American Imperialism in response to Daniel Ust and Octavio Rojas Diaz

From: john grigg (
Date: Sun Mar 19 2000 - 17:35:41 MST

Daniel Ust wrote:
but truth be told, global corporations play both sides of the game. Nor do I
think of CEOs as "the new conquering Caesars[sic]..." There are some
unscrupulous business people out there, but a Caesars is not so petty and

Caesars(spelled it right this time! lol) were not at times petty and
small-minded? I find that impossible to believe! Or were they 'grand' in
the magnificance of the terror they inflicted on groups while our
present-day international execs just do not operate with such flair?

I think I understand you to be saying that a usual international exec has a
much more narrow focus of power and interest, so even when doing harm, it is
in the name of particular business interests. He or she may not even have a
'big-picture' understanding of the trouble they are causing.

Daniel continues:
The problem here is that John is taking the metaphor too far. Granted, there
are parallels between US behavior and that of many other empires, but it's
not just another production of the great "Tragedy of Empire." China, e.g.,
is an empire in its own right. It controls Tibet and has a sphere of
influence on its periphery. It's by no means a disorganized horde. (I'm not
about to glaze over taking about the Yellow Peril. I'm just recognizing that
China is organized and has its own agenda apart from reacting to US policy.)

I agree that the United States is not another great "tragedy of empire"
story. The Roman or British examples do not really compare to us. I was
just going on a riff inspired by Robert Owens comments. China is an empire
in its own right but when I compared them to'barbarian hordes' I meant just
in the sense that they were a oncoming challenge to us (Visigoths coming our
way) in that they are economically, technologically and militarily behind us
but hell-bent to catch up and become a major power that has similar global
clout. 'Rival power seeking parity' would be the better term.

I have really enjoyed reading the many posts on this topic. Is this simply
a case of the most powerful nation in the world looking out for its
'national interests' rather then engaging in 'neo-imperialism' or
'neo-colonialism'? And because we are so powerful do we simply achieve our
'national interests' that much more effectively then other, less-powerful

When I see U.S. corporations exploiting third world people by having them
work long hours in dangerous conditions and for at best low to average wages
based on the local area, I wonder how this cannot be economic
neo-colonialism? Of course we are not the only nation to do this but does
that make it right?

I love my country very much (even if it is politically incorrect to say so)
but know there is much room for improvement. Many U.S. citizens are just
too complacent in a nation where our politicians are largely cowed under by
soft money election funds that can make or break them. Then again, many
citizens are so busy in their own lives making a living and raising a family
that they do not have the time or interest to get involved in the big

Octavio Rojas Diaz wrote:
Thanks to greedy corporations and a corrupt government our country that has
an ample territory, endless natural resources, and a key position, we are
the bridge between north and latin america and now we are also the bridge
between Europe, Asia and the usa, and our country and economy has been
modernizing at a giant step, however our economy hasn't fulfilled it's
potencial yet, because nobody cares about the needs or desires of our
population, everybody just wants to get rich quick, and they manipulate our
economy to fill their needs and U.S. Corporate world plays a big role on

Mexico is a very blessed land and you are very self-aware that many of its
problems have been brought on by itself. The old saying goes, "a nation
gets the government they deserve." This says alot about both Mexico and the
United States for both good and bad.

In latin America especially though, there tends to be a lack of loyalty and
common identity to bind together the populace in working together and
mutually benefitting eachother. Is this a by-product of the class
structures introduced by the initial European colonizers? Loyalty only to
one's own social class? This is becoming a real concern in the U.S. also.

I read in a recent issue of _The Futurist_ magazine about three possible
paths Mexico could take over the next few decades. One scenario was very
positive and encouraged economic growth and democracy, the other was
business as usual and the last was a nosedive into economic and political
squalor. I hope you can read the article yourself at their website if it is

best regards,

John Grigg

Get Your Private, Free Email at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:54 MDT