Yes? Does that not make you curious what may have happened back then? Do you know? What were the Brits doing around the world in those days? Were they doing it with their military? If so, to what extent? Do you know anything of the Zulus? Has Britain fallen? No, not exactly. So, what exactly was wrong with colonial and post-colonial Britain that America might learn from their current endevours in the Middle East? Hmmm.
Britain didn't have the use of the air force for most of their domination. Now the States survive by the use of an air force.
America will fall when the village idiot gets elected and starts acting like a tough guy, and tries to change all the rules.
Uhh... eh...oh well...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You forgot Britain, easily the biggest colonising force the world has ever known. Arguably, Britain really lost America because the bulk of the East India Company's troops were already deployed, penetrating India further and further throughout the 1770s: this globally expansionist army was spreading itself too thinly and had to stick to priorities en route to empire (which came a century later).
That's a reductive view, but it can be backed up to a degree.
America could learn much from how the British handled and mishandled colonial and post-colonial affairs.
A dominant position in the world’s economy and politics doesn’t mean colonial power as I’m sure you know (There is Portugal and Spain to prove it –as paradigmatic cases, yes?-). I think colonialism in the traditional sense of the word has nothing to do with US power, also considering that US got to a dominant position (and maintained it) after WWII which, as many historians say, marked the end of the prior geopolitical organization of the world and the end of traditional colonialism.
If you are talking strictly about colonialism (in the traditional sense of the word), I agree with you, probably Britain is the biggest colonising force the world has ever known, but the Roman Empire practically invented colonialism (they call it in some other way back then ) and surely US learned more about them than Britain (this is not a good thing imo) and so gave birth to neo-colonialism, cultural colonialism, world power as the world had never seen before, etc.
Anyway, I don’t think we can go on talking in these terms (colonialism, rule of the world, etc.) during globalization times… is inaccurate and doesn’t reflect what is happening which is much more complex, yes?
And to answer the original post, I really think US no longer rules the world and it has already fallen from it’s dominant position, and its fall will go on for quite some time but I don’t think any other country will take that position anymore… the world will organize itself very differently in days to come… (European Union, ALCA-FTAA-ZLEA, Mercosur, etc.)
(Hope I made my point clear, not being English my mother language…;))
A dominant position in the world’s economy and politics doesn’t mean colonial power as I’m sure you know (There is Portugal and Spain to prove it –as paradigmatic cases, yes?-). I think colonialism in the traditional sense of the word has nothing to do with US power, also considering that US got to a dominant position (and maintained it) after WWII which, as many historians say, marked the end of the prior geopolitical organization of the world and the end of traditional colonialism.
If you are talking strictly about colonialism (in the traditional sense of the word), I agree with you, probably Britain is the biggest colonising force the world has ever known, but the Roman Empire practically invented colonialism (they call it in some other way back then ) and surely US learned more about them than Britain (this is not a good thing imo) and so gave birth to neo-colonialism, cultural colonialism, world power as the world had never seen before, etc.
Anyway, I don’t think we can go on talking in these terms (colonialism, rule of the world, etc.) during globalization times… is inaccurate and doesn’t reflect what is happening which is much more complex, yes?
And to answer the original post, I really think US no longer rules the world and it has already fallen from it’s dominant position, and its fall will go on for quite some time but I don’t think any other country will take that position anymore… the world will organize itself very differently in days to come… (European Union, ALCA-FTAA-ZLEA, Mercosur, etc.)
(Hope I made my point clear, not being English my mother language…;))
The current neo-con (Republican/corporation-backed) agenda is most certainly a classic example of the colonizing forces in history.
No, no semantics, I think US needs to expand in the middle east as a way to maintain its dominant position in the world and keep its voracious economy “rolling”, so is more a necessity than an orientation in its international relations guidelines or policy making or whatever, so this is one of the many definitions of imperialism: the necessary extension of capitalism (the final phase of capitalism – although that may also be a little antique of a definition! ). Finally, the words (and now I'm talking semantics!!) of US president… clearly imperialistic words…
Colonialism instead is not a necessity and doesn’t justify itself in any “moral superiority” and doesn’t imply the elimination of the colonized nation as wired as that may sound…
Imperialism/colonialism, either way US current (and past too imo) foreign policy sucks!
The empire will fall due to the efforts of keeping it together.
It's falling apart at the moment. They elected a stupider version of Rambo.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
well the fact that we are still a colony. I know that to many people we are probably not that important but the fact remains that the United States has a colony. that would qualify as colonialism.
No, no semantics, I think US needs to expand in the middle east as a way to maintain its dominant position in the world and keep its voracious economy “rolling”, so is more a necessity than an orientation in its international relations guidelines or policy making or whatever, so this is one of the many definitions of imperialism: the necessary extension of capitalism (the final phase of capitalism – although that may also be a little antique of a definition! ). Finally, the words (and now I'm talking semantics!!) of US president… clearly imperialistic words…
Colonialism instead is not a necessity and doesn’t justify itself in any “moral superiority” and doesn’t imply the elimination of the colonized nation as wired as that may sound…
Imperialism/colonialism, either way US current (and past too imo) foreign policy sucks!
Yikes. You think America is in the Middle East for America?
Think again.
Yikes. You think America is in the Middle East for America?
Think again.
what is America?? I was talking about US... and yes I think US economy needs expansion and that is why US is in the middle east (needs petroleum to expand its economy and needs to keep its war industry functioning to keep its economy rolling and lately that is not working so smoothly, yes?) , it is the "decision" of the current administration elected by US citizens... is there another US?
what is America?? I was talkin about US... and yes I think US economy needs expansion and that is wya US is in the middle east, it is the desition of the current administration elected by US citizens...
No, the Middle East "operation" is an inside job carried out through the President's administration. It is based on lies and falsehoods that continue to be told today. Follow the money.
No, the Middle East "operation" is an inside job carried out through the President's administration. It is based on lies and falsehoods that continue to be told today. Follow the money.
I agree! but then again there is a civil responsability: who elected the US president?
I agree! but then again there is a civil responsability: who elected the US president?
Uh.
The Supreme Court?
In direct violation of the Constitution, i might add, which states in no uncertain terms that after an immediate count of the electoral votes, should no clear winner be determined, the decision should go to CONGRESS for an immediate decision.
THE 12TH AMENDMENT:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
ANY QUESTIONS?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I agree! but then again there is a civil responsability: who elected the US president?
Uh.
The Supreme Court?
In direct violation of the Constitution, i might add, which states in no uncertain terms that after an immediate count of the electoral votes, should no clear winner be determined, the decision should go to CONGRESS for an immediate decision.
THE 12TH AMENDMENT:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
ANY QUESTIONS?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hi, jlew. I'll repost some of what I was saying in our PM to clarify my remarks.
I was thinking really about the nature of the East India Company, which was formed in 1600. By the 1770s it was seriously concerned with plundering India. The whole way that orientalism as a discourse was being set up around that time is very complex, and Hastings, then by the 1880s Cornwallis, were inevitably instrumental in constructing a notion of India as an exotic other to be controlled.* In the 1770s, they couldn't risk sticking their troops elsewhere in any great measure, so this whole idea of the democratic American little brother was partially accepted even while the War of Independence was being (I reckon) half-heartedly fought on the British front.
The East India Company was in the name of the crown (not officially until 1858 but by proxy of consent, sort of from the start), but it served to protect private corporate-expansionist interests. That was a fact, really. It wasn't until after a series of fuck-ups and disgraces on the E.I.C's front, culminating in the Indian Mutiny of 1857 that Britain realised it had to make its colonising mission officially centralised and sovereign, and in the name of Empire. (I think, off the top of my head, Victoria was crowned empress of India in 1877, and the subcontinent became known as the "jewel in the crown".) There then followed the scramble for Africa in the 1880s and the beginning of the end of things around the Boer War at the turn of the century.
Yep, I do think there's a historical parallel to be drawn between America (neo-colonial) and 18th century Britain, not so much even in what I've just said but in the rhetoric of both eras.
I've written lots of papers on this (in relation to new historicist and post-colonial literary theory, that is), and I don't want to be drawn into discussion at this time of night, but I would recommend this reader as a very useful guide to comparing ideological discourses of the British proto-imperial era and the US today:
* Cornwallis did realise the need for a bit of reform, against the mercenary tendencies of the E.I.C, to give him some due. He did reorganise the E.I.C. where Hastings had failed to check the obvious crookedness of the Company properly.
It's worth reading Said's "Orientalism", on his view about American neo-colonialism, too, even if you disagree and think he's talking reductivist bollocks.
Uh.
The Supreme Court?
In direct violation of the Constitution, i might add, which states in no uncertain terms that after an immediate count of the electoral votes, should no clear winner be determined, the decision should go to CONGRESS for an immediate decision.
THE 12TH AMENDMENT:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
ANY QUESTIONS?
This is known around the world, how unclear the US presidential election was in 2000…
But I’m talking about the current administration, 2004 presidential election was democratic process, right? Or it was also unconstitutional? Who elects the representatives in congress? And also, who elects the electors??
I have those questions and many more… No need to be sarcastic.
Comments
Britain didn't have the use of the air force for most of their domination. Now the States survive by the use of an air force.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Uhh... eh...oh well...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
A dominant position in the world’s economy and politics doesn’t mean colonial power as I’m sure you know (There is Portugal and Spain to prove it –as paradigmatic cases, yes?-). I think colonialism in the traditional sense of the word has nothing to do with US power, also considering that US got to a dominant position (and maintained it) after WWII which, as many historians say, marked the end of the prior geopolitical organization of the world and the end of traditional colonialism.
If you are talking strictly about colonialism (in the traditional sense of the word), I agree with you, probably Britain is the biggest colonising force the world has ever known, but the Roman Empire practically invented colonialism (they call it in some other way back then
Anyway, I don’t think we can go on talking in these terms (colonialism, rule of the world, etc.) during globalization times… is inaccurate and doesn’t reflect what is happening which is much more complex, yes?
And to answer the original post, I really think US no longer rules the world and it has already fallen from it’s dominant position, and its fall will go on for quite some time but I don’t think any other country will take that position anymore… the world will organize itself very differently in days to come… (European Union, ALCA-FTAA-ZLEA, Mercosur, etc.)
(Hope I made my point clear, not being English my mother language…;))
fuera de este mundo
The current neo-con (Republican/corporation-backed) agenda is most certainly a classic example of the colonizing forces in history.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
no its not. a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state. this is not happening anywhere.
We don't call them colonies anymore. Semantics.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
fuera de este mundo
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Its still happening. look up Puerto Rico.
i think this is correct. and the fact that they have military bases stationed all around the world. Protecting their " interest" .
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I agree.
You got to spend it all
that happened in 1898. what else ya got?
Colonialism instead is not a necessity and doesn’t justify itself in any “moral superiority” and doesn’t imply the elimination of the colonized nation as wired as that may sound…
Imperialism/colonialism, either way US current (and past too imo) foreign policy sucks!
fuera de este mundo
It's falling apart at the moment. They elected a stupider version of Rambo.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
well the fact that we are still a colony. I know that to many people we are probably not that important but the fact remains that the United States has a colony. that would qualify as colonialism.
Yikes. You think America is in the Middle East for America?
Think again.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
fuera de este mundo
No, the Middle East "operation" is an inside job carried out through the President's administration. It is based on lies and falsehoods that continue to be told today. Follow the money.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
fuera de este mundo
We're working on it. I guess. Mainly the voters are being worked over. Again.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Uh.
The Supreme Court?
In direct violation of the Constitution, i might add, which states in no uncertain terms that after an immediate count of the electoral votes, should no clear winner be determined, the decision should go to CONGRESS for an immediate decision.
THE 12TH AMENDMENT:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
ANY QUESTIONS?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Uh.
The Supreme Court?
In direct violation of the Constitution, i might add, which states in no uncertain terms that after an immediate count of the electoral votes, should no clear winner be determined, the decision should go to CONGRESS for an immediate decision.
THE 12TH AMENDMENT:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
ANY QUESTIONS?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hi, jlew. I'll repost some of what I was saying in our PM to clarify my remarks.
I was thinking really about the nature of the East India Company, which was formed in 1600. By the 1770s it was seriously concerned with plundering India. The whole way that orientalism as a discourse was being set up around that time is very complex, and Hastings, then by the 1880s Cornwallis, were inevitably instrumental in constructing a notion of India as an exotic other to be controlled.* In the 1770s, they couldn't risk sticking their troops elsewhere in any great measure, so this whole idea of the democratic American little brother was partially accepted even while the War of Independence was being (I reckon) half-heartedly fought on the British front.
The East India Company was in the name of the crown (not officially until 1858 but by proxy of consent, sort of from the start), but it served to protect private corporate-expansionist interests. That was a fact, really. It wasn't until after a series of fuck-ups and disgraces on the E.I.C's front, culminating in the Indian Mutiny of 1857 that Britain realised it had to make its colonising mission officially centralised and sovereign, and in the name of Empire. (I think, off the top of my head, Victoria was crowned empress of India in 1877, and the subcontinent became known as the "jewel in the crown".) There then followed the scramble for Africa in the 1880s and the beginning of the end of things around the Boer War at the turn of the century.
Yep, I do think there's a historical parallel to be drawn between America (neo-colonial) and 18th century Britain, not so much even in what I've just said but in the rhetoric of both eras.
I've written lots of papers on this (in relation to new historicist and post-colonial literary theory, that is), and I don't want to be drawn into discussion at this time of night, but I would recommend this reader as a very useful guide to comparing ideological discourses of the British proto-imperial era and the US today:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S3e6xy4ghn0C&pg=PP1&dq=imperialism+and+orientalism+documentary+sourcebook&sig=L4s1wHQXOHuaBGHCZakotCGqcf0
* Cornwallis did realise the need for a bit of reform, against the mercenary tendencies of the E.I.C, to give him some due. He did reorganise the E.I.C. where Hastings had failed to check the obvious crookedness of the Company properly.
But I’m talking about the current administration, 2004 presidential election was democratic process, right? Or it was also unconstitutional? Who elects the representatives in congress? And also, who elects the electors??
I have those questions and many more… No need to be sarcastic.
fuera de este mundo
This comment sums you up in a nutshell. I will make a point of not forgetting it.
My vote goes to Tierra del Fuego. I feel they've been neglected for far too long.