Brother Jonathan,
Our recent correspondence has left me with a nagging feeling. It had escaped me exactly what bothered me, but one day as I was taking a walk it came to me. I knew what it was about your words that had left such an impression on me. You don’t believe yourself to be an imperial. No wonder you’ve had so much difficulty. Looking back through our correspondence, you’ve referred to your government as a democracy, though as of late, you’ve seemed to have adopted the moniker republic. Are you trying to ape the lower classes, or are you just feeling vintage?
I had thought this political joke, a charade, but it seems you’ve been deadly serious. I hope this letter can convince you that at the very least you should get your own jokes. It is not healthy to deny what you are, good or bad. But I did not write this letter to chide you, we will put away the Phrygian caps for a moment. Let me be frank in describing what you’ve missed about your dear country.
First, bear with me for a bit of taxonomy. Within the social sciences there is natural tendency to systemize. Historians are quite good at systemizing the past; however, the social sciences tend to break down the closer one gets to the present. There is just too much emotional investment and strife to get a good, cold, and analytical picture. A historian who might not blink at the xenocide of Carthage will still rail against the evils of colonialism. Morality seems to be very time sensitive; you might want to check the expiration date. After all, we live in a time where anti-colonialism is the norm, and the advocates for Carthage are long dead. So, when I say the you are a member of the imperial ruling class, take a deep breath.
What makes the U.S. an us? This is a difficult question. U.S. 3.0 is quite unrecognizable compared to its humble roots as U.S. 1.0. Can we specify a set of qualities which reflect the majority of the population? It would clearly be impossible to circumscribe the traits of the entire population without drawing a net so wide that one could not distinguish other countries’ populations. Certainly, we could consider the right to vote a measure of identity, but that is a weak definition at best. How can a group simultaneously celebrate a flag as part of their identity and despise it as a foreign and evil symbol? Of course, members of groups can disagree on topics, but there is something foundational about symbology (and vexillology for that matter).
Is the U.S. merely a geographic region? That hardly makes for a descriptive definition of a state. If a state is just a geographic region, then are we not just a continuation, and consolidation, of the various native empires? It is true that modern states DO have boundaries, and by definition its citizenry must live within said borders and modern states can no longer claim to be composed of one kin group. If this sounds a bit stuffy to you, maybe we should take a look at a fresher example, one with shining skyscrapers instead of dilapidated ruins.
Empires
Empires have seemed to be the norm for most of recorded (and artifacted for that matter) human history. Where did all the empires go? The Chinese Communist Party occupies much of the same territory as a number of Chinese empires, larger than most of them actually. Why is the People’s Republic of China not an empire? I mean, it is ruled by an oligarchy.The PRC is ethnically diverse, but what is the CCP but a neo-Han empire? The conditions on the ground changed, but it still looks like a duck. So why are we calling it a swan? Probably because ducks have a reputation for rape. What about the United States? Should we be calling it an empire?
If we are going to define the U.S. as an internal empire, we might as well ask what an empire is. Of course, being wise people, we don’t just ask some country, “Hey are you an empire?” That would be rude. Given the modern connotations, most countries would say no. So instead, let’s start with the definition from an old friend.
An empire is a geographically extensive group of diverse states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled by a central authority, either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy. The term empire is derived from the Latin term imperium (a rule, a command; authority, control, power; supreme power, sole dominion; military authority; a dominion, realm), the ‘ruling’ of territories that are far beyond the homeland. – La Wik
Extensive geographic region, check! Central authority, check! As for monarch or oligarchy, I’m sure we can work with “oligarchy”. Again, with oligarchy we fall into the connotations trap. I mean, what’s the difference between an aristocracy and an oligarchy, a monarch and a dictator? Are we sure we aren’t blinded by our emotional attachment to the system, and our implicit biases from connotation rather than denotation. One will note that despite what anyone will tell you it is entirely possible to have elections and still have an oligarchy. Democracy is not the panacea; the doctors tell you it is. What is a vast unelected bureaucracy, but an oligarchy? Has the direction of America really changed that much in the last 100 years? 25 years? 10 years? Certainly, there have been changes but have they been unpredictable, asymptotic? No, they’ve been continuous with “the course of history,” as your fellow imperials like to say.
When a coup d’etat happens things typically change radically. The American Revolutionary government did not look like the British, nor did they look like the Native Americans for that matter. So, do elections typically resemble a coup d’etat or a changing of the guard? Certainly, it’s hard to see how an ingrained and entrenched two party system could produce anything but an oligarchy. I suppose many would take this as a bit of stretch, but imagine you were living in the year 2400. Would you imagine the U.S. as a system where anything could have happened and the people always got what they wanted? Or would describe it as a system which moved with a mind of its own and happened to coincide with public opinion on a few rare occasions? A broken clock is right twice a day.
Ethnic
Let’s take on multi-ethnic. I’ll just leave the demographics of the United States right here. “But what about in the past? Mass immigration is a relatively new phenomenon.” Good question. If we look just at whites, are they all the same ethnic group? Well, to answer the question, here’s another question. What do the Chinese call themselves? Zhongguoren! This is an example of an endonym. We here in the Anglo-sphere prefer the much easier to read and pronounce exonym “Chinese.” Not all exonyms are generated by differences in language, but most are.
In America, exonyms tend to be particularly pejorative. We have Yankee, Redneck, and Flyover (we also have the less common Granola). Why would a nation of the same “people” call each other by such names? Of course, these sorts of distinctions pop up all over the world even in relatively homogeneous nations. Every modern nation is in a sense an empire; someone had to conquer someone, and if one goes back far enough most all nations would be quite ethnically diverse (even if said modern population is genetically homogeneous). The important distinction seems to be: who is ruling? We might regard Capetian France as a Kingdom, and yet if the King was no longer King of the Franks, isn’t it an empire? We regard the modern French as one ethnic group. France may have homogenized a bunch of disparate tribes, but can we say the same thing of America? Where’s the ethnogenesis?
If it is difficult to find an objective metric to describe the populous of the United States (without also describing any other state), then maybe there is no such thing as an “American” per se. If one were paint a picture of the archetypal American, would it be a rough representation of everyone or not?
Brother Jonathan, I have seen your country’s insistence that “this” is what an American looks like. “This” is usually either an eclectic assortment of peoples or a particular outlier. The implication is that an American could be anyone. That certainly doesn’t simplify our problem. What does simplify the problem is if we simply regard the U.S. as an internal empire. When I use empire, I mean it in the positive sense. Remember, we put away our Phrygian caps for a moment. If you have a problem with the word empire here’s a tissue, but playing semantics with taxonomy doesn’t change reality. After all, didn’t empires used to be a thing? What happened?
The United States is much, much larger than most ethno-states. It is also much younger; how long exactly does it take to homogenize a bunch of disparate peoples? Does immigration adding new peoples to the mix make the process go any faster? We have had waves of immigration from many different countries whose populations we consider different. Have we really had enough time to let things coalesce into a cultural equilibrium? Has that even been a goal or a possibility? Our exonyms might say otherwise. I hope to make the case that Yankee, Redneck, and Flyover are indeed exonyms and not merely artifacts of sibling rivalry. If we really are a diverse nation of any peoples how can we be anything but an empire?
Perhaps that is moot point. After all, I’ve heard bits and snippets from your countrymen that “America is changing.” I’ve seen as much in my infrequent visits. Every trip a new batch of natives are imported. A new shop opens up on the corner of some dense urban center. Certainly, if you were in denial of your little empire it gets a little harder every day. Do you think these new arrivals will somehow become the demos? Will their voices be heard? Clearly not. That’s what you’re here for. Someone has to speak for the voiceless and what better than their enlightened patrons. Even in the age of modern air travel, it is still a bit easier to manage your empire when the natives are close to home.
Really, though, if their lives have been a bit tough at times, it can only really be your fault. Sure, you imperials can point out how the barbarians don’t seem to help. It is good to give instruction to the barbarians about helping immigrants, but really the freshly arrived are your responsibility. When’s the last time you went to check on them? If you’re worried about them, you should visit. Perhaps even offer some protection. You’d be surprised what you could muster if you called your allies to your side. You really should keep a better tally on your bannermen.
Culture
Brother Jonathan, are the American ruling elite ethnically and culturally distinct from their subjects? Well, we certainly aren’t a federation. No one can leave. We certainly settled that question, but what of the ruling elite? Ethnically and culturally distinct, that would seem to be a bit extreme wouldn’t it?
Well, your skepticism might just be because you are living in the fishbowl and not looking in from the outside. Ask yourself: do Bostonians eat chicken fried steak, fish tacos, smoked salmon and bagels, okra, or drink sweet tea? That’s just the surface stuff.
Think back to the last time you said “if only they weren’t part of our country,” or perhaps “they don’t represent us.” There are quite a few variations. As a visitor, I was always amused at your little tiffs over cultural faux pas. Of course, the barbarians aren’t going to be shining examples of imperial culture. Certainly, barbarians are useful as the butt of a joke on account of their crude manners. Jokes are only funny when people get them though. Barbarians are for comic relief not for yelling at. Anger doesn’t suit an imperial, we shouldn’t set expectations too high for them.
Your compatriots have been acting very unbecoming. If you were so concerned with the behavior of the barbarians, you could have the decency to uplift them. I know your education centers have only had minor effectiveness, but if you can’t laugh at your own jokes why make them? So, when a New Yorker makes jokes about a “flyover state,” who are they making fun of? Do they see a Midwesterner as one of them? Are they making a gentle jest at their brother? Our culture would say otherwise.
Let’s take a look at culture. A country should have a shared culture, right? Culture is a way to demonstrate power, resources, and cultivation. You can’t have artists if you are worried about your next meal, well not every meal (there’s starving artist and then there’s starving peasant). It also follows that the richer you are the more people your country can afford to be doing luxury activities like painting. But what are the paintings of? We can learn a lot about a culture by what they choose to depict. Let’s take a look at American culture, specifically what cities do Americans choose to depict?
According to fiction, television and movies there are three or maybe four cities in the United States. These cities are of course imperial cities and not just imperial cities but very imperial cities, and not just any very imperial cities but cities which happen to be centers of their respective industries. Movies, Politics, Finance, and Tech (and before tech, counter culture). Other cities may be impressive in their own right, may have history, industry, wealth and culture, but they are either not imperial enough OR not central to the imperial empire.
Obviously, not every city can have a movie about it, but many cities with populations approaching LA and exceeding San Francisco are sorely neglected. Again, if you view the ruling class as a separate ethnic group with their own culture and identity, then it makes sense that when they produce culture they would produce it about themselves. So, we should ask ourselves: who are our magnanimous benefactors who seem to love places like San Francisco, LA, DC and New York? You love those places too don’t you? Isn’t it swell that the movie producers share your tastes?
I remember touring your city during V-day. The flags were flying all along the boulevard. There was even a victory parade. It was a gay affair. Now this was in the heart of an imperial city. Nothing wrong with that, but if you really wanted to show who’s in charge, you should find a barbarian city—the kind very few imperials ever visit—and stage it there. It need not be an every year thing. Just point the cameras in the right place. It’s hard to show you’re in charge when you hide behind your walls. It’s one thing to play the slow game, and it’s another to let the barbarians think they’re in charge. If they knew the game, they might be less upset about your cultural programs.
A person from Oklahoma City might want to go to New York, but a New Yorker couldn’t give a damn about Oklahoma City. This is what I’m talking about. Cultural exchanges tend to be unidirectional. This tends to get confused in history, since different cultures tend to come out on top of the international dog pile at different points in time. The Americans might use a derivative of French beef (boeuf) or chivalry (from archaic chevalerie), but nowadays it is much easier to find English words popping up in French than the other way around. These unidirectional cultural exchanges are reflected in the “international community” imperial sphere of influence. It is the Western suit which is the standard for now, and this reflects current cultural hegemony. An American corporation is no more taking cultural cues from the barbarians than it takes cues from the Chinese. One might say that film and television producers tend to be from the imperial cities listed, but that would just prove my point. Clearly culture does not reflect the diverse geography of America, but why would it? States tend to have centralized cultures. Either their demographics reflect that centralized culture or they don’t.
Would you want some simpleton from a barbarian territory educating your children? Would you want them writing the TV shows that they watch? Would you want their deplorable, anti-American, backwards rhetoric seeping into your culture? Would you want them speaking their mind before they played a concert with for your children to idolize? Perhaps that is hard to imagine for you. I know you don’t have kids, but imagine if those kids down the block from you had to go through that horrid experience. What if they even came home repeating something? That wouldn’t do. But of course, you police your culture, don’t you? You feel an itch and inkling when you check the web and see things going red. How dare they? This is our country, you say. Who is we? We isn’t in flyover country where the barbarians live, and we isn’t a threat to “our” children. A we is a particular group of people who deserve to, well, rule.
If we were to regard America as a federation, this lopsided culture might seem inexplicable. It is indeed much simpler to explain these discrepancies if we are living in the empire. The non-hereditary aspect your peers go a long way to explaining why our oligarchy doesn’t look like a traditional aristocracy (i.e. not necessarily genetically homogeneous). What better way to make everything look meritocratic, than to hide your noble class in a university system. One will note China also had a meritocratic bureaucracy. That system also resulted in a distinct class with its own norms, culture and values even eunuchs like your own. Funny that.
If the culture reflects the people, we might call it a nation-state—a nation with a people. If it reflects a minority of the people, we might as well admit we have an empire. Of course, we still have the problem of connotations. We need to change that. It’s 2018, check your homogeneous state privilege, bigot! I mean, isn’t our goal to have diversity within the state? Well, that’s part of the definition of empire. The U.S., rather than capturing foreign nations, has simply diversified its territory. Why leave home?
Reflect on your worldview. It seems you’ve been dipping into your own supply. While I never could convince your peers to stop peddling their ideologies, you could at least refrain from partaking yourself. Ideology may be the great pastime of the America elite, but you could at least remember what it’s used for. Ideology is a tool for power not to be taken lightly. Just think of the children! You’ll never uplift the underprivileged youth if you get them hooked on neoliberalism at Harvard.
A man mainlining ideology will do so for the same reasons as do his subjects. After all, ideology is designed to prey on human nature. Even elites are human. Ideology is a key which unlocks pride, envy and avarice in all their terrible forms. It’s not the sort of thing a proper imperial partakes in.
If I’ve left you a bit amiss, there is nothing to fear. There isn’t much to do with this worldview, at least not yet. My prescription is to wean yourself off your ideology. Take a walk, have some fresh air, perhaps even travel somewhere that doesn’t smell of excrement. Look at your empire with fresh eyes. How does that make you feel? Hold that feeling. It will come in handy soon.
P.S.
Brother Jonathan, the fedora has never been a good look for you. I tell you this out of love and as your friend.