American Bashing

[Driver]

Isn't this all just a part of The Great Game?

Yes.

[Driver]

Whilst you and I find this interesting, I hesitate to go on much more, cause I'm sure most won't.

Don't underestimate the capacity of our members to be interested in bloody nearly anything

Kennedy Senior, who I think was once UK Ambassador had on-going influence at State.

He was the US Ambassador in the UK during WWII - when FDR was President. FDR, like the Kennedys, was a Democrat.

General high level power and influence was demonstrated by getting his boy JFK up over Tricky Dicky.

What JFK's election may have demonstrated was his father's wealth.

Secondly, I didn't think my first post was bashing the US too much. Suez is historical fact, very few nations act out of altruism, its not unique to the Seppo's.

What I took issue with was what looked like an over-simplification, attributing America's position on Suez to Joe Kennedy and a desire for world domination.

This event did mark the final end to the already moribund British Empire, and the beginning of the American Empire, finally consolidated at the death of European Communism.

Would anyone deny that we currently have an American Empire, possibly more cultural and economic rather than military? Did this happen by accident?

Yes - I would. To talk about an American Empire implies that the US has absolute dominion over the nations in its thrall - in the same way that the Romans, the Portugese and the British had. The US has huge influence and can exercise enormous financial and political pressure but that's not quite the same thing as imperial domination.

Sorry again for being boring.

Mate, don't be mealy-mouthed. If you really thought you were being boring, you wouldn't post.

[bitingmidge]

Ah yes, what thread on American Bashing would be complete without a bit of Kennedy Bashing.

I happened to be in Boston in '95, around the time of the great matriarch Rose Kennedy's 105th (and last) birthday.

When asked the predictable question about what she attributed to her long life, she replied:
" I smoke a small cigar every day, I have one small glass of red wine each evening, and I never let Teddy drive."

It must be true, I was there!



P

[Bodgy]

Yes - I would. To talk about an American Empire implies that the US has absolute dominion over the nations in its thrall - in the same way that the Romans, the Portugese and the British had. The US has huge influence and can exercise enormous financial and political pressure but that's not quite the same thing as imperial domination.

Disagree Driver.

Its the modern day equivalent of those other Empires. With Nuclear weapons, world military domination is no longer possible. If you look at these other Empires, trade and wealth creation was what it was all about. The Poms ruled the waves, because they are an Island sure, but also to protect the trade routes and their commerce. India was the jewel of Empire cause cheap goods like raw cotton came out, shipped to UK, elaborately transformed into clothes etc at the Mills, then shipped back to this huge market. All by the Hon Company who had a legal monopoly on all UK-India shipping.

Whats the most imortant development in last 30 yrs? IT and Comms? Have a look at the software companies, the processor companies, the computer manufacturers. See anything in common? Yep, Global US businesses.
Its same old same old.

Driver, I think this is fascinating stuff, but the boring apology was for people who don't. Theres only about 6 of us on this 'politics' thread, but far higher numbers of viewers.

[Greg Ward]

Now there's seven.

The US has around 50% of the global military spend.
The Atomic weapons point is valid, even thoughtful, however their spend is fairly impressive.

The US is like the giant in the old fairy stories, not much delicacy about their activites, they walk around in big boots, but I sure wouldn't like to get stomped by them.
I find it amusing to watch the antics of the naive, who want to play in the modern Great games, but don't like it when the US doesn't play fair or locks them away in Cuba. I guess that's why we invented lawyers.

And speaking about thrall, two names spring to mind not mentioned as yet: Alexander and Ghingis Khan. Both used pretyy effective tactics and held sway economically, until they were gobbled by by time.
Unfortunately, we won't be around to watch much into this century

Now please make the point for Portugal, and compare and contrast their dominion to that of Spain.
Regards
Greg

[Bodgy]

A 7th, any takers for 8?

Can't contribute much on Portugal, British history is my area of interest.

Can say that in the 'rush for Africa' whilst the Portugese were a minor player, they apparently were amongst the most brutal. Not the most, that accolade goes to Belgium over Germany, by a long head.

What was there? Mozambique, Portugese West Africa, the Latin American countries, did they have a bit of the Sahara?

I need to google it.

[Greg Ward]

While we're at it, we may as well mention Ghengis Khan and Alexander both who had a little thrall over their rather large expanses of domain.
They suceeded both militarily and economically.
I must admit Ghenghis and his sons were a little tough on those who opposed him, but there were no media cameras (or lawyers) around at the time, although it probably wouldn't have worried him much in any event.
Both provided a general peace for those inhabitants who were lucky enough to remain alive in the areas they controlled.
Both dominions were swallowed by by time and bring this back to the topic, I guess we won't be around to see what happens to the US in the next 5oo years, But I bet they still manage some little part of Cuba.

But I still struggle with Portugal, yes, I've been to Rio, and I accept that Brazil is the world's 4th largest country....but really was there much to begin with or to conquer? Darius was more of a hurdle I think, as was China inside their wall
Regards
Greg

[Driver]

India was the jewel of Empire cause cheap goods like raw cotton came out, shipped to UK, elaborately transformed into clothes etc at the Mills, then shipped back to this huge market. All by the Hon Company who had a legal monopoly on all UK-India shipping.

Whats the most imortant development in last 30 yrs? IT and Comms? Have a look at the software companies, the processor companies, the computer manufacturers. See anything in common? Yep, Global US businesses.
Its same old same old.

It's not.

John Company was quite literally the British government in disguise. It had its own armies, intelligence service, judiciary and all the other trappings of government. The government in the UK recruited the best and brightest people to work for the East India Company. It was so important to them that - even in that bastion of nepotism and privilege - you couldn't get a post with John Company unless you were seriously talented. Money, position and your family name were not enough.

Now, for all Bill Gates' commercial muscle, no-one has yet accused him of putting together an army and a judicial system.

Santayana said those who ignore the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.

A corollary to this piece of wisdom is that those who misunderstand the lessons of history are in danger of drawing inaccurate conclusions. Neither the Romans nor the British felt much constrained in their exercise of imperial power. That is not true of the US. They have the constraints of their own constitution, the requirement to meet the demands of their own democratic system and the overseeing eye of world opinion - certainly among free nations.

It's a colourful argument to compare US power and influence in the 21st century with the imperial power of the British and Roman Empires but it's simplistic and inaccurate. By simplifying the argument in this way, you run the risk of misunderstanding the potential real influences. History provides pointers and indicators but it doesn't paint pictures of the future.

[Bodgy]

Driver

a number of your assertions are patently incorrect. Lets examine them.

1. The British East India Company. These guys were well down the list. The truly priviledged (rich) and talented went into the proper army or navy. The also rans went into John company. John company transmogrified into the Indian army, who continued the tardition of the 'second drawer' John Company had a number of disputes with the British establishment probably leading to the segue into the Indian Army.

Quote..Neither the Romans nor the British felt much constrained in their exercise of imperial power. That is not true of the US. They have the constraints of their own constitution, the requirement to meet the demands of their own democratic system and the overseeing eye of world opinion - certainly among free nations.

You gotta be kidding! Or are you just winding me up? Cuba (exploding cigars), Guatemala, Latin America in general, in partic the Contra's, go back further United Fruit, Segregation, ML King, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Iraq, Panama, Gaddafi's Mrs, the Big MAC and on and on.

but it's simplistic and inaccurate

Have I offended you in some way? Honest, she said she was 18.

Quote
By simplifying the argument in this way, you run the risk of misunderstanding the potential real influences.

Ok, Please explain the real influences. Bated breath for the Portugese heavies.

Quote
Santayana said those who ignore the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.

A corollary to this piece of wisdom is that those who misunderstand the lessons of history are in danger of drawing inaccurate conclusions.

You are winding me up ! And I fell for it.

OK, I'll play too. What has some loony monk from Florence in the 15th century got to say about mistakes and history, even tho he was condemned.

Gee this is fun!

[craigb]

I was under the impression that there wasn't a "British" army in India until after the Indian Mutiny.

Before that, as Driver says, the joint was run by the British East India Company and it's army.

[Driver]

Bodgy

I'm at a loss to know where to start!

But I'll have a go. We'll start at the end. I don't understand your reference to a 15th century Florentine monk. If this is intended to be a response to my quote from Santayana, then I should point out that I am referring to George Santayana. He was a 19th century philosopher - born in Spain and brought up in the US. The quote about those who ignore the mistakes of history etc is actually quite well known.

The Portugese certainly had an empire. It was mainly based on their extensive naval explorations during the 14th and 15th centuries. Evidence of their influence is still visible in (for example) Oman and India. They only recently relinquished their ownership of Macao and they had plenty of contact with the Japanese.

Where do you get the idea that the people who were recruited into the East India Company were second-raters? Or that the better talent went into the army and navy? The overwhelming weight of the opinions I've read on the subject leaves no doubt about the outstanding quality of the Indian Civil Service which is what John Company actually became. The Indian Army in the 1920s and 1930s wasn't real good but that was mainly a consequence of the enormous losses of good officers in WWI. Before that it was a very efficient fighting force. And, actually, during WWII - particularly in Burma - elements of the old Indian Army did a helluva good job.

The only comment I'll make about your diatribe on the US and its various adventures is this: you have been making a case that the US is currently an imperial power similar to the old manifestations of empire. Your examples of their failings during the 60s, 70s and 80s have no relevance to that. Except - perhaps - for this: they have demonstrated that, as a nation, they can change. Black Americans are treated far better now than they were during the period before and just after Martin Luther King's assassination. The change has come about through democratic pressure - people power, if you like. Can you imagine that happening in 19th century Britain?

Finally, you're obviously a bit upset. That's a pity. I didn't intend to disturb your equilibrium.

[Greg Ward]

If you think Portugal was important, don't forget the Dutch, or the Prussians, or the French with or without Napolean, yes and I'll accept Belgium, sort of.

But I'm still in awe at the achievments and the history of China.
........It's great to be an anglophile, and a USphile, I'm one and have a great admiration for the still upper lip of the British beaurocracy that held the British Army and navy together in their global forays, the concept of nobless oblige, and the raw enthusiasm of the US entrepreneurs.

But you've got admire the Chinese, who frequently (and still) keep their fighting and beating up of neighbours within the family.
Kublai Khan was seduced and I'm wondering if the same stratgy will enable them to take over the world through seduction. It's working at the moment, or at least with the buyers from our major retail chains.
Greg

[bitingmidge]

But I'm still in awe at the achievments and the history of China.
But you've got admire the Chinese, who frequently (and still) keep their fighting and beating up of neighbours within the family.
Kublai Khan was seduced and I'm wondering if the same stratgy will enable them to take over the world through seduction.

"In the family" in the same sense that it's ok for us to flog Kiwis!!

Actually what about the Mongol Hordes?? Ghengis (Chinggis) Kahn is Mongolia's man of the Millenium, and rightly so too!!

cheers,
P

[Greg Ward]

Don't mention the rugby codes, I'm not sure who is flogging whom.

But the Chinese appear to love nothing better than some internecine in-house mutilation and mayhem. We gave them some alternative targets during the Boxer rebellion and the Japanese were a mite problematic during the 1930-40s, but after they kicked the warlords out in 1949, they again went on to repeat the old leadership favourite task of keeping the population in check through government promoted revolution.

Ghengis could be my man of the millennium also. His minions did a good job around the middle east, even getting the Pope of the time to think he may have relation to Prester John and seek him as an allie. But as they say, the first generation makes it, the second consolidates, and the third wastes it. This was certainly true of Ghengis.

Back to the US, I'm not sure which generation the US is up to at this point of time, and I don't think even they know what they are wasting.

Their global actions remind me of the difference between a prissy anal retentive wood worker who never makes a mistake, and using the minimum of wood, creates a prefect article, and a hyperactive woodworker, who makes many mistakes, uses up a lot of resources but gets the job done in the end.
The prissy laywer type is great for the environment, but I know with whom I'd rather have a drink.
Regards
Greg

[silentC]

Didn't the East India Company play a part in America eventually seeking independence?