America Imperialistic?

Derek Gookin

                Imperialism is defined as the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperialism). So is America imperialistic? The first part of the definition would be if America has extended our rules or authority over other countries. Since 2001, after September 11^th we began the war on terror and moved into the Middle East. Since the war we have attempted to implement a democratic government, similar to the way we run ours. Technically we were not extending our authority because people in the Middle East supported a demographic government. The other part of the definition is extending our rule to another empire or nation, to me this is where it gets a little fuzzy. Yes, we did implement similar rules or ideas that exist in our government, like voting. On the other hand, we were not policing the rules and laws set, but we were involving our military with their government and homeland. According to the first part of the definition the U.S was being imperialistic in that sense.

The second part of the definition says that holding or acquiring colonies and dependencies in other nations or foreign countries is considered imperialism. After the cold war we had many U.S military bases set up around the world. Depending on the country some stayed occupied and some were abandoned. One country that is a good example is Australia. Australia was interested in letting the U.S stay and maintain their military base in Australia. They saw it in their best interest to keep a strong relationship with the U.S and remain allies. Some other countries were not so find of the idea of a permanent U.S military base located in their country. One example of the is in 2006 Iceland’s air force base which hosted thousand of U.S troops and fighter aircrafts being removed from the country, resulting in zero air defenses for Iceland. The point I am making is that the U.S does have colonies and dependencies in other countries, but only countries that support their presence, right? Wrong, Guantanamo Bay is a great example of the U.S’s presence in a country that does not want us there. Basically Cuba does not want us there, but we completely ignore their requests to leave and go on with business. This fits the second part of the imperialism definition, acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. I’m not saying I think that the U.S should pull out of their basis and discontinue Guantanamo bay. I am saying that according to the definition of imperialism that the U.S seems to have a government that is imperialistic.

Joan Didion, Some Dreamers of the Golden Dream

In Joan Didion’s piece entitled Some Dreamers of the Golden Dream, she talks about the story of Lucille Miller. Lucille allegedly murdered her husband by burning him alive in a car on the side of a ghostly road in California. In the end Lucille was convicted and sent to jail for the murder, the piece makes me question whether she was actually innocent or guilty. Didion has an interesting writing style, she is very descriptive, and likes to build things up to present the ultimate climax in her writing.  She takes a case that was probably presented in the media as Lucille being 100 percent guilty, to making you question the validity of the verdict. Didion sets the tone describing the beautiful serene California landscape, just how someone may picture it. California is a place where anything can happen and where dreams come true. Joan Didion shows the other side of the golden land of California, with violence and murders. She seems to bring out the truth beneath the dream, after all Lucille’s dream wasn’t different from anyone else in California, she just wanted to rise up a few rings on the social ladder.

As an outsider I picture California as a perfect place to be with palm trees, hot girls in bikinis, people that are rich and of high status, and the possibility to achieve anything. That is only how I picture California, I’m sure most people who have not been there do not have too much of a different image in their head either. 99 percent of the stories that you hear about of rags to riches celebrities includes a part where someone moves to California and gets discovered. It is not often you hear someone say

“Don’t go to California, it’s a bad place to live, sure it may be beautiful but I would not recommend it.”

To me, I see Didion’s style as just reassuring that wherever you go nothing will ever be perfect. Even the place where the golden dream can come true, it can diminish just as easily. I take that and apply it to anywhere I picture myself living in a dream world, weather its Miami, Aspen, or Banyan Street, shit happens. You can be in the most beautiful setting and witness your worst nightmare. I have never heard of the story of Lucille Millar before reading this piece and after reading it, I felt that Lucille Millar was innocent and should not have been sent to jail. This just shows the power of Didion’s writing style and how it can influence a reader like me to go against the justice system and believe the opposite of what they believe. I’m not even sure she intended to make her readers believe that Lucille was innocent but that is how I interpreted the piece. Everyone interoperates things differently, that’s what makes all humans unique.

Michael Ruppert Argumentative Analysis

Michael Ruppert has been around the block. In the documentary Collapse, he talks about his personal experiences and explains how they have formed his beliefs of today’s society. He uses a combination of pathos and logos argumentative appeals. The way he mixed them together made a very compelling argument. He begins the documentary by stating his accomplishments and credentials to convince the audience that he was a man who was intelligent, and could be trusted because he knew what he was talking about. The pathos part was set up by this whole introduction of announcing his qualifications to theorize about the collapse of our society, that Ruppert talks about in the documentary.  His logic consists of actual facts and referring to the past. The most powerful argumentative appeal was definitely ethos. In the documentary Michael Ruppert talks about “what if” scenarios. These are all just accusations but he puts it into a reference where you can imagine your life being affected by these issues.

 One example is Ruppert talks about a world where everything is going to be local. Everything from the food you eat to the people you will communicate with, he says there will be no cell phones and other necessities, things we cannot picture our lives without today. When I was watching the film I truly believed at the time that all of this was true. I began to picture a garden behind my condo in Bedford, and thinking, damn I don’t want to live local. I didn’t spend time to think about the other sides of this argument, automatically I thought that everything Ruppert said was true. The fact is he is right about our diminishing natural resources but we are in the great technology era, no one can predict the future. If someone told me you could watch television on your phone and use it as a GPS when I was in middle school I would have never thought I could have that in college.

I can’t wait to live to see what the future holds, hopefully everything doesn’t crash and we will not be living in an old fashion America like Ruppert says.  Using words like human survival strikes a chord and makes you want to survive. Another argumentative method he uses is empathy. The way the document is presented is displaying Ruppert as an underdog. He is someone that no one listens to, but has great ideas. Everyone has heard the story of the boy who cried wolf, and that what Ruppert is in a sense. He keeps warning people that things need to change in order to have success as humans in the future. As a whole, people are not listening. Maybe he is right, is the government really after him? It makes me question, can I trust the government, the media, and the news, who knows?

South Park and Society

South Park is a show that has been around as long as I can remember. When someone thinks of South Park it’s either love or hate feeling. The one thing that is cool about the show is that it is based on real current events, and exposes what some may call the harsh reality of the world we live in today. The way they present there material is from an over the top, vulgar, and debatable standpoints. I think that is what makes this show good. The fact that so many people hate it and the creators are always pushing the limits makes for some good television. It is essentially a satire in which the topic is exaggerated in a way to where it is exactly big time celebrities, current news, and social trends, can disagree with the content.

            A show like South Park is important because it shows alternative views. Only a few corporations, like time warner, today control the media today. South Park is one of the only cartoons that’s episodes are about current issues, for example just the other month they came out with a jersey shore episode. The episode makes all of the Jersey Shore characters look like idiots. I think it is making fun of the fact that those same characters became overnight celebrities in America. As sad as it is jersey shore is one of the biggest hit shows in our country. Many people would rather watch jersey shore on Thursday nights then watch tsunami coverage in japan. Here we have thousands of people trapped, suffering, and dying and people are watching Jersey Shore and Charlie Sheen.

            South Park is a rarity, not only because of its originality but it reminds me of the way media was presented back in the day. Back when people did not have television and Internet they would read the newspaper. Inside there would be cartoons, political cartoons would display a hidden message just like South Park. I would call South Park an evolved political cartoon in today’s society, though not all episodes are political they have to deal with big time celebrity’s, current news, and social trends. In a way South Park is a modern day political cartoon, to an extent, it’s an entertaining way to catch up on the news. South Park is a show that can last as long as television exists. It has a faithful following and a plot that goes with the wind. The only way I can ever see the show being cancelled is if there are issues with the network, producers, or creators.