The Solar Accords wrote:The Shrailleeni Empire wrote:
I think that handwaving the overseas territories as having not happened recently is a pretty big ask. These are still territories ruled over in an asymmetric relationship to the imperial center, with different rights and responsibilities than most Americans. The Constitution only partly applies to them. Additionally the tribal sovereignty of the recognized Native American nations have the status of "dependent sovereign nation" under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress, making them (in the most generous terms) literally imperialized nations.
That is quite true, and I see now that I was, indeed, incorrect. Going back and viewing relevant and unbiased articles and documents on the history of the US, and by remembering my sophomore World History class, it is indeed fact that, yes, the US can be classed as an empire, due to the economic, territorial, and political manipulation, exploitation, invasion, and annexation of certain nations, peoples, or indigenous entities it has engaged in, and still practices to this day, even to its own citizens. It can be seen as either a successor to the British Empire (seeing as the US is, in technical terms, of British foundation, if you base the claim on the 13 colonies.), or as a new, potentially dangerous, nation that seeks to inject everything with its corrupted, decadent style of capitalism, that strays quite far from normal capitalism.
The U.S. is an empire in terms of how it structures its authority over nations that are not integrated into the imperial center. Whether or not that is a bad thing is open to debate, as the debates over the continued status of Puerto Rico aptly demonstrate. There continues to be a lot of debate also as to what the best status for the Native American nations subject to U.S. authority should be. As to capitalism that doesn't seem to be either here nor there, the British Empire was certainly capitalist as well.