Unconvinced

Despite the consistent negativity towards empires from Timothy Parsons, I don't think all too badly of the empires in our world's history. As he opens his conclusion, he talks at length about the United States' involvement in the war in Iraq. Parsons references the Bush Doctrine, labeling it a "classic excuse" for empire. But we have discussed in class several times that America is not (at least not yet) an empire. Parsons even writes "...it was true that the United States did not seek a formal empire in the Middle East."
So was the argument convincing? Clearly, there is still debate over whether the United States was/is an empire, but what about the others we have studied? Certainly there have been imperial powers in the past, and America seems to be part of that category, but they don't seem to be as destructive as Parsons would argue.
The British Empire, which we spoke about last week, had many positive points about it. Although it may not 'erase' the wrongdoings of the empire--namely slavery, it does shed some positive light on the empire's actions.
I do agree with Parsons that there is a "current romanticization of the British and French empires of the last century as stable, omnipotent, and benevolent", and that empires cannot be classified as "humane", but I am unconvinced that they were all bad. Britain influenced many of their colonized nations with a better government and economy; the Mongolians and Islamic peoples demonstrated a new, unique method of tolerance for their subjects; and the United States has worked to help many in dictatorial situations.
Yes, there are obvious problems with empire, and the colonization aspect is obviously inhumane. But to say they will always end badly and are completely wrong, seems to be an overstatement on Parsons' part.