A recent U.S. State Department post refers to the Western Hemisphere as “OUR Hemisphere.” The word “own” is not used, but the phrasing in context with other statements of this and political actions (e.g. about Greenland and what he did with Venezuela) strongly implies a claim of entitlement and authority over the region. (In plain English, describing something as “ours” means in most cases possession or a special right to control).
When you talk in this way to an entire hemisphere full of sovereign nations, this suggests to residents of the western hemisphere do in fact accept that the western hemisphere is ” ours” (so the US)
As someone who lives in the Western Hemisphere but outside the United States, I find this concerning. After all Putin has used the same terminology and we see where this went.
Long story short. My question to Trump supporters is whether you see this language as:
- implying a right of the U.S. to dictate outcomes in the region
- an assertion of de facto ownership.
- or whether you believe this wording does not imply control (and possibly he speaks for the western hemisphere as a whole)
- something else
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
For all participants:
Flair is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I refer to my wife as my wife. I don't own her but I do take responsibility for her and her needs.
Haven’t you established a relationship between you and your wife and have a mutual agreement/legal contract? How is that comparable to an independent nation that has its own national interests?
My kids have their own cute little interests too... Certainly independent... And yet I'm intimately involved in their affairs... Even after they're adults and moved out. Sure as an adult, they don't want my interference, they can tell me to piss off. As a child, they could go to a judge (UN) and be emancipated. If they misbehave (Maduro) I'm going to punish them. If they need some help (Argentina) I'll give them the tools they need. And if they're doing great, I'm going to watch them with pride (Guyana, perhaps... South America is pretty dysfunctional).
Again, there’s an actual relationship between a parent and child, and generally parents are motivated to invest in their child’s best interests (although bad parenting is prevalent), what’s the connection between the US and Venezuela that prioritizes their “care” over our personal interests.
Miller and Vance make it clear that we can’t share a national heritage with them, isn’t your analogy tantamount to giving responsibility of your child to an unrelated adult? Maybe your boss or someone richer and more powerful than you? If they’re successful enough maybe your child would be better off because of the tools and access they could provide?
I am also interested in how you assess South America as generally dysfunctional, is that by an American standard, and should it apply to countries who haven’t had the same provenance and history as America?
In another thread there is a discussion of neighbors... I don't have a direct relationship with them... But their household affects mine:
Maybe... Do I like them enough to completely manage their affairs? Yeah, perhaps in that case I would. They don't like it but won't help themselves either? They refuse? Then perhaps it's time to cut them off, get a new neighbor (leadership)? Their nasty yard and unruly visitors are lowering the neighborhood property values... (I live in the country btw... I don't care what my neighbors do with their property... It's just an example) I'm tired of the cops showing up. I'm going to do what I can to encourage them to leave. Why? Because their affairs are affecting my affairs.
How does this relate to sovereign nations/ independent countries? Is your neighbor also your wife?
No, but I would do similar for my neighbor. If I saw someone breaking into their house, I'd confront the interloper. If they lost their job, I'd help as I could with food or perhaps money. The allegory still holds.
Spinning the metaphor forward: Will you then also force the neighbours to have you lead their household and give you part of their belonging?
Maybe... Do I like them enough to completely manage their affairs? Yeah, perhaps in that case I would. They don't like it but won't help themselves either? They refuse? Then perhaps it's time to cut them off, get a new neighbor (leadership)? Their nasty yard and unruly visitors are lowering the neighborhood property values... (I live in the country btw... I don't care what my neighbors do with their property... It's just an example) I'm tired of the cops showing up. I'm going to do what I can to encourage them to leave. Why? Because their affairs are affecting my affairs.
Would you consider that with your unsolicited assertion of influence, you are the unruly neighbour that tries to spread their nasty yard to them?
And do you believe that if you both are the same opinion, the only solution is to kill your neighbour or violently controll them? What if everyone just stays in their own land and does not try to controll and/or murder eachothe.
That's their problem I suppose. I (Trump) didn't kill them (Maduro), I called the cops (Delta Force, fuck yeah) and they hauled him off to jail.
Their affairs affect my affairs so we are in some level of tension. That happens. So when it affects me, I'll affect them in return.
Taking this into account, do you emphasize to people outside of the US that are afraid of the US and the instability it spreads?
I can understand the anxiety. America has been a destructive force worldwide. Trump tends to stabilize. Perhaps this is one reason why I'm against the recent action in Venezuela (mostly my libertarian roots). It really smacks of traditional American meddling that leads to widespread destruction.
It implies control and responsibility, not ownership.
What is your personal opinion on this being unsolicited and compared to Russia asserting influence and do you believe this matters?
Of course it's unsolicited and an assertion of influence.
How do you believe people will react to an unsolicited assertion of influence that’s a net negative in them? And do you believe this reaction is justified? In context of American history that’s a especially interesting point
The world has never been a fair place. Countries with power and influence use it. Weak countries align with more powerful countries for their mutual benefit, or bad things happen to them. That's always been the case.
The world has been a lot of things over its life time but it was never the same and it certainly hasn’t been always unfair.
Its not fair if bad people make it as such to maximise their own pleasure at the cost of others.
It is a fair place if we fight for fairness.
What type of person are you? Someone who makes the world unfair with some it-has-always-been-like-that circular logic that justifies their own amoral actions? Or someone who wants things to be better for themselves and everyone else?
What do you think drives us forwards as a society? Aiming high or low?
What?
You would interpret those four statements as me and my friends owning a neighborhood, company, sports team, and country?
So if I was your neighbor, you would not have a problem with me barging into your home, kidnapping your wife, taking the gas out of your car, then telling your son, “hey if you don’t do what I say, you’re gonna get what we just gave your mom!”
Then after I did that, go to the neighbor across the street and threaten to take their land cause I need it for reasons?
Does this sound right to you lol?
What kind of unhinged nonsense is this? I just said people regularly use "our" to refer to things they don't own but have a relationship or affinity with. This is our team, our faith, our whatever. None of that implies ownership.
OP was specifically commenting on the meaning of the words and my response is addressing the specific intent of using the word "our".
Your weird home invasion fantasy has nothing to do with that.
Due to the fact that Trump acts like a defacto owner of the hemisphere. Are you convinced that him referring to “our” hemisphere refers to the US and other nations owning the hemisphere together? And if yes, what entitles him other than might to speak for the hemisphere?
If it’s might we circle back to ownership. If it isn’t, it’s unsolicited.
I didn't say any of that. "Our" doesn't imply ownership, it implies belonging. This is our country. I don't own it, but I call it ours because I belong to it. This is our hemisphere. What word would you prefer he uses?
If you texted me "Our maple syrup is the best" am I meant to infer that you own a company that produces maple syrup?
From my perspective it’s quite clear that “our” does refer to ownership. it’s written between the lines but in all capital letters due to the Trump admin clearly asserting their own interpretation of US law outside of the US. They don’t even try to work with the previous attempt of achieving an ethical form of multinational consensus (I.e. international law), they act like they own.
I would prefer he would not do that. If it looks like a stone, smells like a stone, feels like a stone, it’s a stone.
Bringing me back to my second question. What makes you believe that Trump can present himself as speaker for everyone in “our” hemisphere?
Stephen Miller said:
"We live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time"
In response to the military invasion of Venezuela.
Do you see how those words and actions show that this administration believes fully that the Monroe doctrine is being used as an excuse to do whatever we want in the western hemisphere; That we own the western hemisphere and we dont need to ask anyone.or speak to anyone before we do whatever we want in the western hemisphere?
This. It ain't that deep.
Any country in the western hemisphere can call it “our” hemisphere, and that would be correct. Our/ours refers to multiple people, like us or we. The state department is saying they care more about security in this hemisphere over security in the other hemisphere, which makes sense because this is where we live. I would hope that all countries in the western hemisphere don’t want Iran and hezbollah setting up shop in our area. Stability and prosperity in each country in the western hemisphere benefits all our neighbors. When one country is unstable, it affects the neighboring countries. 8-9 million people have left Venezuela because of the economic situation. At one point they even spoke about people starving there.
I recently posted that there's only like 15 real countries on Earth. The rest of them are like unclaimed territory that the others are fighting over. So, you pick which country you want running the hemisphere.
Here's what I said:
Yeah, well, nine might be it.
There's China/Taiwan, Japan, India, Pakistan, the remains of the USSR in some fashion, the EU, Turkey, and some account of the remains of the British Empire, and the USA and Israel. So, yeah, I guess that's like 9. Libya, Iran, Korea, and South Africa are emerging or quasi-emerging states. I'd suggest Saudi Arabia is also a significant emerging player in a complex web with Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE.
Everyone else is allowed to be a country because these players have collectively decided not to wipe them off the map. Brazil and Mexico might be the only exceptions.
It's not quite the terrifying world of Orwell's 1984, where there's only three countries... but we are close.
I would say we are extremely close. Effectively, there are the nuclear powers and then everyone else. And those with the bomb get to decide that everyone else should not get it.
Don’t get me wrong here: I’m glad for non-proliferation treaties and disarmament, but do you genuinely think Ukraine would have been invaded if they were allowed to keep “their” nukes? You do not mess with a nuclear power. It’s sad, but until there comes a better weapon or defense against them, that’s pretty much reality.
You're reading into it something that isn't there. The people of your country could accurately reply "This is our hemisphere, too" and nobody's gonna be like "Nuh-uh, it's OURS."
Do you think he was merely saying that the US happens to be located in the Western Hemisphere, or is there another implication?
It's obviously more than just a mere statement of fact. It positions our security as an us-against-them issue where the aggressors are the "them" who have transgressed into our hemisphere. It positions the rest of the hemisphere as part of the in-group, in contrast to a more strict isolationism. It probably does other things, too, but I'm not an expert on language.
Who exactly are these aggressors? By my count, the US has taken military action against numerous countries in the Eastern Hemisphere, while none of those countries have attacked the United States.
I think it's whoever was in bed with Maduro. So China, mostly, but also Russia.
I'm not saying there are countries who attacked the US. I'm saying the message frames the situation in a way that portrays us as the defenders, defending our hemisphere, from the countries outside of it who are trying to get involved here.
I guess the question I'm getting at is: does the perspective that the US has the right to dictate every facet of the geopolitical state of the entire Western Hemisphere seem reasonable to you?
Reasonable in what sense? The perspective sounds fairly accurate. I'd probably change "right" to "ability". (I don't entirely know what's meant by "right".) And maybe add "incentive". So something like:
The US has the ability and incentive to dictate every facet of the geopolitical state of the entire Western Hemisphere.
Do you believe that ability and incentive are sufficient justifications for a state to impose its will on other states?
If I'm the arbiter of justice, I'd probably say it depends on the incentive.
For this conversation, you are (congrats!). I'd agree that it depends on the incentive.
I ask because the administration, particularly Stephen Miller, seems to be advocating for a worldview wherein ability and incentive are inherent justifications. Are you comfortable with US foreign policy being based on that idea?
What entitles Trump to speak for this hemisphere? It’s not like the US under Trump has build bridges to other nations. Quite the contrary
I don't see him speaking for the hemisphere. I don't know why you're suggesting that he is.
He's speaking for the US. This is our hemisphere, here is our policy.
Our military and economic might puts us in a position to set our foreign policy and expect others to fall in line. The extent to which we can speak for the rest of the hemisphere, make decisions on their behalf, tell them who they can or can't be allied with or work with, etc. is inverse to the ability of the other nations to tell us no and back that up.
For example, if Canada decided to allow North Korea to build a military base on our border, we'd veto that. Whether we're entitled to do so is irrelevant. We'd crush any opposition Canada had to our veto because that's what's in our best interest.
So basically might makes right logic. Do what I want or I’ll hit you. Can you emphasise with this rhetoric making inhabitants of the hemisphere more distant towards both the US and also making them reluctant of buying US product?
I don't really know what's changed. This is the way it's always been.
How informed are you about the history of the 20th century and justifications of nazis attacking Europe vs the US of liberating them?
This is what has change. We made progress and then Trump has backtracked to 1933 rethorics and exploiting a simular situation in society. That was not the laws of nature dictating him to do that. It was choice on his part to use these tactics and choice on the side of followers to cheer to it.
I don't agree. Although Nick Fuentes might. It sounds like you're talking about the "post-war consensus" I heard Fuentes talking about in an interview the other day. It was basically the idea that all the powers decided to turn away from the sorts of ideals that lead to the Holocaust so that a tragedy like that would never happen again.
Maybe the US talked nice about international cooperation or something, but I don't think flowery words change reality. It's always been the case that those with might will set their policy and those without will fall in line by consent or by force.
It is our hemisphere
Sure it's our hemisphere. Idk about "own", but the US is the western Hegemonic power.
Interesting.
The US can and will continue to work within it's sphere of influence in order to protect ourselves and our allies. I'm happy to be the world police and continue imperialist US policy as long as it works towards long term US interests and goals.
I wouldn’t say the US is the world police as this implies ethical engagement and the rule of just law. The US, long with Russia would be best described as either the worlds military police or the worlds secret police - enforcing rules not for ethics, morality or justice but for personal profit to the detriment of others. (The profiteering party being some aspects of the US, the others being everyone else). At least currently.
You acknowledge yourself (at least from what I’m reading, correct me if I’m wrong here) that the US is essentially taking because they can, unbound by ethics and international law.
Is the refusal of other nations to subject to to the USAs attempts to attack instead of cooperate and prosper together something you seem justified? Or do you think other nations should just yield and accept their place?
A good example is e.g. the EU refusing to let US tech companies spread unhealthy digital addictive mechanisms due to its terrible impact on mental health. Reels, Data protection breaches, the bet-on-everything gambling epidemic come to mind. Do you think the EU should just accept these practices like Trump suggested?
It moreso means that there is some semblance of holding governments/groups/states accountable, even if to a small degree.
The overall cost/benefit the US has given the rest of world in terms of being the world police/hegemond is so overwhelmingly in the benefit side I'm not sure where to start. This would actually be a decent gpt prompt in terms of a strongman of US influence.
This seems like a gross mis-comparison. Russia doesn't hold a candle to the US' reach and influence as western Hegemond. We are 15X the size of Russia in terms of GDP.
Basically all countries are unbound by international law. Ethics are simply codified into laws in each country.
Not sure what the specifics look like here but sure the EU can do what they want in that regard.
What you are looking at in Venezuela is a rollback of US policy from the "Good Neighbor" policy of FDR to the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. In practice, that already happened with Noriega, so nothing new to see here.
This might be a hot take, but coming from a canadian who immigrated here 20 years ago as a child from a dictatorship in eastern Africa. It is COMPLETELY in the best interests of countrys that support freedom of religion, speach, liberty etc for the USA to be in control of the western hemisphere atleast militarily. Trumps moves on Venezuela now cut off oil going to china and russia slowing down military progress which means that China is 100% going to cut off rare earth metals going to the US also slowing down their military progress, this is partly why trump wants greenland( Right now 70% of rare earth metals that the USA gets comes from china and greenland is has enough to supply 10% of the global need).
My point is that Canada the EU, and the united kingdom have their best interests in the USA being in charge of the western hemisphere, They are the only world superpower that Threatens China and russia and they need to take advantage of their influence and establish their domain.
Also, When they say " OUR hemisphere" it doesn't mean it belongs to them. When I say " our country" it implies ownership of mulitple people not that I own it.
You said it’s in our interest that the US owns us for practical intends and purposes of security. Considering that the US and its companies are a net negative on other countries on the hemisphere outside of security concerns (leech resources, dismantle protective legislation until we reach very low US standards e.g. in terms of healthcare, or addictive digital services, food, wage distribution, the list goes on), what makes the US better than Russia and China in your view?
I am not a fan of neither but the US has lost its advantage of being pro democratic and a country of freedom. They are supporting dictators even in Europe (Hungary) just because Trump likes this specific dictator.
Security is the foundation of economic growth. Economies hate uncertainty more than anything else. When a region has a low chance of interstate war, stable borders secure shipping routes etc the economy sees amazing growth.
The western hemisphere has had almost no major interstate wars since WWII largly because the US naval and air dominance discourages external powers from projecting force here and Regional conflicts don't escalate into great power wars the way they do in eastern Europe, The MIddle East or parts of Asia.
US Military dominance protects protects the Atlantic and pacific shipping lanes, Panama Canal acess Anti-Piracy operations Etc This goes to lower transport delays shipping insurance costs and much more!
A hemisphere backed by theg worls strongest military looks safer to pension funds, banks, manufacturers, insurues and attracts mroe foregn direct investment.
If the USA were not militarily dominant here youd likely see China building military infrastructure alonside ports and telecom, Russia offering security partnerships and arms deels and more proxy tensions between blocks.
You pointed out perceived downsides like Ineqquality pressures and cultural homogenization and more, but these are policy probelms we can regulate domestically which the US has historically had better policy reforms than the other world superpowers. One thing I would like to point out is healthcare, In my opinion the US healthcare system is the best we can possibly get right now. Public healthcare sounds good in theory but here in Canada its devastating, Sure its free but whats the Use of free healthcare if you have to wait years for surgery/treatment. It has gotten so bad to the point that Canada has started to offer MAID(Medically assisted Death) which is completely dystopian. My friends mother needs surgery that would increase her quality of life immensely but the waitlist for this surgery is EXTREMELY long, she has been offered MAID by her doctors instead.
My point is that A US led military order tends to maximize economic stability investment confidence and continutity and most important of all discourages Americas Adversies from holding having power over this part of the world.
It's probably not ideal for him to talk this way, but it is obviously true in reality. See: the last >100 years of interventions.
How about: "we are inevitably going to play a huge role in what happens here"?
Imagine he said something like "America is ours but we respect the sovereignty of every other country" -- okay, you would like such a statement, but I guarantee you that it would fail to match up with reality going forward, so...why bother? At a certain point, you're just angry at him for being honest about how the world works.
You can say this sounds like Putin, but another way of putting it is "it sounds like all of history". Yeah, it does, because it is indeed how the world works.
The world works how we make it work. Trump has the power to make it work ethically but he chooses to make it work like this. Do you think otherwise and in fact his ”hand was forced”?
Yeah I don't know what to tell you. If this is your view, then expect to be outraged by America's behavior for as long as we are a country. Your only hope is that we break up into a bunch of smaller countries that lose the ability to have the same impact.
Are you suggesting powerful nations are kinda bound to exert their will towards smaller ones?
I don't know if 'bound' is the word I would use, but basically yes, I think it's inevitable and rational leaders are going to prioritize their interests and ideology above an abstract commitment to the sovereignty of other countries.
I mean, this isn’t even American behaviour. It’s the behaviour associated to a certain philosophy which has several examples in history in which it has been shown it doesnt lead anywhere except suffering and eventually failing governments or even states. Also within the US. A good example is Germany 33 which took less than 10 years before even the most severe enemies had to ally against it.
Id say your only hope as country for you would be that people with better ideas get back to power, wouldn’t you say?
Your opinion is noted.
"Our" as in we are literally in the hemisphere and as a reassertion of American hegemony.
My goodness, are all of you guys just... totally ignorant of history outside of a few key moments in the past and whatever you're reading about at present? It's always comparisons to a few bad guys you're vaguely aware of, like Hitler or I guess now Putin. It was standard US policy during the later 19th to the first half of the 20th century to dictate terms to Latin America and assert ourselves as the hegemonic power of the region. The Cold War hurt this, but that was reversed during the Reagan years. The rise of Chavismo and Kirchnerismo again hurt US hegemony in the Americas compounded with Obama-era submission to globalism. This is frankly nothing new and is just reassertion of old policy. If America is going to reassert herself as a unilateral actor that necessarily means none of the other states in the Western Hemisphere are going to be allowed to have an independent foreign policy that is contrary to American interests. American global hegemony is depended upon also having it's own regional hegemony.
Sovereign nations is awfully strong language. We've owned alot of them before and gave them back since they're mostly worthless areas like Mexico and Canada.
Either way, this language is to let other nations know we're enforcing the Monroe doctrine again after Bush Jr failed to maintain it due to the crisis in Iraq during his tenure.
I believe he’s basically saying we won’t tolerate any more “Cubas” -that is we won’t let hostile nations host weapons/soldiers close to our country any longer.