US Imperialism?

[angus]

a book I have just bought and will be reading soon

Yankees normally write book reviews after reading a book, rather than before.  Perhaps the custom is a little different in your country.

I recommend "American Empire" by Andrew Bacevich, a history professor at my old alma mater, Boston University.  Bacevich makes many of the same observations that Fergusson does (or that you think he does, remarkably, without having read his book.)  When you have completed Bacevich's book, I'll recommend other excellent books on the topic of US imperialism.

I didn't vote, but if there were a "Of Course / Neither bad nor good" option I would vote.

[angus]

just giving you a hard time kiddo.  One day you'll read the line "...a book I haven't read yet says..." and you'll laugh.  But you'll be laughing, with, and not at, the one who wrote it.  anyway, it's an interesting thesis.  I haven't read Fergusson's book either, but I've read some about the subject.  (actually, Bacevich has a whole boatload of these books.  and yes, he's a republican.  a totally Republican republican in the older, truer sense.)  Ever notice how the romans, circa AD150 had two parties?  The Republicans and the Imperialists.  We have two parties as well:  The nationalistic Imperialists and the democratic Imperialists.  I'm usually not a right-wing nut, but on these kinds of issues I'm pretty far right, and thus tend to be more in line with the Libertarians than either the Republicans or Democrats.  (To libertarians, the phrase "...and to the Republic for which it stands..." still means Republic, nothing more, nothing less.)  Anyway, I'm still loathe to label such things as US imperialism either "good" or "bad"  For one thing, as Opebo points out, such phenomena can be beneficial to some, but not to others.  But, more broadly, empires come and go, and eventually, when they go, as happened in your country for example, a nation usually joins its place among the mature, post-imperialistic nations of the world.  Of course, there are the frustrated "almost was" type nations such as Germany, and the "has been" nations such as Peru, which once had a socialist empire as large in area as a third of the continental united states.  (If you're really into dry academic presentations of History, check Hyams and Ordish "The Last Inca" in which the two old english farts make an excellent case that the Inca was the best example of a Socialist Imperialist power that the world has ever known.)  Also, there are aspects of US imperialism that benefit me, and aspects that do not, so it's not as simple as your question would imply.  I have more pressing concerns at the moment than an argument over the advantages versus disadvantages of imperialism, but suffice it to say that the US version of imperialism contains both, as do all versions.  I'm more a fan of the Republic than of the Empire, but I suppose all nations experience growing pains.  So ours must.