Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is there anything actually wrong with Imperialism?

Page 3 of 5 [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Is it wrong for one nation to control another nation?
Yes, absolutely. 30%  30%  [ 7 ]
No, absolutely. 9%  9%  [ 2 ]
Yes, if they are abusive to those under their control then it is wrong. 9%  9%  [ 2 ]
No, if they aren't abusive to those under their control then it is not wrong. 26%  26%  [ 6 ]
Yes, other. 17%  17%  [ 4 ]
No, other. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Maybe, maybe not, IDK 9%  9%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 23

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Oct 2010, 2:22 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Macbeth wrote:


The point of Empire is not to BE tyrannical etc etc. Mostly its just economics.


Agreed, but I'd also add assumptions of ideological/religious superiority to economics.


What about in the cases of the Babylonian Empire, the Medio-Persian Empire, or the Roman Empire?


About the Roman empire, I'd argue that was partly the case.

About the other two, I'll get back to you, on that :lol:


Do you not know about the Babylonian and Medio-Persian Empires? There were in control of Mesopotamia during the middle of the 1st millennium BC.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

02 Oct 2010, 2:29 pm

Macbeth wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Macbeth wrote:


The point of Empire is not to BE tyrannical etc etc. Mostly its just economics.


Agreed, but I'd also add assumptions of ideological/religious superiority to economics.


Generally those running the Empire claim to have ideological/religious superiority, but that is not necessarily WHY they start an empire. The true reasons for having an empire are manifold.
Tyranny and despotism are two of the many tools available to the empire-builder, but they are not always a supremely efficient tool for an empire maintainer. Rather depends on who your chosen subjects are, and war/conquest as a goal in itself fell out of fashion in the middle ages. Security, stability, profit, are all perfectly legitimate reasons to empire-build.

It occurs to me that there are very few empires that I can recall immediately that were created wholly and purposely JUST to tyrannize a given population. Certainly many populations WERE tyrannized, but as a means to subjugation.


I do agree that the point is not to tyrannise. I also agree that tyranny itself is a poor means of extending the lifespan of an Empire.

I think you underplay the importance of assumptions ideological/religious superiority. The main motive is often profit. The main legitimation (where legitimation is needed) is often assumptions of ideological/religious superiority. This was important in the conquest of the Americas and with more recent wars in the Islamic world and in communist states. For some people who go empire-building/supporting, this is the MAIN reason for empire. Queen Isabella was just as driven by Catholicism as she was by the prospect of wealth. The British Empire was seen as the white man's burden.



Last edited by puddingmouse on 02 Oct 2010, 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

02 Oct 2010, 2:30 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Do you not know about the Babylonian and Medio-Persian Empires? There were in control of Mesopotamia during the middle of the 1st millennium BC.


I know of them, but I chastise myself for my ignorance, and for the time being, defer to your opinion.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Oct 2010, 2:57 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Do you not know about the Babylonian and Medio-Persian Empires? There were in control of Mesopotamia during the middle of the 1st millennium BC.


I know of them, but I chastise myself for my ignorance, and for the time being, defer to your opinion.


It may be that they had some notions of ideological superiority, such that the Babylonian kings were subject to the same laws as everyone else and the Persians had some notion that once a law is made that not even the king can un-make it. However, they also permitted the peoples they took into exile to practice their own religions.

Prior to these was the Assyrian Empire which was not so hospitable to their captives, turning them into slaves and selling them with near complete disregard for their status as human beings. At least in comparison to the Assyrians, the latter two Empires of the region were at least lesser minded of their own worth.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,657
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

02 Oct 2010, 3:09 pm

Instead of a traditional Empire, what do think about the UN creating a world government by it's member nations agreeing to pool sovereignty like what the European countries did to form the EU parliament? In principle I don't see why such a world government would necessarily be a bad thing.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Oct 2010, 3:31 pm

Jono wrote:
Instead of a traditional Empire, what do think about the UN creating a world government by it's member nations agreeing to pool sovereignty like what the European countries did to form the EU parliament? In principle I don't see why such a world government would necessarily be a bad thing.


If it become a tyranny, to where would one go to escape?

ruveyn



BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

02 Oct 2010, 4:19 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
BigK wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
BigK wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But if it is not abusive, or tyrannical, in nature, then how is such a system of government worse than any other?


That is the whole point of having an empire.


... what the ....

Really, that is the whole point for all Empires ubiquitously and eternally with no exceptions?


So you expect people to just give you their resources and do whatever you tell them just because you ask nicely?
Good luck with that.


Either or fallacy of a type. You basically assume that having governance over another entails being tyrannical. That is false. Also, in some cases, it's not even about resources but instead is about policing idiots who keep trying to murder each other.


And how are you going to keep people in line when they don't want to be kept in line.

How well is it all going in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Of course you could go the old wipe out their culture, language and identity route. Then try to assimilate the people. That might bear some fruit over the longer term.

You might keep the protests down while things are good. But when times are hard it will all be "your fault" and and things will start to get nasty.
You will eventually need to get pretty ruthless to maintain your grip.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Oct 2010, 7:27 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Jono wrote:
Instead of a traditional Empire, what do think about the UN creating a world government by it's member nations agreeing to pool sovereignty like what the European countries did to form the EU parliament? In principle I don't see why such a world government would necessarily be a bad thing.


If it become a tyranny, to where would one go to escape?

ruveyn


Vekta in the Alpha Centauri system? .... In other words, that could be a problem. It's better to have multiple nations/empires separate so that their is still some competition between them in terms of standard of living and economics. A consolidated world government, at least prior to the ability to colonize other worlds and freely leave this one, would be tantamount to a monopoly, one of which would have control of not just a single resource or function but all of them.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Oct 2010, 7:28 pm

BigK wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
BigK wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
BigK wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But if it is not abusive, or tyrannical, in nature, then how is such a system of government worse than any other?


That is the whole point of having an empire.


... what the ....

Really, that is the whole point for all Empires ubiquitously and eternally with no exceptions?


So you expect people to just give you their resources and do whatever you tell them just because you ask nicely?
Good luck with that.


Either or fallacy of a type. You basically assume that having governance over another entails being tyrannical. That is false. Also, in some cases, it's not even about resources but instead is about policing idiots who keep trying to murder each other.


And how are you going to keep people in line when they don't want to be kept in line.

How well is it all going in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Of course you could go the old wipe out their culture, language and identity route. Then try to assimilate the people. That might bear some fruit over the longer term.

You might keep the protests down while things are good. But when times are hard it will all be "your fault" and and things will start to get nasty.
You will eventually need to get pretty ruthless to maintain your grip.


Fine, must be the only route because you say so...



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

03 Oct 2010, 1:54 am

MotherKnowsBest wrote:
Tensu wrote:
MotherKnowsBest wrote:
Dunno, don't really know enough about either.


Nobody pays attention to me...

just wiki "Tlaxcalans"


I paid attention. I found your post interesting, however I don't think I can read enough in one day to form an opinion on 2 entire cultures. Your post reminded me of the situation with the vikings who common history has portrayed as something very different from the truth.


fair enough.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Oct 2010, 1:58 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vekta in the Alpha Centauri system? .... In other words, that could be a problem. It's better to have multiple nations/empires separate so that their is still some competition between them in terms of standard of living and economics. A consolidated world government, at least prior to the ability to colonize other worlds and freely leave this one, would be tantamount to a monopoly, one of which would have control of not just a single resource or function but all of them.


A monopoly government functioning world wide is the Dark of Night, all day long. For those who cannot adapt themselves to the prevailing laws and customs of a country (even if they are just laws and good customs) there ought to be a place for such mal-adjusted folks to go. The Brits had Australia for example.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

03 Oct 2010, 2:14 am

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vekta in the Alpha Centauri system? .... In other words, that could be a problem. It's better to have multiple nations/empires separate so that their is still some competition between them in terms of standard of living and economics. A consolidated world government, at least prior to the ability to colonize other worlds and freely leave this one, would be tantamount to a monopoly, one of which would have control of not just a single resource or function but all of them.


A monopoly government functioning world wide is the Dark of Night, all day long. For those who cannot adapt themselves to the prevailing laws and customs of a country (even if they are just laws and good customs) there ought to be a place for such mal-adjusted folks to go. The Brits had Australia for example.

ruveyn


And, of course, considering the current politics in the USA, there is no question that it is dominated by maladjusted people.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Oct 2010, 4:08 am

Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vekta in the Alpha Centauri system? .... In other words, that could be a problem. It's better to have multiple nations/empires separate so that their is still some competition between them in terms of standard of living and economics. A consolidated world government, at least prior to the ability to colonize other worlds and freely leave this one, would be tantamount to a monopoly, one of which would have control of not just a single resource or function but all of them.


A monopoly government functioning world wide is the Dark of Night, all day long. For those who cannot adapt themselves to the prevailing laws and customs of a country (even if they are just laws and good customs) there ought to be a place for such mal-adjusted folks to go. The Brits had Australia for example.

ruveyn


And, of course, considering the current politics in the USA, there is no question that it is dominated by maladjusted people.


Yeah, they're called "Democrats".



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

03 Oct 2010, 4:20 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vekta in the Alpha Centauri system? .... In other words, that could be a problem. It's better to have multiple nations/empires separate so that their is still some competition between them in terms of standard of living and economics. A consolidated world government, at least prior to the ability to colonize other worlds and freely leave this one, would be tantamount to a monopoly, one of which would have control of not just a single resource or function but all of them.


A monopoly government functioning world wide is the Dark of Night, all day long. For those who cannot adapt themselves to the prevailing laws and customs of a country (even if they are just laws and good customs) there ought to be a place for such mal-adjusted folks to go. The Brits had Australia for example.

ruveyn


And, of course, considering the current politics in the USA, there is no question that it is dominated by maladjusted people.


Yeah, they're called "Democrats".


Since you feel so delighted with Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell I can place you quite nicely in mental quality.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Oct 2010, 4:31 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vekta in the Alpha Centauri system? .... In other words, that could be a problem. It's better to have multiple nations/empires separate so that their is still some competition between them in terms of standard of living and economics. A consolidated world government, at least prior to the ability to colonize other worlds and freely leave this one, would be tantamount to a monopoly, one of which would have control of not just a single resource or function but all of them.


A monopoly government functioning world wide is the Dark of Night, all day long. For those who cannot adapt themselves to the prevailing laws and customs of a country (even if they are just laws and good customs) there ought to be a place for such mal-adjusted folks to go. The Brits had Australia for example.

ruveyn


And, of course, considering the current politics in the USA, there is no question that it is dominated by maladjusted people.


Yeah, they're called "Democrats".


Since you feel so delighted with Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell I can place you quite nicely in mental quality.


A sound demonstration of logic from you, or rather the lack of it that is.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

03 Oct 2010, 4:58 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vekta in the Alpha Centauri system? .... In other words, that could be a problem. It's better to have multiple nations/empires separate so that their is still some competition between them in terms of standard of living and economics. A consolidated world government, at least prior to the ability to colonize other worlds and freely leave this one, would be tantamount to a monopoly, one of which would have control of not just a single resource or function but all of them.


A monopoly government functioning world wide is the Dark of Night, all day long. For those who cannot adapt themselves to the prevailing laws and customs of a country (even if they are just laws and good customs) there ought to be a place for such mal-adjusted folks to go. The Brits had Australia for example.

ruveyn


And, of course, considering the current politics in the USA, there is no question that it is dominated by maladjusted people.


Yeah, they're called "Democrats".


Since you feel so delighted with Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell I can place you quite nicely in mental quality.


A sound demonstration of logic from you, or rather the lack of it that is.


Since you find Democrats so distasteful I assumed you were fond of Republicans. A bit of a jump but I'd be delighted to discover you are not enamored of Republicans.