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