Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
but I also frequently find this lens to be more of an accusation or political club rather than a useful analytical tool.
I tend to think this well is pretty thoroughly poisoned, such that both everything and nothing ends up as 'hegemonic' or 'imperialist.' My own preference would be for 'imperialism' to refer narrowly just to direct, territorial control, but that's a hopeless case.
Hegemonic can be more useful, as in a state exercising power (sometimes consensually, sometimes not so much) in a region without a peer challenger.
I dunno—I’d rather look at more concrete things like how armies/state power are actually deployed and used. At least for 19c history, scholars like Hahn and Taylor who invoke empire end up with overdetermined and denatured accounts of something as important as the Mx War.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
