The problem I have with this analysis is that it seems to assume the people of the US, from its inception to now, are either all onboard with imperialism or passive nonentities. In fact there has often been resistance. It hasn't ever triumphed over the warmongers and imperialists, but it has tried.
The book is rich in material, and I could not catch all the themes. One is that there has been anti-imperial resistance, but it has battled against the prevailing culture, which has been bought into the benefits empire brought. Williams was at UWisconsin during the height of the movement against the Vietnam War, which was informed by his work. So he was certainly aware of the history of resistance. He noted the anti-imperial resistance around the Spanish-American War, for instance. But often the issue was over what kind of empire. That movement was against making the Philippines a colony, but actors such as Carnegie were certainly in favor of global economic empire. A full and genuine anti-imperial movement would have to consider the assumptions of expansion and growth, in Williams’ view.
Actually the US developed under a protectionist regime that allowed its industries to grow, even as it sought to break down trade barriers by others. Free trade benefits the strongest power. The U.S. denies the option for poorer nations to erecting barriers to protecr their own industries and agriculture, so they are at competitive disadvantage, and remain poor.
In evidence about how pushed around state governments felt. The first NRA of 35 million dollars was passed and then tied up for 9 months designated but unspent . Congress was doing i know not what grumbling, 1935 so it probably was not also 35 mill but they were so unmoved by the immediate plight of consttnts as compared to how they would explain to their boards of gentry big businessmen they froze in place. Reminds us of the 9 months we had to resist the senator from KY visa viz replacing RBG. We all are drearily doubtful of our powers of persuasion.
Terrific piece, thank you!
The problem I have with this analysis is that it seems to assume the people of the US, from its inception to now, are either all onboard with imperialism or passive nonentities. In fact there has often been resistance. It hasn't ever triumphed over the warmongers and imperialists, but it has tried.
The book is rich in material, and I could not catch all the themes. One is that there has been anti-imperial resistance, but it has battled against the prevailing culture, which has been bought into the benefits empire brought. Williams was at UWisconsin during the height of the movement against the Vietnam War, which was informed by his work. So he was certainly aware of the history of resistance. He noted the anti-imperial resistance around the Spanish-American War, for instance. But often the issue was over what kind of empire. That movement was against making the Philippines a colony, but actors such as Carnegie were certainly in favor of global economic empire. A full and genuine anti-imperial movement would have to consider the assumptions of expansion and growth, in Williams’ view.
Opposing (UNILATERAL) free trade is advocating poverty - for them AND us. No empire needed.
Actually the US developed under a protectionist regime that allowed its industries to grow, even as it sought to break down trade barriers by others. Free trade benefits the strongest power. The U.S. denies the option for poorer nations to erecting barriers to protecr their own industries and agriculture, so they are at competitive disadvantage, and remain poor.
In evidence about how pushed around state governments felt. The first NRA of 35 million dollars was passed and then tied up for 9 months designated but unspent . Congress was doing i know not what grumbling, 1935 so it probably was not also 35 mill but they were so unmoved by the immediate plight of consttnts as compared to how they would explain to their boards of gentry big businessmen they froze in place. Reminds us of the 9 months we had to resist the senator from KY visa viz replacing RBG. We all are drearily doubtful of our powers of persuasion.
KY, I can decode (Kentucky), though I'd prefer the senator's NAME. RBG stumps me, though.
I must just be too stupid. At least I know how to spell vis-à-vis.
That’s Mitch McConnell who did not allow Merrick Garland to be considered when Ruth Baden Ginsburg died, so we got Kavanagh.
Vis-a-vis