In article <7QJHa.10$P_4.8@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, USA@aol.com says...
>
>
>"shuji matsuda" <shuji__matsuda@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bcnov5$l1s2j$1@ID-37799.news.dfncis.de...
>> In article <n_rHa.254$yJ.92@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
>> "USA" <USA@aol.com> wrote:
>> :Imperialism would mean that the US is an Empire, which you and I know
> is
>> :not.
>>
>> It may not be correct these days.
>> http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HAREMI.html
>
>True..
>But Kay could not agree to this..
>"Their book shows how this emerging Empire is fundamentally different fr
>om
>the imperialism of European dominance and capitalist expansion in previo
>us
>eras."

I agree with that definition.  The fact is 
Mongol Empire was quite different from Roman Empire.
British Empire was quite different from Mongol 
Empire.  Japanese Empire was different from
British Empire, and so on.

As time marches on, the definition of empire
changes with it.  You are dealing with 
different set of values.

Consequently, today's empire is againt different
from the empires of bygone days. 

The only thing that is same is power
and domination.