News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by pjc50 on Monday February 12, 2018 @10:25AM (#16359169)
America does not officially have colonies or call itself an Empire. It does however have states that are second-class citizens (what is Puerto Rico?), weird extralegal exclaves (Guantanamo), tiny occupied islands (Guam), and lots of other countries which are independent but also to some extent economically and militarily subordinate, in which the US State Department feels entitled to influence policy, from the famous "banana republics" to Europe and the Middle East.
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by GCU-Empiricist on Monday February 12, 2018 @10:35AM (#16359240)
>tiny occupied islands (Guam)

Guam is a territory (second class citizen like Puerto Rico in some ways) . Having lived there for two years (about a decade ago) there is/was a interesting generational dichotomy. The WW2 survivors and their children are generally very happy to be part of the USA as they were liberated from Japanese. The younger generations see: a third of the land off limits for military bases, housing prices being driven by generous military overseas housing allowances, and an influx of young (mostly male) service members affecting competition a dating pool already affected by being the equivalent of Hawaii for Japanese tourist, and don't have as pro USA opinion.

(edit: formatting)

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by wu-ikkyu on Monday February 12, 2018 @10:41AM (#16359290)
Empire: an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.

>It does however have states that are second-class citizens

Colony: a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.

>lots of other countries which are independent but also to some extent economically and militarily subordinate, in which the US State Department feels entitled to influence policy

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by wastedhours on Monday February 12, 2018 @11:12AM (#16359555)
Rounding the point off - hence why "Empire" was in quotes and not just written as Empire. It's not a technical empire, but is making a point (using conversational context).
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by wu-ikkyu on Monday February 12, 2018 @11:28AM (#16359682)
What specifically disqualifies it from being defined as an empire?
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by Arnt on Monday February 12, 2018 @11:42AM (#16359801)
It's not really large enough. The no-quotes empires had subject peoples and areas at least comparable in size to their own people.
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by wu-ikkyu on Monday February 12, 2018 @12:31PM (#16360222)
Where in the dictionary definition of empire does it state this?

Anyways, it still seems to meet your criteria:

>the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-...

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by wastedhours on Monday February 12, 2018 @12:41PM (#16360293)
Although tiresome to argue dictionary pedantry, I think the crux of it is that the implication is that the the US doesn't have any defined role in the rule of a lot of the countries (as in, they don't claim ownership, or even influence), but that it's exerted either overtly or covertly by other means.

The point in this context is that the US's web of influence extends outside of the areas in which they have a direct structure of power in place (and isn't consistent within those that it does) - those points, in this sense, imply an "Empire" (quotes, as nebulous), rather than an Empire (the defined thing).

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by flowersoldier on Monday February 12, 2018 @01:37PM (#16360782)
Similar to the concept of Lawfare. When a government can impose their laws or economic leverage on a foreign country thereby occupying them without troops or a military presence.
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by wu-ikkyu on Monday February 12, 2018 @01:15PM (#16360579)
Very well then. Seems quite analagous to the supposed difference between "enhanced interrogation" and "torture".
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by wastedhours on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @05:03AM (#16366004)
Well, yeah - "enhanced interrogation" is the "air-quotes" version of torture.
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by rhino369 on Monday February 12, 2018 @02:10PM (#16361088)
Having military posts doesn't make that territory part of an Empire if the US doesn't exert much political control over the host country.

I'd probably call Gitmo part of an empire, since the presence is hostile. But the rest of those bases is more or less volunatry. Ok maybe Japan and can't really say no, but the rest of those bases are voluntary.

If America has an empire, it's rather small. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Somoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands.

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by wu-ikkyu on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @03:19PM (#16370367)
>Having military posts doesn't make that territory part of an Empire if the US doesn't exert much political control over the host country.

The political control was solidified over the past 100+ years for the benefit of US corporations. Countries which worked towards self-determination because they didn't like seeing the natural wealth of their land expropriated were labeled as communist, and had their governments overthrown with covert coups, assasinations, and mercenary armies.

>I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

-Major General Smedley Butler

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by Arnt on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @05:16AM (#16366058)
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They try to write a coherent, understandable description of what made the British Empire and the Romans empires while clearly leaving present-day Italy and Britain not-empires.

Current-day Italy can boss San Marino and the Vatican State around, current-day Britain has a scattering of islands around the world. Current-day Italy indubitably has the military force to beat San Marino, Britain did actually win back the Falklands but its victory didn't seem self-evident at the time.

When I squint at the map, the US foreign dominions and military bases look a little on the large side for a plain country, but ridiculously small for an empire. The US military is all over the world and has very impressive weaponry, but was beaten quite thoroughly by the Viet Cong, hasn't beaten the Taliban and and gave up after the first attack by Hizbollah.

"Empire" in quotes looks quite appropriate to me.

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by Retra on Monday February 12, 2018 @01:24PM (#16360649)
Empires traditionally rule over much more sizable peoples and lands, and if that weren't a requirement, then we could probably consider every nation an empire.
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by AnimalMuppet on Monday February 12, 2018 @12:01PM (#16359967)
An empire would have held on to Iraq after the Gulf War. An empire would have held on to the Philippines after [edit: World War II]. An empire would have held on to Japan after World War II.

The US is not an empire because it doesn't act like one, not really. Yes, it has some overseas possessions. No, it's not the expansionist conquer-the-world Borg that many people mean when they call it an empire.

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by breatheoften on Monday February 12, 2018 @01:19PM (#16360605)
Your argument presupposes that the empire’s maximal influence would be attained by domination through overt use of force.

In reality — the us military empire doesn’t maintain those conquered possessions as conquered possessions because it can’t — it doesn’t have sufficient military power and attempting to do so would increase the front on which conflicts requiring use of that military power would be required (further diminishing direct conquering capacity).

The us military empire building strategy differs from your suggestions for tactical reasons not as evidence of a policy that does not involve pursuit of empire building.

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by klipt on Monday February 12, 2018 @01:25PM (#16360652)
Fun fact: US citizens overseas still have to file US federal income tax. The only place in the world where they don't have to do this, is Puerto Rico, because of its special status as a US territory.
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by Bjorkbat on Monday February 12, 2018 @01:45PM (#16360853)
Not to mention that not all states were created equally. Some states have a pretty crazy history relative to the others.

New Mexico's history is arguably the state with the craziest history. Weird fact: slavery didn't end here after the civil war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/us/indian-slaves-genizaro...

Besides that, it was a territory administered by the Spanish Empire and the Mexican Empire before eventually falling into the hands of the United States who really weren't sure what to do all these new citizens and Native Americans (they wouldn't really get citizenship until 1924) until the strange place was given statehood in 1912.

Hawaii is my close pick for 2nd place given that it was once it's own nation and even had it's own crazy war of unification.

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by mc32 on Monday February 12, 2018 @01:53PM (#16360918)
While Guam is of strategic importance, as much as Kadena is, I doubt most Porto Ricans would vote for independence. I just don't see that happening. But who knows, maybe they would. If they did vite for independence I don't think the USG would oppose it.
Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by dragonwriter on Monday February 12, 2018 @02:03PM (#16361025)
> It does however have states that are second-class citizens (what is Puerto Rico?)

Not a state. Though, not for lack of voting for it.