September 07, 2004

• Hot damn, we still have a Prohibition Party?! If it weren't for alcohol, I'd be too bitter and cynical to even vote.
• That was going to be my next FPP, spackle. I found this the other day, which led me to make the post about the Personal Choice party.
• Ah, 'twas fuyugare's find, not mine.
• Indian writer Arundhati Roy recently said something about that. [...] the choice between a stupid emperor or a megalomaniac emperor or a suaver or gentle one is not an easy choice for us. [...] so, for us to vote in the American elections is a ridiculous idea because we are opposing the American empire, not wanting to be co-opted into it. She said this right after going inside the RNC last week. That video is a must-see -- tiny Third World radical walks among courteous Republican FOX News fans.
• Arundhati Roy manages to tick me off even when I completely agree with her. Actually, I've observed this with nearly every Indian writer writing in English (and I include V. S. Naipaul in this category). Maybe I begrudge them their cheery self-absorption, as only Americans and the English are allowed to be self-absorbed. Hmm, on further reflection, I hate all writers who are not Murakami Haruki. There, I've just pissed off all that remained of my credibility.
• All credit to the diminutive (if hyperbolic) Ms. Roy, but America is not an empire, nor is Bush an emperor. America holds no territory outside of American territory/our embassies and and rules no subjects other than American citizens (indeed, the coming election belies the idea that American citizens are subjects at all). The case could be made that both Bush and Kerry represent a certain sort of economic aristocracy, but that is grist for a different mill.
• America holds no territory outside of American territory :) .../our embassies That is a common myth, actually. and rules no subjects other than American citizens Heh. I know this place in Cuba ...
• OK, that reads stupid, sorry. But if the United States holds territory outside our borders, save for the embassy thing, I'd like to know where. It is, however, my understanding that embassies and military bases are considered soveriegn territory, though...? Regarding Gitmo: They are not our subjects; they are prisoners, ostensibly of war. Not subjects.
• Would you consider these within our borders, Fes?
• I can speak only about Japan from first-hand experience, but the US military bases there (Okinawa mainly) are certainly not under the control of Japan. Heck, there has been talk for many years now about modifying the Japanese constitution to make them part of Japan, but I haven't kept close tabs on the political gymnastics. All this is of course far from the traditional model of empire. Barring a few countries (Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, etc.), the US prefers economic influence to military influence.
• Here's hoping...
• my understanding that embassies and military bases are considered soveriegn territory, though...? They are. That's why my country of birth is USA, not West Germany.
• However, I will admit that America tends to be disprpotionately influential in the world. Honestly, I'm not sure why this is. Wealth, certainly, has much to do with it, as does concomitant capability for producing new wealth; the size and strength of our military, assuredly, allows us a significant footprint in world events. But in many other areas - population, natural resources, education, others that escape me but must exist - America can be seen as rather average. Why do not countries like India, China, Russia exert more influence on world events? Perhaps they're time is not yet ripe (China comes to mind here)or their time has passed and they are in a rebuilding phase (Russia), but nevertheless. A Modest Proposal, by way of overt rerail, and shamelessly swiped from Heinlein: Perhaps, we ought to allow any autonomous region the right to petition for America statehood, with all that entails: representatives in Congress, unrestricted trade, defense, rights enumerated in the Consitution, etc ad infinitum. While this would smack far more closely of imperialism, at the same time it would be at the choice of the prospective citizens, not America.
• Upon post-post review: Yes, I would shawnj.
• Yeah, sorry, I was just having a laugh. It doesn't read "stupid" though. There are no stupid comments, m'brother: only stupid people. Like ME. The Embassy thing is a common myth arising out of the fact that the premises of foreign embassies are "inviolable" under Article 22 of the relevant Vienna Convention. But (for example) the US Embassy in (say) Moscow isn't "US soil". [on preview: I will argue this with shawnj] Regarding Gitmo: They are not our subjects; they are prisoners, ostensibly of war. Not subjects. Well, I guess if they were "subjects" they would have some rights. But they are certainly subject to the whim of their captors.
• Well, I guess if they were "subjects" they would have some rights. But they are certainly subject to the whim of their captors. Agreed, although I think that the level of oversight at Gitmo is way higher now than it was, perhaps, prior to Abu Ghraib. I doubt that the Rumsfeld wants any more foolishness of that nature coming back around. My contention is that the words empire and imperial tend to get bandied around a lot when talking about America but, like "inconceivable," I have to suspect that the word doesn't mean what the bandiers think it means. I would venture that, since about the (Teddy) Roosevelt administration, America has been actively anti-imperial, if anything, as we have had significant opportunities to conquer and administer in perpetuity pockets of territory over the last century, and we have eschewed doing so every single time, so far as I can recall.
• Yeah whatever, Empire-boy.
• Empire vs hegemony - in many cases it's just hair-splitting really ... The US doesn't have an Empire the way Rome did, or Austria-Hungary or even the British Empire but it certainly has economic, military and cultural hegemony over large parts of the world which pretty much amounts to the same thing without the bother of actually running the countries concerned. One of the things that the GOP are so damn clever at is updating elderly concepts like empire and totalitarianism and achieving the same effect without the tedium of overt state control - I'm not sure I've expressed that properly but I hope you know what I mean ... we have had significant opportunities to conquer and administer in perpetuity pockets of territory over the last century, and we have eschewed doing so every single time, so far as I can recall. Uh? Most of the rest of the world's perception is that the US has been invading as many places as it can get away with and running them as long as it can - if not by having administrators on the ground but by imposing unfair and bullying trade agreements ...
• By the way, in order to answer the question shawnj and I have taken opposing positions on, I will be writing today to the Charg
• Although I wasn't being clear earlier, I was referring to military bases (I was born on Field Station Augsburg). I really don't have any clue as to if embassies are in the same boat or not. Still, I'm interested to see what the answer is.
• Embassies are extraterritorial civillian diplomatic entities. They (and aliens under their jurisdiction) are exempt from the local laws, customs, and taxes of the host country. The question of whether an embassy actually is a part of the guest nation's territory is thus mostly academic, with one major note: if diplomatic ties end between the two countries, so do all associated immunities, including inviolability. Military bases are incomparable. To start with, military bases are rarely reciprocally located.
• As shawnj points out, there are quite a few territories held by the US that are not considered to be part of the US. Unless I am wrong, and the people of Puerto Rico, Guam, etc vote for their own Congressmen and Senators? The US also used to hold concessions in pre-Communist China and didn't they used to own the Phillipines, won from the Spanish? This was a century ago, but the US did just recently conquer and continues to hold Iraq. There are grey areas - when the CIA trained the Shah of Iran's secret police and helped them depose an elected government in 1953, and did so because the Shah agreed to continue to allow them control of the oil interests there, is this the action of an empire? Of course, one can always so that it's not really an empire, because it lacks an emperor and subject kings.
• *snorts tea out nose* I ♥ the quidnunc kid.
• Unless I am wrong, and the people of Puerto Rico, Guam, etc vote for their own Congressmen and Senators iirc, the people of Puerto Rico had an opportunity to become a state and declined not long ago. There are also delegates to Congress without voting rights (except in committee votes) from the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Honestly, I don't know if the people from those regions vote on their delgates, although I would assume so. US did just recently conquer and continues to hold Iraq That's eminently debatable. Handover of control was turned over to the Iraqi interim government on June 1 and, while American forces are still in Iraq, the Iraqis seem to be doing pretty well condolidating their power and cutting deals with guys like Sadr. If that's an American-held country, then I'd venture that Korea, England, Germany, Iceland and Japan are also, since American troops are stationed in all those places in pretty large numbers. when the CIA trained the Shah of Iran's secret police and helped them depose an elected government in 1953, and did so because the Shah agreed to continue to allow them control of the oil interests there, is this the action of an empire? I imagine it was a bit more complex than that, but no, I'd think: why would an ostensibly imperial country bother with such fripperies when they could just land their tanks, plant a flag and proclaim "I take this oil-rich desert in the name of the President and the People of the United States!" one can always so that it's not really an empire, because it lacks an emperor and subject kings well, yes, why not? We don't call dogs "chimps" because we would like them swing through the trees, do we? Although I'd concede that dickdotcoms case for hegemony has at least some merit, calling the US an empire is just inaccurate, in my opinion.
• I think America should give its empire back to its rightful owner - Her Royal Higness, Queen Elizabeth the Second aka Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth the First (in Scotland)
• If that's an American-held country, then I'd venture that Korea, England, Germany, Iceland and Japan are also, since American troops are stationed in all those places in pretty large numbers. Just to clarify: The US, obviously, is very much still active militarily in Iraq. However, rather than the garrison work that one might see in an imperial presence, I'd contend that this is more like Berlin or Tokyo in the aftermath of WWII, where significant US military presence remained (for years, as I recall), and later retracted when the military need for US troops declined. I (perhaps optimistically, I am neither prescient nor do I know what lurks in the hearts of the Pentagon, but still) belive that this is the same case in Iraq: when the need for a strong military presence in Baghdad has passed or when Iraqi forces can do the job, the vast majority of American troops will leave.
• dng: way to gyp the Spanish and the Dutch (and the Portuguese and the French and the etc.).
• I'd like to add that our (to me deeply regrettable) decision to enter into this mess in the first place has left us in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. As long as we stay, we're criticized as an occupying force, throwing our weight around in the Middle East. If we pull out today, we'd likely get criticized for leaving the Iraqis high and dry. Just one reason why we shouldn't have gone in the first place, but then no one asked me. Bleah. What a mess.
• Well, the Spanish can get Florida, the Mexicans all of Texas, the Southwest, and California, the French get the Missisippi valley, the Dutch get New York Amsterdam, and the English get New England and the Southeast. Which leaves the rest of the Mid-West and the Pacific Northwest for the Native Americans, though they may be a bit miffed not to get more...oh, and you can just sign over to Canada 1/3 of the original 13 colonies in compensation to United Empire Loyalists for their lost property :) Fes - I still think that you cannot count the territories as having full representation, not until they have the same voting rights (seems to me that there was another territory way back that was so concerned about its lack of voting that it went to war). You are right that the US is really a hegemon, not an imperial power. But this began with a quote from Arundhati Roy, who has good reason, as an Indian, not to see a lot of difference between the behaviour of the US, along with the other Western powers and the organisations like the WTO and World Bank that they dominate, as a hell of a lot different from that of the British Raj.
• Does the US have a Death Star? NO. Is Bush a wrinkly old man who can shoot lightening out of his fingers? NO. Is Cheney Osama's dad? NO. You people ain't no Empire. You're just a bunch of goddamed "girly men".
• jb: Agreed, to a point. Regarding Roy, I can see where she's coming from, but she's no stupe: she knows the difference between an empire and a hegemon AND the differences between American influence and the Raj, which leads me to believe that she uses the word "empire" and "emperor" to inflame rather than conduct any substantive discussion on the issue.
• While this doesn't follow the casting demands of which you speak, I always pictured Rumsfeld as capable of shooting lightning out of his fingers.
• Hey at least Cheney's life is artificially prolonged by an elaborate mechanical apparatus. Does that make us even a little bit empirish?
• Not imperialistic since Teddy Roosevelts time in office? What about the Panama Canal? He bought the rights to the project from the New Panama Canal Company for $40 million dollars and then offered Columbia $10 million for the land. Columbia refused. The New Panama Canal Company organized a revolt in Columbia, Roosevelt then sent a ship and some troops to support the rebels. Eventually the rebels accepted the $10 million and gave the USA complete control of the land. There are other instances since then, Cuba being a big one. As for this vote? A little better than betavote least you have to fill out a bunch of information before your allowed to pick a candidate (less likelyhood of double, triple, quadruple votes). Personally I voted for bill the cat
• Does the US have a Death Star? Not for lack of trying. Is Bush a wrinkly old man who can shoot lightening out of his fingers? Two words: Zell Miller. Is Cheney Osama's dad? No, but he is more machine now than man.
• If you Google for "American Empire" you'll find plenty of references, especially in the last few years. Within the US, many conservatives are daring to say the E-word, often approvingly. In leftist circles within the US, and just about everywhere outside the US, the notion is simply a given. Many Bothan spies died to bring you this information.
• In leftist circles within the US, and just about everywhere outside the US, the notion is simply a given. Perhaps. But that in itself doesn't make the assertion accurate.
• This is one of those situations where the seemingly irresolvable argument can be made transparent with a judicious application of E-prime. We'll never reach a consensus on whether America is or is not an empire, because 'is an empire' is not a logical judgement with a clear principle of deduction. No one dares to define such a wretchedly complex quality as 'being an empire'. But, recast it as 'America displays tendencies characteristic of empires', and the nonsense of defining empires vanishes. Can we not all agree that many aspects of American foreign policy are keenly reminiscent of the behaviour of empires past? If so, we can then ask whether it would improve matters if America modified its foreign policy to remove this (apparent) nature. Isn't this immediately a far more fruitful topic of debate?
• Urk, that link to E-Prime is total rubbish. Try this one instead. I guess I am not feeling lucky today.
• ... administer in perpetuity pockets of territory over the last century, and we have eschewed doing so every single time, so far as I can recall. Forgot to add a point earlier. Didn't the USA occupy Japan after the second world war? ;) Definition of empire, 1: A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. 2: Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control My 1960 Oxford says, "Supreme and wide (political) dominion" With all the attempts the USA has made in the last 2 or so centuries. Mexico, Canada, Burma, Japan, Hawaii, Allusion Islands, Puerto Rico, Cuba etc etc ... I'd say the USA loosely fits the bill of an "empire". If so, we can then ask whether it would improve matters if America modified its foreign policy to remove this (apparent) nature. Can a leopard change its spots? I don't think it's within the USA's interests to modify its foreign policy nor do I see them being modified anytime soon.
• Are you guys seriously debating whether the United States of America is an empire? Guys: an empire is monarchy. Bzzt. Thanks for playing. Now, in most of the world there's an American hegemony. But that's not the same thing at all.
• So, the British Empire wasn't an empire during the Interregnum? France had no empire during the periods of the nineteenth century when it was a republic? Germany had this little thing called a "Reich" (aka "Empire"), and though they did have a demagogue, he was still no king.
• If manifest destiny isn't just empire with a fancier name, well, I wouldn't have any reason to add to this thread.
• Roman Empire technically didn't have a monarch either. I doubt it matters whether one person leads or many, whether by birth, election, or luck.
• the wikipedia entry on empire is a corker, and will very definitely sort you out as to the relationship of monarchy and imperialism...
• In particular, see American Empire.
• Can a leopard change its spots? I don't think it's within the USA's interests to modify its foreign policy nor do I see them being modified anytime soon. I disagree on all three points. America isn't a leopard. The present US policy of 'go it alone' and 'preemptive war' is not in its best interests. It is bound to change if America must hold on to its economic position. Already we see signs of creeping multilaterism, even in the Bush administration.
• multilateralism.
• Jeff -- please hurry to the front counter, your flight leaves four weeks ago. (I am going to guess that you understand the reference to "four".)
• I'd say we're an aristocratic oligarchic plutocracy, founded on crony capitalism, currently led by a monomaniacal would-be monarch with strong leanings toward theocratic fascism and the empirical expansion of global influence. But we're not very good at it.
• Oh man, I knew we wus fucked up.
• fuyugare! thanks for the pointer to the American Empire bit, which i'd missed... It lead me (through several steps) to Negri and Hardt's Empire (pdf), which I've wanted to read in full for simply ages! Yay! Any Cultural Studies/Critical Theory monkeys out there? (Yay yay yay! /me LOOOOOOVES MoFi!)
• Regarding an above dispute, I have recently received a reply from the Embassy of the United States in London, enclosing some pages from the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual and Foreign Affairs Handbooks (Chapter 1100, Section 1116.1-4) 2004. These set out the meaning of "In The United States" as used in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution - which provides (in its first section) that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside". The relevant Section reads as follows: "[7 Fam 1116.1-4] Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States" ... (c) Despite widespread popular belief, US military installations abroad and US diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire US citizenship by reason of birth." I believe that this settles this matter, and I further propose that in the dispute between Shawnj and myself history has judged me the most glorious winner; thus I propose that Shawnj be cast into the outermost darkness and left to rot and die most gruesomely and have pigeons feed on his gory bowels and drown him in their acidic poo-poo.
• Now, now - no reason to be so uncivil. I'm sure alkaline poo will do.