Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: The myth of Allied invasion of R
Message-ID: <776@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 12:36:29 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.776
Posted: Tue Nov  5 12:36:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 08:25:31 EST
References: <544@qantel.UUCP> <7800608@inmet.UUCP> <1576@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 24

In article <1576@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes:
>What about the American empire?  Seems like an equally important
>factor in keeping such empires together is contiguity.  The only
>contiguous empires I can think of off hand are U.S., China, and
>U.S.S.R.  They're all seem pretty permanent.

What American empire?  The U.S. is a large country, but that doesn't make
it an empire.  Culturally and socially, it is a unit -- not totally
lacking regional diversity, but relatively so.  The same applies to China,
with the exception of Tibet, which is occupied territoritory.
(Historically, China was an empire, but successfully imposed its culture
on much of the occupied territory.  Most of the exceptions, such as
Korea, are today independent.)

Russia today, however, has a dominant Russian culture, which rules a variety
of subject peoples of diverse cultures -- the various central Asian
Moslem peoples, Ukrainians, Georgians, and the nations of eastern Europe.
This is an empire.

(India, by the way, is not an empire because of the lack of a dominant
culture.  It isn't overwhelmingly stable, either.)

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108