American imperialism

From Communpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A 1900 Campaign poster for the Republican Party. "The American flag has not been planted in foreign soil to acquire more territory but for humanity's sake.[1]", President William McKinley, July 12, 1900. On one side is shown the situation in 1896, before McKinley's presidential election victory: "Gone Democratic: A run on the bank, Spanish rule in Cuba". On the other side is the situation was in 1900, after four years of McKinley's leadership: "Gone Republican: a run to the bank, American rule in Cuba[2]" (the Spanish–American War took place in 1898).

American imperialism is the economic, military, and cultural influence of the United States on other countries. The concept of an American Empire was first popularized during the presidency of James K. Polk who led the United States into the Mexican–American War of 1846, and the eventual annexation of California and other western territories via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden purchase.[3][4]

Imperialism and empire

On the cover of Puck published on April 6, 1901, in the wake of gainful victory in the Spanish–American War, Columbia – the National personification of the U.S. – preens herself with an Easter bonnet in the form of a warship bearing the words "World Power" and the word "Expansion" on the smoke coming out of its stack.

Thomas Jefferson, in the 1790s, awaited the fall of the Spanish empire until “our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece.”[5][6] In turn, historian Sidney Lens notes that “the urge for expansion – at the expense of other peoples – goes back to the beginnings of the United States itself.”[3]

Stuart Creighton Miller says that the public's sense of innocence about Realpolitik impairs popular recognition of U.S. imperial conduct. The resistance to actively occupying foreign territory has led to policies of exerting influence via other means, including governing other countries via surrogates, where domestically unpopular governments survive only through U.S. support.[7]

The maximum geographical extension of American direct political and military control happened in the aftermath of World War II, in the period after the surrender and occupations of Germany and Austria in May and later Japan and Korea in September 1945 and before the independence of the Philippines in July 1946.[citation needed]

American exceptionalism

American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States occupies a special niche among the nations of the world[8] in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, and political and religious institutions and origins.

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."[9]

American exceptionalism is popular among people within the U.S.,[10] but its validity and its consequences are disputed.

As a Monthly Review editorial opines on the phenomenon, "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."[11]

Imperialism at the heart of U.S. foreign policy

1898 political cartoon: "Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip" meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a bald eagle) from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. The cartoon contrasts this with a map of the smaller United States 100 years earlier in 1798.

Historian Donald W. Meinig says that imperial behavior for the United States dates at least to the Louisiana Purchase, which he describes as an "imperial acquisition – imperial in the sense of the aggressive encroachment of one people upon the territory of another, resulting in the subjugation of that people to alien rule." The U.S. policies towards the Native Americans he said were "designed to remold them into a people more appropriately conformed to imperial desires."[12]

Writers and academics of the early 20th century, like Charles A. Beard, in support of non-interventionism (sometimes referred to in a derogatory manner as "isolationism"), discussed American policy as being driven by self-interested expansionism going back as far as the writing of the Constitution. Some politicians today do not agree. Pat Buchanan claims that the modern United States' drive to empire is "far removed from what the Founding Fathers had intended the young Republic to become."[13]

Andrew Bacevich argues that the U.S. did not fundamentally change its foreign policy after the Cold War, and remains focused on an effort to expand its control across the world.[14] As the surviving superpower at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. could focus its assets in new directions, the future being "up for grabs" according to former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz in 1991.[15]

In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the political activist Noam Chomsky argues that exceptionalism and the denials of imperialism are the result of a systematic strategy of propaganda, to "manufacture opinion" as the process has long been described in other countries.[16]

Views of American imperialism

Caricature showing Uncle Sam lecturing four children labelled Philippines, Hawaii, Porto Rico [sic] and Cuba in front of children holding books labelled with various U.S. states. The caption reads: "School Begins. Uncle Sam (to his new class in Civilization): Now, children, you've got to learn these lessons whether you want to or not! But just take a look at the class ahead of you, and remember that, in a little while, you will feel as glad to be here as they are!"
Journalist Ashley Smith divides theories of the U.S. imperialism into 5 broad categories: (1) "liberal" theories, (2) "social-democratic" theories, (3) "Leninist" theories, (4) theories of "super-imperialism", and (5) "Hardt-and-Negri-ite" theories.[17]Specific page needed There is also a conservative, anti-interventionist view as expressed by American journalist John T. Flynn:
The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.[18]

A "social-democratic" theory Template:Attribution needed says that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the excessive influence of certain sectors of U.S. business and government—the arms industry in alliance with military and political bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance, a combination often referred to as the "military–industrial complex". The complex is said to benefit from war profiteering and the looting of natural resources, often at the expense of the public interest.[19] The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure.[20] Johnson holds a version of this view.[citation needed]

Alfred T. Mahan, who served as an officer in the U.S. Navy during the late 19th century, supported the notion of American imperialism in his 1890 book titled The Influence of Sea Power upon History. In chapter one Mahan argued that modern industrial nations must secure foreign markets for the purpose of exchanging goods and, consequently, they must maintain a maritime force that is capable of protecting these trade routes.[21]Specific page needed Mahan's argument provides a context that also justifies imperialism by industrial nations such as the United States.[citation needed]

A theory of "super-imperialism" saysTemplate:Attribution needed that imperialistic U.S. policies are driven not simply by the interests of American businesses, but by the interests of the economic elites of a global alliance of developed countries.[citation needed] Capitalism in Europe, the U.S., and Japan has become too entangled, in this view, to permit military or geopolitical conflict between these countries, and the central conflict in modern imperialism is between the global core and the global periphery rather than between imperialist powers. Political scientists Leo Panitch and Samuel Gindin hold versions of this view.[22][23][24][25] Lenin argued this view was wishful thinking.[26]

Empire

In the book "Empire", Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue that "the decline of Empire has begun".[27] Hardt says the Iraq War is a classically imperialist war, and is the last gasp of a doomed strategy.[28] This new era still has colonizing power, but it has moved from national military forces based on an economy of physical goods to networked biopower based on an informational and affective economy. The U.S. is central to the development and constitution of a new global regime of international power and sovereignty, termed Empire, but is decentralized and global, and not ruled by one sovereign state; "the United States does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire, but this privilege derives not from its similarities to the old European imperialist powers, but from its differences."[29] Hardt and Negri draw on the theories of Spinoza, Foucault, Deleuze, and Italian autonomist marxists.[30][31]

Geographer David Harvey says there has emerged a new type of imperialism due to geographical distinctions as well as uneven levels of development.[32] He says there has emerged three new global economic and politics blocs: the United States, the European Union, and Asia centered around China and Russia.[33]Template:VN He says there are tensions between the three major blocs over resources and economic power, citing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whose goal was to prevent rivals from controlling oil.[34] Furthermore, Harvey argues there can arise conflict within the major blocs between capitalists and politicians due to their opposing economic interests.[35] Politicians, on the other hand, live in geographically fixed locations and are, in the U.S. and Europe, accountable to the electorate. The 'new' imperialism, then, has led to an alignment of the interests of capitalists and politicians in order to prevent the rise and expansion of possible economic and political rivals from challenging America's dominance.[36]

U.S. military bases

Chalmers Johnson argues that America's version of the colony is the military base.[37] Chip Pitts argues similarly that enduring U.S. bases in Iraq suggest a vision of "Iraq as a colony".[38]

While territories such as Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico remain under U.S. control, the U.S. allowed many of its overseas territories or occupations to gain independence after World War II. Examples include the Philippines (1946), the Panama canal zone (1979), Palau (1981), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), and the Marshall Islands (1986). Most of them still have U.S. bases within their territories. In the case of Okinawa, which came under U.S. administration after the battle of Okinawa during World War II, this happened despite local popular opinion.[39] As of 2003, the United States had bases in over 36 countries worldwide.[40]

Factors unique to the "Age of imperialism"

A variety of factors may have coincided during the "Age of Imperialism" in the late 19th century, when the United States and the other major powers rapidly expanded their territorial possessions. Some of these are explained, or used as examples for the various perceived forms of American imperialism.

  • Early in his career, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the Spanish–American War[42] and was an enthusiastic proponent of testing the U.S. military in battle, at one point stating "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one".[43][44][45]

Debate over U.S. foreign policy

Some scholars defend the historical role of the U.S.,[46] and certain prominent political figures, such as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have argued that "[The U.S. does not] seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."[47]

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."[48] Political theorist Michael Walzer argues that the term hegemony is better than empire to describe the US's role in the world;[49] political scientist Robert Keohane agrees saying, a "balanced and nuanced analysis is not aided...by the use of the phrase 'empire' to describe United States hegemony, since 'empire' obscures rather than illuminates the differences in form of rule between the United States and other Great Powers, such as Great Britain in the 19th century or the Soviet Union in the twentieth."[50]

Other political scientists, such as Daniel Nexon and Thomas Wright, argue that neither term exclusively describes foreign relations of the United States. The U.S. can be, and has been, simultaneously an empire and a hegemonic power. They claim that the general trend in U.S. foreign relations has been away from imperial modes of control.[51]

Cultural imperialism

Some critics of imperialism argue that military and cultural imperialism are interdependent. American Edward Said, one of the founders of post-colonial theory, said 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.[52]


International relations scholar David Rothkopf disagrees and argues that cultural imperialism is the innocent result of globalization, which allows access to numerous U.S. and Western ideas and products that many non-U.S. and non-Western consumers across the world voluntarily choose to consume.[53] Matthew Fraser has a similar analysis, but argues further that the global cultural influence of the U.S. is a good thing.[54]

See also

Notes and references

  1. George Thomas Kurian (1997). The encyclopedia of the Republican Party. Sharpe. pp. 91. . http://books.google.com/books?id=NAG8HrMbfTEC. 
  2. However, regarding "American rule in Cuba", the 1898 Teller Amendment had mandated that the U.S. could not annex Cuba but only leave "control of the island to its people." After Spanish troops left the island in December 1898, the United States occupied Cuba until 1902 and, as promised in the Teller Amendment, did not attempt to annex the island. Under the Platt Amendment, crafted in 1901 by U.S. Secretary of War Elihu Root to replace the Teller Amendment, however, important decisions of the government of Cuba remained subject to override by the United States. This suzerainty bred resentment toward the U.S.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Lens, Sidney; Zinn, Howard (2003) [1971]. The Forging of the American Empire. London: Pluto Press. . http://books.google.com/books?id=qvLfIHqkOOAC. 
  4. Field, James A., Jr. (June 1978). "American Imperialism: The Worst Chapter in Almost Any Book". The American Historical Review 83 (3): 644–668. . 
  5. Susan Welch; John Gruhl; Susan M. Rigdon; Sue Thomas (2011). Understanding American Government. Cengage Learning. pp. 583, 671 (note 3). . http://books.google.com/books?id=GT-8oHlIp1UC. 
  6. Walter LaFeber (1993). Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 19. . http://books.google.com/books?id=RqMp5TsWCqkC. 
  7. Johnson, Chalmers, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (2000), pp.72–9
  8. Frederick Jackson Turner, "Significance of the Frontier", sagehistory.net (archived from the original on May 21, 2008).
  9. Kellner, Douglas. American Exceptionalism. URL accessed on February 20, 2006.
  10. Edwords, Frederick (November/December 1987). "The religious character of American patriotism. It's time to recognize our traditions and answer some hard questions.". The Humanist (p. 20-24, 36). 
  11. Magdoff, Harry; John Bellamy Foster (November 2001). "After the Attack...The War on Terrorism". Monthly Review 53 (6): 7. http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101edit.htm. Retrieved October 8, 2009. 
  12. Meinig, Donald W. (1993). The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 2: Continental America, 1800–1867. Yale University Press. pp. 22–23, 170–196, 516–517. . 
  13. Buchanan, Pat (1999). A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. .  p. 165.
  14. Bacevich, Andrew (2004). American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy. Harvard University Press. . 
  15. ERIC SCHMITT, "Washington at Work; Ex-Cold Warrior Sees the Future as 'Up for Grabs'" The New York Times December 23, 1991.
  16. Edward Hallett Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 1939.
  17. Smith, Ashley (June 24, 2006). "The Classical Marxist Theory of Imperialism". Socialism 2006. Columbia University. 
  18. Flynn, John T. (1944) As We Go Marching. p.240
  19. C. Wright Mills, The Causes of World War Three, Simon and Schuster, 1958, pp. 52, 111
  20. Flynn, John T. (1944) As We Go Marching.
  21. Alfred Thayer Mahan (1987). The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783. Courier Dover Publications. . http://books.google.com/books?id=nc7H1eQiArQC. 
  22. Leo Panitch, "What you need to know about May Day"
  23. Leo Panitch, "Whose Violence? Imperial State Security and the Global Justice Movement" Jan, 2005
  24. Leo Panitch, "Putting the U.S. Economic Crisis in Perspective" January 31, 2008
  25. Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, "The Current Crisis: A Socialist Perspective" September 30, 2008
  26. BRIAN JONES, "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" International Socialist Review Issue 44, November–December 2005
  27. Empire hits back. The Observer, July 15, 2001.
  28. Hardt, Michael (July 13, 2006). "From Imperialism to Empire". The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/article/imperialism-empire. 
  29. Negri, Antonio; Hardt, Michael (2000). Empire. Harvard University Press. . http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/negri/. Retrieved October 8, 2009.  p. xiii–xiv.
  30. Michael Hardt, Gilles Deleuze: an Apprenticeship in Philosophy, ISBN 0-8166-2161-6
  31. Autonomism#Italian_autonomism
  32. Harvey, David (2005). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press. p. 101. . http://books.google.com/books?id=N3VZWhA-OhoC. 
  33. Harvey 2005, p. 31.
  34. Harvey 2005, pp. 77–78.
  35. Harvey 2005, p. 187.
  36. Harvey 2005, pp. 76–78
  37. America's Empire of Bases
  38. Pitts, Chip. "The Election on Empire", The National Interest, November 8, 2006. Retrieved on October 8, 2009. 
  39. Patrick Smith, Pay Attention to Okinawans and Close the U.S. Bases, International Herald Tribune (Opinion section), March 6, 1998.
  40. (2003). Base Structure Report. (PDF) USA Department of Defense. URL accessed on January 23, 2007.
  41. Thomas Friedman, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", p. 381, and Manfred Steger, "Globalism: The New Market Ideology," and Jeff Faux, "Flat Note from the Pied Piper of Globalization," Dissent, Fall 2005, pp. 64–67.
  42. Brands, Henry William. (1997). T.R.: The Last Romantic. New York: Basic Books. Reprinted 2001, full biography OCLC 36954615, ch 12
  43. April 16, 1897: T. Roosevelt Appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Crucible of Empire – Timeline. PBS Online. URL accessed on July 26, 2007.
  44. Transcript For "Crucible Of Empire". Crucible of Empire – Timeline. PBS Online. URL accessed on July 26, 2007.
  45. Tilchin, William N. Theodore Roosevelt and the British Empire: A Study in Presidential Statecraft (1997)
  46. See, for instance, Michael Mann (2005), Incoherent Empire (Verso); Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (2005), "The American Empire? Not so fast", World Policy, Volume XXII, No 1, Spring;
  47. Bookman, Jay. "Let's just say it's not an empire", Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 25, 2003. Retrieved on October 8, 2009. 
  48. Thornton, Archibald Paton (September 1978). Imperialism in the Twentieth Century. Palgrave Macmillan. . 
  49. Walzer, Michael. Is There an American Empire?. www.freeindiamedia.com. URL accessed on June 10, 2006.
  50. Keohane, Robert O. "The United States and the Postwar Order: Empire or Hegemony?" (Review of Geir Lundestad, The American Empire) Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 28, No. 4 (November , 1991), p. 435
  51. Nexon, Daniel and Wright, Thomas "What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate" American Political Science Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (May 2007), p. 266-267
  52. Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism, speech at York University, Toronto, February 10, 1993. (archived from the original on October 13, 2007).
  53. Rothkopf, David In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Foreign Policy, Number 107, Summer 1997, pp. 38-53
  54. Fraser, Matthew (2005). Weapons of Mass Distraction: Soft Power and American Empire. St. Martin's Press. 

Further reading

  • Bacevich, Andrew (2008). The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. Macmillan. . 
  • Boot, Max (2002). The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. Basic Books. . 
  • Brown, Seyom (1994). Faces of Power: Constancy and Change in United States Foreign Policy from Truman to Clinton. New York: Columbia University Press. . 
  • Burton, David H. (1968). Theodore Roosevelt: Confident Imperialist. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ASIN B0007GMSSY. 
  • Callahan, Patrick (2003). Logics of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America's World Role. New York: Longman. . 
  • Card, Orson Scott (2006). Empire. TOR. . 
  • Daalder, Ivo H.; James M. Lindsay (2003). America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. . 
  • Fulbright, J. William; Seth P. Tillman (1989). The Price of Empire. Pantheon Books. . 
  • Gaddis, John Lewis (2005). Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. . 
  • Hardt, Michael; Antonio Negri (2001). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. .  online
  • Huntington, Samuel P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations. New York: Simon & Schuster. . 
  • Johnson, Chalmers (2000). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. New York: Holt. . 
  • Johnson, Chalmers (2004). The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books. . 
  • Johnson, Chalmers (2007). Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books. . 
  • Kagan, Robert (2003). Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. New York: Knopf. . 
  • Kerry, Richard J. (1990). The Star-Spangled Mirror: America's Image of Itself and the World. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. . 
  • Lundestad, Geir (1998). Empire by Integration: The United States and European Integration, 1945–1997. New York: Oxford University Press. . 
  • Meyer, William H. (2003). Security, Economics, and Morality in American Foreign Policy: Contemporary Issues in Historical Context. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. . 
  • Nye, Joseph S., Jr (2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. New York: Oxford University Press. . 
  • Odom, William; Robert Dujarric (2004). America's Inadvertent Empire. Yale University Press. . 
  • Patrick, Stewart; Shepard Forman, eds. (2001). Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. . 
  • Perkins, John (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Tihrān: Nashr-i Akhtarān. . 
  • Rapkin, David P., ed. (1990). World Leadership and Hegemony. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. . 
  • Ruggie, John G., ed. (1993). Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form. New York: Columbia University Press. . 
  • Tomlinson, John (1991). Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. . 
  • Todd, Emmanuel (2004). After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order. New York: Columbia University Press. . http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13102-5/after-the-empire. 
  • Tremblay, Rodrigue (2004). The New American Empire. Haverford, PA: Infinity Pub. . 
  • Zepezauer, Mark (2002). Boomerang! : How Our Covert Wars Have Created Enemies Across the Middle East and Brought Terror to America. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press. . 


This page contains information from Wikipedia (view authors). It has been modified so that it meets Communpedia's standards. WP