Uncomfortable Thoughts: What if empire is the only choice we have?
In a previous post I argued that the United States, in spite of the "imperialist" insult, is not an empire by the accepted definition. http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-blog-feature-uncomfortable-thoughts.html
"Webster’s revised unabridged dictionary (© 1996, 1998 MICRA Inc.) defines empire as:
n 1: the domain ruled by an emperor or empress 2: a group of countries under a single authority; "the British empire" 3: a monarchy with an emperor as head of state 4: a group of diverse companies under common ownership and run as a single organization
n 1: a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries 2: a political orientation that advocates imperial interests 3: any instance of aggressive extension of authority.
"By the standard definition, the US is not an empire. It is neither a monarchy nor is it a group of countries, but a single country with a recognized common culture whose legislators are chosen from every region of the country without any legal qualifications of ethnicity, religion or even native birth. By the second definition of empire (and ignoring the pejorative connotations of the word) there are only two countries of any size in the world today that match the definition: Russia and India.
"As for creating an empire, after an initial period of expansion into almost empty territory, the US appears to have reached the limit of its territorial enlargement, the last being a few island possessions taken from the Empire of Japan at the end of WWII. And in these cases, the US grants a huge measure of local autonomy (for example the local laws of Guam are not subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court) and has made it plain that they can have complete independence any time they ask for it."