That was the least intellectually diverse discussion I have ever seen in my life. I wish I was there.
That was the least intellectually diverse discussion I have ever seen in my life. I wish I was there.
Glad you enjoyed it. 
Wish you were here too...
Glad you enjoyed it. Wish you were here too...
Ahhh my dear children.So nice to see some-one cares.
Do let me recommend the following
"THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK"
The alternative "History" of Europe
found at
http://www.greece.org/Romiosini/...sini/
talk1.html
and further and more demanding but intriguing for its final section
http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/4/4t.../4/
4turner.html
"Πάντα γαργάλημα τα ενοχλήσεις σας"
Ahhh my dear children.So nice to see some-one cares.
Do let me recommend the following
"THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK"
The alternative "History" of Europe
found at
http://www.greece.org/Romiosini/...sini/
talk1.html
and further and more demanding but intriguing for its final section
http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/4/4t.../4/
4turner.html
"Πάντα γαργάλημα τα ενοχλήσεις σας"
Thanks Roman for the event and an excellent summary. Let me disassociate myself tho' from the view that the US identity is always necessarily based on the creation of an 'Other', an outside enemy. My assumption is that a benign patriotism is possible, based on intrinsic elements of the national experience not on extrinsic contrasts with feared or hated others.
Thanks Roman for the event and an excellent summary. Let me disassociate myself tho' from the view that the US identity is always necessarily based on the creation of an 'Other', an outside enemy. My assumption is that a benign patriotism is possible, based on intrinsic elements of the national experience not on extrinsic contrasts with feared or hated others.
Hey Roman, once more, thanks for an amazing evening. You were a great host, and it was fantastic having this discussion. Good summary, too ! This asks for a repeat, really
Hey Roman, once more, thanks for an amazing evening. You were a great host, and it was fantastic having this discussion. Good summary, too ! This asks for a repeat, really
Barry: apologies you're right (a) it was inaccurate to say that "everyone agreed" and (b) of course you're absolutely right that there _can_ be benign patriotism expressed autonomously of "the other" (although often it does take that form). I also think that the point about creating threats is not so much about patriotism itself, but more about the ability of empires (in general) to legitimise their expansion.
Patty, thanks for coming - these events are only as good as the participants. We're definitely looking at the prospect of having a second salon at some point in the spring (with a different topic - btw suggestions welcome).
Stephanos, thanks for the link it seems interesting, so more weekend reading!
Barry: apologies you're right (a) it was inaccurate to say that "everyone agreed" and (b) of course you're absolutely right that there _can_ be benign patriotism expressed autonomously of "the other" (although often it does take that form). I also think that the point about creating threats is not so much about patriotism itself, but more about the ability of empires (in general) to legitimise their expansion.
Patty, thanks for coming - these events are only as good as the participants. We're definitely looking at the prospect of having a second salon at some point in the spring (with a different topic - btw suggestions welcome).
Stephanos, thanks for the link it seems interesting, so more weekend reading!
Roman,
Great blog. Yes, I seem to have missed quite a bit... Good to see your blog taking off, though.
Chindu
Roman,
Great blog. Yes, I seem to have missed quite a bit... Good to see your blog taking off, though.
Chindu
I think it'd be ridiculous to label the United States as an empire. In terms of economics, the fact that we are such a powerhouse of capital, implies that we will have impact on others. Empire would come to mean anyone who became too big. Like your definition of empire is "economic power" and "campaigning for your own interests", then the US is guilty. A country like Latvia when negotiating international trade, its impact is "small" and it "campaigns for its own interests." The only difference is their impact. So, to not become an empire, once a country gets big enough, should it not campaign for its own interests?
I think it'd be ridiculous to label the United States as an empire. In terms of economics, the fact that we are such a powerhouse of capital, implies that we will have impact on others. Empire would come to mean anyone who became too big. Like your definition of empire is "economic power" and "campaigning for your own interests", then the US is guilty. A country like Latvia when negotiating international trade, its impact is "small" and it "campaigns for its own interests." The only difference is their impact. So, to not become an empire, once a country gets big enough, should it not campaign for its own interests?
I also want to talk about the spread of "freedom" and "democracy".
I think it is unfair to use those two examples. I think the best examples of America's reach for freedom are Japan, South Korea, and Germany. The United States fought wars to free the peoples of these countries. We didn't fight in WW2 for survival, and Japan attacked us only hoping to gain a treaty; they knew they would never defeat us. We entered the war to maintain freedom in the world (which benefits us) and spread democracy. Those countries are among the economic superpowers today. If our goal was to keep a monopoly on our economic interests, then we should not have done this because they take our market share.
I also want to talk about the spread of "freedom" and "democracy".
I think it is unfair to use those two examples. I think the best examples of America's reach for freedom are Japan, South Korea, and Germany. The United States fought wars to free the peoples of these countries. We didn't fight in WW2 for survival, and Japan attacked us only hoping to gain a treaty; they knew they would never defeat us. We entered the war to maintain freedom in the world (which benefits us) and spread democracy. Those countries are among the economic superpowers today. If our goal was to keep a monopoly on our economic interests, then we should not have done this because they take our market share.
Nick, thanks for your comments.
I respect your opinion but I fundamentally disagree.
Firstly you seem to define empire as a negative thing per se, which is not true since most empires have brought good things apart from totalitarianism & intervention.
Secondly, this isn't just about a country that happened to be big & successful & is now trying to secure its interests. The US is more than the nation-state next door. It could be argued that it's an aggregator of cultures, a microcosm of the world, and as such it has a moral responsibility to lead.
On the other hand, since its foundation the US has intervened in the domestic affairs of countless sovereign nation-states from Latin and Central America to Africa, to Europe, the Middle East, to South East Asia, to the Pacific. It has military bases & economic stakes around the planet.
Nick, thanks for your comments.
I respect your opinion but I fundamentally disagree.
Firstly you seem to define empire as a negative thing per se, which is not true since most empires have brought good things apart from totalitarianism & intervention.
Secondly, this isn't just about a country that happened to be big & successful & is now trying to secure its interests. The US is more than the nation-state next door. It could be argued that it's an aggregator of cultures, a microcosm of the world, and as such it has a moral responsibility to lead.
On the other hand, since its foundation the US has intervened in the domestic affairs of countless sovereign nation-states from Latin and Central America to Africa, to Europe, the Middle East, to South East Asia, to the Pacific. It has military bases & economic stakes around the planet.
Perhaps more important is the cultural domination (again not using domination in the negative sense, just in the socio-scientific) e.g. for some reason our news cover domestic US affairs such as crimes; our media show mainly US-made programs promoting a specific lifestyle; our everyday life is influenced by your set of values.
Thus a single country has control over the rest of the planet militarilly, economically & culturally. That doesn't mean it's an evil empire or a crusader/liberator; it just does.
WW2: my great great grandchildren will be still paying Europe's debt to the US for its involvement; it would not have entered were there no clear economic & geo-strategic benefits. Also, if Japan etc were in an economic crisis, that could in the long-term harm the US economy, so "bailing them out" wasn't altruism but a calculated cost-benefit move.
The best sign of empire-building is the use of every crisis to extend a country's involvement & increase the outsiders' depe
Perhaps more important is the cultural domination (again not using domination in the negative sense, just in the socio-scientific) e.g. for some reason our news cover domestic US affairs such as crimes; our media show mainly US-made programs promoting a specific lifestyle; our everyday life is influenced by your set of values.
Thus a single country has control over the rest of the planet militarilly, economically & culturally. That doesn't mean it's an evil empire or a crusader/liberator; it just does.
WW2: my great great grandchildren will be still paying Europe's debt to the US for its involvement; it would not have entered were there no clear economic & geo-strategic benefits. Also, if Japan etc were in an economic crisis, that could in the long-term harm the US economy, so "bailing them out" wasn't altruism but a calculated cost-benefit move.
The best sign of empire-building is the use of every crisis to extend a country's involvement & increase the outsiders' depe
"Thus a single country has control over the rest of the planet militarilly, economically & culturally."
I think this is kind of a ridiculous overstatement, don't you think? We don't control other countries militarily, not by a longshot. We might have far and away the most powerful, but we don't occupy GB or China or Australia.
As for economically, if Europe's or Asia's economy collapsed, we would face a huge depression in our economy the same as if ours did they would receive fallout. We don't have control over the situation. Can you even name a market that the US leads in besides entertainment and fast food?
And as for culturally, dominating TV only gives a much bigger impression of our impact on other cultures. Wouldn't you say culture is really a set of values? I guarantee if you took a poll of the world, many countries values would vary greatly. No one else uses our system of government, while how many have a parliament and a prime minister?
"Thus a single country has control over the rest of the planet militarilly, economically & culturally."
I think this is kind of a ridiculous overstatement, don't you think? We don't control other countries militarily, not by a longshot. We might have far and away the most powerful, but we don't occupy GB or China or Australia.
As for economically, if Europe's or Asia's economy collapsed, we would face a huge depression in our economy the same as if ours did they would receive fallout. We don't have control over the situation. Can you even name a market that the US leads in besides entertainment and fast food?
And as for culturally, dominating TV only gives a much bigger impression of our impact on other cultures. Wouldn't you say culture is really a set of values? I guarantee if you took a poll of the world, many countries values would vary greatly. No one else uses our system of government, while how many have a parliament and a prime minister?
“On the other hand, since its foundation the US has intervened in the domestic affairs of countless sovereign nation-states from Latin and Central America to Africa, to Europe, the Middle East, to South East Asia, to the Pacific. It has military bases & economic stakes around the planet.”
And as for this statement, the UK and France are as guilty as we are. We are only considered to be imperialist or having ulterior motives, because of all the other “empiric” factors you mentioned. When France intervenes in Algeria or the Ivory Coast, it is seen as a developed country helping one that is underdeveloped, even though they have economic interests in the area as well as French citizens to worry about. If the US does the same thing in Nicaragua, those factors are magnified, and the help factor is given more weight. This site describes this anti-americanism and its reasons very well. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?
ID=16031
“On the other hand, since its foundation the US has intervened in the domestic affairs of countless sovereign nation-states from Latin and Central America to Africa, to Europe, the Middle East, to South East Asia, to the Pacific. It has military bases & economic stakes around the planet.”
And as for this statement, the UK and France are as guilty as we are. We are only considered to be imperialist or having ulterior motives, because of all the other “empiric” factors you mentioned. When France intervenes in Algeria or the Ivory Coast, it is seen as a developed country helping one that is underdeveloped, even though they have economic interests in the area as well as French citizens to worry about. If the US does the same thing in Nicaragua, those factors are magnified, and the help factor is given more weight. This site describes this anti-americanism and its reasons very well. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?
ID=16031
Ok accept that the first one probably was an overstatement but you get my point.
As for the US-controlled industries how about:
pharmaceuticals
weapons
IT
??
But as i said before, that is a natural consequence of the US being a leader of R&D; obviously if you have the edge in innovation / development in science and technology that brings global influence (which goes back to what i said about the mixed nature of that influence).
I agree with you that globalisation and interdependence of markets means that the US economy is itself subject to external factors; that doesn't mean that the country is not a financial leader worldwide.
Ok accept that the first one probably was an overstatement but you get my point.
As for the US-controlled industries how about:
pharmaceuticals
weapons
IT
??
But as i said before, that is a natural consequence of the US being a leader of R&D; obviously if you have the edge in innovation / development in science and technology that brings global influence (which goes back to what i said about the mixed nature of that influence).
I agree with you that globalisation and interdependence of markets means that the US economy is itself subject to external factors; that doesn't mean that the country is not a financial leader worldwide.
I must admit that you are a reasonable person. So many times I post comments on lefty sites and they tell me not to post ever again, or that I am an idiot, or they never concede a single thing, thinking that conceding a few statements will make their argument rendered faulty. Kind of like the Bush admin... I will be a reader of this blog, because I value people who can be rational and discuss things, and continue to hold vastly different views.
I must admit that you are a reasonable person. So many times I post comments on lefty sites and they tell me not to post ever again, or that I am an idiot, or they never concede a single thing, thinking that conceding a few statements will make their argument rendered faulty. Kind of like the Bush admin... I will be a reader of this blog, because I value people who can be rational and discuss things, and continue to hold vastly different views.
Commenting by HaloScan
