catapult magazine

We’ve touched upon it in other threads, but I think this one deserves its own. Is the United States an empire? If so, is it as grant once said, a reluctant one? What sort of empire is this—is there anything we can compare it to historically?

I just read an excellent article in the May issue of Harper’s called “The Economics of Empire: How the White House, the World Bank, and the IMF Impoverish the World on America’s Behalf” by William Finnegan. Take a look. Unfortunately, the Harper’s website is very rudimentary, so you’ll have to find this one in a library or bookstore.

I’d say the US is as much an empire as Rome is — Rome, remember, let the individual countries govern themselves for the most part — providing infrastructure aid (roads and walls and sometimes aquaducts), military aid when necesary, and collecting economic dues in return. The US views the world as one big market for its goods. It provides material stuff, loans, etc, in return for money. In addition, the US enforces international law (somewhat haphazardly sometimes — but so did Rome).

Sure the US is an empire. Of course, the Roman Empire brought stability, order, culture, and, to a large extent, peace to the known world at that time. It improved transportation, communication, health care, fought hunger, and provided an opportunity for the gospel to take off like wildfire.

The US is an empire, but that isn’t entirely bad, I don’t think.

During the recent multinational tussle over whether the Us & allies should or shouldn’t go to Iraq, I heard the US called an “empire” many times. It was used in a negative sense.

My definition , nowever, is maybe 50 or more years old. It’s based on the recent 20th century empires: Nazi Germany and the ex Soviet Union.

I define “empire” as when one country conquers other countries.

The other countries are run by that country and (as in the cases of Nazi Germany or former Soviet Union) the big country can freely suck out resources, acquire slaves, and grab anyone they want from these captured countries to fill up either concentration camps
…or the lesser known but even more deadly (number wise) “gulags” of the former Soviet Union.

I think the term “empire” may be defined in a different way today in t he early 21st century. Maybe it refers to a nation so powerful that it can act alone in many ways???

The US is corrently the biggest kid on the block, so to speak. Surely it has a kind of dominance. That is both a fact and a grave responsibility.

I personally wish more of Europe would get enough arms so that if the Middle East(or anywhere else—-maybe nuclear Korea) threatened them—-they themselves could offer a serious counterblow. I suspect more of us who are parents do not relish the Us being the only real freedom-loving super power…because it means more of our family must die…

Where can we grow some other human-rights friendly countries who also wish to have enough military to defend themselves???

I don’t deny that the U.S. is the biggest kid on the block and, because it has alot to lose, has a vested interest in what goes on in the rest of the world (and so appears imperialistic). But I do not think most Americans relate to the Roman Empire story-line. America is founded on a break from an imperialist nation and is not comfortable with thinking of itself as an imperialist nation (that’s why it’s so unlike the U.S. to stay and help out in Iraq; it’s more typical for the U.S. to be careful not to get too involved, as they did in WWI and WWII and is now doing with Liberia).

I would say that the ideal of the Roman Empire still motivates much of what goes on in Europe, as it always has, now with the idea of the E.U. and United Nations.

The U.S. has remained in Iraq to ensure that freedom of the struggling infant democracy can grow. It would be irresponsible to leave Iraq Oedipus-like on the side of a hill to the elements. Isn’t our action of remaining in Iraq similar to remaining in Europe and in Japan after WWII?

I think the U.S. is an empire, but define empire in the broader sense that was suggested in an earlier post. And just like those in the Roman empire did not believe that they would ever fall, most in the U.S. believe we will never fall. Why is it that we hang on to the notion that our nation will live forever? Pride? Lack of foresight? Lack of recognition of the signs of the disintegration of the social fabric? Don’t get me wrong, I love the freedoms the U.S. offers to her citizens and have served in the military to preserve those freedoms.

David
San Diego

You meant Sisyphus, not Oedipus, right? The guy who pushes the rock up the mountain for ever? Not the guy who puts out his eyes after realizing he married his mother, or maybe there’s a part of the Sisyphus myth I don’t remember. Anyway, having brought it up, it is hard to resist the temptation of making the Oedipus analogy for this case (ie. America screwing the wrong country and then putting out its own eyes…) but won’t take that one any farther.

Cleaver yet wildly offensive Dan. Thanks for that.

America, like that Ruler/Country in the movie troy, is an unsatisfied empire with an unsatisfiable leader.. they are continually looking to further themselves. Perhaps not geographically as in the afroementioned movie, but in SO many other ways. It is hard to see and hear yet in some sort of weird way we dont say too much because we have become numb to the statements “America is a superpower”, “The American amry spend trillions . . .”, “American is this America is that”. We have become so satiated by these statements i think many of us cant look at the whole thing objectively anymore. Bascially now it is “America is, America does.” Whatever they want.

I think America is an empire. and i am not proud of it.

Has anybody read “the United States of Europe” yet? I can’t remember the name of the author, but heard an interview of him on NPR. I have a feeling that the EEC is becoming the Unites States that we’ve always wanted to be but have never achieved. Especially now, as big government seems to be having it’s way more as an oligarchy than a true democracy. Even the concept of a Republic seems to be getting lost. But maybe that’s just my bitterness of Bush being reelected.

To respond to the question of whether I meant Oedipus or Sysiphus … I meant Oedipus. To avoid the prophecy of the Oracle his parents left him as a baby on the side of a hill with his heels pierced and bound so that he couldn’t crawl away. This was the Ancient Greeks’ version of getting rid of unwanted babies (not nearly as tidy as the American form of legalized abortion). In fact Oedipus means swollen feet or something like that.

So if you would like to play my analogy out further by all means, but I was really just trying to make the point about the U.S. being more responsible than Parents of Unwanted Children.

David
San Diego

To respond to eddie’s post:
While we are using movies in our examples, I think it is more accurate to think of America as Spider Man, as Uncle Ben said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Many in the U.S. today would prefer to have the benefits of power without any of the responsibility … and that applies to their private lives just as much as to their view of world politics. I disagree with this worldview.

If I had a cure for cancer, it would be morally irresponsible to dole it out in such small quantities to drive up the price so that I made money off other’s suffering. Similarly if I have a cure for totalitarian regimes, ie the freedom that comes with democracy, then it would be irresponsible to be stingy with it.

David
San Diego

Ah, thanks for filling in my Greek mythology knowledge-gaps there David. I didn’t know that part of the Oedipus story.