Conversation with Neil Sheehan, p. 5 of 7

Conversation with Neil Sheehan, p. 5 of 7

The start of realization.

Insight into the nature of United States foreign policy.

Hegemony You Pay For

Are you benefiting fairly for the hegemony for which you are paying? You might benefit by keeping the question in mind as you read on.


Certain people in the United states have built and are exploiting an empire. Empire building is imperialism. 'Imperialism' comes from the word 'imperial.' 'Imperial' relates to an empire or an emperor. 
'Imperial also designates a government holding sovereign sway over 'dependencies.' Sovereign' is a word of which you may want t refresh or extend your understanding.


Imperialism hasn't been much about the acquisition of territory for some time. It is now much about the practice of technologies and stratagems for the establishment of economic and political hegemony over the people of other nations. It is the system, policies, and practices of an imperial government. My old blue dictionary says that imperialism is the policy, practice, and advocacy of extending power and dominion others by gaining indirect control  over the economic and political life of the people of another nation.


Right, 'hegemony.' It is the preponderant influence or sway of one nation or state over another. That is easy enough. Where is it that you have hegemony?


The main reason for imperialism seems to be a kind of greed for wealth, and power over others. In practice imperialists use their power and techniques to exploit the human, natural, and economic resources of other nations. Seems a mite parasitic. Imperialists also use their dominance to control strategic locations of others for military and commercial reasons. Their principle aim often seems to be the control of markets. Imperialists seem to want the people of the world to consume imperialist's products and imperialist's prices. They, of course, have also often wanted to obtain raw materials at the lowest cost. That often means subverting the other's means of production. What do they say? 'The greater the concentration of power, the greater the corruption?'


By the 1600s certain powerful persons had well in mind the power potential of the organizational efficiency of the industrialized nation-state. Such states could produces certain goods so efficiently that they could undersell comparable local goods all over the world. All they had to do was get in the door. Once the door was open to them they could make a killing.


I ought to be thanking my history teachers. I can get a lot from books and other media, but a live teacher is a powerful aid to ones understanding.


The imperial expansion westward across North America held the attention of the people of the United States while Europeans divided up much of Africa and Asia. Even so, certain Americans were already looking for ventures beyond their boarders before 1900.


Big business was born in the U.S. Railroads, steel, and oil were big. The processing and distribution of food was becoming big. Munitions were important. The dollar was kept strong. California gold and Nevada silver helped support the dollar. U.S. credit was good. Foreign capital poured in. Big capital was born.


There were ups and downs. Economic depression and labor unrest occurred  There were strikes. Some big employers thanked God for the National Guard. Check "Haymarket Square," "Homestead Strike," "Pullman Strike" in your history book or on Wikipedia.


Powerful persons in the United States took advantage of the United States to take advantage of the people of Latin America.
The powerful wanted markets, took them, and kept them. The sometimes used U.S. Sailors and Marines to open Latin American doors and to keep Latin America people 'in line.'


This opening doors business soon became a world-wide police of imperialists. Open the doors of China; open the doors of Japan.
Every salesman knew about 'getting his foot in the door.'


In the early days Americans did take territory for their empire. They took it from Colombia, Mexico, Canada, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico. But why take territory and all the troublesome people therein when what was wanted was wealth and the power it brought.


These Americans became so powerful that they could practice 'regime change' in Italy and over uncounted countries. They could compete for Empire with the most powerful European states. They successfully competed for hegemony where the wanted and at the same time keep European competitors out of Latin America.


Japan proved more able at resisting American and European imperialism than were most countries. Doors of theirs were forced open, but not many of them. In the long run Japanese maintained pretty fair  dominion over their own country. They also managed to organize themselves effectively as a state, to industrialize, and to create an effective military.


What does it mean to be a citizen of the most powerful empire known to man? 'We' have controlled the World Bank, the U.N., the sea, the sky, world markets, the media. Sounds pretty good. How are you benefiting?


'We' have made the mistake of humiliating people in the process of dominating them. They tend to find that upsetting.

What is the status of the nation-state today? Has the nation-state been a function of imperialism? Has Imperialism been a function of the nation-state? Do you see the nation-state morphing into something new? With major changes in the nation-state, what changes are likely to occur in the empires of today.


May those of empire consider the results of hubris.


How much are you paying for what you are getting? Let's be a little more aware the next time we agree to make payments.

Americans

I have traveled a lot.

I enjoyed my travels. I was treated well everywhere.

I found that Americans were generally well liked, but that the America government was not.

I am not surprised that I am well liked. I'm a likable guy. For a time I was surprised that my government was not well liked.

As I traveled, I not only talked a lot, I also listened a lot, and learned to keep my eyes open. I began to learn. I began to understand that even though most people wanted to like the United States, they could not.

I remember being taught that one of the strengths of democracy was its stability. I saw my government supporting anti-democratic government everywhere. We supported those who trusted the people least and who were trusted least by the people. We supported killers, despots, dictators, and cruel exploiters. We supported those interested in the greatest good for the very special few.

My travels began in the days when Americans still referred to the government as 'we' and 'us.' I went to Embassies and Consulates and asked, "Why are we supporting these guys?" When they found that I was serious they explained that it was done in the name of stability! At first I asked, "What about my teachers?" "What about democracy?" I said that I talked to many people who wanted their own democratic government. I said that the people found it confusing that Americans supported their actual point of teaching that government how to suppress them. When I noted How I was being asked, "What people?" and "Which people?" I began to think that I was talking too much.

I began to make my observations a bit more discreetly. My earliest inquiries were mostly in Latin America. I continued observations in Europe, the East and wider.

The major change over these years is that Americans began to refer to their government as they and them.

Colombia is Colombia

 I have had an affection for things Colombian from the very early 1960s. I'm not a Colombian, but have been accused of being a bit of a "Pisa."
I've just had a bit of a look at a new book by, I believe, Karin Hayes and Victoria Bruce called Hostage Nation: Colombia's Guerrilla Army and the Failed War on Drugs.  It is the best example of good extended journalism on the realities in Colombia I have seen in half a century.   


If you are interested in Colombia, America foreign policy, drugs,
South America, the Americas in general, humanity, a darn good story, or would just like the facts, take a look at it. 

Fellow Citizen

I have questions about my responsibility for our foreign policy:
~ Do I have a responsibility for how our foreign policy looks?
~ How does our foreign policy effect me?
~ How can I keep track of what my representative is doing about our foreign policy?
~ How does the way we relate to the people of other countries effect me?
~ What sources of information about the nature of our foreign policy can I trust most?
~ How can I sort through varies foreign policies?
~ Just what is a foreign policy?
~ How is a foreign policy for me?
~ How can a foreign policy benefit me?
~ How might I go about finding a foreign policy congenial to me?

I guess I could very well ask the same questions about our domestic policy!

Fellow Citizens

We have the morons for strategists that we deserve.

The morons strategists are less in the military and more in our foreign policy.