From Ryan McMaken
What is different about the US's empire is that it has been fabulously successful. It is so successful, in fact, that the territories that used to be obvious colonies have ceased to have any distinct political identity.
related posts
465 sats \ 3 replies \ @brandonsbytes 29 Jan
i’m generally favorable to this sort of view as a good millennial aged libertarian-ish person. but, I would like to know if there is ever a case where a country is more powerful politically, culturally, and economically and people not consider it colonialism. if there are no settlers and displacing others, is all the US power and influence really colonialism? and if so, how?
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 29 Jan
Part of what the author is getting at is how we think of buying/conquering/annexing the various island territories as colonial expansion, but westward expansion is not generally thought of that way.
There's a generally unexamined issue in attributing power, wealth, or influence to colonialism, which is "Why was one side strong enough to colonize the other in the first place?"
You might be right in thinking there's a tendency to undercut successful cultures by overly focusing on whatever historical injustices they committed (as though other less successful cultures committed no similar injustices).
reply
465 sats \ 1 reply \ @brandonsbytes 30 Jan
i see your point. it’s valid to critique the misuse of power. but, colonialism is so specific, and does match what the US does. But, after hearing everyone’s thought on my post on US geographical dominance the other day. there is something unique and unequal about the US’s position. what do you think it will look like as the US dominance weakens? or maybe it won’t?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 30 Jan
Fragmentation. The most likely form of a weakened US is several smaller nations. I'd say at least three: West Coast, Northeast, and The Rest.
reply
465 sats \ 4 replies \ @elvismercury 29 Jan
Here's a more detailed exploration of this topic.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 29 Jan
Cool! I don't think I've heard of that book.
What's your take on why America seems to have been so successful at maintaining a colonial empire?
I haven't given it a ton of thought, because I don't really buy the premise. If it's still going strong 50 years from now, I'll have to reassess.
reply
465 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury 29 Jan
It's a good question. I'm not sure the US has been that much more successful than many of the places, when you take everything into account. Meaning: if you are literally an empire, then your governance structures very directly have responsibilities for executing in the areas which you oversee, which is a really high lift.
If you're a quasi-formal empire, on the other hand, like we have been, the bar for success is lower. Influence is a lot easier than literal control: if one of your vassals turns over in governance, you just pick up with the new sheriff, nothing much changes. A literal colony doesn't have that luxury: you lose India, or the Congo, and it's not your colony any more.
I also think there's much to be said about the increased reach technology has given centralization. It's possible to oversee vast swaths of the world in a manner it didn't used to be, so the center holds for longer, at least if the hold is somewhat looser than total domination and control.
reply
1135 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 29 Jan
It's also different if you're giving people welfare so they'll let you have a military base nearby, than if you're forcing them to labor in mines or plantations.
reply
465 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 29 Jan
Yeah, good point. Esp if you can create the welfare by fiat, which is probably a huge part of it. Nobody talks much about that, though.
reply