Castro wrote it after he celebrated his 90th birthday, thanking the Cuban people and expressing his feelings of love for them. He also said the Cuban people didn't need anything from the empire (US).( Like a parent.) There is much history between the US and Cuba.
I am learning, from reading a lot, that other sources have called the US the American Empire. Are we an empire?
I like that term but the rest of the world thinks we are evil thieves. The British have an empire, that's for sure. By doing so, the British have modernized various parts of the world by establishing educational opportunities, health, capitalism, law and order, industry, and all types of modernization. Some radicals hate these things, because they are somehow against their religion. Therefore, you have these terrorist groups out there. As far as the U.S. is concerned, Castro is a terrorist commander. After all, he damn near started WW3!
Because it is, although one could have almost endless discussions on what constitutes such a thing. Is an empire an empire if it calls itself something different and looks rather different from previous versions? If one sides with people with similar views to Victor Davis Hanson one would say, 'no', but I think his assessment ignores the fact that words and their meanings and associations change over the course of a couple of thousand years.
US history includes many distinct, obvious and unarguable incidents of imperialism - one might almost say that the nation as it stands today is founded on it. While that may jar with the perceived history of anti-imperialism as the 'starting point' of the USA, it nevertheless remains a legitimate way of looking at the events.
Western nations have mostly moved beyond the period of nation building that has defined politics for most of the last few thousand years - but only just and there's no guarantee we won't revert. Almost all powerful or emergent nations subdue or attack other nations of interest during their growth phases and the US is no exception. While the England of the medieval period attacked France, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to expand it's influence before looking further afield, the US of the 19th century attacked native American Indian tribes (a very long list of these) and Mexico. It bought land from other, weakened states (by far it's largest acquisitions) and engaged in annexation. This is how most empires are built; by the exertion of power, whether military, economic or political.
Traditional methods of empire have, in the last half-century, been rather frowned upon but that doesn't negate the perceived need for action or activity in the best interests of the state (whatever they are thought to be). Periodically, the US has engaged in regime change and political and financial manipulation, often to achieve a result that is against the will of the indigenous population. With the antipathy of US populations to the word, 'empire' it is no accident that most of these engagements are put under a different heading, which preserves the illusion that US national responses are always benign or at least, never aggressive.
Well said. There's nothing to add to that.
Of course. To all Third World countries we are.
And New York City alone fits definition number 2 here.
Consider the Merriam-Webster definition of "Empire".
a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit
b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
Then consider if the U.S. role in the Western Hemisphere, and with Cuba in particular, has the properties of an empire.
