Michael Cox’s thesis as outlined in “Empire by Denial? Debating US Power”, is chiefly that: the United States of America is an empire, and that current beliefs to the contrary are the result of denialism due to negative connotations associated with the concept of empire, not due to a lack of suitability of that term to describe the current state of American foreign policy. The first issue which Cox raises is that of a lack of understanding of and study into the concept of empire by current research in the field of international relations (Cox 2004, p230). This element would appear to be sound, but only in so far as it relates to Cox’s other assertion that the orthodoxy of American society and academia are opposed to labelling America an empire. Within liberal dominated mediums, ‘empire’ continues to be a “dirty word” (Dowd 2009), linked as it is by the American people with the histories of German and Japanese imperial ambitions (Townsend 2009). Cox asserts that self identification with this term is avoided by even more erudite members of society, but that this reality is plainly obvious to outsiders (2004, p230). Whilst the lack of acceptance of the USA as an empire is self evidenced by the very need for this debate, less sound is the assertion that this is in denial to reality. Cox raises the issue of territorial acquisition and magnitude (2004, p230) as qualifiers for empire, making the point as others have (Meinig 1993), that actions like the Louisiana Purchase demonstrate that the USA meets the qualifications of classical definitions of empire.The distinction of classical definitions is needed owing to the current state of uncertainty surrounding what it is that an empire is. Empire, both in print and as an idea, lack... ... middle of paper ... ...k to the far reaching nature of the distinct American empire; global hegemony of the US in areas of finance, education, media and international law; whilst NATO, ANZUS and Israel speak directly to the conciliatory and consolidation efforts of successive, democratically elected US governments. On the balance of available evidence, Cox’s thesis would appear to be sound. America does sit atop of an empire, a modern and robust one at that. And whilst the American people may be unwilling to accept this, or unable to come to terms with their being in the position of those they previously painted as being enemies for the same reasons, there is a clear and persistent trend towards expanding and promoting this empire, despite and with no consequence on or heed paid to the state of denial within which the majority of citizens of the United States of America currently exist.
The United States of America was founded on the basis that we should be a free and independent country from Great Britain and its empire. Rather than simply being a part of its empire, America wanted to become its own country to fend for itself. Great Britain, after the American Revolution, realized that maybe it was the best idea to let America set off and accomplish their own endeavors. After America gained its independence from Great Britain, the Manifest Destiny became a popular idea to follow; it was God’s will for America to expand their land to the West Coast. However, after this was accomplished, Imperialism came about a short time period later. Imperialism is much like the Manifest Destiny, but in a more greedy way. Imperialism is most definitely glorified to seem like a favor America is doing—by becoming an empire—and taking these smaller nations and countries ‘under their wing’ to nurture them and teach them the ways of being a ‘civilized’ person. However, what is the reason for Imperialism being brought about? After claiming from the East to West coast in America, why would they need to expand their area further—other than ‘teaching’ right from wrong to the ‘uncivilized’ people of the world? America’s Manifest Destiny era and America’s Imperialism era definitely have similarities, such as their apparent motives or rewards, but they also have their differences, like their underlying motives and purposes.
In Stephen Kinzer’s Overthrow, centuries of American Intervention in foreign affairs is detailed and discussed. Three sections of the novel: The Imperial Era, Covert Actions, and Invasions speak of recurring patterns and themes throughout history in regards to American involvement. Kinzer suggests such actions were fueled by economic self-interest, ideologies, and the inherent belief that America is a force for good in the world. However, despite the obvious implications of American intervention, some would also say that the narrative weaved by Kinzer is far more complex than suggested.
Throughout the course of history, nations have invested time and manpower into the colonizing and modernizing of more rural governments. Imperialism has spread across the globe, from the British East India Company to France’s occupation of Northern Africa. After their founding in 1776, the United States of America largely stayed out of this trend until The Spanish-American War of 1898. Following the war, the annexation and colonization of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines ultimately set a precedent for a foreign policy of U.S. imperialism.
From western expansion to foreign imperialism the United States has always been an expansionist country. Early America’s focus was to conquer the natives and obtain western land within North America, but in the latter of America’s history, specifically in the nineteenth and twentieth century, foreign imperialism became the new focus. America’s activity in foreign imperialism was a continuation and departure of the United States’ early expansionism. It was a continuation in terms of manifest destiny, the spread of Christianity, and by the concept of “the city on a hill” and a departure in terms of foreign involvement.
While the US may have prided themselves in the fact that we didn’t practice imperialism or colonialism, and we weren’t an Empire country, the actions conquering land in our own country may seem to rebuff that claim. In the 19th century, the West was a synonym for the frontier, or edge of current settlement. Early on this was anything west of just about Mississippi, but beyond that is where the Indian tribes had been pushed to live, and promised land in Oklahoma after policies like Indian removal, and events like the Trail of Tears. Indian’s brief feeling of security and this promise were shattered when American’s believed it was their god given right, their Manifest Destiny, to conquer the West; they began to settle the land, and relatively quickly. And with this move, cam...
Post Classical politics first came to be when Kong Fuzi or Confucius brought it up during the classical era. Confucius was an educator and a political advisor. At the time, China was experiencing problems and Confucius helped to settle everything. He passed his knowledge on to students who then created analects which are political and cultural traditions that Confucius had taught. Confucius was a very wise man. He did not answer philosophical questions because it did not help to solve the problems at hands and he refused to answer religious question because it was too complex for mere human beings to understand. He believed that political and social harmony came from appropriate arrangements of human relationships with one another. To him, the country should not have been ruled by someone born into power, but to someone who was erudite and incredibly meticulous. When the post classical era came around Yang Jian brought China back to an un-centralized rule after their collapse during the Han dynasty. During the Tang Dynasty they came up with the “bureaucracy based on merit” (Bentley and Zeigler, p. 378) or by recruiting government officials.
It is the belief that America expresses its cultural superiority through its wealth and dominance, and its superiority is measured in military strength. Using the appeal of logos, he states, “to the idea that its power is a sign of God 's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations— to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image” (Fulbright 1). This belief that “the United States has a divinely ordained role to play in the sacred drama of the world history” (Lears 33) is one that Fulbright argues must not succeed. According to “The Arrogance of Power Revisited” by Jackson Lears, Fulbright was concerned that “America was losing its perspective on what was within its capacity to control and what was beyond it”
The United States of America has never been content with stagnation. The landmass of the Thirteen Colonies was enough to rival that of the Mother country from which they separated. The forefathers believed that it was the manifest destiny of this nation to eventually claim the expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. By 1890, nearly a hundred years following the original claim of Manifest Destiny, the land that was once open, was now under American control. But no sooner was the Great American Frontier closed, than was the door to East Asian expansion opened with the great gold key of American diplomacy. In a world where imperialism was contagious, and cartographers had to work around the clock to keep up with an ever-changing geopolitical landscape, the United States seized the opportunity to establish herself as a significant world power. With great expansionist minds at her helm, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Howard Taft the United States began to grow beyond her border to claim stake in this wide-open world. This new expansionism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was a different institution than its early to mid nineteenth century counterpart. Still, the drive to exercise the sovereignty of the United State and to propel itself over the world’s stage was the same then as it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. In order to understand this assertion, attention must be given to three levels of analysis. First, the similarities that exist between the drive and purpose of old and new expansion must be taken into account. Second, the differences in the global political scene must be considered. Finally, there exits differences in the means by which expansion occurred.
...ect imperial dominance, with which the leader state rules subordinate states, by the threat of intervention. This is the exact tactics that America uses in its conquest of world dominance, brought to light by Falk. Falk declares that " The Us Government is devoting huge resources to the monopolistic militarization of space, the development of more usable nuclear weapons, and the strengthening of its world-girdling ring of military bases and its global navy, as the most tangible way to discourage any strategic challenges to its pre-eminence" (Falk, 2003: 21). Ultimately, sparking the uprising of movements resistance to the American Empire. Whom will take advantage of the Americans growing tired of power and wanting it to mind its own, stop meddling and focus on their home issues. Allowing for an international actor to come in and take their place in global authority.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Immediately following the war with Spain, the United States had both the political will to pursue imperial policies and the geopolitical circumstances conducive to doing so. But the way in which these policies would manifest was an open question; was the impulse to actively remake the world in America’s Anglo-Saxon image justified? Hence, there were several models of American imperialism at the turn of the twentieth century. In the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Samoa, the United States asserted unwavering political control. In Cuba, and later throughout most of the Caribbean basin, the economic and political domination of customarily sovereign governments became the policy. Ultimately, the United States was able to expand its territory
Gramscian and Neo- Gramscian perceptive illustrate, to benefit from US supremacy one has to be in the core as the periphery are not drawn into the hegemonic project and are repressed, they view of hegemony as a form of social domination exercised not by states but by social groups and classes operating through states and other institutions (Robinson, 2005). Cox would argue proxy war still exists in the society, as there is no consensus to the establishment of the global capitalist bloc. Through institutions, capitalism entered a transnational stage, thus, the class system that existed in the US was soon replicated across the global political economy thus, this depicts the periphery as losers in this setting as their interests are completely overlooked for that of the TCC, hence the claims by neo-liberalist institutionalist IPE that Pax Americana is best considered an era of benign US supremacy does not apply because the benefits of institutionalisation are reserved for the newly formed transnational
America’s foreign policy has changed over time reflecting the change in its national interest. From the time it became an independent nation to today, our nation's many different types of foreign policies can best be described when broken up into three broad categories, each with smaller subcategories within them. The three main categories are, in chronological order: isolationism (also called non-interventionism), internationalism (alliances with European and other military partners), and unilateralism (operating on its own sovereign policy decisions.) The general trend of progression regarding the evolution and history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from non-interventionism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global hegemony (meaning imperial dominance achieved through using implied means of power) during and since World War II and the end of the Cold War in the 20th century.
As shown, America’s rapid change as the 19th century came to a close was supported by a variety of imperialistic beliefs, motives, and incidents that almost jumpstarted the U.S. onto the world stage. Many of these incidents, such as the public’s thirst for expansion, the annexation of several faraway lands, and the build-up of U.S. military forces, would not have been possible without the Spanish American War. Moreover, the Spanish American war would not have been possible without the American people. Imperialism was a consequence of the American Democratic experiment, giving the people what they want. . Works Cited http://www.course-notes.org/us_history/notes/the_american_pageant_14th_edition_textbook_notes/chapter_27_empire_and_expansion_18
In this paper, I will argue that the current system is hegemonial. My explanation to hegemony will then be centered on the sources of the United States as a hegemonial power. Furthermore, I will state the different primary implications associated with the rise of China and what the Roman Empire offers for understanding the United Sta...