Gunnar, you are Sisyphus, rolling the stone of human nature up a hill.
Empire-Democracy. Empire-autocracy.
The American "Empire" (as you call it) is benevolent, and not oppressive, it is flawed (beyond question or doubt) but it swims in the sea of justice and the rule of law.Laws cobbled together by those who are ruled. At least until the …
Gunnar, you are Sisyphus, rolling the stone of human nature up a hill.
Empire-Democracy. Empire-autocracy.
The American "Empire" (as you call it) is benevolent, and not oppressive, it is flawed (beyond question or doubt) but it swims in the sea of justice and the rule of law.Laws cobbled together by those who are ruled. At least until the Federalist Society had it's judges appointed to the bench by Trump, and until Trump wins (god forbid) election and the Heritage Foundations Project 2025, and Trumps Project 47, are implemented on Jan 20th 2025, then Katy bar the gates, because all hell is going to be unleashed on the U.S.A, then the world
William - There is no such thing as 'human nature' - unless you think that Sigmund Freud outlined it in his psychoanalytic theory. Even then, the ways human express 'human nature' are numerous and highly divergent. In itself, 'human nature' has no predictive value.
You claim that the American empire is benevolent. Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Beating Hirohito and Hitler were benevolent goals; helping depose the elected Prime Minister of Fiji in 1987 wasn't - it was a coup d'Etat and a breach of the rule of law. Likewise, the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea two years ago was an act of industrial terrorism - it was a breach of international law.
America's dilemma is not just about Donald Trump. One problem is that U.S. judges are political appointees. I appreciate that there are reasons for this, but we can now see why it might be a disadvantage.
I am not going to get bogged down in a side bar about Human Nature, needless to say I disagree.
I do not disagree with your other complaints, but again it is wrong to lump them under empire..
Nations act in their own perceived benefit. I myself bitch about Exxon using it's money muscle to isolate Venezuela because it had the temerity to believe that it's oil belonged to Venezuela. Then there are the Banana Wars, the Ovethrow of Mossadegh MI 6 and the CIA), Coca cola funding right wing death squads in Honduras, Dubya invasion of Iraq, his fathers invasion of Panama to arrest a CIA bagman.
I have a longer list than you, but the list is not about empire, that is a wornout Marxist trope. It is all about shareholder value, return on investment, executive salaries and bonuses.
Chase swamp gas if you like I will keep my eye on the target, not illusions like "empire".
I live in the real world of America in 2024, and there are only two choices, a right wing theocratic dictatorship under Trump or a flawed and faulty democratic Republic.
William - The British empire was also about making money. The East India Company, for example, made a lot of money in India - see for example: Shashi Tharoor interview: How British Colonialism 'destroyed' India - YouTube. - You are right that nations pursue their own interest, and the definition of 'empire' has fuzzy boundaries. But empire has to do with national reach and degree of influnce. During Cold War I we often spoke of the 'Soviet empire', referring not just to its claim to Siberia and Central Asia, but to its influence in Indonesia and Africa and Cuba. Since c. 2008 and the start of Cold War II, NATO has started referring to Russia as an empire. And yet, in terms of territory, while Russia shrunk, it was NATO that expanded during the 1990s.
Empire also has to do with attitude. How often do we hear U.S. Presidents refer to "our power" and "our friends across the globe" in the same breath during their inaugural address? Empire has to do with prestige and arrogance, with the knowledge that wherever you go, you will be listened to with respect, resentment, and obedience. I put it to you that the Vietnam War had less to do with establishing new markets for Coka Cola and more to do with 'extending' the reach, prestige and military power of the U.S. Vietnam was a demonstration case. Maybe this was the psychological reason why LBJ and Nixon kept fighting it for so long.
I suppose foreigners are more likely to perceive 'empire' than the nation state that is accused of it. We foreigners take note of 'American exceptionalism' and see in it signs of empire. You Americans probably see it too but read the signs differently. - As I said, the boundaries are fuzzy.
Who did the East India Company make money for? It made it for it's stockholders.
I repeat while Marxists and Liberals kvetchabout Empire, they should be looking behind the curtain. It isn't Governments that are the problem, it is the stockholders who use government as a tool and a weapon.
It is these same forces that fund the political parties, that control the government.
A nation is it's governing body,, the governing body is simply a tool. But you and so many others are stuck looking at the Wizard on the screen and not the man behind the curtain.
In 1600 a group of investors got together and asked,( bribed) Elizabeth 1 for a royal charter (a monopoly) to form the East India Company, to compete with Spain in it's exploitation of the America's. It eventually had enough power to use the English Army, the red coats, in it's drive for profits and power, and you and others call that Empire, when in reality it is a profit making corporation using the collective power of the state.
Same here in America, what Coca Cola wants, what Exxon Mobil wants, what any large financial institution or corporation wants they get, because they have the money and thus the power over politicians.
It isn't empire, it is return on investment, shareholder value, and those that increase it, like CEO's, Lobbyists, Boards of directors are richly rewarded, those impede it pay a price, either politically or personal, but the political is personal, especially when it means loss of life and/or income and social status.
So talk about Empire and Imperialism all you want, but you are yammering at the projected Wizard on the Screen, not the man behind the curtain.
Here is a concept. the USA is a joint venture company, it's shareholders are corporations, who themselves are in competition, at war with each other, let's call it a vessel, USA Inc.
We are passenger and deckhands on the jolly ship America, it's captain is elected by the passengers and deck hands, much like pirates elected their captains, the crew that mans the ship, is also elected.
Every four years a new captain takes charge and orders the ship to veer port or starboard, and after it has veered far enough of course to satisfy the passengers ,that are paying for the voyage, there is an election and a new captain takes over and orders a course correction,putting the ship back on track for it's final destination.
In the meanwhile this joint venture company, needs to protect it's assets and itself, and also secure resources so it sends out arned crew to fend off threats or secure vital resources.
An Empire serves a person, the Emperor, one person not a nation. The Roman Empire had an Emperor. Charlemagne was an Emperor, Napoleon was an Emperor, Victoria was an Emperor.
Wiiliam - Thank you for your thought-provoking post!
I will focus on the British Empire because it is the one that I know best. You seem to reduce the Empire to the shareholders of the East India Company (EIC). Yes, EIC raised its own army in India; it saved the British government money and effort. Then came 1857 and the Mutiny or War of Independence, and after it had been put down, Queen Victoria (the British government) took over the military occupation of British India.
Because India was not just a colony to be squeezed of its raw materials - although of course that was one aspect of Empire. India was also a prestige thing - big in area, populous, requiring travelling judges to uphold law and order, and a network of spies to detect groups of restive natives. In fact, Britain had a civil service In India, quite a bureaucracy. And missionaries, out to abolish suttee, for example. Britain had set herself the task of civilizing the country. To believe that this apparatus and purpose was simply to make money is a form of commercialist reductionism, William, and maybe your attempt at letting the U.S.'s empire off the hook. After all, who can object to be bit of international commerce in far-flung corners of the world? Sounds innocent and well-meaning enough!
Empires do not simply serve one person. Where do you get that from? Mind you, following the debacle of 1857, Queen Victoria became the Empress of India. But actually, India dwelt in the hearts of many others.
So, prestige is an important element in Empire maintenance. An example: in 1976, the artist Val C. Prinsep is given a commission: to paint as many of the Rajahs as possible. The plan is to then combine all the portraits into one large painting - a prestige piece. The way he talks about his father is telling; his father spent 33 years in the Indian Civil Service - "an example of unselfish devotion to duty and unassuming ability found in many of those who have by their unrecognized labours made India what it is" ("Imperial India. An Artist's Journeys", p. 2).
Sure, Princep was an "accredited painter to the Government" (p. 74), so he was paid. But this is not simply about money. The way he speaks about his father's "service" to India is the way a member of a colonial family conceals from himself the true nature of Empire.
But I can see that I will not convince you. You don't like the idea that your country might be engaged in empire building. Maybe you find the thought vulgar. Your country is more refined than that - more honestly commercial. Be that as it may be!
I think you are stuck in a paradigm, left over from when Kings ruled all,or people thought that they did.
The EIC, it didn't become the BEIC until The Acts of Union, in 1707 passed by the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1707, led to the creation of a united kingdom to be called “Great Britain” on 1 May of that year.
None of what England then Britain did until Elizabeth I was for the King or Queen,and it is royalty that is Emperor. Sir Benjamin D'Israeli declared Victoria to be Empress, and thus Britain and Empire.
Kings, Queens, Emperors need a medium of exchange, money, they obtain this via taxes and loans.
Edward I borrowed money from the Jews of London and when he couldn't pay back the loan, he banned Jews from England
The Fugger Brothers of Italy, were a wealthy Florence banking institution, and made out loaning money to crowned heads.
They loaned money to Ferdinand and Isabella, who refuse to pay it back, they didn't have the money That bankrupted the Fugger brothers. Still in the need for money, they evicted all Muslims and Jews from Spain, and confiscated their property, in their need that backed Columbus voyage and he set sail for America on the very day the eviction edict took place.
Frances I of France, needed money so he borrowed it from the international financial institution known as the Knights Templar, unable to repay the loan he had the Pope declare them heretics,manufactured evidence and thus not have to repay the loan, and while at it he tried to confiscate their wealth,but the Knights spirited it away.
If you insist on seeing Empires as Nations I can't dissuade you, however the driving force behind Empire are not royals or president or Prime Ministers, except in the case of Putin, Hitler and Mussolini.. Certainly inot in America, not with it's turnover of Presidents and Congress critters.
The driving force is what would be called today, Capitalists, Plutocrats, billinaires and were called in their day adventurers. That was the term used for people who put up money and invested in the East India and London Company of Virginia.
Talking of the latter, it was not Imperialism that motivated the formation of the London Company of Virginia, it was profit. A group of investors, one of whom was my ancestor, bought stock in this venture, called a joint venture.
The purpose of which was to exploit the gold and silver, which they believed lay in abundance in that land across the Atlantic which the Spanish were explotiting and making them wealthy and the base of the Holy Roman Empire.
They prevailed upon James I for a charter to go forth and exploit the country.
That was in 1607, the quest came to naught, and were it not for Turkish Tobacco seeds carried by John Rolfe, the enterprise would have ended, just as the Virginia Company of Plymouth ended. There charter was formed by a group of Plymouth, England merchants who wanted to exploit, the Northern part of Virginia, which at the time was the entire east coast from the latitude of Roanoke to the Latitude of Maine.
James 1 hated tobacco, a foul smelling weed, and the Virginia Company would have come to an end, but for the efforts of a distant cousin named Nicholas Ferrar,who was a shareholder, a member of the governing board as well as influential in the religious life of England.
Two years after the disastrous attack by the Powhatan Indians,known as the Jamestown massacre, and because it had not found gold or silver nor returned a profit,on ay 24, 1624, the Virginia Company's charter was revoked by King James I due to overwhelming financial problems and politics, and Virginia became a royal colony,
Still England was not an Empire
There followed the English Civil war and with the victory of Cromwell, royalists fled to Virginia like geese, They became the planters the upper class, supplanting the old upper class of adventurers.
Still England was not an Empire. Whether or not an idea lies in the breast of many people, it is not an Empire
Nothing dwells in the hearts of others, because people are too involved with the affairs of surviving
I really don't know what you are arguing for,other than you have this idea (is it sincere or propaganda) that there is an American empire and thus all Americans are complicit, and that I am trying to get America off the hook. I am not,but you are trying like hell to put America on the hook. perhaps because it is the cornerstone of your political ideological foundation or agenda.
William - I think you are stuck in the minutae of history and can't see the wood for the trees. You even reach back to the English Civil War, prior to Empire.
You write, "the driving force behind Empire are not royals or president or Prime Ministers, except in the case of Putin, Hitler and Mussolini.. Certainly not in America, not with it's turnover of Presidents and Congress critters". - Well, in the U.S., its empire has been consolidating gradually - one could argue since the formulation of the Monroe doctrine, and certainly during and following World War II. And it's been a bipartisan movement, becoming part of the Washington Consensus, and took place long before Reagonomic/neoliberalism took hold in the 1980s. Neoliberalism and its bedfellow Globalisation have accellerated the formation of empire building.
What is characteristic of the U.S. power elite is its coyness: they don't talk about empire building and they never mention neoliberalism. Nor do the press barons. The British were much more forthcoming about their Empire. But the prestige - and the self-regard - by U.S. presidents and in the U.S. Congress about its "global reach" is palpable. There is no mistaking it. And they are proud of 'American exceptionalism', a sure indicator of political and financial international clout. To us mere mortals elsewhere in the world, it feels very much like a U.S. empire descending upon us. Sorry William!
So, when Biden decided to destroy the Nord Stream gas lines, we all knew who was behind it. It wasn't a puny nation state; it was an empire in the making, with a global reach and with the temerity to act against its NATO allies. And, as I said, we resent but we obey.
If I am stuck in the minutae of history, then you are stuck in the Marxist paradigm of Imperialism. Don't play that card Gunnar, it leads to war.
Biden did not destroy the Nord Stream gas lines. Biden can barely walk, probably arthritis. Nor did he give orders to. Prove that accusatin.
And don't tell me about Empire and America. Talk about the real Empiricist, Vladimir Putin.
The real threat to the world is not America,it is Vladimir Putin, with his paranoia, and grand designs to rebuild Stalins empire and in the process commit genodice, first against the Ukrainians, then the Baltic states, Poland, Moldova, Rumania. the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have already cast their lot with Putin.
Lets talk about the real threat. I don't think you are up to. For some reason it seems that you are doing yeoman work for Putin.
As for the 'Empiricist' Vladimir Putin, what territories he has reclaimed is comparable with what the U.S. has claimed as U.S. Territories. Putin is not the only political leader who annexes other people's land.
Thanks for revealing that you are a Putin apologist. What you are saying is that despite Ukraine being a Sovereign nation, with it's own history and language, Putin is correct in trying to reclaim it. Because the US has claimed territories.
Besides the difference being that U.S. territories can break a way any time they want, your comparison is flawed.
Puerto Rico is a territory, and periodically it comes up for a vote, whether to stay a territory or to become a sovereign state. The vote has been to remain a sovereign state, for financial and security reasons. They even want to become a state, but our reactionary Republican party won't permit it, they are afraid that letting Puerto Rica become a state would add two Democratic Senators and five democratic congressmen. Guam can leave anytime it wants, so can America Samoa, but they don't want to.
Ukraine left and doesn't want to be part of Russia and who blames them
So Gunnar your example and comparison is flawed.
As regards Seymour Hersh, he is a darling of the left in America, and the American left inclines towards Marx. His research is, shall I say tainted with his ideology and his conclusions are bent.
Your post millennial source is likewise ideologically questionable.
A threat is one thing, carrying it out another. Besides I totally agree with Biden's threat.
Putin is a genocidal aggressor. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for a guarantee of safety from Russia, and Putin violated that gurantee, and you defend Putin.
Gunnar, you are Sisyphus, rolling the stone of human nature up a hill.
Empire-Democracy. Empire-autocracy.
The American "Empire" (as you call it) is benevolent, and not oppressive, it is flawed (beyond question or doubt) but it swims in the sea of justice and the rule of law.Laws cobbled together by those who are ruled. At least until the Federalist Society had it's judges appointed to the bench by Trump, and until Trump wins (god forbid) election and the Heritage Foundations Project 2025, and Trumps Project 47, are implemented on Jan 20th 2025, then Katy bar the gates, because all hell is going to be unleashed on the U.S.A, then the world
William - There is no such thing as 'human nature' - unless you think that Sigmund Freud outlined it in his psychoanalytic theory. Even then, the ways human express 'human nature' are numerous and highly divergent. In itself, 'human nature' has no predictive value.
You claim that the American empire is benevolent. Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Beating Hirohito and Hitler were benevolent goals; helping depose the elected Prime Minister of Fiji in 1987 wasn't - it was a coup d'Etat and a breach of the rule of law. Likewise, the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea two years ago was an act of industrial terrorism - it was a breach of international law.
America's dilemma is not just about Donald Trump. One problem is that U.S. judges are political appointees. I appreciate that there are reasons for this, but we can now see why it might be a disadvantage.
I am not going to get bogged down in a side bar about Human Nature, needless to say I disagree.
I do not disagree with your other complaints, but again it is wrong to lump them under empire..
Nations act in their own perceived benefit. I myself bitch about Exxon using it's money muscle to isolate Venezuela because it had the temerity to believe that it's oil belonged to Venezuela. Then there are the Banana Wars, the Ovethrow of Mossadegh MI 6 and the CIA), Coca cola funding right wing death squads in Honduras, Dubya invasion of Iraq, his fathers invasion of Panama to arrest a CIA bagman.
I have a longer list than you, but the list is not about empire, that is a wornout Marxist trope. It is all about shareholder value, return on investment, executive salaries and bonuses.
Chase swamp gas if you like I will keep my eye on the target, not illusions like "empire".
I live in the real world of America in 2024, and there are only two choices, a right wing theocratic dictatorship under Trump or a flawed and faulty democratic Republic.
There is no choice.
William - The British empire was also about making money. The East India Company, for example, made a lot of money in India - see for example: Shashi Tharoor interview: How British Colonialism 'destroyed' India - YouTube. - You are right that nations pursue their own interest, and the definition of 'empire' has fuzzy boundaries. But empire has to do with national reach and degree of influnce. During Cold War I we often spoke of the 'Soviet empire', referring not just to its claim to Siberia and Central Asia, but to its influence in Indonesia and Africa and Cuba. Since c. 2008 and the start of Cold War II, NATO has started referring to Russia as an empire. And yet, in terms of territory, while Russia shrunk, it was NATO that expanded during the 1990s.
Empire also has to do with attitude. How often do we hear U.S. Presidents refer to "our power" and "our friends across the globe" in the same breath during their inaugural address? Empire has to do with prestige and arrogance, with the knowledge that wherever you go, you will be listened to with respect, resentment, and obedience. I put it to you that the Vietnam War had less to do with establishing new markets for Coka Cola and more to do with 'extending' the reach, prestige and military power of the U.S. Vietnam was a demonstration case. Maybe this was the psychological reason why LBJ and Nixon kept fighting it for so long.
Mearsheimer says that the U.S. doesn't have an empire but has "imperial ambitions" - see https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/mearsheimer-american-imperial-ambitions
I suppose foreigners are more likely to perceive 'empire' than the nation state that is accused of it. We foreigners take note of 'American exceptionalism' and see in it signs of empire. You Americans probably see it too but read the signs differently. - As I said, the boundaries are fuzzy.
Who did the East India Company make money for? It made it for it's stockholders.
I repeat while Marxists and Liberals kvetchabout Empire, they should be looking behind the curtain. It isn't Governments that are the problem, it is the stockholders who use government as a tool and a weapon.
It is these same forces that fund the political parties, that control the government.
A nation is it's governing body,, the governing body is simply a tool. But you and so many others are stuck looking at the Wizard on the screen and not the man behind the curtain.
In 1600 a group of investors got together and asked,( bribed) Elizabeth 1 for a royal charter (a monopoly) to form the East India Company, to compete with Spain in it's exploitation of the America's. It eventually had enough power to use the English Army, the red coats, in it's drive for profits and power, and you and others call that Empire, when in reality it is a profit making corporation using the collective power of the state.
Same here in America, what Coca Cola wants, what Exxon Mobil wants, what any large financial institution or corporation wants they get, because they have the money and thus the power over politicians.
It isn't empire, it is return on investment, shareholder value, and those that increase it, like CEO's, Lobbyists, Boards of directors are richly rewarded, those impede it pay a price, either politically or personal, but the political is personal, especially when it means loss of life and/or income and social status.
So talk about Empire and Imperialism all you want, but you are yammering at the projected Wizard on the Screen, not the man behind the curtain.
Here is a concept. the USA is a joint venture company, it's shareholders are corporations, who themselves are in competition, at war with each other, let's call it a vessel, USA Inc.
We are passenger and deckhands on the jolly ship America, it's captain is elected by the passengers and deck hands, much like pirates elected their captains, the crew that mans the ship, is also elected.
Every four years a new captain takes charge and orders the ship to veer port or starboard, and after it has veered far enough of course to satisfy the passengers ,that are paying for the voyage, there is an election and a new captain takes over and orders a course correction,putting the ship back on track for it's final destination.
In the meanwhile this joint venture company, needs to protect it's assets and itself, and also secure resources so it sends out arned crew to fend off threats or secure vital resources.
An Empire serves a person, the Emperor, one person not a nation. The Roman Empire had an Emperor. Charlemagne was an Emperor, Napoleon was an Emperor, Victoria was an Emperor.
America has no Emperor, unless Trump is elected.
Wiiliam - Thank you for your thought-provoking post!
I will focus on the British Empire because it is the one that I know best. You seem to reduce the Empire to the shareholders of the East India Company (EIC). Yes, EIC raised its own army in India; it saved the British government money and effort. Then came 1857 and the Mutiny or War of Independence, and after it had been put down, Queen Victoria (the British government) took over the military occupation of British India.
Because India was not just a colony to be squeezed of its raw materials - although of course that was one aspect of Empire. India was also a prestige thing - big in area, populous, requiring travelling judges to uphold law and order, and a network of spies to detect groups of restive natives. In fact, Britain had a civil service In India, quite a bureaucracy. And missionaries, out to abolish suttee, for example. Britain had set herself the task of civilizing the country. To believe that this apparatus and purpose was simply to make money is a form of commercialist reductionism, William, and maybe your attempt at letting the U.S.'s empire off the hook. After all, who can object to be bit of international commerce in far-flung corners of the world? Sounds innocent and well-meaning enough!
Empires do not simply serve one person. Where do you get that from? Mind you, following the debacle of 1857, Queen Victoria became the Empress of India. But actually, India dwelt in the hearts of many others.
So, prestige is an important element in Empire maintenance. An example: in 1976, the artist Val C. Prinsep is given a commission: to paint as many of the Rajahs as possible. The plan is to then combine all the portraits into one large painting - a prestige piece. The way he talks about his father is telling; his father spent 33 years in the Indian Civil Service - "an example of unselfish devotion to duty and unassuming ability found in many of those who have by their unrecognized labours made India what it is" ("Imperial India. An Artist's Journeys", p. 2).
Sure, Princep was an "accredited painter to the Government" (p. 74), so he was paid. But this is not simply about money. The way he speaks about his father's "service" to India is the way a member of a colonial family conceals from himself the true nature of Empire.
But I can see that I will not convince you. You don't like the idea that your country might be engaged in empire building. Maybe you find the thought vulgar. Your country is more refined than that - more honestly commercial. Be that as it may be!
I think you are stuck in a paradigm, left over from when Kings ruled all,or people thought that they did.
The EIC, it didn't become the BEIC until The Acts of Union, in 1707 passed by the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1707, led to the creation of a united kingdom to be called “Great Britain” on 1 May of that year.
None of what England then Britain did until Elizabeth I was for the King or Queen,and it is royalty that is Emperor. Sir Benjamin D'Israeli declared Victoria to be Empress, and thus Britain and Empire.
Kings, Queens, Emperors need a medium of exchange, money, they obtain this via taxes and loans.
Edward I borrowed money from the Jews of London and when he couldn't pay back the loan, he banned Jews from England
The Fugger Brothers of Italy, were a wealthy Florence banking institution, and made out loaning money to crowned heads.
They loaned money to Ferdinand and Isabella, who refuse to pay it back, they didn't have the money That bankrupted the Fugger brothers. Still in the need for money, they evicted all Muslims and Jews from Spain, and confiscated their property, in their need that backed Columbus voyage and he set sail for America on the very day the eviction edict took place.
Frances I of France, needed money so he borrowed it from the international financial institution known as the Knights Templar, unable to repay the loan he had the Pope declare them heretics,manufactured evidence and thus not have to repay the loan, and while at it he tried to confiscate their wealth,but the Knights spirited it away.
If you insist on seeing Empires as Nations I can't dissuade you, however the driving force behind Empire are not royals or president or Prime Ministers, except in the case of Putin, Hitler and Mussolini.. Certainly inot in America, not with it's turnover of Presidents and Congress critters.
The driving force is what would be called today, Capitalists, Plutocrats, billinaires and were called in their day adventurers. That was the term used for people who put up money and invested in the East India and London Company of Virginia.
Talking of the latter, it was not Imperialism that motivated the formation of the London Company of Virginia, it was profit. A group of investors, one of whom was my ancestor, bought stock in this venture, called a joint venture.
The purpose of which was to exploit the gold and silver, which they believed lay in abundance in that land across the Atlantic which the Spanish were explotiting and making them wealthy and the base of the Holy Roman Empire.
They prevailed upon James I for a charter to go forth and exploit the country.
That was in 1607, the quest came to naught, and were it not for Turkish Tobacco seeds carried by John Rolfe, the enterprise would have ended, just as the Virginia Company of Plymouth ended. There charter was formed by a group of Plymouth, England merchants who wanted to exploit, the Northern part of Virginia, which at the time was the entire east coast from the latitude of Roanoke to the Latitude of Maine.
James 1 hated tobacco, a foul smelling weed, and the Virginia Company would have come to an end, but for the efforts of a distant cousin named Nicholas Ferrar,who was a shareholder, a member of the governing board as well as influential in the religious life of England.
Two years after the disastrous attack by the Powhatan Indians,known as the Jamestown massacre, and because it had not found gold or silver nor returned a profit,on ay 24, 1624, the Virginia Company's charter was revoked by King James I due to overwhelming financial problems and politics, and Virginia became a royal colony,
Still England was not an Empire
There followed the English Civil war and with the victory of Cromwell, royalists fled to Virginia like geese, They became the planters the upper class, supplanting the old upper class of adventurers.
Still England was not an Empire. Whether or not an idea lies in the breast of many people, it is not an Empire
Nothing dwells in the hearts of others, because people are too involved with the affairs of surviving
I really don't know what you are arguing for,other than you have this idea (is it sincere or propaganda) that there is an American empire and thus all Americans are complicit, and that I am trying to get America off the hook. I am not,but you are trying like hell to put America on the hook. perhaps because it is the cornerstone of your political ideological foundation or agenda.
William - I think you are stuck in the minutae of history and can't see the wood for the trees. You even reach back to the English Civil War, prior to Empire.
You write, "the driving force behind Empire are not royals or president or Prime Ministers, except in the case of Putin, Hitler and Mussolini.. Certainly not in America, not with it's turnover of Presidents and Congress critters". - Well, in the U.S., its empire has been consolidating gradually - one could argue since the formulation of the Monroe doctrine, and certainly during and following World War II. And it's been a bipartisan movement, becoming part of the Washington Consensus, and took place long before Reagonomic/neoliberalism took hold in the 1980s. Neoliberalism and its bedfellow Globalisation have accellerated the formation of empire building.
What is characteristic of the U.S. power elite is its coyness: they don't talk about empire building and they never mention neoliberalism. Nor do the press barons. The British were much more forthcoming about their Empire. But the prestige - and the self-regard - by U.S. presidents and in the U.S. Congress about its "global reach" is palpable. There is no mistaking it. And they are proud of 'American exceptionalism', a sure indicator of political and financial international clout. To us mere mortals elsewhere in the world, it feels very much like a U.S. empire descending upon us. Sorry William!
So, when Biden decided to destroy the Nord Stream gas lines, we all knew who was behind it. It wasn't a puny nation state; it was an empire in the making, with a global reach and with the temerity to act against its NATO allies. And, as I said, we resent but we obey.
If I am stuck in the minutae of history, then you are stuck in the Marxist paradigm of Imperialism. Don't play that card Gunnar, it leads to war.
Biden did not destroy the Nord Stream gas lines. Biden can barely walk, probably arthritis. Nor did he give orders to. Prove that accusatin.
And don't tell me about Empire and America. Talk about the real Empiricist, Vladimir Putin.
The real threat to the world is not America,it is Vladimir Putin, with his paranoia, and grand designs to rebuild Stalins empire and in the process commit genodice, first against the Ukrainians, then the Baltic states, Poland, Moldova, Rumania. the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have already cast their lot with Putin.
Lets talk about the real threat. I don't think you are up to. For some reason it seems that you are doing yeoman work for Putin.
William - Here is a report on Seymour Hersh's research into destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11727691/U-S-carried-Nord-Stream-bomb-attack-secret-plan-led-Joe-Biden-report-claims.html
And here are the details - https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-biden-lied-about-nord-stream-sabotage-us-did-it-with-help-from-norway-report
Finally, here is Biden's threat - https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-threatens-end-nord-stream-215851745.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
As for the 'Empiricist' Vladimir Putin, what territories he has reclaimed is comparable with what the U.S. has claimed as U.S. Territories. Putin is not the only political leader who annexes other people's land.
Thanks for revealing that you are a Putin apologist. What you are saying is that despite Ukraine being a Sovereign nation, with it's own history and language, Putin is correct in trying to reclaim it. Because the US has claimed territories.
Besides the difference being that U.S. territories can break a way any time they want, your comparison is flawed.
Puerto Rico is a territory, and periodically it comes up for a vote, whether to stay a territory or to become a sovereign state. The vote has been to remain a sovereign state, for financial and security reasons. They even want to become a state, but our reactionary Republican party won't permit it, they are afraid that letting Puerto Rica become a state would add two Democratic Senators and five democratic congressmen. Guam can leave anytime it wants, so can America Samoa, but they don't want to.
Ukraine left and doesn't want to be part of Russia and who blames them
So Gunnar your example and comparison is flawed.
As regards Seymour Hersh, he is a darling of the left in America, and the American left inclines towards Marx. His research is, shall I say tainted with his ideology and his conclusions are bent.
Your post millennial source is likewise ideologically questionable.
A threat is one thing, carrying it out another. Besides I totally agree with Biden's threat.
Putin is a genocidal aggressor. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for a guarantee of safety from Russia, and Putin violated that gurantee, and you defend Putin.
What gives Gunnar.?
And don't forget Chile
Indeed!