Is there anything actually wrong with Imperialism?

Post Reply New Topic

The Romans were, at least initially, pretty intelligent about their empire building. They tended to establish, "client kingdoms," which allowed for local autonomy, trade with Rome and military protection.

In more modern times, the commercial interest in imperialism has certainly been key. European (particularly British) colonialism was almost entirely about commercial interests and nowhere was it more visible than in Japan and China, where colonialism did not remove local government, but merely displaced its influence. (Contrast this with the development of British rule in India, which also sprang from commercial activity, but imposed a British political structure on top of existing structures).

British imperialism certainly adapted over time. The 1837 rebellions and the Durham Report were a start. The invention of Dominion Status and the extension of Home Rule was another step. The Statute of Westminister yet another, and finally the development of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of today is a far cry from the Empire of 65 years ago, and serves as a demonstration of the inherent weakness of empires. It is through political autonomy and ties of affinity that are not imposed by force that groups of like minded nations can work in concert.

American imperialism is a somewhat different beast. While commercial intersts are still key, there is considerably less use of political and armed force, and a general disinterest in the acquisition of political authority. The United States doesn't particularly care what form of government you have, provided that Coke and Exxon can get in there and sell and buy product.

The Romans also had their own language and culture, which they considered superior, but unlike the Nazis they didn't become genocidal maniacs due to their conceitedness. Some additional form of insanity infected the Germans which wasn't present in the Romans, and I find that rather strange. What was it that caused the Germans to go bonkers that didn't affect the ancient Romans?

A bunch of factors. WWI. The Treaty of Versailles. Centuries of popular anti-semitism. The world being more complicated than it was in the 1st century BC. Mainly the first 3, in that order.

Kant Hegel and Nietzche. Bad ideas eventually lead to bad actions.

ruveyn

So, if time travel were possible, going back and eliminating these three philosophers would save millions of lives?

Not necessarily. Three other philosophers, call them Larry, Moe and Curly might have risen to take their place.

ruveyn

I suppose eventually it would just start looking like the Star Trek Voyager episode "Year of Hell". What about the Command & Conquer Red Alert method, except also take out Hitler and the Japanese Emperor?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDm2JcnTPs[/youtube]

Sun Zi warned against unsustainable imperialism for purely practical reasons. When colonies are far away, the military and financial costs of maintaining them will exceed the profits that the colony brings in. Because the colonised people are too far away from the home power's influence, it makes it difficult for them to assimilate or to pledge loyalty to the home power. So basically, you get a colony of people who don't want to be ruled by you, that you're spending huge amounts of money and resources to keep from seceding all to get a profit that is less than your costs. An empire is capable of being maintained as long as it's not over-extended, unfortunately it is rare that an empire realises it's too big and stops expanding and eventually expands itself to death.

I personally think that Africa would be better off if British imperialism had never happened. It's too bad rich countries have to be so greedy. There was probably nothing that could have prevented European imperialism in Africa, you can't stand in the way of such strong greed.

I've read that much of what is going on in Africa today is a result of past imperialism. I'm pretty sure what Africans had before imperialism was better than what they have now.

Would you prefer all of Africa to look more like northeastern Africa politically, or is some of the Evil Western influence actually beneficial?

Another problem with branding imperialism as "wrong" is at what point are you oppressing an external populace?

Many states don't agree with what the US federal government is doing. Are they being oppressed by "imperialists"?

many counties don't agree with what their state government is doing. Are they being oppressed by "imperialists"?

many towns don't agree with what their county government is doing. Are they being oppressed by "imperialists"?

many households don't agree with what their town government is doing. Are they being oppressed by "imperialists"?

many people don't agree with what their families are doing. Are they being oppressed by "imperialists"?

imperialism has been used to describe so many things, the word doesn't actually mean anything anymore. kind of like the word irony.

That question goes right to the issue of what the nature of State (within the U.S.) is. Is it a sovereign entity or is it merely a department of the central government. The Founders of the Republic intended States to be sovereign entities but they have not been since the Civil War. That is an issue that should be addressed in the process of drawing up a new constitution for this country. The old constitution is worn, battered and largely degraded.

ruveyn

Funny you should say that. Historically, parts East Africa were rather advanced. Much of East Africa was also colonised for a period, even, briefly, Ethiopia. It is true that this was less apparent than in West Africa, where the British and the French carved up the map, and where the slave trade mainly took it's 'resources' from. You can't say that East Africa has been free of colonialism, though. Look at Kenya and Uganda (although they're not in the north).

When you're referring to 'the political situation in northeastern Africa' - do you mean countries like Somalia, Sudan and Egypt? The political problems in Sudan and Egypt are largely caused by Islamism. The political problems in Somalia are very complex, but I don't think lack of relative imperial history is the root cause. Somalia was occupied in the 20th century - it's just an unusual country (I can't think of the right word). No-one who occupied Somalia ever had much of an effect.

West Africa isn't preferable to East Africa just because they had more pervasive colonialism there. It's true that some countries like Nigeria are rather rich by African standards, but they're badly run and there's lots of poverty there. The only reason I'd prefer to live in Nigeria, to say, Sudan, is that there's slightly less Islamism. Although there are Islamic states under Shari'a within Nigeria, as well. The British didn't exactly leave Nigeria with a brilliant model of how to run their country. It was an indirect rule there, getting local leaders to do their thing, whilst building the economy and collecting the taxes - it was all about economics, rather than a lesson in statecraft. The only reason West Africa sucks less is that they have more natural resources and less extremists.

Maybe, with Ghana, you might have a point. Ghana is very proud of its independence, though some of its institutions, it owes to the British. Indirect rule was a more centralised affair there than it was in Nigeria. It's not like all of West Africa was incapable of running itself before colonialism, though. There were many great Medieval kingdoms in that area.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 10 Oct 2010, 4:48 am, edited 3 times in total.

Ask the Maltese. They were happy enough to get their independence but they seriously considered integrating with the colonial power at one point.

Imperialism is intrinsically an assult (or imposition of anothers will) on an individuals freedom to pursue their nature. It could be extrapolated from here that imperialism is a part of human nature itself, i beleive this to be true. This wasn't a grave problem in primitive hunter-gatherer societies of the past, as the implications of an individuals choices couldn't wield as much power and resonate as far as they do today.