Imperialism

[Ursus]

People have debated the merits of imperialism since at least the Delian League.

 

On one hand, an imperial state can lead to increased security, stability and prosperity within an international system. It can uplift cultures and plant the seeds of civilization where none existed before. It can lead to an increase in peaceful trade over war and depredation. It can unite disparate people under a common law and language.

 

On the other hand, it can lead to the subjugation or extermination of local cultures and identities. It can lead to provinces being drained at the expense of a parasitic imperial center. The quest for universal peace and security can actually promote endless wars and militarism.

 

Do the benefits of empire outweigh the advantages? Does the answer to the question depend entirely on the nature of the imperialists?

 

I

[Demson]

Tough one.

 

I think there's a truth in all of them. Not only is that the easiest and safest thing to say ( ), it's also quite vallid in my case.

 

Personally, I regard statemanship and government as a communication method. If you have 10 people, you can do things as a group. If you have a hundred people, it will become tricky. If you have several million, you need government. And that's where aristocracy, royalty and imperial courts come in. We needed, and sometimes still need them for prosperity.

 

As long as it works and is actually needed, an empire is as justified as royalties and aristocracies and any other form of government. However, when it stops being benefitial, than it's not.

 

 

We say the soviet union was an parasitic empire, yet allot of technological progression took place under the regime of the politburo's. Take spacecraft and aerocraft, for example. While the soviet union failed to keep it's people fed, it still left a benificial legacy.

We say the Roman Empire contributed to the world, but it's Christian legacy left Europe in the Dark Ages for centuries. Just look at Islamic culture to see how much potential development was suppressed. Only after the rennaisance did Europe began to prosper again.

 

 

Empires are phenomena. We should look for a more benificial substitute, but we shouldn't write them off either. It has it's uses.

[Onasander]

Progress without aim? You know, if blaim is to fall on someone for the ideological wars that turned the world upside down from 1776 to the present, it's gotta be the historian with a philosophical bent. We look at history though a set of ideological lens, automatically denying certain strains of logic from comming into exsistance.

 

I'm not going to say we're all marxist in our frame of historical thought; the problem I think goes back even further to the defeat of the Republican forces in the English revolution when ideology was forced to hide in the commentaries of the classics. We judge what came before on how we think the proper way should be. What is progressive to me or you today is a result of our values and perspective of the world on how it should be going, and where we want it to go. When we look back in time, we say "this is good" or "this is bad" of this or that society. They suddenly become progressive in our view. We might not even understand their aims in freeing the slaves or serfs, or in changing the tax code or laws. To complicate this, we add the qustion of civilization to this, something we have the least understanding of all (even modern civilization).

 

I can't judge the question of Imperialism in and of itself because it's an mode of activity and not usually an aim in which to judge progressiveness or regressiveness; the gressiveness held in relationship to the dominate political entities, thier state of affairs, and needs in ralationship to thier wants . For the Romans, at certain stages where the campaign aimed for vital intersections or against geographically isolated entities in Spain or North Africa, it could be considered in light of the Roman ideal of morality a good idea for it's positive effects on stabilizing trade routes and thier resulting increase usage, as well as reducing the longterm costs of defense; but a bad idea for the poorer classes concentrated in the worst of places, the capital where they could interfer with politics.

 

Once the numerical ratio between mercanaries and roman troops began to dip in favor of the mercenaries, this would of been a very good time for an offensive... not only would it of helped rebalance the ratio if they used the mercanaries a bit more liberally, but a stab at reducing the northern borders in the west and central europe by quickly conquering and assimilating (a balance of rotating a certain number to other parts of the empire would be needed of course)them, putting them back into the field may of worked, if done quickly enough, say within a 70 year time period.... instead of dragging it out, forever, killing the enertia of it. The plunder would of paid for the armies and some of the cost of refortifying the new frontier, as well as producing a new economic climate, giving the barbarian tribes in the rear the peace they needed to finally settle down in security. But they didn't take on central Europe quickly enough, instead perfering to concentrate in Palistine and Egypy, and resultingly, the Parthians....

 

So, in the end, unwise imperialitic actions did not do much to benifit longterm expansion/ security for Rome. They perfered to temporize their northern borders then taking thier opposition on piecemeal.

 

Plus, given that the highest ofice of the empire was usually gained from insurrection from these far flunged regions by power hungry generals, and you'ld be able to see the problem. Had the border been smaller, with further troops needed and the commands more consentrated in thier relationship to one another, it would of been rather easy to prevent these military takeovers.

[Segestan]

Excellent analysis Ursus.

 

#1 And 3 are however; within the idealistic framework we see through the freedoms of thought , the individual or collectiveness, and the self-determinations of all of these is inherent in ......#2.

 

If the shoe fits wear it.

Organization is Imperialism. The US Dollar , for example; it being the worlds reserve currency, sense the end of world war II, makes the dollar an Institutionalized tool of Imperialist organization. The World Bank is also, a modern day

[Zeke]

My opinion is that their will always be Imperalism no matter how much we complain about it. So I guess I fall under camp 3, because it seem logical. I don't think "Empires" in the sense exist anymore but the world is governed by World Powers.

I was once a very rigid Communist and I was anti-imperlist everything (It was a stupid phase I suppose).

But now I relize that Imperlism is not neccessarily evil and corrupt.

The only thing that holds are World together is Imperlism.

 

My case:

 

Africa...........a very messed up place in the world, you got a bunch of dictatorship type of countries there that were once under European domination. Everyone is preety hungry and disease is uncontrolable. Back when the Europeans owned the place the Africans, though basically enslaved, had slightly less strarvation and disease. Then the Africans revolt and tell the Europeans to go away and they lose all their medicene and any sort of income they might have had. Now we got the situation where the Africans want European and American aid. Yet how much aid can the Western nations give before taking over the economy and enslaving the Africans again? A puzziling pardox really, without Imperlism in some way, I highly doubt Africa will ever get out of its economic slump, the Communists tried and they failed miserbly so were going to have to trust good old Imperlistic Capitalism to solve the problem. When you get the market going people can start trading goods and getting food and vaccinations into their countries and become western. If the Imperlistic countries help Africa and the devoloping countries in Asia then those countries can then start being self sufficiant and pose a threat to the market, they can then become competive and harnass their resources to become the dominate economic power in the world. Why don't you think America doesn't help Africa that much, because if allowed to devolop, Africa could be a serious danger to the Imperlistic Nations that hold sway over the world, the United States of America being one of their leaders.

 

Lets anylais the Imperlistic Nations, because of them the world runs properly.

 

The United States: Oviously one of the biggest players in the world, the United States has the largest single country economy in the world. It produces the most goods and services compared to every other nation, and its military is only second to China. The United States is the initiator of most cultural trends and only but the most isolated of nations feels its influence. The United States also makes sure the markets are always open and that money is getting circulated, with out the Americaus Imperium half the world would be in dire straits, if the United States Market chrashes so does 1/3 of the world, because 1/3 of the world depends on the United States for economic stability. (ESTIMATION) The United States acts as the main military force that intervenes if it get pissed off enough. Truly we could say the United States could be the main chairman of the Oligarchy of Imperlism.

 

The United Kingdon: Because of these chappy fellows several of the markets in the United States and several parts of the world flow properly. Because of their immense wealth, the British control almost half the banking centers in Europe and the British Pound next to the US dollar according to my assumtions, supports about 12% to 15% of the World's revenune. The United Kingdom is the United States's right hand man and her Majesty's Royal Forces will always go on a grand parade when the War Hatchet is passed around by Washigton. After the United States the United Kingdom's culture, effects alot of trends and styles in the world, and the two type of Democracies in the World: The America System and the British parlimantry system, the latter is by far the more popular because more countries use parliment systems then the America system. The British also live off past memories of a former World Power. The British are very weak in to comparision to their 1800 formerselfs, yet the people of the World fear and hold in reverance that former power. The United Kingdom is like an old man.....with a big British cane to hit people with

 

European Union: "As a whole" The European Union as a whole is the 3rd member of the Imperial Oligarchy and its a major player in the World Market. The European Union as a whole has the largest single Market on Earth, the largest econmy on Earth and ranks 3rd in population. Several of its countries have the highest living standards on earth, and tourisim is a big revenune for the European Union. Manufacturing of goods has not even reached its prime and new nations are added each year which adds more capita and makes the Euro and increasly seen currency in the World Market with the US Dollar, the Jappanese Yen and the British Pound.

Sub Catergories under European Union:

Germany: The biggest manufacter in Europe, and one of the richest nations on Earth.

France: The 5th richest nation on Earth, like the United Kingdom lives on former coloninal glory.

Together Germany and France make up the core of the European Union and make it a force to be reckoned with.

 

Russia: Though Russia sad in comparison to its former Communist Soveit counter part, is reveing back to streangth and acts as a strong player in the World Market though it probably is the weakest member on top.

 

Japan: Japan is in charge of all the tecnological advances in the world and without Japan the United States may not have such a comfortable living situation. Efficiant products are made in Japan and Japan is about 10 years ahead of everyone else. It takes its seat next to the others and bows

 

China: Though China seems to be poor, don't be fooled by the hidden Dragon in the bushes. The people have a hard time finding food for themseleves, yet with its powerful Socalist Market Economy and the Centralized Governoring Communist party; China commands the world's respect. China is one of the only other nations like the United States that can defy the UN in everyway. For without China, the world wouldn't have all its cheap, crappy, goods its needs. With an enormous population of 1.2 billion, a gigantic, megopoltiain economy, an army of 2.5 million, a nuclear arsenal, an a large land mass. China controls every country around it..........(Ever wonder why the 22 nations that surround China are so poor?) China sucks them dry of every resource they have to fuel themselves.

 

Once the big 6 have taken their seats in the Imperial Oligarchy, The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, The European Union, China and Japan the minior memebers take their seats:

 

Brazil : Controling the atmosphere in South America, this country is the largest producer of most type of exotic goods and tropical foods in the world. Though preety poor the country still has some minior degree of power.

 

Isreal:: Backed by the United States, this country doesn't produce much but holds the keys to the major hub of the three great montheistic religions in the world and with that it can wield enormous power.

 

India : Like China it produces cheap goods and is the home to many new finacial markets, the country has a nuclear arsenal and does have a say in the Oligarchy from time to time.

 

Canada:: The Northern neighboor of the United States, the Canadian Dollar makes up about 2% of the world currency (That estimate could be off)

 

Australia: With its powerful culture, and strong fleet, it control the entire realm of Oceania. Without Australian Aid, teeny-weeny islands in Oceania would cease to exist.

 

South Africa: As said in my early examples, Africa is weak and fueding but the one nation that does survive and has some stability is South Africa. If anyone were to govern Africa someday it would be South Africa.

 

All together the nations that I have just said: The 6 main chairmans: The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, the European Union, China, and Japan the 6 minior members: Brazil, Isreal, India, Canada, Australia, and South Africa; make up the counsel of Imperlism.

 

Every other nation on Earth either serves these 12 powerful nations, help these nations with resources, or are to unstable to do anything. All the other nations on Earth are quite dangerous to live in, and pose no threat to Imperlism. If you take away the power of the 12 members of Imperlism the world falls apart because each of the 12 nations contributes in some way and owns the world market. Every other nation is just a minior player in the world.

So in my opinion you need Imperlism to hold the world together, because all the Great economies in all have history have been made out of Imperlism, from Rome, to the Mongols, to the Merchantile Venice.

 

Its sad that the world is controlled by 12 great powers but we have to live with it! Besides that is what the UN is around for, to make sure the smaller nations have a fair say in the world.

 

Zeke

[Ursus]

Nice thread that is evolving here.

 

On the topic of American capitalist imperialism, all I can do is paraphrase what Jeffery Sachs said. Some people complain about sweat shops in Asia, but is earning a few dollars a day in a sweat shop still a better existence than being dirt poor and diving through dumpsters for food? If so, then the problem with

[Ursus]

We say the Roman Empire contributed to the world, but it's Christian legacy left Europe in the Dark Ages for centuries

 

 

A minor quibble, Demson. let me go into a small aside from the main topic.

 

While not being a cheerleader for Christianity, I think its blame for the Dark Ages is somewhat overstated. After all, the Byzantine Empire was exceedingly Christian and the Dark Ages there were not so dark. I think the main cause of the Dark Ages was simply the evolving and fragmented nature of the late Roman Empire and its final rupture by the barbarian "immigrants." Eugene Weber made the point that Christianity became barbaric mostly when Barbarians started becoming Christian.

 

But the Catholic Church and its monks was the one center of learning and repository of the classical legacy in those dim times.

[Zeke]

lol to point out, that those Catholic Monks kept everyone else illiterate by keeping knowledge hidden. Only 5% of the population had any sort of education. While in the early civilzations before Christianity more people got some sort of schooling. But as Ursus said this is a totally different topic so I am not going to go into it.

 

I also don

[Onasander]

I think it's good that this topic hit's both modern and ancient Imperialism, gives us more examples, please don't splice or close the thread if this one later on starts hitting more modern empires, imperialism is timeless.

 

Anybody worried about Africa? Soon or later, most likely within our lifetimes, something is going to erupt there and set about reshaping the borders building up one or two little alliance/empires. Africa just doesn't make sense with modern weaponry, it's bound to happen sooner or later.

[Zeke]

Maybe......but so many warlords cling for power that we really can't say.

 

Zeke

[PerfectimusPrime]

''We say the Roman Empire contributed to the world, but it's Christian legacy left Europe in the Dark Ages for centuries. Just look at Islamic culture to see how much potential development was suppressed. Only after the rennaisance did Europe began to prosper again. ''

 

On the contrary, Christianity saved many aspects of the Roman way of life, Christianity, at first, was set to replace the Greco-Roman Culture, but after the migrations, it became it's most zealous protector.

 

It is (not as insult) idotic to blame Christianity for the era of backwardness. Dark ages were caused by the migrations, the destruction of Roman infrastructure, and the falling into petty warlord kingdoms instead of united Empire, and the European Feudalism (was not caused by Christianity, but rather by the Germanic, warrior culture) which became opressive.

 

The Germanic migrations destroyed much and brought very little. And, the wars in Italy, between Byzantines and Barbarians along with saracen pirates, caused huge damage the infrastructure in Italy, which before, even under the Goths was excellent.

 

Christianity didn't stop the progress, it was the conservatism of the nobles, feudalism, lack of middle class of any kind, the absence of urbanization and scourge of peasants and the serfs, low population, collapse of the trade, poverty... there are many, much more logical explonations of the lack of advancements during the middle ages, in Europe, than the Christianity.

 

Also, when Europe became into contact with the Arabic world (because of the Papacy, through the Crusades) it learned alot of new technology and knowladge, and it opened the eyes of Europe. Europe, with its superior ''viking'' maritime technology started to explore.

 

The Rennesance was not really a major turning point, it was only a phase of devoplement.

[Virgil61]

Progress without aim? You know, if blaim is to fall on someone for the ideological wars that turned the world upside down from 1776 to the present, it's gotta be the historian with a philosophical bent. We look at history though a set of ideological lens, automatically denying certain strains of logic from comming into exsistance.

 

 

What book by what historian caused what war that wasn't influenced by economic or social factors? Rather than vague generalities please show an issue, name a historian and point out what "strains of logic" were denied from coming into existence. And while you're at it explain how Polybius, Josephus or name-your-ancient-writer don't view their own history through an 'ideological lens' of sorts related to their own era.

 

Take a graduate historiography course and you'll find that determining a historian's 'filter' is a common theme. And do you actually think it always discounts a point of view completely? Read "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by a marxist named Michael Parenti. It has a lot of problems, but anyone who can't see that he makes some excellent points about the Senate using the Roman constitution as a fig-leaf to cover it's unwillingess to share economic or political power than or that his pointing out the bias of the Roman commentaters has some credibility is blind.

 

Read "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy, a flawed book that still makes some brilliant observations showing the link between technological innovation, economic strength and political/military power from the 17th century to the 20th. Combining military, economic and political history, he moves the imperialism debate into a higher level.

 

You're giving a politically motivated lash-out at the left-wing, leaving right-wingers like Paul Johnson or even worse, holocaust revisionists free to ply their trade.

 

I'm not going to say we're all marxist in our frame of historical thought; the problem I think goes back even further to the defeat of the Republican forces in the English revolution when ideology was forced to hide in the commentaries of the classics. We judge what came before on how we think the proper way should be. What is progressive to me or you today is a result of our values and perspective of the world on how it should be going, and where we want it to go. When we look back in time, we say "this is good" or "this is bad" of this or that society. They suddenly become progressive in our view. We might not even understand their aims in freeing the slaves or serfs, or in changing the tax code or laws. To complicate this, we add the qustion of civilization to this, something we have the least understanding of all (even modern civilization).

 

 

So when a historian talks about six million Jews killed in the holocaust they are wrong when they make judgments? Or when a historian talks about Jefferson and Washington, whose personal writings make clear they knew the contradictions between slavery and holding the values of the Consitution, personally kept their own slaves then that historian is wrong to point out that contradiction? Or is a historian's POV only valid when talking about the leftist evils of the Soviet Gulag?

[Zeke]

Virgil.......what exacly is the point of your response, and how does it relate to Imeprlism????

 

Zeke

[Virgil61]

Virgil.......what exacly is the point of your response, and how does it relate to Imeprlism????

 

Zeke

 

I was responding to part of the comment on this thread that deals with the relevance of historians and trying to pin the guy down with something a little more definite. How does Imperialism in a general sense relate to "Ethics and Morals of Roman Society"? Or jobs in Bangladesh [to qoute you]. It's a discussion group.

[Primus Pilus]

Before we go way off here allow me to interject. I personally am not all that concerned about natural evolutions of a discussion as long as they maintain a constructive atmosphere. While Virgil and Onasander seem to be developing an adversarial relationship, its been largely done in a respectful manner.