Is the United States an empire?

[Senkaku]

Sure! Arguably it's the closest humans have gotten to having a world empire, even if our control over large areas of the world is very limited and done through unreliable local intermediaries with their own priorities who we mostly leave to their own devices-- but that isn't necessarily inconsistent with how a lot of past great empires worked, either. In peripheral places, we sometimes meddle in stuff where we have an interest, to varying degrees of success, and occasionally launch weird and costly adventures. In other areas we have local partners who we work with a lot, and sometimes they don't listen to us, but often they do, but we choose not to involve ourselves too too much to let them have plenty of autonomy, since things are mostly mutually beneficial. A few areas we don't really control at all, and in those areas we're either in a standoff with hostile folks or uneasy, benign trading type stuff.

The US: Romans/Achaemenids with Hellfire missiles gone global

[Dumb Ideologies]

In Marxian historiography the term "empire" is arguably used to describe such a diversity of relations between centre and periphery that the vocabulary had become a bit devalued.

What most people understand by "empire" is direct regimes of control or at least heavily state-influenced corporations directly colonising. When the US has done regime change they've never wanted to stick around because their own past of being dominated means that's ideologically unacceptable. Soft power from money, the popularity of American cultural products and the marketability of "The American Dream" and "Leader of the Free World, that's not really what people are thinking of.

And even that's declining as American companies start compromising on their "American values" for profit in the high growth economies.

So I don't think it really is.

[Forsher]

Let's say that the United States did not discriminate between its subjects based on geography... so there's one kind of citizenship and the Guamese (!?), Puerto Ricans, Alaskans, Hawaiians and continental Americans all have it. In that case, the US would not be an empire. However, this is not the case. Therefore, the asymmetry Empire requires exists and therefore the US is an empire,

Similarly, the way the US interacts with the world stage is imperial. Therefore, the US preserves the geopolitics of Empire... including the critical maritime dimension. Their only defence to being a living fossil is the absence of a colonising mission involving physical migration of colonists.

[Forsher]

There is nothing imperial about the US. They haven't annexed other nations by force (like Russia), doesn't want to annex everyone around them (like China) and doesn't dictate what other nations do or don't.

For one, I'd like see a thread about Russian or Chinese imperialism, which are very much real, instead of the endless bashing on the US.

You need to pay more attention to how the USA has as many states as it does.

[Forsher]

Perhaps it would be most effective of everyone could agree on a singular definition of empire. How about buy looking at what we know are empires and seeing what makes them so. Like England.

Singular concepts are, quite simply, not useful.

Imperialism is the absorption of one polity into the sphere of influence of a
state in such a way that the absorbed polity is not treated as part of that
state; it is an asymmetrical relationship.3 Imperialism has three main
aspects.

The first is the expression of imperialism, how a power brings a
polity into its sphere and to what extent. The forcing open of Chinese
markets to European enterprise in the First Opium War represents the use
of military force to create an informal relationship whereas military power
was also used to create formal empires in much of Africa a few decades
later.

The second relates to the reasons for and ideologies influencing imperialism. For much of the 1800s a belief in free trade meant that formal
empires were seen as less preferable than one-sided economic
relationships. 4 Additionally, developing racial ideas in Europe began to add
a new dimension to why imperialism happened; this is Ferguson’s cultural
exportation. 5

The third aspect is the context in which imperialism develops:
the imperial powers, their empires and how both of those relate. Leo
Blanken notes that most nineteenth century imperial powers typically
avoided conflict among themselves, a departure from the days of the
Seven Years War.

References:

3 Leo J. Blanken, Rational empires : institutional incentives and imperial expansion, Chicago, 2012, pp. 29-30.
4 Jürgen Osterhammel, and Niels P. Peterson, Globalization : a short history, translated Dona Geyer, Princeton,
2005, p.70.
5 Niall Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, Victoria, 2008, p.119.
6 Blanken, p. 7.

So, if we were take this analysis (from an essay I wrote once) and apply it to the US:

• Expression
  
  • The US bullies countries diplomatically and economically.
  • The US has various possessions scattered all across the world, most prominently Puerto Rico.
• Ideology
  
  • Preferential trade... Trump, at least, makes this much more obvious. These deals are defined by "America First" so their asymmetry isn't even concealed any more.
  • Either it's World Peace or American Hegemony, hard to say what they're going for
• Context
  
  • Trade wars
  • Diplomatic spats

The third point is what really describes the era we're looking at, but the second is really important to understanding why the first and third are the way they are while the first is basically where we identify the asymmetry that empires are defined on.

[Dogmeat]

Going to depend pretty much entirely on how you define "empire."

Practically speaking, it operates more like a Nation State.

[Ayissor]

I will say that yes, the U.S is an Empire, just like how the U.S.S.R used to be one.

[Exxosia]

The US is a nation with imperialist delusions and efforts, but lacks the physical, functional elements to be an actual empire. If it actually stayed, fully subjugated, and absorbed the territories it harasses, it could be an empire. Last I checked, all those countries it has trounced around in aren't states in the union or even territories.

[Karma Sandiego Garcia]

Yes, the United States is an empire that has a moral obligation to expand its influence globally.

No, thank you. While it can be argued that the States' influence is better than the Russian or Chinese ones, we would prefer you to not intrude our business.

As of OP's post itself.....well, I wouldn't say it as an empire, since my definition of an empire is the one which is led by an emperor/other monarch with large territories.
I guess the term hegemon might be close enough.

The US is a nation with imperialist delusions and efforts, but lacks the physical, functional elements to be an actual empire. If it actually stayed, fully subjugated, and absorbed the territories it harasses, it could be an empire. Last I checked, all those countries it has trounced around in aren't states in the union or even territories.

Completely agreed.

[The East Marches II]

Not formally but if Herr Spergler is right, we will be officially soon enough. Credit to both parties for making this a reality, special thanks to President Nixon for his pioneering work in the field.

[-Ocelot-]

There is nothing imperial about the US. They haven't annexed other nations by force (like Russia), doesn't want to annex everyone around them (like China) and doesn't dictate what other nations do or don't.

For one, I'd like see a thread about Russian or Chinese imperialism, which are very much real, instead of the endless bashing on the US.

The U.S expanding its territory and influence is ultimately right and just, not only for its own sake, but for the world's.

Whether it is right or not is irrelevant; the US is a non-imperialist entity and will therefore never forcibly annex other nations for the sake of expanding eternally. They'd rather help a nation to regain its independent and establish good relations with them, instead. The exact opposite of imperialism.

[Luxcentra]

Not in the traditional sense of a contiguous empire. Not even really in a colonial sense. It's an empire in a hegemonic sense though.

[The Angel of Charity]

The US is a nation with imperialist delusions and efforts, but lacks the physical, functional elements to be an actual empire. If it actually stayed, fully subjugated, and absorbed the territories it harasses, it could be an empire. Last I checked, all those countries it has trounced around in aren't states in the union or even territories.

That's the thing though, it has, multiple times, subjected foreign nations to its will. To name in succession the long list of native states, alliances, and empire that the United States has annexed is redundant. A few shall suffice, the Souix, the Commanche, The Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and the mexican state. We simply have fully absorbed those regions. In the span of a mere 200 years we surpassed Rome, China, and all former empires, disregarding the Russian empire and the Khanate. The only difference here is that we have fully absorbed them racially and politically. We have the Indian "reservations" or pseudo-vassal states, plus our protectorates, and Puerto Rico, annexed from Spain. We have always been an Empire, and always will, with both the good and bad that come with such a status.

Because of our vast holdings, we hold world hegemony. We have clenched the world in a peace that the Romans could only dream of. US naval might is unparalleled, and economically we surpass anything in the world by far. Our imperial status can only be compared to the Mongol hordes, a vast, reactional empire, holding complete hegemony.

[Farnhamia]

The US is a nation with imperialist delusions and efforts, but lacks the physical, functional elements to be an actual empire. If it actually stayed, fully subjugated, and absorbed the territories it harasses, it could be an empire. Last I checked, all those countries it has trounced around in aren't states in the union or even territories.

That's the thing though, it has, multiple times, subjected foreign nations to its will. To name in succession the long list of native states, alliances, and empire that the United States has annexed is redundant. A few shall suffice, the Souix, the Commanche, The Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and the mexican state. We simply have fully absorbed those regions. In the span of a mere 200 years we surpassed Rome, China, and all former empires, disregarding the Russian empire and the Khanate. The only difference here is that we have fully absorbed them racially and politically. We have the Indian "reservations" or pseudo-vassal states, plus our protectorates, and Puerto Rico, annexed from Spain. We have always been an Empire, and always will, with both the good and bad that come with such a status.

Because of our vast holdings, we hold world hegemony. We have clenched the world in a peace that the Romans could only dream of. US naval might is unparalleled, and economically we surpass anything in the world by far. Our imperial status can only be compared to the Mongol hordes, a vast, reactional empire, holding complete hegemony.

The Western idea of a nation would have been foreign to the Sioux and the Commanche. The US Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark in 1917, not conquered. The US acquired Puerto Rico in the peace treaty that ended the Spanish-American War. Hawaii was a bit of an embarrassment, I will admit. We did not absorb "the mexican state," we acquired the northern parts of Mexico as part of a peace treaty. The more you know ...

[The Angel of Charity]

That's the thing though, it has, multiple times, subjected foreign nations to its will. To name in succession the long list of native states, alliances, and empire that the United States has annexed is redundant. A few shall suffice, the Souix, the Commanche, The Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and the mexican state. We simply have fully absorbed those regions. In the span of a mere 200 years we surpassed Rome, China, and all former empires, disregarding the Russian empire and the Khanate. The only difference here is that we have fully absorbed them racially and politically. We have the Indian "reservations" or pseudo-vassal states, plus our protectorates, and Puerto Rico, annexed from Spain. We have always been an Empire, and always will, with both the good and bad that come with such a status.

Because of our vast holdings, we hold world hegemony. We have clenched the world in a peace that the Romans could only dream of. US naval might is unparalleled, and economically we surpass anything in the world by far. Our imperial status can only be compared to the Mongol hordes, a vast, reactional empire, holding complete hegemony.

The Western idea of a nation would have been foreign to the Sioux and the Commanche. The US Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark in 1917, not conquered. The US acquired Puerto Rico in the peace treaty that ended the Spanish-American War. Hawaii was a bit of an embarrassment, I will admit. We did not absorb "the mexican state," we acquired the northern parts of Mexico as part of a peace treaty. The more you know ...

Oh? I didn't know that because they don't seem like European states, they aren't considered them? Unlike the typical nomadic pictures, Indians had advanced agriculture, towns, and political blocks. The Souix and commanche could be compared to Mongolia, nomadic, for certain, but not "stateless" in any sense of the word. To refer to them as stateless is both degrading and ignorant of actual history. Even so, would you make the case that the European colonies were not imperial, because the inhabitants were not "states?"

Ah yes, a peace treaty that was the result of a United States war of aggression that reached as far as Mexico city. Tell me what about that was not Imperial? I have no shame in our imperial roots, I feel they are an honorable part of our history, as they are for every culture across the world. Ignoring this fact or trying to skirt around it seems foreign to me though.

[Farnhamia]

The Western idea of a nation would have been foreign to the Sioux and the Commanche. The US Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark in 1917, not conquered. The US acquired Puerto Rico in the peace treaty that ended the Spanish-American War. Hawaii was a bit of an embarrassment, I will admit. We did not absorb "the mexican state," we acquired the northern parts of Mexico as part of a peace treaty. The more you know ...

Oh? I didn't know that because they don't seem like European states, they aren't considered them? Unlike the typical nomadic pictures, Indians had advanced agriculture, towns, and political blocks. The Souix and commanche could be compared to Mongolia, nomadic, for certain, but not "stateless" in any sense of the word. To refer to them as stateless is both degrading and ignorant of actual history. Even so, would you make the case that the European colonies were not imperial, because the inhabitants were not "states?"

Ah yes, a peace treaty that was the result of a United States war of aggression that reached as far as Mexico city. Tell me what about that was not Imperial? I have no shame in our imperial roots, I feel they are an honorable part of our history, as they are for every culture across the world. Ignoring this fact or trying to skirt around it seems foreign to me though.

Did the Sioux and Comanche have flags? No? Exactly. I'm not defending the treatment the Native Americans received, but they were not states in the traditional definition of the word. The European colonists, on the other hand, were citizens of the organized European states.

As for the Mexican War, it wasn't very popular in the US at the time and its origins are complicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War). Mexico had lost control of its northern territories after independence, laying itself open to raids by the Comanches and others. At the same time, American colonists moved into Texas, filling the vacuum that the decline of Mexican control caused. This is all fodder for another thread, though.

[The Angel of Charity]

Oh? I didn't know that because they don't seem like European states, they aren't considered them? Unlike the typical nomadic pictures, Indians had advanced agriculture, towns, and political blocks. The Souix and commanche could be compared to Mongolia, nomadic, for certain, but not "stateless" in any sense of the word. To refer to them as stateless is both degrading and ignorant of actual history. Even so, would you make the case that the European colonies were not imperial, because the inhabitants were not "states?"

Ah yes, a peace treaty that was the result of a United States war of aggression that reached as far as Mexico city. Tell me what about that was not Imperial? I have no shame in our imperial roots, I feel they are an honorable part of our history, as they are for every culture across the world. Ignoring this fact or trying to skirt around it seems foreign to me though.

Did the Sioux and Comanche have flags? No? Exactly. I'm not defending the treatment the Native Americans received, but they were not states in the traditional definition of the word. The European colonists, on the other hand, were citizens of the organized European states.

As for the Mexican War, it wasn't very popular in the US at the time and its origins are complicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War). Mexico had lost control of its northern territories after independence, laying itself open to raids by the Comanches and others. At the same time, American colonists moved into Texas, filling the vacuum that the decline of Mexican control caused. This is all fodder for another thread, though.

I believe the agricultural, highly organized Northeastern states, and the Pueblo people, would disagree. Whether or not the Europeans saw them as states is irrelevant. Clearly, in their reservation form, they are imperial subjects. I do not believe the popularity of a war matters in determining an empire. Rather ethnic composition, scale, and political organization. All of these factors suggest the United States is an empire in all but name.

Imperialism does not define an empire, it is a trait. Something many people here seem to miss.

[Senkaku]

That's the thing though, it has, multiple times, subjected foreign nations to its will. To name in succession the long list of native states, alliances, and empire that the United States has annexed is redundant. A few shall suffice, the Souix, the Commanche, The Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and the mexican state. We simply have fully absorbed those regions. In the span of a mere 200 years we surpassed Rome, China, and all former empires, disregarding the Russian empire and the Khanate. The only difference here is that we have fully absorbed them racially and politically. We have the Indian "reservations" or pseudo-vassal states, plus our protectorates, and Puerto Rico, annexed from Spain. We have always been an Empire, and always will, with both the good and bad that come with such a status.

Because of our vast holdings, we hold world hegemony. We have clenched the world in a peace that the Romans could only dream of. US naval might is unparalleled, and economically we surpass anything in the world by far. Our imperial status can only be compared to the Mongol hordes, a vast, reactional empire, holding complete hegemony.

The Western idea of a nation would have been foreign to the Sioux and the Commanche.

Doesn't really change the fact that we were projecting power across large distances over long periods of time to subdue them and then try to wipe them from existence.

The US Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark in 1917, not conquered.

Alaska was purchased too-- I don't see how this makes it the act of a non-empire, just because it wasn't acquired by violence.

The US acquired Puerto Rico in the peace treaty that ended the Spanish-American War.

The war where we also got the Philippines as a colony and Cuba as a puppet state? That's probably the most transparently imperialist war in American history.

Hawaii was a bit of an embarrassment, I will admit.

...alright.

We did not absorb "the mexican state," we acquired the northern parts of Mexico as part of a peace treaty. The more you know ...

We seized vast territories from them and forced them to agree to the concessions after marching troops into their capital, and there were those who thought we should go all the way. This was after Monroe said the entire hemisphere was our turf, and then we proceeded to use various methods and proxies to keep Latin America, including Mexico, in our sphere of influence (including military interventions and sponsorship of local death squads).

Oh? I didn't know that because they don't seem like European states, they aren't considered them? Unlike the typical nomadic pictures, Indians had advanced agriculture, towns, and political blocks. The Souix and commanche could be compared to Mongolia, nomadic, for certain, but not "stateless" in any sense of the word. To refer to them as stateless is both degrading and ignorant of actual history. Even so, would you make the case that the European colonies were not imperial, because the inhabitants were not "states?"

Ah yes, a peace treaty that was the result of a United States war of aggression that reached as far as Mexico city. Tell me what about that was not Imperial? I have no shame in our imperial roots, I feel they are an honorable part of our history, as they are for every culture across the world. Ignoring this fact or trying to skirt around it seems foreign to me though.

Did the Sioux and Comanche have flags? No? Exactly. I'm not defending the treatment the Native Americans received, but they were not states in the traditional definition of the word. The European colonists, on the other hand, were citizens of the organized European states.

This makes about as much sense as saying that since Yorubaland didn't have a "state in the traditional definition of the word," the British rule of Nigeria doesn't qualify Britain as an empire.

As for the Mexican War, it wasn't very popular in the US at the time and its origins are complicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War).

Imperial wars don't have to be popular to be counted as such. There was considerable opposition in Britain to the First Opium War, for example.

Mexico had lost control of its northern territories after independence, laying itself open to raids by the Comanches and others.

Mexico didn't have tight control over those territories as we'd expect a state to have today, but it's not like the US at the time was doing a lot more in its far northwestern regions. To suggest the US was just moving in to restore order is quite silly, much less to protect the Mexicans from the Comanche.

At the same time, American colonists moved into Texas, filling the vacuum that the decline of Mexican control caused.

Encouraged by the American state, and defying Mexican law-- the Mexican government didn't just evaporate from Texas.

This reads like an American who feels a little squeamish and doesn't want to think things through too much. Part of being a good patriot is being able to face unpleasant facts about your country's past to inform yourself about the present and make yourself think about where we should be taking the future. Don't shrink from it.

[Senkaku]

The US is a nation with imperialist delusions and efforts, but lacks the physical, functional elements to be an actual empire. If it actually stayed, fully subjugated, and absorbed the territories it harasses, it could be an empire. Last I checked, all those countries it has trounced around in aren't states in the union or even territories.

You don't have to directly rule a territory yourself to consider it part of your empire-- look at Britain in Northern Nigeria or the Achaemenid Empire in Anatolia, or the United States in Cuba and Latin America/the Caribbean throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries. I don't think anyone's going to suggest that the British Empire didn't rule Nigeria, or that the Persians didn't rule Anatolia, just because they did so indirectly and afforded their subjects considerable autonomy in many areas.

[The East Marches II]

The US is a nation with imperialist delusions and efforts, but lacks the physical, functional elements to be an actual empire. If it actually stayed, fully subjugated, and absorbed the territories it harasses, it could be an empire. Last I checked, all those countries it has trounced around in aren't states in the union or even territories.

You don't have to directly rule a territory yourself to consider it part of your empire-- look at Britain in Northern Nigeria or the Achaemenid Empire in Anatolia, or the United States in Cuba and Latin America/the Caribbean throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries. I don't think anyone's going to suggest that the British Empire didn't rule Nigeria, or that the Persians didn't rule Anatolia, just because they did so indirectly and afforded their subjects considerable autonomy in many areas.

Is that a challenge? I'll suggest it

[Senkaku]

You don't have to directly rule a territory yourself to consider it part of your empire-- look at Britain in Northern Nigeria or the Achaemenid Empire in Anatolia, or the United States in Cuba and Latin America/the Caribbean throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries. I don't think anyone's going to suggest that the British Empire didn't rule Nigeria, or that the Persians didn't rule Anatolia, just because they did so indirectly and afforded their subjects considerable autonomy in many areas.

Is that a challenge? I'll suggest it

since when have you been back????

[The East Marches II]

Is that a challenge? I'll suggest it

since when have you been back????

For only a few days :^)

I'm sure you'll see me around.

[Senkaku]

since when have you been back????

For only a few days :^)

I'm sure you'll see me around.

oh joy

Anyways, if you can demonstrate that Britain in fact did not rule Northern Nigeria, I will be impressed (as will the people of Nigeria, I think )

[The East Marches II]

For only a few days :^)

I'm sure you'll see me around.

oh joy

Anyways, if you can demonstrate that Britain in fact did not rule Northern Nigeria, I will be impressed (as will the people of Nigeria, I think )

I like you too much to subject you to pages of difficulties so soon after my return. I'll goose you later :^)

[Greed and Death]

No but it should be.