• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire?

Glorified Ape said:
Btw.. please clarify: "Jan Brady syndrome".

"MARSHA, MARSHA, MARSHA" - you get the point.  Don't be a Jan Brady.

 
Infanteer said:
"MARSHA, MARSHA, MARSHA" - you get the point.   Don't be a Jan Brady.

I thought Jan was the mom... before my time I guess.

Anyways, I don't see how that constituted Jan Brady syndrome - a bit knee-jerk, admittedly, but I fail to see the Jan Connection. 
 
"Jan Brady Syndrome" is the name I've given to that uniquely Canadian, (and primarily Central, urban Canadian, at that) attitude wherein, rather than face the problems we have, fix 'em, and become respectable, and respected World Citizens, we'd prefer to wallow in our own mediocrity and snipe at our neighbours to the South for maintaining their status. I equate it with that knee-jerk Anti-Americanism so common in parts of Canada. Wherein, everything the Yanks do is automatically evil, or stupid. Just as foolish as any other stereotype. But, in this case, it also smacks of the sort of snivelling found in Jan Brady's constant anti-Marsha complaints.

It's demeaning, really. It comes across as insecure and whiny.


(wonder if I should patent it?)


 
paracowboy said:
"Jan Brady Syndrome" is the name I've given to that uniquely Canadian, (and primarily Central, urban Canadian, at that) attitude wherein, rather than face the problems we have, fix 'em, and become respectable, and respected World Citizens, we'd prefer to wallow in our own mediocrity and snipe at our neighbours to the South for maintaining their status. I equate it with that knee-jerk Anti-Americanism so common in parts of Canada. Wherein, everything the Yanks do is automatically evil, or stupid. Just as foolish as any other stereotype. But, in this case, it also smacks of the sort of snivelling found in Jan Brady's constant anti-Marsha complaints.

It's demeaning, really. It comes across as insecure and whiny.
Yes, Albertans complaining about Eastern Canada that way really does sound whiny and insecure.
 
Quote,
Yes, Albertans complaining about Eastern Canada that way really does sound whiny and insecure.

OUCH!!!! Para takes one right between the eyes......I can't wait to see if he gets up before the 10 count. :-*
 
I don't know, hamiltongs, I think I prefer ' whiny and insecure ' to be percieved as a ' pompous, we know better than you, @ss'  ;D
 
no, not complaining, attempting to provide guidance in the simple concept of independence. Accepting of personal responsibility, and the seeking personal growth. It's much more satisfying than laying back and whining that the rest of school doesn't give you the attention you think you deserve.
But, it's more difficult. Which is why Jan lived her entire life in Marsha's shadow.
 
paracowboy said:
no, not complaining, attempting to provide guidance in the simple concept of independence. Accepting of personal responsibility, and the seeking personal growth. It's much more satisfying than laying back and whining that the rest of school doesn't give you the attention you think you deserve.
But, it's more difficult. Which is why Jan lived her entire life in Marsha's shadow.
I'm just saying, at the risk of knocking this thread further off course, that there isn't much difference between what you're saying Eastern Canadians do to the US and what you yourself are doing to Eastern Canadians.  In both cases, a more powerful group is criticised for every action it takes in the furtherance of its self-interest: an attitude that says "everything Yanks do is automatically evil or stupid" is complained about in a diatribe essentially accusing everything Easterners do of being "mediocre and anti-American".

You're welcome to use the strawman of your choosing to blame for things you don't like, but at least be aware that all stereotypes are unfair, even those condemning Easterners.
 
hamiltongs said:
I'm just saying, at the risk of knocking this thread further off course, that there isn't much difference between what you're saying Eastern Canadians do to the US and what you yourself are doing to Eastern Canadians.   In both cases, a more powerful group is criticised for every action it takes in the furtherance of its self-interest: an attitude that says "everything Yanks do is automatically evil or stupid" is complained about in a diatribe essentially accusing everything Easterners do of being "mediocre and anti-American".

You're welcome to use the strawman of your choosing to blame for things you don't like, but at least be aware that all stereotypes are unfair, even those condemning Easterners.
I don't blame Central Canada for anything. I lament a small, but vocal, segment's bizarre insecurity issue. I hope by constantly pointing out the silliness of it, that segment will grow out of it, and the nation as a whole can go to the prom without worrying about what Marsha is wearing.
 
You wouldn't believe the Jan Brady syndrome in Northern B.C. - mostly revolves around the Softwood Lumber dispute (which I think we decided here was an illegal subsidy).  I'd say it is spread evenly throughout the population - there's just more people in Ontario so you tend to hear it more (ie: where is Carrolyn Parrish from?  ;)).
 
Brad Sallows said:
Just because I'm too lazy to read the thread, can someone recap all the foreign nations the US currently rules?
American Samoa
Canal Zone
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
 
The US turned over the Canal Zone to Panama several years ago, but may have a garrison there. The others areas, or at least most of them, have status as United States territory and their citizens are American citizens.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The United States is not an empire. Part of the reason for the failure of other empire's was their inability to fund their military to maintain control of their far flung colonies. In an empire you have colonies that are rich and others that are poor. The rich colonies subsidize the poor ones.

The US economy is the strongest economy in the world. Job growth is the best of any industrialized world. Taxation is conducive to investment and job growth. The trade deficit isnt important. The democrats decried Bush's tax cuts. Yet those tax cuts have fueled the rebound of the economy. We have a true free market economy and as long as those policies are in force the US will enjoy a very strong economy. But one thing I can guarantee, if the US economy collapses so will the world economy as we are so intertwined. Remember the great depression was world wide.

But a country trillions in debt.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The invasion of Iraq WAS NOT illegal. This is a lie spread by the anti war crowd. Second, 60% of the population was under the heel of the Sunni's who comprised 20% of the population. Now the Sunni's are fighting to prevent majority rule.

It was illegal. It was ratified by the UN. So where is the US, in Africa? How most people see it is Iraq has oil, Africa has well? Yes oil has been found in Africa, but to get it would cost more. If a soldier life is no cost, what is?
 
But a country trillions in debt.

How much is the mortgage on your house recceguy?  Credit cards? Car Loan?  How comfortable are you with your creditors?  Anybody owe you money?  Money in the bank or RRSPs?  Or are you just surviving on your income?

Obviously not looking for answers to these questions.

Ii is not so much the size of the debt as whether you can service the debt, still live a good life and whether you and your creditors trust each other.  Is it in their interest to call in all your loans and bankrupt you?

It might be in Osama's interest to try and sink the US economy.  I doubt if it is in the interest of anybody else just now.....and that includes China and Russia.  I don't think India and Europe have ANY desire to sink the Yanks.  (Strike that Some Europeans and Some Canadians and Some others probably think Osama is on the right track).

Cheers.
 
"Look at regional power struggles - say the Warring States Period in Japan (a conflict amongst a homogeneous people) or say, the conflicts that united Spain or Britain (conflicts between dispartate socio-cultural groups).  In the end, you had a unified state.  Were any of these Empires?  No.  Tokugawa's military campaigns or the English colonization of Ireland were local events "

I would to disagree here.  yes this late in coming only just started to read this thread.  When the English decided they own the whole thing and wanted to expand their nation... that was emprire building.  The Welsh or Scots weren't interested in becoming part of a greater England; they were already nations of their own; had their own laws and cultures..and fought for centires to stop this.  Its still empire building even if the English succussful in creating a new nation out of their colonizations of Scotland and Wales.. and so well with lreland.  local events don't stop an empire from growing, in the case of the UK the fact that it was island helped to keep it local.. but again its empire building on the part of English.  Another e.g would be Sweden in 1600.. it was expanding in what was poland and russia and well no one really cared but the people and nations who were being colonized.
 
Welcome aboard Radiohead!

Quick summary:

Is America an Empire? No, not by any of the usual historical indicators.

Is America in Decline? No, not by any objective measure, although there are changes to the relative rankings of various factors as other nations grow and mature.

Are there Challengers to American Power? Yes. Some, like Iran want to be regional hegemons, so seek nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorism in order to make the exercise of American power in the region too costly to contemplate. Some like the EU, China and Russia seek great power status for various reasons, but I believe they have "structural defects" in their social and economic systems which will prevent them from mounting a successful non military challenge (i.e supplement American culture, become the preferred destination for immigration and investment  or overtake the US economy) anytime soon. My own sense of things is that India, with its huge population, commanding access to the oceans and (most importantly) fairly flexible social system (relative to the others) will become the surprise contender by mid century.

Are their other factors which could reduce American power? As Donald Rumsfeldt has pointed out, there are "Known" dangers which threaten the US, "Known unknowns" where we know the problems but do not have precise data to plot responses; and "Unknown Unknowns", which are dangers we don't even recognize.

For all; read Robert Kaplan's books "An Empire Wilderness" and "The Ends of the Earth" and Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" to get a big picture feel for what the future might hold.
 
VDH did a debate on the topic of is "America an Empire?" with Arianna Huffington. It is interesting to watch, but Huffington does not even argue her case (affirmative). VDH has made his case here:

http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=39732460-CA39-66C7-38B7D659E313B43B&CFID=9331222&CFTOKEN=45293025

http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=310A88F5-EC1D-D7A1-EE3A59A64B20394F&CFID=9331222&CFTOKEN=45293025

 
Baker
There are Canadians (troops) there, by the way. Canada has taken the lead for Africian rebiulding. Old Jean plegged money yrs ago into Africa. Most Africans don't trust the western countries, that is why, there is not a full force of western PKs.
As for debt, personal in both countries are equal, as I would agree, but goverment debt is what I'm talking about.
 
The debt is payed through our taxes, and the figures of debt/person are derived by dividing the amount of government debt by the population. To put this in some perspective, that would be half my gross salary.

I believe what S-Baker is referring to is Canada taking an effective presence in Africa, rather than some "feel good" photo ops and a pittance of cash (relative to both our GDP and the need). The commitment of 10% of the US armed forces and billions of dollars to Iraq would indicate the actual scale of commitment "we" would have to undertake if we wanteed to make a lasting difference in Africa. Given the corrupt and dysfunctional nature of most African "governments", we would actually have to govern ourselves and establish everything from scratch and stay for at least a generation to raise and train a cadre of leaders and educators in Western values (like property rights and Rule of Law) or things will simply fall apart when we leave.
 
Back
Top