Reviews for Readings in U. S. imperialism

The average rating for Readings in U. S. imperialism based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-07-16 00:00:00 Edward Matthews Grad school textbook, but very useful. I still use it as reference on occasion.

Review # 2 was written on 2015-02-26 00:00:00 Rob McGee [ Here's a great line from page 13: Hopefully, this ["imperial incoherence"] will be followed by voluntary abandonment of the imperial project by Americans, and this would preserve most of the US hegemony. So...... he's hoping that an incoherent foreign policy will cause "Americans" to voluntarily abandon empire building? My usage of quotes is intentional because it's not clear who he's referring to. Does he mean the average citizen living in the United States? That would contradict a (correct) point he makes a few pages earlier that foreign policy is never on the ballot because both parties are in near lock-step on the subject. So what would "voluntary abandonment" mean for them? Does he mean "The Americans" as in the Federal government? That would make more sense as most of this book is concerned with the people who make foreign policy decisions. But if so the idea these people would give up on Empire building over a few strategic disagreements is just.... a bruh moment. But then, just as you're trying to process that you get hit with "...and this would preserve most of the US hegemony". This is some 8-D chess. What could he possibly mean by a passage that suggests anti-imperialism (possibly on the part of the Federal Government) as a means of maintaining the Empire??? How did this even get past an editor? Speaking of getting past an editor on page 29 we get: Southern countries now seeking [nuclear weapons], like North Korea. You may be unsurprised to hear that North Korea is uhhh not in the South. On page 32 there's an unsourced assertion that the Soviet Union (and Russia later) continued to secretly stockpile biological and chemical weapons after signing a 1985 treaty (that goes unnamed) to ban them. There's a dual problem in this book of weasel words and motte and bailey style arguments. This excerpt from page 44 shows both of them well A staggering 81 percent of all attacks against US citizens or interests in 2001 occurred in Colombia. Up to now these Marxist-influenced guerrillas have targeted American property (oil pipelines) not Americans. Leftist revolutionaries have not taken naturally to suicide bombing, since they are materialists. But this luck may not hold. Some may carry their war onto US soil and attack Americans. So right away you're caught by that stat, and at least I didn't notice the little "or property" on the end of the sentence. By the next like he admits that "oh by the way, I don't mean humans being targeted I mean oil, and I don't mean individual Americans, I mean American multi-national corporations". So, yeah that sentence is really stretching the definitions of those words. He then, apropos of nothing, brings up that they don't do suicide bombings because it doesn't fit with their beliefs. Cool? BUT! They may start! Why? uhhh.. yeah dunno it's because of "luck" now I guess, not something to do with their ideology. But they could even do it on American soil! So, watch out!(?) In a book that is allegedly "leftist" and published by Verso, it's really weird to end a section on global terrorism with "The Colombian marxists are gonna come and do suicide bombings on American soil.", that is unironically an Info Wars level zany conspiracy theory. The next chapter actually gets a little better, but only buy cutting down on some of the really oddball stuff I've been quoting. It makes a passing reference to NAFTA, and I do mean passing, it just mentions that it happened. It mentions the Millennium Challenge and how Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Djibouti can't be in it because they're "corrupt"; but then skips right over Saudi Arabia having no issues getting in it. I didn't last much longer after this point. In a weird way the wild takes made the book more enjoyable because I was at least reading to see what the next off-the-wall assertion he would make would be. Without them the book is just insufferably boring and occasionally factually wrong. (hide spoiler)]