Using the title “Transnational American” (Grewal, 2005) may be more politically correct than American Imperialism, but I argue that one is actually an agent of the other. This week's two readings converge around the discussion of transnationalism and neoliberalism, albeit in slightly different ways. Grewal (2005) discusses transnationalism in relation to the United States and its cultural, social, political, and economic influence on other nation-states specifically through technologies, biopolitics, and geopolitics. Grewal presents interesting arguments in support of the thesis that the construction of human rights activism since the 1960s was a geopolitical strategy used by the United States to extend its imperialist grip on the outside world. Grewal (2005) posits that the development of the feminist and women's rights movements arose from human rights discourse that quickly became “transnational tools of technologies of governmentality, creating and applying knowledge and techniques that promote well-being and security, rather than simply the rights of populations” (Grewal 2005:122). The birth of the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) was born from the desire to “move women [vulnerable populations] from the margins to the center, questioning the most fundamental concepts of our social order so that they can take greater account of life of women” (Grewal 2005:126). In this process, human rights issues became married to women's rights, social justice and, subsequently, development. NGOs at the time of its inception were seen as politically autonomous entities that would intervene “to ensure the well-being of female populations, the inefficiency of the state and its patriarchal ideology” (Grewal 2005: 127). But on a cultural, socio-political… central paper… loitation level, the United States maintains its embargo on Cuba and continues to surveil movement across its borders; only the future knows how current anti-immigrant sentiments might develop and materialize. Space does not allow for an elaborate discussion of the politics of the United Nations, the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund, but as a parenthetical note, these are also examples of an imperial or should I say transnational apparatus that the United States has taken advantage of. Ultimately, I agree with Comaroff and Comaroff (2001) that “the relationship between the nation-state and millennial capitalism… is not synonymous with globalism, although globalization is an intrinsic part of it,” but I would like to add more specifically that globalization like its predecessor, colonization, imperialization and now neoliberalism, is a capitalist apparatus (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2001:34)