December 28, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:Who's the real empire?
If you want to look for an empire on the North American continent, look north, where the french minority was conquered in the eighteenth century and has been kept in the union ever since against its will, or south, where there's still a large separatist movement. Of course, one might argue that this is because we killed the Indians, unlike the Mexicans, and one would have a very good point. But today, both Canada and Mexico look more like the Chinese and Russian empires than we do.
What about Iraq? Perhaps it was an imperial venture, but it's not now. It seems to me that an important part of the critique of imperialism (spare me, please, the bland dictionary definitions) is that one is trying to essentially operate another country for one's own country's benefit. Otherwise, what we did in Europe and Japan after WWII was an imperial venture, and a damn good idea at that. Perhaps it's just my American blinders on, but we aren't doing that. They're having free elections, and it's clear to everyone (even those who disagree with the policy) that we intend to withdraw and leave them to run their own military and their own state. Certainly we gain from a more stable middle east, and a less volatile oil market (I think almost everyone can agree that this was the goal of the invasion, no matter what one thinks of the actual result), but so does almost everyone else in the world, including the Iraqis . . . and not in some aerie-faery "White Man's Burden" sort of way. The racial/nationalist arguments that animated Western (and Chinese and Russian) imperialism are also absent; few people are arguing that there's anything wrong with the Iraqis except that they had a crappy government.
Posted by Jane Galt at December 28, 2005 10:45 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"But today, both Canada and Mexico look more like the Chinese and Russian empires than we do."
What? This is bordering on hilarity. A natural prerequiste for an empire is to have size and power. Mexico has neither, and Canada only has the size.
If one small township annexes another nearby township against their will, it is not an empire by any means.
I think the terms hegemony and imperialism/empire are being conflated.
"Imperialism is [when] one is trying to essentially operate another country for one's own country's benefit." If we aren't putting 130k troops in Iraq for our own benefit, then what the heck are we doing it for?
"Imperialism is [when] one is trying to essentially operate another country for one's own country's benefit." If we aren't putting 130k troops in Iraq for our own benefit, then what the heck are we doing it for?
More precisely, she means imperialism is parasitism, not mutualism.
"Imperialism is [when] one is trying to essentially operate another country for one's own country's benefit."
Imperialism is [when] one is trying to essentially operate another country for for the taxes, tributes, or other economic riches (spoils) you extract from them by force.
The US is not getting any money from Iraq, on the contrary, it is investing (burrying) there a lot.
By the way - do the Brits and the Poles (who have troops in Iraq) also share in the spoils ?
The lefties also said during Vietnam, that it was imperialism. Dead wrong, for the same reasons.
What about our large separatist movement kept in the union against its will in the 1860s?
"The lefties also said during Vietnam, that it was imperialism."
may have not been imperialism, but the war was definately affected by colonialism.
"may have not been imperialism, but the war was definately affected by colonialism."
In what way "affected" ?
That former colonial power France, and the US after it, felt some kind of moral duty to try to save the Vietnamese from the horrors of communism ?
(Because of past colonial involvement) ?
Of course, the US also tried to prevent the colonialization of Vietnam by the Communist powers (USSR and China) - out of global balance of power considerations.
The US was never in it for the spoils !
and you don't think we'll end up with a military base in iraq? oh yeah, we'll abandon this base if the democratically elected gov't asks us to. right....
it is imperialism, in that iraq was invaded on the basis of a bunch of administration hawks looking at iraq like a game of risk.
it's silly to use some sort of altruism argument.... why aren't we in a few african countries where relatively small forces could stop mass murders and rise of dictators with relative ease....
because africa doesn't have any countries that we care about like we care about isreal, nor do any of the countries have any oil.
I disagree that a stable oil market was the reason for invading Iraq.
I will agree that it must have been included in the calculus (for it would be rank strategic foolishness not to), but it seems a bit reductionist to suggest it was the reason.
Jim: You think "relatively small forces" could stop African murder and dictatorship with "ease"? How big is "relatively small"? Where are those troops coming from, and how are they to be supplied? (These questions are not rhetorical; please supply actual answers based on actual troop availability and the logistical situation, if you expect me to believe you're serious.)
What, exactly will their mission be, and how do you expect it to be carried out?
Or might it be that you have no idea about the actual situations on the ground, what they might require, the logistical difficulties involved (especially with any nation that has no seaports (or seaports very far from where we need troops, and bad roads)), and the political situation, and merely want to bash the US for acting in Iraq without also solving every problem in the world at once?
I suspect the latter, but an indication that you've seriously thought about the issues involved in the former, as I asked for above, will certainly remove that suspicion.
(PS. African countries have oil. Nigeria is the 11th largest producer in the world, and the fourth largest importer to the US. Then there's Angola, Algeria, Gabon... And let's not forget the French interest in the Sudan's oil, which might well be helping keep us out of Darfur, and out of "the way".)
Taking up your point about French Canada, I'd remind you that after the Louisiana Purchase, the French moved there from the south in great numbers knowing that the British wouldn't force them to assimilate, and until the 1960s, for that reason, there was great support for Canada within Quebec. Some empire.
and you don't think we'll end up with a military base in iraq? oh yeah, we'll abandon this base if the democratically elected gov't asks us to. right....
The Phillipines come to mind.
The 'logic' goes something like this, folks
Imperialist = Bad
Anything the current US goverment is doing = Bad
therefore,
Anything the current US government is doing = Imperialist
Quit trying to create a porcine contestant for American Idol. You're just wasting bandwidth.
Sigivald - a couple of special ops with .50 cal sniper rifles can take out those african tinpot dictators.
Right On, RightOn. Of course, gentlemen don't play at war that way. What would the Senate say if the Bush Administration was revealed to have sent hit squads around the globe knocking off strongmen? Think of the trouble that could have been saved had the Brits kept a few special forces in Paris and blasted Hitler on the Champs after the defeat of France in 1940.
RightOn-
And the same could have been done to Saddam. But there is a little law out there passed under the Ford administration that prevents us from doing that. Oh yeah, its severely disturbs geopolitics, and endangers our leaders.
The example of Canada is rather strange, in that Quebec has twice voted to reject sovereignty. Hardly an example of continuing resistance to the imperial oppressor.
To those arguing against Canada being an empire:
You're making Jane's point. Recall from that post you read just moments before making your comments:
"But today, both Canada and Mexico look more like the Chinese and Russian empires than we do."
Ergo if it is foolish to say that Canada is an empire, it is even more foolish to say that the US is an empire.
Your conclusion that we are going to end up with a more stable mideast is a very heroic assumption.
It looks like all we are is doing spending over 2,000 american lives to replace a secular dictatorship with a shiite theocracy.
Moreover, the most likely scenario is still that we will see a civil war tear the country apart with a Sunni west allied with Syria, a Shiite south alined with Iraq against Saudia Arabia and a Kurdish north supporting a Kurdish rebellion in Turkey. In other words we wil strengthen our enemies and weaken our allies. This is what I have expected to be the end result from day one and still see no reason to change my expectations.
Now, how this will improve stability in the oil markets or in the region is beyond me.
Imperialist designs on Iraq? Maybe not, but do you believe for one minute we would be there if Iraq were not sitting on top of all that oil?
America is a modern empire. It rules by installing proxy gov'ts, directly or indirectly. It also rules by exporting its culture and values. Sort of a free-market empire, if you will.
It'd be nice if some of those proxy governments would act more like proxies, then. Not even Taiwan will take orders anymore!
Seriously, calling America an empire requires a substantial redefinition of the term. I also take issue with dictionaries that use "influence" as a measure of imperialness. If the UN had real territory to go with its not-inconsiderable influence in dozens of countries, would it therefore be an empire?
rick mcalexander:
And the same could have been done to Saddam.
How?
But there is a little law out there passed under the Ford administration that prevents us from doing that. Oh yeah, its severely disturbs geopolitics,
How?
and endangers our leaders.
Why?
Ivan:
Imperialist designs on Iraq? Maybe not, but do you believe for one minute we would be there if Iraq were not sitting on top of all that oil?
No, obviously not, because without oil money swamping the Middle East, nobody there would be able to make any more trouble for us than the poorer African nations do.
Spencer, the question of success is separate from the question of motive. The road to hell, and all that.
Ivan: I agree that we're there because the Middle East is a strategically important region, and that it is strategically important because it has oil. But I would account that an imperial motive only if we were trying to get our hands on Iraq's oil, either directly or through an Anglo-American type deal. So far, we're not.
To those claiming Canada has historically had a lovely relationship with its French citizens: horse hockey. The French have been a separate, and historically unequal, group basically since the Treaty of Paris. Tension between French and English citizens has been one of the defining issues of Canadian politics ever since. Quebec separatism is overwhelmingly supported among its Francophone citizens; if it were not for the English speakers living in Montreal, Quebec would already have departed. The growing outmigration of English-speakers makes it look very likely that sometime in the next couple of decades, Quebec will succeed in seceding, not that this will necessarily do them much good. French Canadians have of course been treated much better than either the Canadians or the Americans treated the Indians. But French separatism is not some new fad; it reflects deep historical rifts that have never been resolved.
AT, only because you asked so politely.
"And the same could have been done to Saddam.
How?"
I hope you aren't joking but, you could put a sniper outside his palace and have that sniper shoot Saddam in the head. (Does this need to be articulated?)
"But there is a little law out there passed under the Ford administration that prevents us from doing that. Oh yeah, its severely disturbs geopolitics,
How?"
1) Look up the law. 2) The assassinations of political leaders disturbs geopolitics because it puts all other world leaders on edge by giving justification for retaliation. (Again, does this need to be articulated?)
"and endangers our leaders.
Why?"
Read the above, and think a little bit.
I think it is common to underestimate the net positive effects of the Pax Americana. If this be imperialism, make the most of it.
Conversely, if the rest of Canada were allowed to vote on the issue, Quebec would have been left to sink or swim on its own long since.
It may not fall under the classic definition of a empire, but it's definitely meddling. The Romans ruled by alliances and pitting one people against another, so even if it isn't direct control it's part of the tradition.
"I disagree that a stable oil market was the reason for invading Iraq."
Global Markets and National Interests: the New Geopolitics of Energy, Capital, and Information ed, Bloomfield, is the proceedings of a conference by Bush administration officials (prior to taking office). Wolfowitz was a discussant and pretty blunt about the necessity of stable oil prices (he's not in the table of contents, ya gotta dig).
"The racial/nationalist arguments that animated Western (and Chinese and Russian) imperialism are also absent"
Actually there was alot of op-eding in the year or so up to the war about how imperialism was underrated. Lot's of nostalgia for Kipling, etc.
AT, only because you asked so politely.
"And the same could have been done to Saddam.
How?"
I hope you aren't joking but, you could put a sniper outside his palace and have that sniper shoot Saddam in the head. (Does this need to be articulated?)
Oh, why didn't I think of that? I mean, sure, we couldn't get a single spy in Iraq for years, Saddam never slept in the same place twice, didn't have any palaces with lovely street-facing windows, and only rarely made public appearances, but you're absolutely right. All we had to do was send in Clark and Chavez to walk up to him and pop one in is head!
"But there is a little law out there passed under the Ford administration that prevents us from doing that. Oh yeah, its severely disturbs geopolitics,
How?"
1) Look up the law. 2) The assassinations of political leaders disturbs geopolitics because it puts all other world leaders on edge by giving justification for retaliation. (Again, does this need to be articulated?)
The President can amend or repeal existing executive orders at will.
How does "giving justification for retaliation" make things any different? Leaders we'd kill already hate us anyway. The reason they don't do anything to us is that they know we'd carpet bomb their capitals if they did. If we did kill them, their successors wouldn't do anything to us because they know we'd carpet bomb their capitals if they did. Or maybe I'm just way off and they guys we'd want to kill are really suckers for fair play.
"and endangers our leaders.
Why?"
Read the above, and think a little bit.
I prefer to think a lot. It gets the job done better.
"it's silly to use some sort of altruism argument.... why aren't we in a few african countries where relatively small forces could stop mass murders and rise of dictators with relative ease....
because africa doesn't have any countries that we care about like we care about isreal, nor do any of the countries have any oil."
Although altruism isn't the only reason we are in Iraq, it is nonsense to suggest that the US has an obligation to be altruistic everywhere at once and if it isn't altruistic everywhere else than it can't have any altruistic intent in Iraq.
Jane,
Its a little unfair to say to spare me the bland definitions when your entire previous post was complaining about someone elses definition. I just decided to use a definition we could agree is impartial to show you were being a little silly.
I would argue that our invasion of Iraq was about the most imperialist thing we've done. What was it really? A simple, powerful statement: 'We act to protect our interests. You will conform.' What happened in Iraq under Saddam was horrible, but so?
Bad stuff happens all over the place, and we don't lift a finger. Sometimes we even actively support this bad behavior if their markets are open to us, or in very recent times, helped us oppose communism.
This is interesting:
"Certainly we gain from a more stable middle east, and a less volatile oil market..." and we gain a hell of a lot more than anyone else.
What do you think are the two most important and pressing geo-political-economic concerns of the US right now? And for the next decade? I would say a more stable middle east, and less volatile oil/energy markets. I think everybody would. So how can you say:
"It seems to me that an important part of the critique of imperialism (spare me, please, the bland dictionary definitions) is that one is trying to essentially operate another country for one's own country's benefit." I think thats what we are doing.
Empires act to protect their interests. Just because our actions bring about spectacular positive changes to the people we invade and conquer doesn't change our empire style behaviour (still in London?) and attitude.
From the last set of comments - "The leader of the Jewish underground played by John Cleese asks "what have the Roman's ever done for us?" After a brief pause soeone says "sanitation". Then someone says "roads". Then "aqueducts" and so on and so on."
Was Rome an empire? oh, yeah, they were. Here is an interesting question: Why did the Roman empire last so long? I'll give a hint, it wasn't because they fed their enemies to the lions. Lots of empires have done that...people like Saddam do that now. We've essentially proven beyond all doubt that the most enduring and powerful style of empire is the one the governs lightly, and acts decisively when threatened.
Take care - going for the day
sigibald - oh i'm serious... i've got a group of special forces mercenaries from an ad i placed in soldier of fortune magazine. we've leased several days of u.s. air support from regional carriers and MO-based stealth bombers. we're going into darfur to stop the genocide.
and if mugabe's forces spill over into s. africa where significant natural resources and white people we care about exist, the u.s. gov't will start to care and join our cause down in the southern part of the black continent.
until then, the u.s. will spend 100's $BB/year to fight a war in iraq about wmd, or 9/11, or cause he was a nasty dictator that employed people named "dr. germ" and "chemical ali" or um, just trust us we're compassionate conservatives against nation building and the perpetual war is really for perpetual peace. don't forget how much they hate freedom.
Jane,
I think you've over-simplified the Canadian-French issue. Yes, the seperatist strand is older than the 60s, but to say that the french-speaking population is overwhelmingly in favor of seperation is wrong. At best, I'd say 60% of francophones in quebec might vote for a republic, but given the 3 referendums on this issue in my lifetime and their outcome, the base for this isn't that strong.
As well, given the fact that the last 3 prime ministers of note (Treudeu (sic), Mulroney and Chretien) were all from Quebec (and their combined governance amounts to over 30 years), Quebec is hardly a colony. Francophones dominate positions in the Canadian government (due, in part, to laws mandating bilingualism), particularly senior positions. Quebec receives a higher proportion of federal spending than other provinces. Quebec is garunteed 78 members of parliment, and all other provinces representation are based on proportions based on Quebec's population (except for the low-population provinces, such as PEI, which are garunteed a minimum).
Quebec, if anything, is given preferential treatment. That, more than anything, is why other Canadians (particularly Albertans) resent the province.
Jim,
A clear sign of just how unserious you are is the fact that you've only leased a few days of air support. If you know the slightest thing about Darfur, you'd know your grunts could easily spend quite a few days wandering around looking for some actual Janjaweed to interact with.
Following on Half Canadian's comment, perhaps an appropriate analogy for Quebec is Scotland. Scotland gets extra MPs in the Westminster parliament, it gets disproportionate government funding, and is poorer than England. The pro-independence Scottish National Party is the second largest party in the Edinburgh parliament (cf. Parti Quebecois is out of power in Quebec now but has been in power in the past.) Many of the UK's leading officials are Scottish (eg Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer). England and Scotland were often historical enemies and the 1707 union was not especially popular in Scotland. Yet you'd hardly refer to the United Kingdom proper as an "empire" (ignoring its overseas possessions, obviously).
Why does a label matter so much? You can argue about definitions of what an "empire" is but in reality it all boils down to functionality. America and its allies conquered Japan and most of Germany in WWII, but what has become of them since? The very weird paradox is that if the US was as evil as much as it is portrayed in, for example, the German MSM, we would forcibly silence or exterminate anyone who dared to point that out. The very fact that we can be publicly reviled with impunity is in itself proof that many of the accusations of empire are false.
And if one takes the position that the "empire" manifests itself in economic domination, there is an easy way to cure that. Any country that wants to can make it illegal for their citizens to have any economic dealings with the evil USA, but even the "progressive" countries such as Cuba don't want to go that route, do they?
Make no mistake, America is an empire. And the most successful and powerful one in history at that. But it is also the queerist and most bizarre empire in history. America does not, like your average empire, conquer and subjugate to gain power. In other words, it does not rule through making others weaker and keeping others under its thumb. Rather, it lifts up and brings in. California, Alaska, Ohio, these are examples of American imperialism. These lands and citizens were brought into the United States of America. Not as subjects, but as equals. And not without their own popular consent. Look too at the immigrants that have poured into the US. Those peoples and their cultures have melded into and become integral parts of America. Could we imagine an America without its Irish, Jewish, Dutch, Italian, African, Chinese, Mexican, etc, heritages? America unites races, cultures, and socieities. The contrast with the long and deep divisions of Europe, Russia, China, or even Canada could not be more distinct.
Then you have the other aspects of American empire. Places like Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, etc. Places that America has conquered and occupied. But rather than subjugating them, America has built them up (beyond even their previous strengths) and set them back on their own feet to stand side by side, not under, the US.
All of this has been to the US's benefit in the long term. It has meant a richer, safer, freer world, which benefits the US in many ways. But it has benefited the world just as much as well. It comes back to the principles of America's founding documents and its founders. America's revolutionaries could have done as so many other revolutionaries had done throughout history, seek their own personal gain and take advantage of their temporary power to work to their own selfish benefit. Instead they chose a different path. They set themselves as equals to their countrymen (and vice versa) and sought to redress their own greivances as a part of redressing the greivances of their fellows. This is remarkable both for its unshelfishness and for its success. The same can be said for American "empire".
It turns out that one of the best ways to make your own life better is to help make the world a better place.
AT wrote:
All we had to do was send in Clark and Chavez to walk up to him and pop one in is head!
Oh, no, you dih-unt. You did not just reference Tom Clancy to make a point. Okay, that does it. You aren't allowed to comment on anything, ever.
(And, as I recall, didn't something not unlike what AT described actually happenin one of those Clancy books? A guy pretty much *did* walk up behind Saddamn and blow his brains out with a pistol.)
Hey, *Jane Galt," how's that society of libertarian ubermensches coming along? Does your free market utopia need any epicures? This would be an excellent time to mention that my genitalia possesses the strength of one hundred tonnes of Hank Reardon steel.
"a couple of special ops with .50 cal sniper rifles can take out those african tinpot dictators." Or (until they learned better) you could wait for them to make scheduled public appearances and send in cruise missiles, but what good would it do to replace one tinpot dictator with another one? To actually improve things, you have to do what we're doing in Iraq: put troops on the ground until a proper government can be organized, recruit and train cops and soldiers of its own, and become capable of surviving without our soldiers.
Robin -
I concur. We're a good empire. It seems like others here cannot wrap their minds around this idea.
Rather, it lifts up and brings in. California, Alaska, Ohio, these are examples of American imperialism. These lands and citizens were brought into the United States of America. Not as subjects, but as equals.
Not Ohio. They're not equals.
Jim: So, you implicitly admit you haven't got the slightest idea what would be involved, how difficult it would be, and where the troops you demand would have to come from? Good. Glad we cleared that up.
RightOn: You're kidding, right?
I mean, I'm pretty sure you must be, but it's so hard to tell these days, whether someone is making a reasonably clever joke about how clueless other people are, or is actually
clueless themselves.
Libertine: Since Jane hasn't jumped in herself, I'll take it upon myself to inform you that despite what her name might make you think (and reasonably enough so), she's not an uber-libertarian Randroid Objectivist Crazyperson.
Libertine,
If I remember right, the guy who popped Saddam in "Executive Orders" was an Iranian-backed mole within the dictator's security force. And he got riddled by the other security guys two seconds after doing the deed. I think it would be hard to find an American special-forces man able and willing to (1) successfully ingratiate himself into the inner circle of a dark-skinned dictator and (2) accept the inevitability of being turned into a colander immediately after completing the mission.
In his book The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, the historian Lawrence James distinguished between the "unofficial empire" the British maintained around the world prior to the Berlin Conference in the 1880s, and the formalized empire that followed and got imperialism a bad name in the twentieth century.
Aside from India, where the British exercised steadily greater control and essentially took over the government entirely following the Mutiny, the British Empire of the early and middle nineteenth century basically left local rulers in control -- but stood ready to intervene judiciously to maintain a stable environment for British interests to operate.
The British philosophy was free trade. They sometimes took that philosophy to immoral lengths, as with the Opium Wars aimed at forcing the Chinese to allow free trade in narcotics. Most of Britain's exercise of imperial power consisted of maintaining a network of stations to enable its navy to project power globally. Keeping those (originally small) stations, like Cape Colony and Suez, secure, gradually drew the British into greater and greater involvement in larger and larger surrounding areas. For example, the small British presence on the Cape ultimately resulted into Britain taking over all of South Africa, while protecting British interests in Suez ultimately drew Britain into de facto control of first Egypt and then Sudan.
It was only after other European nations, with their protectionist trade policies, started actually carving up the map of the undeveloped world and establishing formal colonies that Britain really got into the business of formal empire themselves, complete with colonial governors replacing native rulers and so forth. That system proved far more expensive than the earlier system of informal empire, and was ultimately unsustainable.
If the United States is an empire, it's an empire after the model of the British "informal empire" of the early and middle 1800s. We certainly do project power around the globe to protect our interests. In a world where certain areas lack an effective sovereign, outsiders must either quarantine those areas (to prevent hostile forces from using those areas as bases for attacks against their enemies), or attempt to create some kind of sovereign order in those places.
Creech-One could make a reasonable arguement that had Hitler been treated so in 1940, allowing the General Staff free, or less restricted and misguided, rein; Germany might still be ruling much of the World.
Michigander-Good points, and yes, Ohio is superior, not equal.
TheProudDuck-
I was thinking of picking up The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. How did you like it?
Am I the only one who finds it more than a little funny that at any time the U.S. is not being accused of imperialism, the probability of its being accused of isolationism approaches 1.
A natural prerequiste for an empire is to have size and power
No, it isn't.
Don't be an idiot, Rick. Empires just need more power than the people they oppress. They don't need power in an absolute sense.
Your refutation of Jane's argument consisted of nothing more than inventing your own private definition of "empire" and complaining that it didn't fit. It was every bit as silly as, say, "proving" that America isn't an empire by claiming that a natural prerequisite for an empire is being a Eurasian nation.
Dan-
Congratulations on bringing down the level of discourse in this thread. My advice to you would be, don't be a jerk, Dan. Your initial response to me was a simple denial that what I said was correct, that lacked any support by you, and was a generally vacuous statement. I response, I mocked your comment with a terser, equally vacuous response.
I did not "invent" my own definition of empire, I had an interpretation with of the word empire and supported it with examples and reasoning. I wrote:
"If one small township annexes another nearby township against their will, it is not an empire by any means."
Now, to me, a small township that annexes other townships in its proximate area is not an empire. The vast majority of definitions of empire include some qualification for size or power to differentiate between states that are practicing small scale hegemony and those with far-reaching imperialist tendencies. The same goes for non-political uses of the word empire. For example, it would be absurd to suggest that a small county newspaper that bought up nearby county newspapers is a newspaper empire. They may have a level of relative power over those that they dominate, but not much absolute power. However, a very large media company that is the cynosure of its industry would generally be characterized as an empire.
I find this blogs comments section to be one of the most intelligent and tame out there on the net. Please lets refrain from name calling.
Your comments forget the large secession move of some northern states in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Canada
"Empire" comes from the Latin noun imperium, the power of command (in turn from imperāre, to command), which often particularly meant the executive power attached to the republican offices of consul, praetor, and curule aedile. What was the difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire? It wasn't size, it was the nature of the government.
AT-
My contention, which is not refuted by what you have stated, is that size is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for attaining the status of empire.
It's not, though. What is required is subordination of separate political entities to the rule of the imperial power. If village A conquers village B and puts its own rulers in place there, village A is an empire. There have been some small empires in history.
The United States today, in contrast, is a large hegemony. Its great power and cultural influence allow it to persuade other states to adopt its policies. But it does not rule other states by force or threat of force. Really, it's a hegemonizing federation.
Empires most often arise by military conquest, and therefore tend to be large, but size and power aren't required.
Not Ohio. They're not equals.
No, Michigander...they're better, at least until U-M finally fires Carr. GO BLUE!
"The British philosophy was free trade. They sometimes took that philosophy to immoral lengths, as with the Opium Wars aimed at forcing the Chinese to allow free trade in narcotics."
This is a minor point, but the Opium Wars weren't about opium, they were about tea. The British wanted to trade for tea (and silk, etc., but especially tea), but all the Manchurian officials wanted to take in return was gold. In other words, they wanted only to sell, not to trade.
The British smuggled opium into China because opium use was traditional, and thus it was easier to smuggle. All that the Ching officials would have had to do to end the opium trade was to agree to allow the Chinese people to buy clocks, safety matches, cooking pots and other things that the people would have liked to buy. But the Manchurian officials didn't want to trade at all, for fear that the Chinese would get the idea that foreign barbarians weren't strictly inferior in every sense. After all, China was the 'middle kingdom' (center of the universe).
Britain certainly took free trade to an extreme by fighting to force it to be allowed (even though they really, really liked tea and couldn't grow it anywhere else, at the time). My point is simply that the Opium Wars were about trade and tea, not opium, whatever excuses were given at the time.
Rick Alexander,
Re: "Rise and Fall" -- great book. Highly recommended, even if it does go a little light on some of the more positive aspects of the Empire's dispersion of liberal institutions around the world.
Comments are Closed.