Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: More double standards Message-ID: <875@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 22:35:56 EST Article-I.D.: mmintl.875 Posted: Tue Dec 10 22:35:56 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 19:16:16 EST References: <544@qantel.UUCP> <7800608@inmet.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 63 Summary: In article <1771@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >[Talking about "Is there an American Empire"] > >>But I *am* talking about political dominance. An empire occurs when >>one cultural entity politically dominates another. In the U.S., there >>are no cultural entities in the sense I mean that are being dominated. >>(There may be such an entity developing in southern Florida. I find >>the situation there quite worrisome.) The idea of the blacks in this >>country forming a separate nation is preposterous. > >How about Puerto Rico, Guam, Philipines, virtually all of Central America? > >The Romans allowed a degree of autonomy to the outer provinces of its >empire. It was still an empire. > >The United States culturally and politically dominates every country >in Central America except Cuba. We have in the past unilaterally >replaced governments not to our liking. We call it our "backyard" >(are we Nicaragua's backyard? Do they have the right to fund contras >against us?). > >No political leader can make policy in Central America without asking, >"How will the US govt. react to this?" You have a point, but I don't think it is as strong as you think it is. It is certainly true that in the early twentieth century, the U.S. had an empire, which included Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, and more or less included all of Latin America. Today, Hawaii has been incorporated, and certainly is not politically dominated. The Philippines is an independent nation. (Really. Marcos's government accepts U.S. aid, but it was not created by us, and is not all that different from, say, Indonesia. My own guess is that without the U.S. presence, he would have consolidated power more thoroughly, and would not now be having problems.) Puerto Rico is an anomalous case, but in repeated referendums, its people have voted to continue the current relationship. (I don't know enough about the situation in Guam to comment.) As for the rest of Latin America, while we hardly are innocent, I think it is a great exaggeration (sp?) of our influence to call them U.S. colonies. We have intervened to adjust developments which are not to our liking, and such interventions are possible in the future. Still, the threshhold required to provoke intervention has gotten steadily higher, and Latin American governments have wide latitude to adopt policies which are unpopular in Washington. (In the early part of the century, Latin American governments threatening not to repay loans would have seen the Marines long before they convinced bankers to reschedule them. Even in the 50's, this would have been a likely response.) Nicaraugua was not above interfering militarily with its neighbors. Whether or not they sent arms to the El Salvador rebels (I think they did), they stated publicly the *right* to export their revolution. No U.S. President can formulate economic policy without considering how Europe and Japan will react to it. Does this make us a European or Japanese colony? Russian power dominates Eastern Europe much more than U.S. power dominates Latin America. This is not to mention Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, and perhaps Azerbajian and Georgia, (have I missed any?) which by all rights should be independent countries. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108