Talk:Pax Americana/Archive 1

A Pax Americana? What an absurd analogy. Not only does it contradict some key principles within the US Constitution it also omits the rather pressing issue of the Soviet Union. As there is and never was an American Empire, there is neither a Pax Americana. You can't be in the Pax club I'm afraid as much as it embitters the inner-imperialist in many Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.233.44 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wonder what The Project for the New American Century REALLY is about check out:

http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html

William F. Buckley Jr., no less than a revered epopt of the Republican Party and rabid supporter of this country's foreign policy, considers it completely Imperialist. I was at a lecture 12 or so years ago where he debated Richard D. Lamm on foreign policy issues. Lamm gave his overview, and Buckley approached the podium. I remember him opening with what (at the time) I thought was the most amazing thing I could ever hear a politician say - "America is an Imperialist power". He then used the 7 minutes of his opening to describe when and why Imperialism is a *very* good thing.

Exactly what Theodore Roosevelt did in 1900. The argument hasn't changed.

So the description of foreign-policy supporters is incorrect for some. One could assume especially for the American right-wing.

Sorry about the edit conflict.

Don't both critics and supporters of US foreign policy use the phrase Pax Americana? If so, it would be a neutral phrase, and the dispute would be between those who favor and those who oppose US policy.

Let's work together to expand this article. --Ed Poor

The edits I made today were intended only to clarify -- not to justify or criticize US policy. The challenge when writing on a controversial subject is to keep the article from endorsing any one side. --Ed Poor

There is not going to be a Pax Americana. The reason is that the American people are not imperialists, do not imagine themselves imperialists and lack the ruthlessness to impose and maintain an empire. [1]

I get the impression that "Pax Americana" connotes more than "peace brought about by America" or "peace in the Americas". Is there a sense of "peace imposed at the expense of other countries' interestes for America's selfish interest"?

Rome is not generally seen as benevolent. The imperialism of Rome was intended primarily if not solely for its own benefit, not for the benefit of its colonies or for countries it forced to pay tribute. I wonder if the term Pax Americana is meant to imply that America has been imperialistic like Rome, at least to some degree. --Ed Poor

"Ed Poor (Is America as selfish as Rome was?)" -- Well, I think if I got this question as a class assignment, I'd be hard pressed to come up with any good comparisons (i.e., given the huge differences between the politics and economies) to settle the matter.
- Racism is a good comparison. The U.S. would come out on both sides of that question, certainly.

Also, I strongly suspect that a sense of responsibility to the "barbarians" ("Roman Man's Burden"?) was often a motive for Roman policies. ("All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?") Have a good one. :-)
- Sure, the expansion of protection of infrastructural capital is the usual argument for imperialism. And it's true, to a degree, and to a limit. There comes a point where it operates the other way around, e.g. Israeli destruction of olive trees in Gaza, like 750,000 of them, to deliberately turn the place into a desert, all of which with US support and to the outrage of the EU who keeps trying to build up the infrastructure there.

Perhaps slighty off topic, but anyway: There is a statement in the atom bomb museum in Hiroshima protesting against the US foreign policy and the so-called Pax Americana. It finishes with the slogan "No annihalation without representation". Rather good, in my opinion --AdamW

I found the Hiroshima museum rather alarming because it never examined the reason for that "annihilation" (i.e. Japanese imperialism). I'm not sure they have a right to comment. Wiki-Ed 19:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935, Jim Zwick writes:

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the most heatedly debated question in dominant U.S. foreign policy circles has been whether the country should assume leadership in a "one-superpower world" or subordinate itself to the decisions of international organizations like the United Nations. [2]

Zwick also opposes the attitude expressed in Kipling's poem, The White Man's Burden.

But much of the criticism of "imperialism" begs (or ducks) the question of whether dominion of one group over another can ever be justified. Do anti-imperialists simply oppose all dominination on principle? If so, what principle? (I'm not arguing, I just want to know so we can mention it in the relevant articles.)

- The usual principles is that such domination is impractical unless the people ruled ARE suppressed, and made to work for less than those in the colonizing country.

My own philosophy is that there do exist relationships in which it is proper for one party (the "subject") to exercise authority over another party (the "object") for the sake of the object. For example, parents restrain their children from dashing out into the street, lest they be hit by a car. Teachers require students to do homework and obey rules of deportment (e.g., no bullying other students). Generally, this kind of dominion is accepted, even praised or seen as an obligation.

Whether family or school relationships can be extended to relations between races or nations is problematic, though. There apparently exists a school of thought saying that no degree of self-perception as "advanced" or "benevolent" justifies the slightest degree of dominance over other peoples: "Just leave them alone!"

Is there any other contributor who feels this analysis has relevance to Pax Americana, White man's burden, or imperialism? --Ed Poor 14:21 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, it does, to the latter two, with some mention in this one. Roosevelt had things to say about Hawaii and took actions in the Phillipines that certainly prove that he thought he knew better than they did what was good for them - including killing Phillipine rebels who had been initially inspired by American ideals in forming their constitution...

Absolutely. Vera Cruz

but is it dominion, Ed? As a child I was capable of understanding why I should be careful around roads, and so I was. -- Tarquin 20:39 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

But how often have you known better but did something anyway, knowing and doing are not necessarily coextant. --Numerousfalx 02:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"This usage by critics seems meant to imply that the Roman Empire was immoral in some way or is perhaps sarcasm."

I thought it was used to describe a forced peace; a peace which only exists because the named empire (romana, brittanica, americana) is so powerful that fighting by the... "empirees"? is futile. a grudging peace of peoples who feel they arent really free or something like that. - Omegatron 02:59, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

So the real question(s) is(are) is the United States an Empire? AND (the BIG and) if so, what kind of empire is it. And lastly, who says that Rome was so bad as much of Europe and the US constantly strive to emulate it. Don't some people have to be protected from themselves. We take rights away from the Inept, infirm and Incompetent oftes in a court of law against their wishes. Could it be a case of a drunk driver trying to convince the police that he is sober? --Numerousfalx 02:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good questions, but Wikipedia really isn't the place for debate. I did put back the links you removed, though.. links don't have to be NPOV although there should be some balance of opinion. There's no shortage of articles which either deny that there exists an American empire, or make a case for creating one, maybe you could link to some of those. Rhobite 03:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

"Isolationism"[edit]

The word "isolationism" is a) a smear word b) a loaded word c) a weasel word and d) an imprecise word. It has no place as an adjective in an article that hopes to be NPOV. Paul 06:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would you say this article needs WP:AID? -Litefantastic 00:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm just passing thu, but I say "heck yeah!". I think there are a lot of folk out there who could improve this article without doing any research, but I'm not one of them. (more below) AdamRetchless 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is Pax Americana?[edit]

This article starts off well, then loses its focus. It is incomprehensible once it gets into a discussion of isolationism. By analogy with Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, I understand Pax Americana to be a time period (now) with no major wars where international relations are dominated by the USA. The question of whether America is an "empire" is secondary. America is different than Britain or Rome, so Pax Americana will be different. If I were working on this, I would figure out when the term came into usage and what time period it refers to (post WWII or post-ColdWar?). Sorry, I'm not too familiar with this topic and can't do the research right now--just some advice. AdamRetchless 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree... It seems like the strongest argument for America to be an empire is that it has managed to implement a 'pax', which has only previously been accomplished by the British and Roman Empires.... but beyond that, the logic supporting the assertion that "America is an Empire" basically falls apart. And post-soviet-collapse, you have to ask what other great powers are around to have a war with- if there aren't any, the 'Pax Americana' is not something imposed by America, but merely a default condition that exists because there aren't any other superpowers to have big wars with. --rosignol@nwlink.com

There are countries that, together, speaking by GDP rather than military build-up, could engage in very significant wars with the US. China, the 2nd largest country by GDP has 8,000 billion GDP PPP (USD) compared to the US' 12,300 billion. Japan, the 3rd largest by GDP has 4,000 billion. The European Union is equal to the US', at 12,300 billion. See List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP). On the other hand, these countries presently lack the military build-up to be actually able to engage in big wars with the US, though economically they would be able to do so. There are powers large enough to have big wars with.--Nectarflowed ^T 23:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Classifying historical periods before they have ended is academically fallacious. Personally I am sceptical that the term has any merit: Even though there have been no major wars between the larger world powers, this is not a peaceful period in human history (and development is not driven solely by one country). Consequently I've inserted the word "relative" in the opening blurb. Wiki-Ed 19:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy[edit]

I'm not knowledgable enough to produce something, but shouldn't there be some comment in here about JFK and his speech denying the goal of a Pax Americana?

Yes; I've added it. 68.144.31.71 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article on comparing pax americana to pax romana is perhaps the dumbest, most typically indulgent american garbage I have ever seen on the web. You yanks are nuts, top to bottom. Please let up on the bullshit and go back to watching Oprah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.26.11 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wording[edit]

i feel that the word "however", which is used to start a new sentence after the one in which Chomsky is quoted needs to be changed. "However" infers, in this case, that Chomsky is wrong. I would like to see something more neutral, something that doesn't go either way.

References or sources, please![edit]

As to the paragraph "Some refer to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon, the New York WTC, and Pennsylvania in the USA as the end of the Pax Americana":

a) WHO is (or were) the evanescent "some" that refers to 9/11 as "the end of Pax Americana"?

b) Was there ever any "attack on Pennsylvania"?

--Zack H. Venturi 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody typical that the Americans, whose hubris in assuming some kind of Pax Americana existed at all is astounding, would assume that it could only end when some minor terrorist attacks occurred on American soil. Some might say that even if there were such a thing as a post-1945 pax americana, it died out pretty quickly with the stalemate in Korea, was definitively polished off by the total defeat in Vietnam, and certainly didn't have a hope of surviving the re-emergence of India and China as major economic powers. Pax Americana? Don't make me laugh. --Corinthian 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"the British Empire became the largest empire of the time, and the second largest in history (after the Mongol Empire)." this sentence does not make very much sense

It appears someone's edited that silly statement out, well done. However, the insertion of the [citation needed] tag is truly risible - would you believe, that this assertion is made on Wikipedia's very own page on the British Empire, where it is both justified and cited by external references... read the article! Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperous[edit]

"During both Pax Romana and Pax Americana wars continued to occur, but it was still a prosperous time for the civilization."

What is prosperous? Does it mean that the economy is good? Or the people are happy? The latter is in my opinion influenced by other countries and how they look at the country.

If that is the case, then how are the wars in Korea & Vietnam, the debacle in Teheran and the Cold War prosperous? There was no Pax in the period afther WWII, it was just one big Bellum for the US! I don't live in the US so I can't of course decide whether the morale in those days of war were good or not, but Europe didn't look to friendly at the US and The Netherlands in particular. Mallerd 13:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the primary reason was that no one was strong enough to threaten the Romans during the Pax Romana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Romana[edit]

Does the fact that Pax Americana is like Pax Romana have to be mentioned three times in the introduction? Twice in the same paragraph, one after the other. H7dders 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentrism[edit]

The first time I came across this topic the thing that struck me the most was the suggestion that so little warring has occurred since WWII as suggested in the intro. This is only true if looking at the world through a Eurocentric lens (i.e. looking only at Europe, Canada, and the USA). I have not researched for articles countering the intro., but its so blatantly Eurocentric. If anyone is interested in adding counter arguments - look into the fact that the intro is only true if you ignore Latin America, Africa, and Asia.70.171.22.172 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]