * (34) Haiti 2004 * (35)

--From: Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List, Chapter 15 of Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire by William Blum (Caveat: In my opinion from reading Blum, Blum is incredibly biased, at least two of the alleged US sponsored overthrows [maybe more]: Haiti and Venezuela are not confirmed 100% yet)

Nhprman wrote:

As for the 35 nation intervention article, it mischaracterizes the facts, somewhat. Nicaragua, Columbia, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia and (to a lesser degree, and so far, 7 years later) Kosovo, all ended up - or remained - democracies 10 years after interventions. So the article lies to make a point, which may or may not have some merit, by the way (you must assume I favor interventionism, just like you think I support a "Disneyland" view of history.)

Please remember that the author has strick guidelines for what they characterize as democracy:

1. limits on executive power,
2. clear rules for the transition of power,
3. universal adult suffrage, and
4. competitive elections emerge within 10 years.

• The author acknowleges that Colombia is a democracy, 10 years after. The author's argue this is the only democracy.
• Kosovo/Bosnia may be another acception, but it has not been 10 years.
• I assume when you talk about Panama you are talking about the US invasion in 1989 (?) to overthrow our former puppet Noreaga. In 1999, 10 years later, was Panama a democracy? I don't know enough Panama right now to say. Please do some research on this point and I will write the author and ask them why this is not included or why Grenada is not considered a democracy.
• Grenada. I assume you are talking about the invasion during the Reagan administration when Reagan frightened the American population with an absurd claim that if Grenada became communist, then Soviet tanks are only a days ride to Texas. What year was this? Please do some research on this point and I will write the author and ask them why this is not included or why Grenada is not considered a democracy.

Unfortunalty, the list that the authors rely on by Patrick Regan, one of the pages, the 1980's is blocked by Google Print and the entire section is not available on Amazon. This just happens to cover the two conflicts that you mention: Grenada and Panama. I will attempt to get a hard copy of the book sometime in the future to complete this book.

Lets say though Nhprman, that you are correct, and that these professors are incorrect, and that instead of one conficts, there are actually three conflicts were invasion has been successful in installing a democratic regieme. (Kosovo/Bosnia is still to early) 3 countries divided by 35 is better than 3% but it is still a dismal 8% success rate. Even if you do include Kosovo/bosnia in three years (when the 10 years has run), 4 countries divided by 35 is 11.4% success rate. That means that America has invaded 90% of the countries and been unsuccessful in installing democracies almost 90% of the time. This is a pretty dismal record.

The record looks dismal unless you see American foriegn intervention as control and explotation of third world resources. If a person looks at this record that way, American intervention is a smashing success.

In addition, the Bruce Bueno de Mesquita study does not discuss the dictatorships that America has actively supported since the end of WW2. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita study also does not fully touch upon the democratically elected governments which America has overthrown, either overtly or covertly.

So go ahead and find me some research on Panama and Grenada. I will then study the information that you provide, and then ask the author via e-mail why these countries don't qualify or are not on the list.

I am glad that after 4 or 5 responses, we are finally discussing topics of substance.

---

1. ^ INTERVENTION AND DEMOCRACY is a paper not avaiable on the internet which Mesquita e-mailed to me. It is much more complex but much more detailed than the article Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work, and is the study which Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work was based upon.
   The INTERVENTION AND DEMOCRACY article is much broader than the Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work, and includes studies of the success rates of the UN, autocracies, and other democracies in interventing in other countries and installing democracies after intervention. The study finds that the UN is the most successful of the four.

Signed: Travb 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

you must assume I favor interventionism

User:Nhprman wrote: you must assume I favor interventionism

User:Nhprman, no i don't.

In my experience and in my readings, the vast majority of Americans support James W. Loewen's "disneyland version of history".

Less Americans support interventionism. In fact, America has had a strong history of support for isolationism by its popultation (but unfortunatly not by its leaders). For example, before both world wars America did not want to get involved with these wars, and there was a strong isolationist portion of America.

Interesting, and I just thought of this, it seems, on its face, that post World War 2 Americans were much more willing to invade other countries. Was it because of the propoganda which manfuactured fear was much more sophisticated then before World War 2? I don't have the answer yet.

So in conclusion, while the vast majority of Americans subscribe to a "disneyland version of history" much less Americans support interventionism.

Signed: Travb 15:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Found an interesting article

Gsd2000 and Kalkin, I found an interesting article while I was studying the current Colombia situation for school.

• "Why the End of the Cold War Doesn't Matter: the US War of Terror in Colombia". Bristol University Politics Department. Retrieved February 27, 2006. by Doug Stokes

I wont go into details about it here and I have only read about 3 pages of the 15 pages thus far, but it seems very interesting, and something you may both enjoy. Stokes is the author of America's Other War : Terrorizing Colombia, with a review found here. Travb 03:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Coalition of the Willing map

in reagards to: The World in 2003: Original countries in the US-led "Coalition of the Willing" are marked in green. map. Three cheers that you spent so much time on this map. Although the subject matter is correct, it makes it look like the American empire has shrunk by the end of the cold war, whereas it has only expanded. (except for recently, in America's own backyard with the election of socialist governments in south america) Maybe a fourth map is needed.Travb 15:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that. An increasing number of countries prefer not to officially ally themselves with the United States, especially in light of increasing terrorism and questionable international politics on the United States' side... I think the maps' progression shows this quite adequately. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, just a suggestion.Travb 19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just adding my thoughts on it; if others agree with you, we can work something out, of course. =] (Let me add that it's refreshing to disagree this cordially for a change...) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. Lord knows I fight enough with people, (I have an ongoing fight right now, spanning 4 wikipages I contributed too) it really is nice to have cordial disagreements.Travb 17:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The map is a little misleading though because there are U.S. allies that did not participate in the Iraq War. How about adding, in addition to it, a map of those countries where the U.S. has military bases? Not sure what that would look like but I think it would be useful information. Kalkin 15:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree more with you Kalkin.

But I think User:Nightstallion has a good point too--maybe the map represents American declining power in post cold war world.

I would like to see a map with military bases too. I have some collected info on American Empire, along with a map from the economist of American bases here: http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/4300.html

You will notice on this page at the bottom the Portions of “Benevolent Assimilation” The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903 which inspired a large portion of this artile.

Signed: Travb 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mh. Yes, I s'pose we could add a map for that, as well. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

article organization

I've made three changes:

(1) The discussion of the dictionary definition has been put at the top under "definition of empire." It should be seperated from the historical discussion cleanly. As such it needs some changes.

(2) The "benevolent empire" is a proper subsection of "no empire." This is because the agreement on historical facts and ethical judgements is nearly complete; the difference is terminology. People who argue that the U.S. is a good empire are much closer to those who argue that it is not one than they are to either those who argue that it is a bad empire or that it once was a bad one. The article is clearer if people with similar political and historical positions are kept in the same section, even if they prefer opposite terminology.

(3) Removal of Miller's description of "no empire" theorists. It's unfair to describe them in others' words when their own are available. Miller is clearly hostile to the position and so should not be used to describe what it advocates.

Kalkin 23:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, lets comprimise, I am cool with your first two propositions, I disagree with the third.

I say keep in the Miller description temporarily until someone can come up with more schoalrs who deny that America empire ever existed. I have been completely cool with you slowly taking Miller out of the article, so you know I am good for my word. Add more scholars who subscribe to the idea that America was not an empire, and Miller goes. Does this sound okay?Travb 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind Kalkin, after reading your edits mre thouroughly. I agree with you, I shouldn't have moved the empire argument. Also you have developed the "empire never existed argument" quite well.Travb 03:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The term imperialism as opposed to empire

This article's name I beleive was changed from American imperialism to American empire. The reason I gave for the change is this quote from Miller and Thorton:

Stuart Creighton Miller argues that the overuse and abuse of the term "imperialism" makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept.^[9] Historian Archibald Paton Thorton wrote that "imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."^[10]

This article and others like it were a lightning rod for criticism. Several of these articles were put up for deletion votes several times. To try and calm wikipedians tempers, I suggested renaming these articles, without "imperialism" in the title. This idea worked like magic, a wonderful user switched the names and made the American empire template, and the amount of controversy has died down.

I don't want the controversy to increase anymore than it has too. That is why I changed a few of the titles to "empire" from "imperialism, because we are here to analyze, the term "imperialism" as Thorton says makes people emotional crusaders, which I think should be minimized on wikipedia.Travb 04:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Empire in Oxford, not imperialism

In regrads to this edit[11] the oxford defintion is for empire, not imperialism. Empire is less POV and less emotional than "imperialism".Travb 04:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

("empirialistic" isn't a word, correctly attribute OED, move Miller & Thornton on terminology to top)

True, I agree that empirialistic is not a word, my mistake.

I think that focusing on the term imperialism invites edit wars. I think we should stick to the word "empire" and avoid the term imperialism as much as possible. I don't know how many of you were around when these articles were up for deletion, but it was a real pain to have to fight for these articles to stay on wikipedia.Travb 02:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition is actually for 'imperial.' I'll change the article to reflect that, but look at the footnote.

I think that's true but sometimes we have to use 'imperialism' in some form. I mean really that's what the debate's about. When Miller argues that we shouldn't talk about imperialism he's not just arguing about the word, he's arguing that 'empire' should only be thought of with the legalistic meaning, i.e. possession of sovereignty over territories not considered part of a state. If empire produces more consensus we should stick with it where we can, yes, but at least the definition section should be clear and we can't make up words. Kalkin 04:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Imperialism and empire

There are more than three straw man arguments. The Marxist tie in is not coincidental since Marxists believe capitalism is imperialism (Lenin, 1916) and for them America is empire derives from the syllogism:

• capitalism is imperialism; (Lenin)
• intrinsically imperialistic countries are empires; (circular)
• america is intrinsically capitalist;
• therefore america is an empire,

Mrdthree 01:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your defintion of a straw man argument is incorrectly. I have no idea what you are talking about, especially if you are responding to Kalkin. (If you are responding to Kalkin, I am completely lost with your argument)

Please explain what you are saying in more detail, so I can understand your argument better. Sorry I don't understand Travb 03:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the three arguments (america is imperialist, america is not imperialist, america is accidentally imperialist) are not sufficient to prove the hypothesis that america is an empire. Non-empires can be imperialistic (i.e. imperialism is a necessary but not sufficient property for an empire). What makes an empire then? My claim is that an explicit declaration of imperial policy is necessary to make an empire; if imperialism is not intentional, it is accidental. Everyone agrees that the US government denies being an empire and that the public doesnt understand itself to be an empire.

Someone who believes the US has an imperialistic foreign policy must still account for why teh US government claims it does not intend to have an imperialistic foreign policy to claim the US is an empire. This means showing they are lying or in denial. Also since the american people are generally opposed to the idea US being an empire (or else they would announce it), it means showing the US government conspires against the US people to implement an imperialist foreign policy. As an opponent of marxism I would claim Marxists overcome the issues of trying to prove conspiracy by including a definition of imperialism given by Lenin: capitalism is imperialism. Including this premise allows them to prove US foreign policy is at heart imperial.Mrdthree 05:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Kewl, forgive me for being so jittery, Please understand that it really was horrible during the vote for deletion, and I want to avoid that again at all costs.Travb 04:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Using imperialism to define empire begs the question

Critics of the notion of 'American empire' believe its proponents are changing the meaning of the term 'empire'. They claim proponents of an 'American empire' are begging the question by redefining 'empire' in terms of the politicized and derivative term, imperialism. Imperialism was intially coined in the mid to late 1800s[12] to describe empire-like behavior. At this time there were still empires present for comparison; an empire was an existant form of government with peculiar properties with which comparisons could be made. As actual empires grow more scarce, the meanings of 'imperialism' have shifted and balkanized. For instance, scholars with Marxist sympathies, especially the loudest critics of american empire such as Chomsky and Zinn, believe evidence of capitalistic institutions that promote international trade and banking are sufficient proof of imperialism[13]. Hence they can, and do, argue america is intrinsically imperialistic.

Using traditional historical and political measures, however, few would argue america is an empire. Empires are defined by having an emperor or claims of sovereignty over other countries [14]; the United States asserts neither. The government of the United States is a consitutional republic and none of its laws assert sovereignty over other nations. Neither is there an imperial head of state, king, despot, hereditary title, or individual that is viewed as the source of law and sovereignty.Travb 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved your two paragraphs to talk for the following reasons:

First: verifiable sources

Critics of the notion of 'American empire' believe its proponents are changing the meaning of the term 'empire'. They claim proponents of an 'American empire' are begging the question by redefining 'empire' in terms of the politicized and derivative term, imperialism. Imperialism was intially coined in the mid to late 1800s[15] to describe empire-like behavior. At this time there were still empires present for comparison; an empire was an existant form of government with peculiar properties with which comparisons could be made. As actual empires grow more scarce, the meanings of 'imperialism' have shifted and balkanized.

• The entire article quotes historians, politicians and scholars. Your contributions quote no historians, politicians and scholars. Saying "critics" is not enough, who said this? What scholar said this? Content must be verifiable.

• If you want to explain why America is not an empire, use a scholar. I took out the term "imperialist" as per above.Travb 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Second: Labeling leftist as marxists, misquoting leftists, and incorrect link

For instance, scholars with Marxist sympathies, especially the loudest critics of american empire such as Chomsky and Zinn, believe evidence of capitalistic institutions that promote international trade and banking are sufficient proof of imperialism[16]. Hence they can, and do, argue america is intrinsically imperialistic.

Niether Zinn or Chomsky are communist or marxists. Chomsky is an anarchist, and Zinn wrote an entire play about Emma Goldman, a radical American communist immigrant who became disinchanted with communism after seeing the brutality of the Communist regieme first hand. Zinn is probably a socialist, but I am be wrong. You can be a communist and not a socialist, or a socialist and not a communist. Leftist does not automatically equal Marxist, just as conservative does not equal facist.

Chomsky is quoted earlier in the article. Your contribution does not quote Chomsky or Zinn, and simplifies their views in a negative, simplistic light. The link to Lenin is irrelevant to Chomsky or Zinn.Travb 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Zinn interviewed by bad subjects around BUsh's Jan. 2001 inauguration shows he agrees with the Leninist interpretation of capitalism as imperialism.

• BS: So beneath the globalist consciousness that is so discussed, we basically find a repetition of older patterns of American imperialism?
• Zinn: Right, but as I said, it takes a more sophisticated form now....
• Zinn: Are you suggesting that progressive forces should be using the term 'imperialism' more than using the term 'globalization'?
• BS: (Laughter) Yes, because it more fully expresses the value judgment latent in the way progressives talk about the integration of world economic systems.
• Zinn: Sure, it's very important to point out that globalization is in fact imperialism and that there is a disadvantage to simply using the term 'globalization' in a way that plays into the thinking of people at the World Bank and journalists like Thomas Friedman at the New York Times who are agog at globalization. They just can't contain their joy at the spread of American economic and corporate power all over the world. Sure, it would very good to puncture that balloon and say "This is imperialism."

Mrdthree 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I may have oversimplified Chomsky. A supeficial search shows he limits his use of imperialism to overt cases (rights violations, military), but does raise a sympathetic tone to considering capitalism as imperialism(e.g. here):

"The US is sometimes described as a declining imperial power, which is true if you consider the US as defined by its borders. On the other hand, if you take corporations based in the US, it's not true at all." (Noam Chomsky)

Mrdthree 06:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The detremental effect of many American's views

I am not arguing that Zinn and Chomsky have ideas which are similar to Marixism. I am simply arguing that to call them Marxist is overly simplistic, and incorrect.

In my observation, the thing that many Americans seem to lack is an ability to see nuainces. Especially when it comes to politics, their own history, and other countries, they have naive and broad generalizations, for very complex events and ideas. America is the country where simplistic "sound bites" and simplistic ideas, rule supreme. Worse, most Americans have no desires to even see the nuainces.

I am an international relations major, and I subscribe to the Marxist view of intenational theory of business exploiting labor, without the silly quasi-religous Mosaic view that "Marxism is inevitable". (I find it wonderfully ironic that the one night that my International Relations Theory class is canceled, I am talking about IR theory with you at the same time as my class should be taking place) Both Zinn and Chomsky share my view of business exploiting labor.

Neither, to my knowledge, believe in the mosaic view that Marxism is inevitable. I have met American Communists and they have a religious tone to the future of humanity. I do not see that in either of Zinn and Chomsky's readings.

I am not a "Marxist", no matter what people say in simplistic, broad generalizations. I am not even a socialist. Instead, I am a far-left liberal. Human beings, by our very nature, attempt to categorize and label complex processes and ideas into simple boxes. It is much easier, and much less intellectual work, for you to dismiss Chomsky, Zinn, and my own views as "Communist" and "Marxist". It is much harder, and much more intellectual work, to find the important nuainces between our views and those of Marxism.

Lenin was not a Marxist

Also, please keep in mind that even Lenin was not a Marxist. Communism was a faux (fake) Marxist society for several reasons. First, Marx taught that their must be a capitalist society in existence before Communism.

The revolution in Russia happened in a peasant society, which never had capatilism. Lenin adopted the "Vanguard theory"—-if you can teach people about their alienation, you can "jump-start the revolution" (Lenin believed that Russians were going to teach the people about their material alienation)"

This idea that you can "jump-start the revolution" is completly foreign to Marxism theory. Marx taught that the people would rise up and overthrow the ruling class. It was a bottom-up process, not a top-down process. My professor says that Marx would never accept Lenin as a Marxist.

Second, and most Americans do not realize this, I found personally in Ukraine that Soviets themselves never saw themselves as a Communist society--Communism was an ideal to be reached, hopefully someday in the undetermined future. The Soviet Union saw itself as a socialist country moving toward the communist ideal--the utopia of Communism.

The terribly determinal effect of simplistic labels

I am troubled by you calling Zinn and Chomsky Marxists. First of all, as I show above, it is incorrect (Chomsky is an anarchist). Second, throughout American history, Americans use the label of Communism and Marxism as a propoganda tool to stop a more socially equal society and to get the US into wars.

This vicious propoganda is the reason why America, unlike Europe, has no real labor party. It was destroyed with years of violent oppression. This detremental propoganda is the reason why Americas social net is in such tatters. Why 37 million Americans, including myself and my family have no health insurance.

As I often quote:

"What should one write to ruin an adversary? The best thing is to prove that he is not one of us -- the stranger, alien, foreigner. To this end we create the category of the true family. We here, you and I, the authorities, are a true family. We live in unity, among our own kind. We have the same roof over our heads, we sit at the same table, we know how to get along with each other, how to help each other out. Unfortunately, we are not alone."--Ryszard Kapuscinski in Shah of Shahs

Throughout American history, any person that attempts to question the business ruling class here in America, is labeled a "communist". Any group or people who threatens the business class of America is dismissed as "communist".

Did you know that throughout America's shameful history, Social security, the 8 hour work day, minimum wage, unions, the FDA, have all been labeled as "commuist"? Did you know that more Americans have died in labor disputes than in any other country?

• Please see Labor Unions: International comparisons which I wrote.
• Please see the Duck test, which I helped write, which shows how the American elite use the label of communist to overthrow a democratically elected government.

Again and again, the business and ruling elite teach the masses that those people who advocate social change or internatioanl cooperation, are like the quote above: those people are not "true Americans", they are not "one of us". They are the "others". Incredibly effective and devistating propoganda, which I fear you have accepted, like your most of our US brothers and sisters, hook-line-and-sinker.

I apologize

I apologize if this next statment comes across as rude. I argue that your view is naive and simplistic. It does not take into account the incredible nuances of the beliefs of the American left. It is the same as me labeling your views, or the views of the right, as facist.

In addition, I argue that your view is detremental to the social fabric of America as a whole, is the reason behind the deaths of millions of people worldwide, and is even determential to your own economic welfare and well being. What is so despressing is so many Americans have been conditioned to believe the same detrimental bullshit.

So continue to label anything which questions American society as "communist" it is like labeling a person's view as "crazy".

This is exactly what Americans are doing to the leadership of Iran right now, without any desire to understand why Iran is justifiably so afraid of American hemogony. Once a person labels another as "crazy" or "communist" all of their ideas are automatically dismissed, no matter what the real merit of the ideas.

Signed:Travb 02:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats no sound bite. Thats a whole meal. Im gonna have to throw it on the subconscious boiler plate. Mrdthree 06:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I dont understand again. Your use of the word boiler plate is confusing. do you mean back burner? Travb 06:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

oh yeah. back burner. I think its pretty well established that Marx has had an influence on historical analysis and other social sciences. When I say Marxist I dont mean communist. I mean It assumes a Marxist frame or falls in the Marxist tradition. Im not an expert on marx so to me this has two major elements, economic class analysis of historical and social dynamics and a labor theory of value and exploitation. Economic class analysis is a useful approach, but I dont think its determining. I am sympathetic to the position that ideas are the primary mover of history (Hegelian). Class analysis is useful to understand and measure how the idea is incorporates into a society. As for the labor theory of value I dont agree with it or the consequent claim of capitalist exploitation. I knew Chomsky was a libertarian socialist, but when I said he has Marxist sympathies I mean with respect to particular ideas such as the premises of class analysis and labor theories of value, exploitation, and imperialism. In the case of Lenin I dont know much about him except that he is teh source of a claim popular and mostly incorporated into the Marxist frame-- capitalism as imperialism. All of which may be logically consequent if you agree with the labor theory of value as a premise.Mrdthree 07:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you know much more about Marx than I do. "I mean It assumes a Marxist frame or falls in the Marxist tradition." Problem is when Americans say "Marxist" it is almost a vulgarity, and as i argue above, this label has been a very effective tool to marginalize social change in America and abroad. You seem smart enough to understand the nuainces between those on the left, most Americans aren't interested in understanding those nuainces.

I don't know anything about Labor theory of value I had to look it up. I have heard of the term, even studied the term in my undergrad, but I had forgotten what it meant.

My good lord Mrdthree your contributions to this article and our discusion here is shocking--it is like talking to a different person. My initial reaction to your contribution was that you were not very well read and that you had came here for a fight. After talking to you a bit, I realize that you are probably much more well read then I am in certain areas, and I respect that, I may disagree with your final conclusions, but I respect your knowledge. Just proves that you can't always judge a person by a first impression. I can't emphasize this enough: it is like talking to a different person. Travb 08:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have to concur with Mrdthree's perspective that the word Marxist is used in many different contexts. Although I don't know much about the situation in America, here in the UK Marxist and Communist political parties have almost no impact on mainstream politics; however, this doesn't mean that Marxist ideas haven't influenced many people on the left. In a sense, many academic historians could be, and frequently are, described as Marxist; not because they subscribe to Marxist or Marxist-Leninist political views, but because they have been influenced by Marx's interpretation of political history as being defined in economic terms, viz. those with property and wealth dominate power structures. Returning to the subject at hand, the interpretation of America as imperialist, as well as the perception of 'empire' as being dominated by big business and wealth production, is an interpretation that belongs to the Marxist school of historical thought. This does not mean that it is solely a Communist or socialist belief, nor that one has to be a Marxist to subscribe to it. But this interpretation of political-economic history is one that originates with Marx. I hasten to add that I am not calling anyone a Communist or a Marxist-Leninist. But while most socialists and leftists today would not subscribe to doctrinaire Marxism, the fundamentals of their political thought are based around the Marxist school of interpretation that stresses the power of capital. I also agree with Travb's statement that Marxism-Leninism is qualitatively different from philosophical Marxism in a number of ways. Marx was a thinker and historian; his views were based around abstract thought and academic interpretation. Lenin was an active politician, and so moulded some of the principles of Marxism to suit his immediate needs and advantages. As such, Marxism as practised in the USSR was not entirely true to the rather unrealistic dreams of Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. From my own more centre-right perspective, and from the perspective of a student of history, it appears to me that it is not mindless bigotry to refer to the ideas of 'American imperialism' and 'oppressive capitalism' as leftist views. They are, in essence, leftist views influenced by the economic-political theories of Karl Marx, among a variety of other writers and politicians. This does not mean that everyone subscribing to them is a radical leftist, and I am not in the habit of McCarthy-style anti-Communist rants against anyone who disagrees with me. Therefore, I hope no one is offended by this comment. If they are, I apologise. Walton monarchist89 13:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Third: verifiable sources, and "few"

Using traditional historical and political measures, however, few would argue america is an empire. Empires are defined by having an emperor or claims of sovereignty over other countries [17]; the United States asserts neither. The government of the United States is a consitutional republic and none of its laws assert sovereignty over other nations. Neither is there an imperial head of state, king, despot, hereditary title, or individual that is viewed as the source of law and sovereignty.

As the above definition of Empire states, America does not match the definition of Empire on the first defintion, but may match the definition on defintion two and three.

Your sentence "few would argue america is an empire." is not sourced. Again, your arguments need to be verifable and come from a verifable source. Find a scholar or author that believes the way you do, and add it to the article. The entire article is full of scholars and historians. Please contribute the ideas of scholars and historians.

If anyone would like to debate that America could never be an empire because the US never had an :emperor, two other users already agrued this on this page.

• Here: Term_empire_used_with_pride

and

• Here: This_Is_A_Joke

Debates should be kept on the talk page, please. Travb 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I will give my thoughts here.

• I agree with gatsby that there is a difference between imperialist and empire. imperialism is a property of empires and non-empires.
• Second Britain had the Magna Carta, but was also an empire by decree-- it recognized other countries and claimed dominion over them and understood its policies and goals and government to be an empire. THis is presently not the case with the united states.
• I will summarize my objection by saying an empire makes intentionally imperialistic policies but a non-empire makes accidentally imperialistic policies. To show that america is an empire, it must be shown that it is one despite its claims of having the opposite intention. Mrdthree 06:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I will summarize my objection by saying an empire makes intentionally imperialistic policies but a non-empire makes accidentally imperialistic policies. To show that america is an empire, it must be shown that it is one despite its claims of having the opposite intention.

I think you are arguing the "mistake thesis", a common argument among Americans. (more in a sec). Ironic that you quote Gatsby in your first point. I have never read Gatsby, but here is a quote from a man I loathe:

"As F. Scott Fitzgerald explained of his characters in "The Great Gatsby," "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed things up and creatures and then retreated back into their money, or their vast carelessness... and let other people clean up the mess." America has not been venal in the Arab world. But it has been careless."

I will have to firmly disagree with this idea.

Why? How many times would a person you know have to make a "mistake" before you felt like it really wasn't a mistake anymore?

Lets say you have a kid, and he tries marijuana once, and you catch him. He says it was all a "mistake" a lack of judgement, and too please forgive him. You are a caring, loving father, and you forgive him. Then a few months later, you again catch your son with marijauna, again he says, it was a mistake, a lack of judgement, and too please forgive him. And a few weeks later you catch him again, and again, and again. How many times would you forgive this mistake before you realized it was not simply a temporary lack of judgement, a mistake, but your son really wants to get high all the time?

Now, if this father closed his eyes to his sons abuse, and did not want to see the tell-tale signs of drug use, then he could easily believe that that one time that he caught his son with marijuana was a "mistake".

My thesis, based on my studies, is that American foreign policy is consistent: human rights abuses, support for dictators, suppresion of democracy, and the deaths of millions of people, is no mistake, it is American foreign policy. I am that father who refuses to close his eyes to the evidence, who searches that child's room for drug paraphinila. Who is willing to accept hard, brutal truths, no matter how difficult they are to accept, no matter how much that evidence will rock the foundation of my life.

I argue, that those people who accept the "mistake/Gatsby thesis" about American foreign policy are like the father who doesn't want to accept the realization that his son is a druggie. They actively seek out reassurances that their country is benign and good, and they chastize and belittle those who tell them otherwise. They want to believe, with all their hearts, that America is this beacon of freedom and democracy in the world, and they will do almost anything to protect this belief.

The evidence is all there, the question is are you willing to shake the foundations of your life to face it?

Signed Travb 08:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be mad

I hope you take this the right way, there are three views, (and probably more) listed on this page. Your contributions, with a little research, can be a welcome addition to one of these three (or maybe even three of these three!) arguments. There are 33 footnotes in this article. I hope to see some of your own footnoted sources soon.

I have learned that the best way to win a wikidebate is outsource someone. I won debates decisevely on Philippine-American War and the Business Plot. If you think that I am a pinko-commie anti-American pig for thinking that America is an empire, then outsource me. Please, I welcome your contributions, I really, really do.

Include verifable sources with your contributions. Unfortunatly, without verifiable sources, then a person's contributions simply become POV, which in most cases are quickly removed from wikipedia. Again, I welcome your contributions, but the must be verifable contributions. Wikipedia rules demand this, not me.

I sincerly look forward to your continued contributions! I joined Wikipedia to test my pig-headed views--I hope you can shake my ideology to its foundations. I love how a handful of Wikipedians force me to learn and to grow.

Signed Travb 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

First I am not rewriting your article, I am presenting a one paragraph opposing view. I am not looking to disparage Zinn or Chomsky by saying they have marxist sympathies. Its simply afact (wikipedia them). The point is that most marxists and socialists believe in capitalism as imperialism (Read Lenin or wikipedia Marxist notions of imperialism [18]. THis makes it intellectual commonsense for a socialist or marxist to claim that america is an empire, regardless of the original sense of the word. You may be coming from a commonsense military definition of imperialism but the historians you cite do not. As for the semantics of empire and imperialism I will chase down sources. Advocacy is an inescapable part of scholarship and the motivation to work at Wikipedia, you want people to know about america the empire, marxists and chomsky want people to know america is an empire because it is (corporate) capitalist and I dont want young minds thinking that these are the only educated points of view.Mrdthree 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

First I am not rewriting your article, I am presenting a one paragraph opposing view.

Great, please provide verifable sources, it is not my article by a long shot. It ceased being my creation a long, long time ago...

I am not looking to disparage Zinn or Chomsky by saying they have marxist sympathies. Its simply a fact (wikipedia them).

I just explained that Zinn was a anarchist. I have read Zinn and Chomsky, and have read their wikipedia pages.

The point is that most marxists and socialists believe in capitalism as imperialism (Read Lenin or wikipedia Marxist notions of imperialism [19]. THis makes it intellectual commonsense for a socialist or marxist to claim that america is an empire, regardless of the original sense of the word.

Can a person believe America is imperialist and not be marxist?

Yes. Its just that a Marxist can do less research by making a theoretical case. Without the Marxist theory you have to prove denial by the american public and conspiracy to hide the true intentions of foreign policy by the US government and media. Denial and conspiracy are not easy charges to prove... without a informant.. (which is part of why Chomsky talks and talks for hours and hours and.. ).Mrdthree 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be coming from a commonsense military definition of imperialism but the historians you cite do not.

Great! Cite them! Please, I welcome your contributions.

you want people to know about america the empire

So I am a marxist too? I lived for two and a half years in Ukraine and saw the horrid consequences of the Soviet version of communism. my wife is ukrainian.

signed Travb 05:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

ukranian girl? lucky dog.Mrdthree 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for the compromise. Somehow an inch was enough for me to lose the will to contest the issue anymore.Mrdthree 06:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have to concur with Mrdthree's perspective that the word Marxist is used in many different contexts. Although I don't know much about the situation in America, here in the UK Marxist and Communist political parties have almost no impact on mainstream politics; however, this doesn't mean that Marxist ideas haven't influenced many people on the left. In a sense, many academic historians could be, and frequently are, described as Marxist; not because they subscribe to Marxist or Marxist-Leninist political views, but because they have been influenced by Marx's interpretation of political history as being defined in economic terms, viz. those with property and wealth dominate power structures. Returning to the subject at hand, the interpretation of America as imperialist, as well as the perception of 'empire' as being dominated by big business and wealth production, is an interpretation that belongs to the Marxist school of historical thought. This does not mean that it is solely a Communist or socialist belief, nor that one has to be a Marxist to subscribe to it. But this interpretation of political-economic history is one that originates with Marx. I hasten to add that I am not calling anyone a Communist or a Marxist-Leninist. But while most socialists and leftists today would not subscribe to doctrinaire Marxism, the fundamentals of their political thought are based around the Marxist school of interpretation that stresses the power of capital. I also agree with Travb's statement that Marxism-Leninism is qualitatively different from philosophical Marxism in a number of ways. Marx was a thinker and historian; his views were based around abstract thought and academic interpretation. Lenin was an active politician, and so moulded some of the principles of Marxism to suit his immediate needs and advantages. As such, Marxism as practised in the USSR was not entirely true to the rather unrealistic dreams of Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. From my own more centre-right perspective, and from the perspective of a student of history, it appears to me that it is not mindless bigotry to refer to the ideas of 'American imperialism' and 'oppressive capitalism' as leftist views. They are, in essence, leftist views influenced by the economic-political theories of Karl Marx, among a variety of other writers and politicians. This does not mean that everyone subscribing to them is a radical leftist, and I am not in the habit of McCarthy-style anti-Communist rants against anyone who disagrees with me. Therefore, I hope no one is offended by this comment. If they are, I apologise. Walton monarchist89 13:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (NB I have repeated this comment from earlier, as I put it in the wrong place before. It follows on from both sections. Walton monarchist89 13:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

From my own more centre-right perspective, and from the perspective of a student of history, it appears to me that it is not mindless bigotry to refer to the ideas of 'American imperialism' and 'oppressive capitalism' as leftist views. They are, in essence, leftist views influenced by the economic-political theories of Karl Marx, among a variety of other writers and politicians. I agree, I don't know about the UK, but outside of acedimia, calling someone a Marx or communist here is used as a weapon, to destroy a person's ideas.Travb 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I must stress that I wasn't calling you or anyone else a Communist. I was just saying that many leftists, including some who might be described as Marxist, take the perspective that America is an imperialist state, dominated by capitalists, that exploits other nations in the interests of its own economic security. I'm not saying this isn't a valid view. I've already agreed, in a previous archived discussion on this page, that America is a de facto empire, as it exerts influence and power, either formal or informal, over a wide area. (I've also stated that it isn't a de jure empire, but admittedly that's not quite relevant here.)

As to what I was saying when invoking the name of Marx as an economic-political-historical thinker, a good example of what I was describing would be the British historian Eric Hobsbawm, whose historiographical interpretation is based, broadly, on Marx's interpretation of economic politics, and who is sometimes described as 'Marxist' in academic circles. There are many other historians, both in Britain and the US, who take a similar perspective. This doesn't mean that they're Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries; they clearly aren't.

Returning to the question at hand (sorry I do tend to get sidetracked), America can be described as a de facto empire according to a dictionary definition; I've already agreed this. Whether America is an exploitative imperialist state, using the term 'imperialist' in its usual pejorative sense, is a matter of socio-political perspective. The view that America is such a state is one that tends to be associated with leftists - not necessarily Marxists. I was just saying that Karl Marx, purely as an academic thinker, has had an influence on this school of thought. This doesn't mean that anyone who believes it is a Marxist, and I have never said this. I have no respect for the kind of debaters who cry 'Communist!' at anyone who disagrees with them; such people exist not just in the US. I try not to be that kind of person. As a student of history, I only use the terms Communist and Marxist in relation to the actual socio-political-economic perspective of Karl Marx, not as a blanket statement for anyone who doesn't agree with me. And I hope that I haven't come over as insulting; I apologise again if you felt I was calling anyone Marxist. Walton monarchist89 09:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no respect for the kind of debaters who cry 'Communist!' at anyone who disagrees with them; such people exist not just in the US. I try not to be that kind of person. As a student of history, I only use the terms Communist and Marxist in relation to the actual socio-political-economic perspective of Karl Marx, not as a blanket statement for anyone who doesn't agree with me. And I hope that I haven't come over as insulting; I apologise again if you felt I was calling anyone Marxist.

No, I am not offended.

I had a class which the professor would spend the first half of the class discussing current events. Being law school, the majority of the students were conservatives. We watch the movie The Corporation in the class. Which was labeled communist by a good majority of the class.

A right wing guy brought up the fact that Michael Moore had quoted Stalin in the movie (capitalists will build the rope to hang themselves with), in a crude but effective attempt to discredit all of the ideas in the movie.

As usual, I was in the marginalized minority. I couldn't count how many times people labeled anything I said as "communist". People in the states, even those in the upper tiers of society (as evidenced by my law school class) use the word communism as a very effective weapon to destroy ideas outside of a rigid belief system.

A fellow conservative history undergraduate used the "C" word too, trying to destroy my argument. After class I told him how it was intellectually dishonest and underhanded to attach the "C" word to my idea, and that he knew better. He argued that both himself and I understand the nuances of communism. But I retorted that the majority of Americans, that the audience he was trying to influence did not understand the different nuances of the left, nor cared too, so it was an underhanded tactic to label my ideas publicly as "communist" knowing that the majority of the audience would attach negative conetations to the word, and therefore dismiss my ideas out of hand.

Here in the states,anything labeled as "communist" is automatically dismissed. I know you understand the differences between communism and other leftist ideas, and I know, unlike this history law student, that you are not trying to unfairly influence others who are ignorant of those nuances. So no harm done.

Don't worry, I am not offended by your statments at all.Travb 14:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to raise a small objection to one of your statements here. You say "capitalists will build the rope to hang themselves with". To my understanding, this is a misuse of the term "capitalist", as you seem to be using it as a synonym for "conservative" or "rightist". Regardless of political perspective, I have only come across two uses of the term:

1) (In economic theory) One who possesses capital, i.e. wealth and property.

2) (In politics) One who supports a capitalist economic system, i.e. one that includes private property.

(You've probably noticed that I like to list and categorise things - just a weird habit of mine.) Anyway, definition 2 is not a synonym for 'conservative' or 'right-wing'. There are plenty of people on the centre or centre-left of politics who could be described as 'capitalist', in that they support the principle of private ownership of property, and do not support nationalisation or co-operative ownership of industries. Many such people would be offended to be described as conservatives. The only people who can be properly described as non-capitalist would be Marxists, far-left democratic socialists, and anarcho-syndicalists, as these are the only people who believe that no substantial property or wealth should be in private hands. I hasten to add that it doesn't offend me; I am both a conservative and a pro-capitalist. As to the film The Corporation, I've never seen it myself, but after reading your contribution I looked up the article on the film. It sounds like a valid point of view, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as 'communist'. Like any other system, global capitalism has an impact that is worth addressing, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue that there should be no state regulation or review of the activities of global corporations. This viewpoint isn't communist, or even necessarily leftist. Sorry, I've got rather sidetracked from the point of this debate, so it might be best to start a new section. Walton monarchist89 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

definition 2 is not a synonym for 'conservative' or 'right-wing'. I agree. You maybe intersted in this, it is on a page that I created a few days ago:

Talk:Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse#The_other_side_of_the_coin:_Lenin_on_the_coming_Communist_revolution

goes along with what we were talking about.Travb 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest eliminating the comment Support for oppressive governments in the Middle East such as the Shah's Iran, Egypt after 1972, the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq prior to 1991 as well as the present occupation of that country. Extremely POV - anyone could claim oppression in any government, as a consequence of defining oppression - nevertheless, support of oppressive regimes is not a suggestion of imperialism (only to the extent that support of ANY other country is) - this comment is thrown here not to support the original claim, but only to disparage the US. I therefore suggest eliminating it. Adrade 19:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Adrade. This comment is indeed POV; "oppressive" is an emotive and pejorative word that depends on political and moral perspective. I suggest that rather than deleting the comment outright, the word "oppressive" could be changed to "authoritarian" or "non-democratic". Incidentally, Israel doesn't belong in this list anyway; it is not an authoritarian state, but a parliamentary democracy (check its entry if you don't believe me). Whether it is "oppressive", of course, is a matter of opinion. Walton monarchist89 12:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already removed the adjective entirely, it's really not necessary. Re Israel, it's hard to call anything a democracy which grants no political rights to a substantial portion of the people it governs (i.e. the Palestinians). But this isn't the right article for that debate. Kalkin 16:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I archived

I archived the discussian as per the discussion with Mrdthree.Travb 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

The section that states U.S. Foreign Interventions stretches the truth beyond means. I don't know who wrote that section but much of what they claim is false or biased in a viewpoint. Most of the evidence is truthful but there are some stretches and there are no dates or sources to back up this info. For instance discrepencies include

• Territorial conquests of Mexico

There was one war with Mexico, Mexican-American War and afterwards in 1853 there was the Gadsen Purchase, there were not conquests, one war exactly.

• Annexation and conquest of Hawaii.

There was no conquest of Hawaii, there was no organized fighting force that opposed American annexation and no rebellion, American businessmen overthrew the government, not American military. See Kingdom of Hawaii for more info

• Military intervention in Colombia to separate the department of Panama and build the Panama Canal.

America did not militarily fight Colombia for Panamanian independence, Panama claimed independence and America supported it and told Colombia to recognize it as well, threatening, no military invasion of colombia took place. See Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, its the treaty that established panamanian independence and U.S. ownership of canal and Panama for more information.

There are alot more cases of this but I think i've given some of the worst examples here. Its just biased wording and added words that are creating these false notions, simple changes would make them NPOV. - Patman2648 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the POV so ignore the above sections. - Patman2648 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Patman2648, Please read my law school paper I wrote this semester. The US has had a very disturbing and bloody history with Colombia. See page 6 of my paper on The Panama Canal to FARC, and also read History_of_the_Panama_Canal#Roosevelt_and_Panama_independence which I wrote a good portion of. I would be very interested in your reaction to my work, which I predicte will be negative. Travb 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevant excerpts:

The history of Colombia has been strongly shaped by the United States. In 1846 the US Polk administration signed a treaty with Colombia, which owned Panama at the time. A railway across the ithmus was opened in 1855. ^[20] Under the treaty U.S. troops landed in Panama six times in the nineteenth century to crush rebellions, ensuring that the railway wasn't hindered. ^[21]

In 1903 the US and Colombia negotiated a new treaty. The representative of the company which owned the railway publicly predicted and threatened that Panama would secede if the Colombian Senate rejected the treaty. ^[22] In 1903, despite US threats, the Colombian senate refused to ratify the Hay-Herran Treaty. ^[23] The United States encouraged an uprising of historically rebellious Panamanians and then used US warships to impede any interference from Colombia. ^[24] The new Panamanian government then negotiated a treaty favorable to the US for the Panama Canal. ^[25]

Signed:Travb 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Colombia and U.S.

Firstly, I'm not going to be negative towards your views or beliefs because it doesn't matter if your an anarchist frog worshipper as long as you make good factually based edits and are civil in conversation I think you're a wonderful wikipedian which what I think you are! You seem scared of condemnation from you're earlier If you think that I am a pinko-commie anti-American pig for thinking that America is an empire statement and your prediction of negative arguments against you, just relax, there's a few angry spiteful wikipedians out there but I'm not one of them, just make edits that are neutral and truthful and be friendly and I'll thank you for it and welcome your opinions.

I am used to condemnation from my more enlightened American brothern who are still true believers of Americanism, the religon which binds Americans together.Travb 04:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondly please don't take this negatively but Military intervention might be a little strong for what happened exactly with the Panama canal situation, gunboat diplomacy or big stick diplomacy which is exactly what your article claims they did might be better. Panama proceeded to proclaim its independence on 3 November 1903, and the USS Nashville in local waters impeded any interference from Colombia (see gunboat diplomacy). and more specifically big stick diplomacy. Would it be alright with you if either gunboat diplomacy or big stick diplomacy is used? Either of those would be completely acceptable with me and I hopefully they meet your definition. If not please tell me as soon as possible and I'm sure we can quickly agree on a topic. - Patman2648 04:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are a great diplomat. As a result, your life on wikipedia is infinitly easier than mine often is. "You get more bees with honey, not vinegar." Smart. I am not sure what you are talking about. Change what you would like. No prob. You seem pretty mellow and "play well with others", which is nice. I need to learn from you. Travb 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I made one slight change that I talked about earlier changed "military intervention" to gunboat diplomacy, thank you for your approval. I'm really sorry that people are so intolerant of your views, I try to appreciate everybody's views so that I see the full spectrum of ideas and choose which one is best for me, marketplace of ideas, which what makes democracy and a free society so great is that people can choose their own beliefs from a wide variety and pick which one fits them best. I know that you're an intelligent and passionate person and should be treated that way not with condemnation and cries of heresy. The best words of advice that I can give you about wikipedia is to not edit pages that you feel too passionately about because then bias can come out and when someone edits your words then it'll angry you. Also if people are ignorant and uncivil towards you then try to be civil in return and if that doesn't work then don't talk to them, some people are real jerks and you just have to leave them alone because there are plenty of wonderful intelligent people out there like you. In the end I just want to say that I appreciate your kind words towards my character and am equally impressed by your great personality. Best of luck in the future and Cheers. - Patman2648 05:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually thrive on controversy sometimes, see Talk:Cuba. Best of luckTravb 05:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

DKalkin

Some of those changes were good, some were not, and added POV of their own. I've made some minor grammar/format changes, and some that you may dispute:

• Changing "peacekeeping" to "intervention", because whether NATO intervention in Yugoslavia kept the peace or was intended to is certainly a matter of controversy.
• Adding "military intervention" back to the discussion of Panama - the U.S. sent gunboats, see History of the Panama Canal, and fighting isn't required for intervention.
• Changing the use of the U.S. military codenames for the initial operations of the Gulf War and Iraq War to those names, "Gulf War" and "Iraq War." The latter are more commonly used, much more informative to someone who does not know the history, and describe a phenomenon which goes beyond the actual military operations of the U.S. Kalkin 01:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

With how the section is now I'm completely fine with, the worst twisting of words are gone and what's there now is all factually based and the words generally neutral, what i had previous problems with were exaggerations of statements or words that were too specific for what occurred, such as the when it stated that there were conquests of Mexico, conquest would be a terrible word to use here to explain a war with Mexico and subsequent annexation, the other problem with Hawaii was fixed. The reason I chose to use peacekeeping for Yugoslavia was because the word interference was another poor word to use, interference is where something unwanted interrupts, most would agree that the war crimes shouldn't be allowed to carry on and almost the entire world community wasn't supporting the brutality and ethic cleansing that Milosevic was doing, intervention which you proposed is a much better word than interference. NATO claimed the intent to peacekeep so that's why I put it there, in fact the demands of NATO was for Yugoslavia to allow "peacekeepers" into the country and return borders to status quo but Milosevic refused that why I use peacekeeping but I'm equally fine with intervention because broader words the better when dealing with controversial issues so don't worry and its not a problem with me at all. I also completely agree with your choice of using broad terms of using Iraq War and Gulf War because just like you said that, people unaware would better understand. The reason I used military terms for the it was because the section is talking military interventions and using the exact terms for the military interventions would be best and if you clicked on the links they went to the the page of Gulf War and Iraq War anyways so we had the same pages in mind. In the end, I just want to reiterate that I'm fine with the changes and I liked the work that you did and appreciate you discussing the issues with me instead of just tinkering with the page and not talking about it. I gave the courtesy to talk about what I was going to change and why and I'm very happy that you also were very courteous and civil to do the same. Thank you and Best of luck in the future - Patman2648 04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Gunboat diplomacy" is fine with me - this seems to be an instance of a general rule of thumb that the best way to resolve disputes about wording is usually to just get more specific.

As I said, some of your changes were improvements. Thanks for dealing with this in a reasonable way. I don't believe that the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia improved the situation - it lengthened the war in Bosnia and directly enabled the largest ethnic cleansing, that of Serbs by the Croatian military - but this article is not the right place to go into that dispute, let alone take a side. Kalkin 04:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest, is "big stick diplomacy" (mentioned above in relation to the Panama Canal affair a reference to Franklin D. Roosevelt's maxim "Speak softly and carry a big stick"? Walton monarchist89 09:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you question was directed to Patman2648, but I believe the answer is "yes", but Patman2648 would be able to answer that more fully.Travb 10:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, its actually Theodore Roosevelt's mention but you're right about it coming from a maxim and it developed into an entire foreign policy used by Roosevelt during his presidency and its extremely similar to Gunboat diplomacy, see Big Stick Diplomacy page for more info and I'm glad you asked and knew that maxim, its one of my favorite. - Patman2648 23:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Immaculate conception???

The section on "American exceptionalism" refers to an "immaculate conception view of America's origins". I'm not quite sure what kind of analogy the author is trying to draw here. The immaculate conception is, obviously, a theological concept believed by all members of the Catholic Church. If the author is trying to say that Americans are deluding themselves into believing an "innocent" view of their national history (which would be a POV statement in itself), and is comparing this with Catholics' belief in the purity of the Virgin Mary, couldn't this be regarded as an anti-Catholic comment? I just can't see that the analogy is sound. Walton monarchist89 12:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back User:Walton monarchist89 good to see you again. It is nice to be in a "place where everyone knows your name", isnt it, like the themesong of Cheers goes.

Anti-Catholic: no. I wouldn't go that far. I don't know how much of the original quote survived Dkakins subesquent edits. Oh almost everything. Thanks Dkakin.

"Miller argues that this agony is because of America’s sense of innocence, produced by a kind of "immaculate conception" view of America's origins. When European settlers came to America they miraculously shed their old ways upon arrival in the New World, as one might discard old clothing, and fashioned new cultural garments based solely on experiences in a new and vastly different environment."

Basically Miller argues that Americans view themselves as unique. This is why American's text books focus little on the origins of the ideas which brought America into existence. As the saying goes: no event is born in a vaccuum. By deemphisizing or ignoring the similarities that America has with other cultures, America get a religious view of their country, that their country is special, and unique, and even blessed by God:

As Miller continues:

"Miller believes that school texts, patriotic media, and patriotic speeches on which Americans have been reared do not stress the origins of America's system of government, that these sources often omit or downplay that the "United States Constitution owes its structure as much to the ideas of John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes as to the experiences of the Founding Fathers; that Jeffersonian thought to a great extent paraphrases the ideas of earlier Scottish philosophers; and that even the allegedly unique frontier egalitarian has deep roots in seventeenth century English radical traditions."[6] Philosopher Douglas Kellner traces the identification of American exceptionalism as a distinct phenomenon back to 19th century French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who concluded by agreeing that the U.S., uniquely, was "proceeding along a path to which no limit can be perceived.""

In that context is Miller's statment anti-catholic? That is up to you to decide.Travb 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, "anti-Catholic" would be too strong a term to use. I'm not hugely familiar with Miller's work, but on closer perusal, I see that the article's wording traces the analogy firmly to Miller. As such, it's a valid point of view, although I don't personally concur with Miller's interpretation in the slightest. Don't most people, in all nations, have patriotic feelings that may bias their perspective on their own country's history? Certainly, many Americans believe that the constitutional concepts of liberty and representative government are a purely American invention, while in reality they can be traced back to a variety of European philosophers.

But we're all biased towards our own nations, and there's nothing wrong with that. To give a completely different example, most people in New Zealand staunchly maintain that the Wright Brothers did not develop the first aeroplane; it is a historical controversy whether New Zealand farmer Richard Pierce was in fact the first man to construct a powered aircraft. Of course, most air historians are quite satisfied that the Wright Brothers' flight was the first flight long enough to be regarded as successful - but just try telling a New Zealander that. Sorry I've got a bit sidetracked, but basically I am only trying to prove that every nation has a slightly distorted conception of its own history. That isn't unique to Americans. Walton monarchist89 09:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points Walton, albiet I don't know how we could work these ideas into the article, and further, they would need to be sourced.

True, all countries are patriotic. Although the US is incredibly so. Nothing wrong with that, as far as patriotism goes.

Saying every country is patriotic can also be interpreted as saying that the differences between the US and other countries should not be addressed--if everyone is patriotic, then there is no reason to point this out. Of course, there are different levels of patriotism. In Ukraine, for example, where I lived, and where my wife is from, the people have little patriotism toward Ukraine, even during the USSR the patriotism never reached the levels that America had (to my knowledge the only country that comes close to this level of patriotism is pre-World War II Japan and Germany--Europeans today certainly do not have the level of patriotism and nationalism of Americans)

The US is the only empire which the majority of its population denies that it is an empire (if you accept the premise that the US is an empire, which you also do not). Miller is attempting to explain why, with one theory. You are welcome to add competing, cited theories. I am quite happy with the depth of this article now, mostly because of the work of Dkalkin, who added many competing theories and ideas. I don't know how else I could personally make this article better right now.

Anyway, edit away, but please cite sources, and avoid Weasel words, a pet peeve of mine. Thanks for your comments Walton.

Oh PS, you probably dislike Miller because of his views, which color his ideas. Miller feels that the Philippine-American War was a war in which the US instigated, causing a lot of grevious war crimes which were ignored by the US politicans. You can read Philippine-American War for more of his ideas.

Signed Travb (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

"...and a subsequent article We have not lost the war in Iraq where he laments that "The Iraq War is now three years old, and only a paid administration apologist could claim that it has gone swimmingly well. The truth is that the war has cost more and lasted longer than its advocates had envisioned, and there is still no end in sight." Reverted: [26] Added: [27]

I personally think that Max Boot's current view on Iraq has really no place in the article. I am indifferent to the whole debate, I simply want all major deletions to be recorded here.

Signed:Travb (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that really considered a major deletion? I suppose we could put the article being cited back in sans any editorial characterization of "lamenting", and maybe with a different quote that is more related to american empire (perhaps, "We can still triumph in Iraq if we have the patience to outlast the fanatical jihadists and cynical opportunists who want to drive us out.")...maybe the person who added it in the first place can better explain the relationship to American Empire? --JereKrischel 06:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Anon probably wont come back anyway.Travb (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)