Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: "The Third Stage of American Empire"
America's Debate > Archive > Political Debate Archive > [A] General Political Debate
Google
Fma
I came across this article a few days ago and wanted to share it with fellow ADers.

Link: http://www.letstalksense.com/articles/pitt010305.htm

QUOTE
The Third Stage of American Empire
    By William Rivers Pitt
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Tuesday 01 March 2005

    There have been three stages of American empire since the creation of this nation. Each has fed the other, and each has been established and fortified by war. More importantly, each has been fortified by the vast profits derived by the few in the making of war. The first two stages did not collapse, so much as they were absorbed by the next iteration, carrying over all circumstances and attendant difficulties. We exist today within the third stage of empire, one that is sick at the core.

    The first stage of this American empire began with the Mexican-American war, but began to flourish at the conclusion of the Civil War. All the states east of the Mississippi River had been brought by force back under the rule of the federal government, a national taxation system had been established to provide revenues to that government, and the nascent outlines of what Eisenhower described as 'the military/industrial complex' had been built by the lucrative contracts handed out to arm, clothe and feed the military.

    For many years prior, Americans had been pushing into the western lands occupied by native peoples. Under the banner of Manifest Destiny, the military/economic machine created to fight the Confederacy pushed its way to the Pacific Ocean. In the process, the vast majority of Native Americans were erased from the book of history, a book that is always written by the victors.


    The boundaries of this first stage were limited to the 48 continental states, but did not long remain this way. By the time Woodrow Wilson assumed the presidency, the first stage had expanded to include Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Imperial footholds had been established in South America and East Asia. While other global empires were on the wane – the Spanish empire was essentially dissolved with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1898, while the French and British empires were being attacked and slowly rolled back – this American empire became more muscular with each passing day.

<snip>

    The transition between the first and second stages began on April 2nd, 1917, when newly re-elected President Wilson reversed his campaign theme of staying out of the European conflict and asked congress for a declaration of war against Germany. Previously, Americans had defined themselves in no small part by being separated from the troubles of the 'Old World.' When the doughboys shipped out, however, that line of demarcation was crossed.

<snip>

    By the end of World War II, the influence of the American empire stretched throughout Europe to the borders of the new foe, the Soviet empire. Strongholds of the second stage could be likewise found in Africa, the Japanese mainland and many Pacific islands and, with the creation of the state of Israel, the strategically-vital Middle East. American corporations that had built the victorious war machine swam in an ocean of profits. The 'military/industrial complex' was about to become the dominant force in domestic and global commerce, conflict and social structure.

    The central reality of the second stage was the Cold War, a death struggle between two competing empires waged across the width and breadth of the planet. The icy staring contest at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin stood a grim counterpoint to the hot blood spilled in proxy wars fought in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, the Sinai Peninsula and elsewhere. American and Soviet arms dealers salted the world with millions of conventional weapons to aid these proxy fights.

<snip>


Now questions for debate:

Is the information presented to support the idea accurate?

Overall, what do you think about the article? Does the article have valid points?

Does the analysis describe the truth?

What is your reasoning behind your answer to 3rd question?


My duties leave me with little spare time but I will try to write my opinions ASAP.



Note: Re-edited to improve the previous edit.

[mod]Edited to remove fully cited, copyrighted article. Please review forum Rules regarding citation allowances.[/mod]
Google
Purged19
Well, is it so bad that we are an "Empire?" Half of Europe was an Epire at one point or the other, and so was a good portion of Asia and Africa. We have never "taken control" of any sovereign nation, ever, more than what we can say about our friends across the pond. I can't say i know everything about history, so i cannot disprove his article as being complete lies, my question is, what's so bad about it?
Amlord
Is the information presented to support the idea accurate?

I think the author over-emphasizes some aspects and ignores others.

For instance, he suggests that the US entering WW1 was the start of Stage 2. Previously he had asserted that each subsequent stage included and enveloped the previous stage, thus expanding the empire.

In my view, the US was much more imperialistic in the last 2 decades of the 19th century than they were in 1917 and beyond. Where we took the Philippines and various other islands from conquests in other wars, we did not do so at the conclusion of WW1 or WW2, although we certainly could have (as the Soviet empire did in fact do).

In addition, the author discounts the real threat which was the "Soviet menace". The Soviets were definitely expansive and the term satellite nations spawned from their direct control over sovereign states. The author does not take into account the formation of NATO as an alliance against the Soviets. He implies that the US forced itself onto the European nations on the false premise of protection from a mutual enemy.

However, if the threat was real and the resulting alliance was an honest one between independent partners, then his premise falls on its face. I believe that to be the case.

Overall, what do you think about the article? Does the article have valid points?

The author does have some valid points. The military has had an increasing influence over the economy of the US. The influence of the US (politically, militarily, culturally) has expanded tremendously over the past 100 years.

He completely misrepresents other facts. Nixon's resignation had nothing to do with Vietnam or empire building. Nationalism has always been strong in the United States and did not start after the US hockey team won gold in 1980.

The author goes on to admonish Reagan as the avatar of the third stage of empire in the same sentence where he applauds Roosevelt. He claims Reagan wanted to unravel Roosevelt's safety net "by any means necessary". What the relevance this has to empire (let alone the veracity of the statement) is beyond me.


Does the analysis describe the truth?

He cherry picks certain aspects, sprinkles in unrelated bullet points, and concludes with the ludicrous statement:

QUOTE
For the first time in history since the apex of Roman rule, one nation and one government and one military ruled supreme over the known world.


Other laughable statements:
QUOTE
The rise of George W. Bush, leader of the evangelical/political wing of American Christianity since 1996, to the office of the president has been the fulfillment of the dreams of movement conservatives.

QUOTE
Now, permanent war and rule by fear are accepted without question.


Bush has been a leader since 1996? I never heard of him on a national stage until 1999.

Permanent war is accepted without question? BY WHOM?

We are ruled by fear? Fear of what, exactly?

The author, although he started ok, went off the deep end.

What is your reasoning behind your answer to 3rd question?

His logic is garbage. His statement of fact are flawed. His viewpoint is a bit less than objective.
Fma
QUOTE(Amlord)
In my view, the US was much more imperialistic in the last 2 decades of the 19th century than they were in 1917 and beyond. Where we took the Philippines and various other islands from conquests in other wars, we did not do so at the conclusion of WW1 or WW2, although we certainly could have (as the Soviet empire did in fact do).


America did expand its imperialism at the end of the Second World War. But it did not do it with weapons and soldiers. Americans may be ignorant of this fact but much of the world is not conquered by US thanks to the Cold War financial policies of US.

Take Marshall Aid for example. Marshall Aid signe thed doom of many countries freedom. We (Turkey) had our national industries in the 1930s and 1940s but after the Marshall aid we started to import everything from the US. In a sense we used the money given to us by the American taxpayer to make the American Coorporations rich. At the end, we became invaded by American Capital and started to act at the whim of the guy in White House. (Ex: We sent troops to Korea though we had nothing to do with the war.)

Just because America does not use guns and tanks to control countries (though it has started to adopt that doctrine recently) does not mean it is not expansionist. It is as much expansionist as the USSR but unlike the USSR, US uses others to fight its proxy wars. Take Afganistan for exampe: CIA and ISI (fro Pakistan) recruited and armed many radical İslamist gruops to fight the Soviets. (Osama being one of them)

The Guns-Tanks policy does not work to keep countries in the second half of the 20th century. We saw that in the Soviet Empire. American Empire uses the treat of capital flight to exercise a much more powerful control on its client states.

QUOTE(Purged19)
Well, is it so bad that we are an "Empire?" Half of Europe was an Epire at one point or the other, and so was a good portion of Asia and Africa. We have never "taken control" of any sovereign nation, ever, more than what we can say about our friends across the pond. I can't say i know everything about history, so i cannot disprove his article as being complete lies, my question is, what's so bad about it?


The good parts of being an Empire is enjoyed by the citizens of the US. But people outside the US (who in theory have equal rights as a US citizens) are the ones that get the bad parts. Those killed in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Iraq (in both wars)... Those who died in Somalia, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Panama, at the hands of all the terrorists, dictators, and genocidists whom the American government supported, trained, bankrolled, and supplied with arms. And this is far from being a comprehensive list.
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.