America in it's way is an empire. We are conditioned into thinking an empire is merely the subjugation of large bodies of people into one cause. This is merely the route 1 to imperialism.

Simply put an empire is about influence. The empire is there to protect the populace of the imperial power and make them richer. In ancient times this was acheived through the literal annexation of land and peoples, religious conversion and slavery in order to increase the coffers of powers such as Rome and to prevent harm coming to the Roman people.

By the time American history starts in the late 1700s imperialism is most closely associated with the colonial empires of western Europe. As Admiral King put it, the British were capitalists first, conquerers second. Unlike the empires of Constantine, Charlmagne and Ivan the colonial empires were themselves useless for providing extra warm bodies for the defence of the realm - indian troops up until the 20C were forbidden to serve abroad - simply put, the colonialist period was about money and new markets (sound familiar yet?).

To say that britain went to india to conquer it is misleading, the East India comany did not have such a mandate, it was there to trade. However, each time a hostile prince attempted to end this trade, the British fought and invariably won - this brought a new border and new hostile princes. It ended up as a domino progression. remember also that Britain 'conquered' India witha largely native army, not pressed or subjugated but simply by offering the Indian troops better living conditions and full religious freedom which they didn't get under the native princes.

The empire rose and fell however. While the colonials could claim that they had been primarily interseted in capital and markets they still rfequired the subjugation of people and land to maintain this cash flow, therefore nationalist feelings will always undo this work.

America, therefore, represents the next level of abstraction up in imperial history. The US can claim to be interested in Capital and markets without the need of actually conquering foreign lands. globalisation and the increasing economical interdependence of nations means that the US ends up the imperial leader on top of the pile without ever using direct means as earlier empires did. There is the pax Americana, it suceeded the pax Britannica in that both essentially said "war is bad for business, therefore, do not fight or we will kill you"

Thus historical trends continue, It is interesting to note that Empires always evolve from what contemporary 'civilisation' always thought of as barbarians. This is simply because the barbarians do not embrace the civilisationa s they find it but instead are catalysts for change, adapting quicker and altering the prevailing social paradigm, You only have to examine both British and US history to examine how iconoclasticboth nations were with respect to the status quo, how radical they were at the times of their ascent to world leader status.

It is more interesting to note that this driving force never lasts. As one generation passes on to the next the old ways are forgotten, the lessons learned fade and people start to assume that they have always been on top and always will be, it is usually at this point that conservatism rears it's head, in an attempt to stop civilisation and history and fossilise the world in a state which that power dominates. This has the tendency of making the imperial nation less able to adapt and more susceptable to outside interference and eventually to be overtaken by others.

Just a few thoughts I had, please feel free to critisize