Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
It's not exactly a holiday to get super worked up over when you live in the District, where the world's greatest empire holds its treasury, which is available for anyone to see for no cost. And many of the exciting fall shows haven't opened yet, meaning that the special exhibition schedule is light. Nevertheless, there are still a few hours of Free Museum Day left and a few spots in the District where that actually gets you something. One of those museums is the Kreeger Museum, a private nonprofit collection located in a gorgeous Philip Johnson building in tony Foxhall. Worth a visit for the building alone, the collection features a good sampling of Modernist works from the 19th and 20th century. Tuck that fiver back into your pocket, since admission to the soi-disant Jewell on Foxhall is totally on FMD's dime today. Another favorite destination that would normally set you back a Lincoln is Dumbarton House, the museum aspect of the library research center (and garden). Dumbarton Oaks is home to the District's best selection of Byzantine and Pre-Colombian artifacts, including one rather famous work of suspect provenance. Located up the street from Tudor Place and Dumbarton House and around the corner from Decatur House, Dumbarton Oaks anchors the city's crucial stuffy-museum district. And no one can say what street it's actually situated on. If this weren't enough to convince you, the museum's also staging a temporary exhibition of contemporary sculptor Charles Simonds, whose installation/intervention could not seem any more out of context in Dumbarton's posh gardens. A full list of institutions participating in Free Museum Day is here. But note that all those museums on the National Mall don't really have any choice in the matter.
Happy Free Museum Day -- or, Saturday
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (7) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
We went to the Macy's at 12th & G this morning for the Black Friday morning specials. There was a sh
[more]
Empire? Really??
Soi-disant? Really??
As a student of history I certainly would not consider the U.S., in it's present mainfestation, an empire. An empire generally consists of a large number of territorial holdings, governed by an oligarchical or monarchical government. An empire has colonies. Usually, an empire also espouses a political philosophy of nationalism and expansion.
The last true 'empire' in military and historical terms was probably the Soviet Union, which broke up in 1991. Before that, the British Empire began to devolve power to it's colonial subjects after WW2, and ended completely in 1997 when the British left Hong Kong. The Japanese and German 'empires' ended in 1945.
Despite the best efforts of the previous administration, the United States remains a democracy. And, while there are certainly a large number of Americans who foster nationalistic sentiments, these feelings are not currently borne out in national policy.
As far as 'imperial' holdings, the United States owns Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Two of these were taken by force in 1898; the U.S.V.I. were purchased from Denmark. The U.S. also owns maintains several military bases around the world. We are also fighting wars in Iraq and Afghainstan, of course.
I do not see Iraq as a 'territorial holding.' I do see it as an utter disaster of a mistake, a manifestation of erroneous political ideology and policy, and a fools errand. I'm hoping that we will soon leave Iraq entirely and not leave a 'police force' behind.
Now, I think that American companies have been very successful in selling American culture abroad, which has led to a pervasive American commercial and cultural presence worldwide. And I believe that this presence is frequently mistaken for a manifestation of empire. However, in my mind, it is not such a manifestation.
Finally, I think one ought to exercise discretion before referring to the United States as the 'world's greatest empire.'
well, iceman, just because it doesn't meet the traditional definition of 'empire' in your definition doesn't mean the US isn't one. why must we continue to define imperialism through territorial conquest? we've conquered the world culturally, for better or worse.
there are a lot more territories that the united states controls (mostly small guano islands, of course, but still), in addition to many more than just "several" military bases. we have active military in somewhere between 40 and 50 countries and territories.
It is not 'my' definition of empire. It is the standard, traditional, academic version of empire. And I think that one who would change the definition of empire should offer some explanation.
Basically, an Empire is a type of sovereignty, or polity, or state. I would argue that it's pretty tough to imagine an 'empire' in which the state is not involved.
I know more than a bit about culture - having studied Anthropology - but I've also studied History and I know that academics in both fields would not refer to the U.S. as the 'world's greatest empire' without at least qualifying or explaining that.
I can understand the inclination to call the U.S. a 'cultural empire,' but empire is really the wrong word. Personally, I would just say that American culture is infectious and highly marketable. America being a very wealthy nation, we've been able to promote and sell our music, products, clothes, food, etc all over the world.
This analysis applies only to the present situation. Certainly there was a time not too long ago when the U.S. government espoused policies of expansionism and domination. Nations come and go, and one might argue that the American influence abroad has already peaked and is waning.
One is always free to argue that America is an empire. But back it up with some argument. Simply calling the U.S. the 'world's greatest empire' does not make it so. Just like calling North Korea a 'democratic republic' does not make it so.
iceman: well, since i'm not an academic, i don't feel constrained by a standard, traditional, academic definition of the word empire.
Oh I forgot: The United States government could devolve power completely to the residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands. However, popular opinion in these countries is to remain part a of the United States. Residents of these countries are U.S. citizens and they generally wish to remain so.
They have roughly the same political influence as residents of the District. Which mean that perhaps, in a way, D.C. is the most 'imperialist' U.S. holding of all...