At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I don't think you can answer this scientifically, but I believe the United States are near the top of the ladder or at the top, due to our economic and military capabilities.
Yes I agree. It's is something rather hard to quantify but the power in terms of economic and military might of the United States is without question. What is questionable is whether that power is actually exercised in a way that constitutes hegemony, which is highly debatable. In the strictest sense of the term, hegemony means that a country indirectly rules one or more other countries by exercising political power rather than military might. However, many consider it to refer to the influence of one country on one or more other countries through any means. Hubert Vedrine (Francois Mitterrand's diplomatic adviser) argued that the US was a hegemon because of our exercise of military power throughout the world, especially in the Middle East, but political scientists argue that the US is not hegemonic because it does not impose formal rule over any other country financially or militarily. This topic is hotly debated, so it is hard to nail down a definitive answer. It all depends on whose definition you want to go by.
Very hotly debated in some circles indeed. The issue of "Colonialism" is raised often and the difference between influence and rule becomes difficult to determine. The 'big stick' is not just the threat of military intervention but economic sanctions also play their part.
Very true. I have listened to and participated in debates on the subject and inevitably colonialism or globalization are brought up. Imperialism in any form is tightly woven into discussions of hegemony whether warranted or not.
I believe that a decent definition of hegemony for the purposes of this persons question would be "The ability for the United States to influence directly an independent nation to achieve it's own ends versus the needs of said independent nation"
What do you base your conclusion on?
I would assume this is a professor asking this question, and if said person is in high school instead of college, my definition is probably what is being asked. If said person is in college, well the answer could be extremely convoluted and ultimately doesn't matter because the professor is asking for an opinion.
wel what was d vietnam war then?
Once again, depends on who you ask. Ask a US government official at the time and they will tell you it was an effort to contain the communist threat in North Vietnam, some might even call it a police action rather than a war. However, ask the North Vietnamese government and they will tell you it was a case of US colonialism. Of course if you live in the US you are going to accept the US version of things. In fact, the only reason I bring up how the NVG looked at it is that their view ties into the discussion.
A shame I can't give you multiple medals Jaga.