|
:This article is about views of the historical expansionism and current international influence of the United States. For other uses, please see American Empire (disambiguation). For a history of overseas United States territorial acquisitions, see History of United States overseas expansion. American Empire is a term sometimes used to describe the historical expansionism and the current political, economic, and cultural influence of the United States on a global scale. It is usually part of a politically charged debate which involves three basic questions: However, there are also more neutral uses of the term. Definition of empire The term "empire" has two uncontroversial meanings. In one sense, the U.S. is not an empire, because it lacks a legal emperor, king, despot, or other hereditary head of state. In another sense, the U.S. satisfies the definition of an empire, because it possesses sovereignty over territories which it has not annexed as states, such as Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and in the past the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and the Philippines.• Controversy exists over whether the U.S. consistently behaves like an empire across the world, and if it would be accurate to describe it as such. The term imperialism was coined in the mid-1800s to describe empire-like behavior, carried out by states which might or might not be formal empires.• The Oxford English Dictionary gives three definitions of imperialism: Abuse of language However, some have argued that this use of the term is an abuse of language. Historian Stuart Creighton Miller argues that the overuse and abuse of the term "imperialism" 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."• Political theorist Michael Walzer argues that the term "hegemony" is better than "empire" to describe the US' role in the world.• American exceptionalism Stuart Creighton Miller points out that the question of US 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 1898 Spanish-American War. 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. 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." 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."• American exceptionalism is popular among people within the US•, but its validity and its consequences are disputed. Miller argues that US citizens fall within three schools of thought about the question whether the United States is imperialistic:
First school of thought: "Empire is at the heart of US foreign policy"
Theories of U.S. empire Left-wing journalist Ashley Smith divides theories of the U.S. as an empire into 5 broad categories: "liberal" theories, "social-democratic" theories, "Leninist" theories, theories of "super-imperialism", and "Hardt-and-Negri-ite" theories.• According to Smith, Second school of thought: "US empire never existed" For many citizens of the United States, part of patriotism is defending the historical role of the US against allegations of imperialism or other evil. This is especially common among prominent mainstream political figures; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for example, has said "we don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."• Ronald Radosh of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies argues that the United States' entrance into the Second World War, against Adolf Hitler's Germany is evidence that the US ability to intervene militarily abroad is crucial to preserving freedom and preventing genocide. Radosh claims that opponents of US imperialism are hypocrites, ignoring the greater crimes of states such as the Soviet Union because of an irrational prejudice against the United States, and/or appeasers, whose fear of exercising military power will only lead to larger and bloodier wars, as British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's led to the rise of Hitler.• The early 20th century US occupation of the Philippines, by contrast, is perhaps the most frequently cited evidence that US military intervention abroad has an imperial character. Extensive war crimes by US soldiers, conducted as matters of policy, have been well documented. General Jacob H. Smith told his officers, "I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States." Nevertheless, conservative military historian Max Boot defends US actions there, downplaying the relative significance of US atrocities, and defending US motives. Boot argues that that the United States altruistically went to war with Spain to liberate Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Filipinos from their tyrannical yoke. If US troops lingered on too long in the Philippines, it was to protect the Filipinos from European predators waiting in the wings for American withdrawal and to tutor them in American-style democracy. In the Philippines the US followed its usual pattern; "the United States would set up a constabulary, a quasi-military police force led by Americans and made up of local enlisted men. Then the Americans would work with local officials to administer a variety of public services, from vaccinations and schools to tax collection. American officials, though often resented, usually proved more efficient and less venal than their native predecessors... Holding fair elections became a top priority because once a democratically elected government was installed, the Americans felt they could withdraw." Boot argues that this was far from "the old-fashioned imperialism bent on looting nations of their natural resources." Just as with Iraq and Afghanistan, "some of the poorest countries on the planet," in the early 20th century "the United States was least likely to intervene in those nations (such as Argentina and Costa Rica) where American investors held the biggest stakes. The longest occupations were undertaken in precisely those countries--Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic--where the United States had the smallest economic stakes... Unlike the Dutch in the East Indies, the British in Malaya, or the French in Indochina, the Americans left virtually no legacy of economic exploitation."• Stuart Creighton Miller claims that this patriotic interpretation is no longer heard very often by historians. "The Benevolent Empire" But Max Boot, in fact, is willing to use the term "imperialism" to describe United States policy, not only in the early 20th century but "since at least 1803," though this is primarily a simple difference in terminology, since he still argues that US foreign policy has been consistently benevolent.• Boot is not alone; as conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer puts it, "People are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire.'" This embrace of empire is made by many neoconservatives, including political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, historian Paul Johnson, and writers Dinesh D'Souza and Mark Steyn. It is also made by some liberal hawks, such as Michael Ignatieff.• For example, historian Niall Ferguson argues that the United States is an empire, but believes that this is a good thing. 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. Ferguson argues that all these empires have had both positive and negative aspects, but that the positive aspects of the US empire will, if it learns from history and its mistakes, greatly outweigh its negative aspects.• Third school of thought: "Empire was an aberration" Another point of view admits United States expansion overseas as imperialistic, but sees this imperialism as a temporary phenomenon, a corruption of American ideals or the relic of a past historical era. Historian Samuel Flagg Bemis argues that Spanish-American War expansionism was a short lived imperialistic impulse and "a great aberration in American history," a very different form of territorial growth than that of earlier American history. Historian Walter LaFeber sees the Spanish-American War expansionism not as an aberration, but as a culmination of United States expansion westward.• But both agree that the end of the occupation of the Philippines marked the end of US empire - they deny that present United States foreign policy is imperialist. Right-wing historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that the US does not pursue world domination, but maintains worldwide influence by a system of mutually beneficial exchanges; "If we really are imperial, we rule over a very funny sort of empire... The United States hasn't annexed anyone's soil since the Spanish-American War... Imperial powers order and subjects obey. But in our case, we offer the Turks strategic guarantees, political support — and money... Isolationism, parochialism, and self-absorption are far stronger in the American character than desire for overseas adventurism."• Liberal internationalists argue that even though the present world order is dominated by the United States, the form taken by that dominance is not imperial. International relations scholar John Ikenberry argues that international institutions have taken the place of empire; "the United States has pursued imperial policies, especially toward weak countries in the periphery. But U.S. relations with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia cannot be described as imperial... the use or threat of force is unthinkable. Their economies are deeply interwoven... they form a political order built on bargains, diffuse reciprocity, and an array of intergovernmental institutions and ad hoc working relationships. This is not empire; it is a U.S.-led democratic political order that has no name or historical antecedent."• I.R. scholar Nye argues that US power is more and more based on "soft power," which comes from cultural hegemony rather than raw military or economic force. This includes such factors as the widespread desire to emigrate to the United States, the prestige and corresponding high proportion of foreign students at US universities, and the spread of US styles of popular music and cinema. Thus the US, no matter how hegemonic, is no longer an empire in the classic sense. This point of view might be considered the mainstream or official interpretation of United States history within the US. The United States Information Agency writes that, "With the exception of the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, American territory had remained fixed since 1848. In the 1890s a new spirit of expansion took hold... Yet Americans, who had themselves thrown off the shackles of empire, were not comfortable with administering one. In 1902 American troops left Cuba... The Philippines obtained... complete independence in 1946. Puerto Rico became a self-governing commonwealth... and Hawaii became a state in 1959."• Cultural imperialism The debates about the issue of American cultural imperialism are largely separate from the debates about American military imperialism that are the subject of this article. However, some critics of imperialism argue that cultural imperialism is not independent from military imperialism. Edward Said, one of the founders of the study of post-colonialism, claims that, "So influential has been the discourse insisting on American specialness, altruism and opportunity, that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology has turned up only rarely and recently in accounts of the United States culture, politics and history. But the connection between imperial politics and culture in North America, and in particular in the United States, is astonishingly direct." He identifies the way non-Americans, particularly non-Westerns, are usually conceived of in the US as tacitly racist, in a way that allows imperialism to be justified through such ideas as the White Man's Burden. Opponents of theories of cultural imperialism argue that it is not connected to any kind of military domination. International relations scholar David Rothkop claims that alleged cultural imperialism is the innocent result of globalization, which allows many consumers across the world who desire US products and ideas access to them. A worldwide fascination with the United States 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. Rothkop identifies the desire to preserve the purity of one's culture as xenophobic.• A similar analysis can be found in Matthew Fraser's Weapons of Mass Distraction: Soft Power and American Empire (St. Martin's Press, 2005). See also Further reading | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
 |
|
| |