>>"Empire," to most of us, means a geographical position, with physical colonies, from which we get tribute.
Not sure who "most of us" is. Take a look at your nearest Borders or amazon.com and you'll see for sale "Colossus: The Price of America's Empire," "After the Empire," "The Folly of Empire," "The Sorrows of Empire," "An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire," "Imperial Hubris," "Debating Empire," "Empire's New Clothes," etc.
I don't think it's accurate to say that empires demand tribute. The British empire did not. What it did do was impose its own ideas about economics, beginning with mercantilism, passing through free trade, and finally ending when it went socialistic (cause and effect can be debated on this last point).
I don't think it's accurate to say that empires have physical colonies. The Romans did not. They established Roman civilization in other parts of the world, but the citizens of those outposts were the locals, e.g., in Spain, the Spanish, in England, the English.
I just watched Bush's address to the United Nations. It's no coincidence that the UN is situated in Manhattan. It's also worth noting that Bush did not ask the members of the UN for help fighting terrorism, he told them that they must help fight terrorism. It's a bluff, of course, they're sovereign nations and thus our nominal equals so it is worse than herding cats, but still, we don't ever go there with our hat in our hands. |
