Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Imperialism
bushinoki
Veteran
Is it a bad thing?
Simon brought up in the Presidential Election thread that the most recent Super Powers (the US, France, and Russia) have all been imperialistic. Which is most certainly true. But is imperialism a bad thing? Most certainly there can be certain cons to imperialism, such as an Empire will often be involved in the strife of another nation. But what about the internal peace, and often strong economies of empires? I remember this saying from history class "the sun never sets on the Union Jack", referring to the height of the British Empire, when the British flag was literally always in the sun. There was a lot of evil committed by members of the empire, yet there was also more peace internally in some places. Is it a trade-off, or is imperialism clearly a good thing or bad thing?
Simon brought up in the Presidential Election thread that the most recent Super Powers (the US, France, and Russia) have all been imperialistic. Which is most certainly true. But is imperialism a bad thing? Most certainly there can be certain cons to imperialism, such as an Empire will often be involved in the strife of another nation. But what about the internal peace, and often strong economies of empires? I remember this saying from history class "the sun never sets on the Union Jack", referring to the height of the British Empire, when the British flag was literally always in the sun. There was a lot of evil committed by members of the empire, yet there was also more peace internally in some places. Is it a trade-off, or is imperialism clearly a good thing or bad thing?
0
Comments
* At the Centre, because the whole point of empire is the access to resources, the economy becomes dependent on input from the colonies. Even a slow, organic decolonisation brings about the progressive collapse of the hub nation's (or nations') economy. This is exacerbated by the fact that the population of the hub nation (let us assume that it is singular rather than a coalition) will have lost both the psychological and social skills associated with independence. It is a sad truth that the hub nation becomes almost as much a dependent of the empire as do the colonised.
* Because resources (human, material, etc.) have been sucked from the fringe nations to the hub, the fringes will have been impoverished or forced into monoculture situations. The ruling elite will have become identified with the imperialists and it may take generations for a new political class to arise.
* External relations become damaged by the power imbalance which exists between the empire and the non-empires. This is largely because all empires to date in history have had to expand in order to survive. Augustus set the boundaries of the Roman Empire but, for the next 500 years, emperor after emperor had to annex new conquests or incorporate new "client" states. Once again, this is about resource-hunger, a situation which is arising again today.
* Imperial expansion, be it economic (as a softening up process) or military (the final take-over), has advantages, of course. It provides outlets for goods and services as well as somewhere to syphon off excess energy. History has yet to record an empire that came into existence and maintained itself peacefully. Empire is a recipe for permanent warfare.
* The psycho-spiritual effects of empire are generally disastrous, encouraging elitism and the assurance of "manifest destiny" or the "white man's burden" or similar murderous fantasies.
I have found it a saddening experience, in studying history, to notice that the revolutionary movements of the 18th and 19th centuries that brought the United States, post-monarchical France, post 1688-UK, etc., into being, based on the rights of peoples and the freedom of the individual have, by and large, degenerated into imperial ambition.
Todays world is a different world with the potential destructive force of the war machines who can really advocate blatant imperialism ?
Sadam tried imperialism .... look at the mess it has caused. The world has become a loaded chess board .. their is no room to move without pieces being removed from the game.
The distribution of global wealth will have to be distributed more and more by some other means then imperialism. In todays world imperialism is outdated.
Good Day ...
There are many types of Imperialism. Capital, or business imperialism, cultural imperialism, political imperialism. Should we eschew one form of imperialism, another will take its' place. Now, it is true that some empires have practiced all three at once, but in this modern age, the practice of political and cultural imperialism aren't so overt. However, capital imperialism can be much worse, as it often deals with natural resources and can lead to far more strife, and often leads to subvert, indirect cultural imperialism. I am a political conservative, but I do believe that the government should have some authority to regulate business and trade, one of the reasons being to prevent the abuse of other peoples around the world. So, it becomes a question of where to draw the line, as much a question of good and bad.
Internally I don't believe there is harmony and peace but an "imperialistic" system is based on fear and rigidness. Something drives imperialism that is not just or is down right evil.
Is the goal to make a better mouse trap or to be the sole maker of the "better"mouse trap ? Which goverment draws the lines ? Which culture ? Imperialism is a consequence of greed and "self promotion" it is not driven by humanity. It is ruthless in it's methods and more concerned with the end result and not the means of getting to the end.
Change and unification are not completely in the realm of imperialism.
Cheers ...