Empire Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ===United States of America=== {{Further|American imperialism}} Contemporaneously, the concept of ''empire'' is politically valid, yet is not always used in the traditional sense. One of widely discussed cases is the United States. Characterizing aspects of the US in regards to its [[Territorial evolution of the United States|territorial expansion]], foreign policy, and its international behavior as "American Empire" is common. The term "American Empire" refers to the United States' [[Manifest destiny|cultural ideologies]] and [[History of U.S. foreign policy|foreign policy]] strategies. The term is most commonly used to describe the U.S.'s status since the 20th century, but it can also be applied to the United States' world standing before the rise of nationalism in the 20th century.{{Sfn|Lens|Zinn|2003}} The US itself was at one point a colony in the British Empire. However, founding fathers such as George Washington noted after the Revolution that the US was an empire in its infancy, and others like Thomas Jefferson agreed, describing the constitution as the perfect foundation for an "extensive Empire".{{citation needed|date=September 2021}} Jefferson in the 1780s while awaiting the fall of the Spanish empire, said: "till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece".{{Sfn|Lens|Zinn|2003|pages=63-64}}<ref>LaFeber, Walter, ''Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America'' (1993) 2nd edition, p. 19</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Boot |first=Max |author-link=Max Boot |date=May 6, 2003 |title=American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away from Label |url=http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5934 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090123000358/http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5934 |archive-date=January 23, 2009 |access-date=2008-01-06 |publisher=Council on Foreign Relations op-ed, quoting USA Today}}</ref> Even so, the ideology that the US was founded on anti-imperialist principles has prevented many from acknowledging America's status as an empire. This active rejection of imperialist status is not limited to high-ranking government officials, as it has been ingrained in American society throughout its entire history. As David Ludden explains, "journalists, scholars, teachers, students, analysts, and politicians prefer to depict the U.S. as a nation pursuing its own interests and ideals".<ref name="Ludden2004">{{Cite journal |date=30 October 2004 |title=America's Invisible Empire |url=http://www.epw.in/journal/2004/44/commentary/americas-invisible-empire.html |journal=Economic and Political Weekly |volume=39 |issue=44}} Text available [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18738.htm here] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170127021121/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18738.htm |date=2017-01-27 }}, author link [http://history.fas.nyu.edu/object/davidludden here] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161118042321/http://history.fas.nyu.edu/object/davidludden |date=2016-11-18 }}.</ref> This often results in imperialist endeavors being presented as measures taken to enhance state security. Ludden explains this phenomenon with the concept of "ideological blinders", which he says prevent American citizens from realizing the true nature of America's current systems and strategies. These "ideological blinders" that people wear have resulted in an "invisible" American empire of which most American citizens are unaware.<ref name=Ludden2004/> Besides its anti-imperialist principles, the United States is not traditionally recognized as an empire, because the U.S. adopted a different political system from those that previous empires had used. Despite the anti-imperial ideology and systematic differences, the political objectives and strategies of the United States government have been quite similar to those of previous empires.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Malesevic |first=Sinisa |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LjSDSfD0L3QC |title=Nation-states and nationalisms organization, ideology and solidarity |date=2013 |publisher=Polity Press |isbn=978-0-7456-7206-9}}</ref> Throughout the 19th century, the United States government attempted to [[United States territorial acquisitions|expand its territory]] by any means necessary. Regardless of the supposed motivation for this constant expansion, all of these land acquisitions were carried out by [[American imperialism|imperialistic means]]. This was done by financial means in some cases, and by military force in others. Most notably, the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Texas Annexation (1845), and the Mexican Cession (1848) highlight the imperialistic goals of the United States during this "modern period" of imperialism. The U.S. government has stopped adding additional territories, where they permanently and politically take over since the early 20th century, and instead have established 800 military bases as their outposts.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Immerwahr |first=Daniel |title=How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States |date=2019 |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux}}</ref> With this overt but subtile military control of other countries, scholars consider [[Foreign policy of the United States|U.S. foreign policy strategies]] to be imperialistic.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kb6mw3glvZMC&pg=PA129 |title=The Geopolitics of American Insecurity: Terror, Power and Foreign Policy |date=2009 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-04540-2 |editor-last=Debrix |editor-first=Francois |pages=129β141 |editor-last2=Lacy |editor-first2=Mark}}</ref> Academic Krishna Kumar argues that the distinct principles of nationalism and imperialism may result in common practice; that is, the pursuit of nationalism can often coincide with the pursuit of imperialism in terms of strategy and decision making.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kumar |first=Krishan |date=2010 |title=Nation-states as empires, empires as nation-states: two principles, one practice? |url=http://philpapers.org/rec/KUMNAE-2 |journal=Theory and Society |volume=39 |issue=2 |pages=119β143 |doi=10.1007/s11186-009-9102-8 |s2cid=144559989|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Stuart Creighton Miller posits that the public's sense of innocence about Realpolitik (politics based on practical considerations, rather than ideals) impacts popular recognition of US imperial conduct since it governed other countries via surrogates. These surrogates were domestically-weak, right-wing governments that would collapse without US support.<ref>Johnson, Chalmers, ''Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire'' (2000), pp. 72β79</ref><!--Try https://books.google.com/books ei=JzuaSMaYGIKgswPl2pT2CQ&q=%22sense+of+innocence%22+power+empire+stuart+miller&btnG=Search+Books{{Ndash}} I haven't access to a copy, to confirm how its results might satisfy this matter.{{Citation needed|date=November 2008}} tag--> Former President G. W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, [[Donald Rumsfeld]], said: "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic; we never have been."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Niall Ferguson |title=Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire |url=http://booksellers.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780143034797,00.html |access-date=2010-07-11 |archive-date=2011-07-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110715062644/http://booksellers.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780143034797,00.html }}</ref> This was said in the context of the international opposition to the [[Iraq War]] led by the United States in manner widely regarded as imperial. In his book review of ''Empire'' (2000) by [[Michael Hardt]] and [[Antonio Negri]], Mehmet Akif Okur posits that since the [[September 11 attacks]] in the United States, the international relations determining the world's balance of power (political, economic, military) have been altered.<ref name="auto">For Okur's thesis about "nation empires", look at the article: Mehmet Akif Okur, [https://web.archive.org/web/20090225004118/http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/volume12/winter/winter-004-PERCEPTION%28mehmetakifokur%29%5B4%5D.pdf "Rethinking Empire After 9/11: Towards A New Ontological Image of World Order"] ''Perceptions, Journal of International Affairs'', Volume XII, Winter 2007, pp. 61β93</ref> With the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] underway, historian [[Sidney Lens]] argued that from its inception, the US has used every means available to dominate foreign peoples and states.{{Sfn|Lens|Zinn|2003|p=Back cover}} The same time, [[Eliot A. Cohen]] suggested: "The Age of Empire may indeed have ended, but then an age of American hegemony has begun, regardless of what one calls it."{{Sfn|Cohen|2004|page=56}} Some scholars did not bother how to call it: "When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck."<ref>Sebastian Huhnholz, "Do All Roads Lead to Rome? Ancient Implications and Modern Transformations in the Recent US Discourse on an American Empire", ''Mediterraneo Antico'', 13/1-2, (2010): p. 55.</ref><ref>[[Dimitri K. Simes]], "America's Imperial Dilemma", ''Foreign Affairs'', 82/6, (2003): p 93.</ref><ref>In [[Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr.|Clyde V. Prestowitz]]'s version it also "quacks" like a duck. ''Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions'', (New York: Basic Books, 2004: p 25).</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page