RE: Re: Re: Sabri on Turkey

["Brownson, Jamil" <JBrownson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

sorry for butting in, but why not empire? can the US of A really be a
country or nation-state in the classic definition of something homogeneous
an contiguous? Or is sheer scale a deterent to ever becomming such? Perhaps
with further decentralization, like the Federal Republic of Germany or
Spain's 26 very autonomous provinces, or even the fictional division of the
USSR into autonomous soviet republics, we coud talk in different and more
appropriate terms about this question of nameing, labeling, defining &
setting criteria for political territories. When we look at global reach and
possessions, irrespective of their name, that range from puerto Rico to
Samoa, and extraterritoriality in terms of US military bases, the classic
notion of Empire may be appropriate. Add to the US, China, Russia, and
Indonesia, and I believe that these are the contemporary "empires," while
France & GB are vestigal empires.

so 2 cents worth for discussion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Schaap [mailto:bantam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 2:30 PM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:19645] Re: Re: Sabri on Turkey


G'day Doug,

> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> >Why does America, or as Chris keeps calling it, Empire, although I am
> >not sure if he is aware of that America and Empire are the same
> thing, >do that?
>
> The Canada, the EU, and Japan, what are they, chopped liver?

As Oz isn't on your list of exemplary liberal democratic virtue, I can only
guess you've been keeping an eye on our election campaign and its issue.

Don't forget NZ, though.

Sigh,
Rob.