CHIROL’S BLOGOSPHERIC EMPIRE
” All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what
have the Romans ever done for us?”
– John Cleese, The Life of Brian
“Deos fortioribus adesse “
– Tacitus
Link Preface:
“History of Empire Part I.” by Chirol of Coming Anarchy
” History of Empire Part II” Ibid
“Response to Chirol on 2nd Generation Empires Part I” by Dan of tdaxp
“Empires!!!” by Dr. Daniel Nexon of The Duck of Minerva
Chirol at Coming Anarchy has set off an a very interesting discussion with his series on 2nd Generation Empires and a full post is required for a critique ( you hit gold as a blogger when you write something and your comment section is not enough for your readers). I’m going to touch on some points here and I ecourage you to click the above links for the thoughtful responses Chirol’s post has already accrued.
1. Empires as a positive phenomenon:
I tend to agree with Chirol and Nexon here. The reflexive attitude floating in the culture is to presume ” imperialism” is a bad thing having been used as a perjorative for most of the previous century but you have to ask – relative to what ? What preceded the empire before it subjugated the ” other”. Often times what preceded empire was less than admirable.
For every straightforwardly avaricious and retrogressive colonial regime like the one in French Indochina you have numerous others stamping out headhunting, the suttee, slavery and other aspects of barbarism while building modernity and connectivity. Like most forms of governance, the historical moral record is mixed for empire but regimes that are not capable of non-zero sum outcomes are not likely to be sustained for any length of time. You also need to compare that record with what would have prevailed in the empire’s absence. A medieval Jew was far better off living under the Caliphate of Cordova or in Muslim Granada than in the petty duchies of backward Germany at the time. Or under Ferdinand and Isabella’s monarchy that came after the Moors.
The Belgians were among the worst of the lot of the European colonizers exceeding in cruelty even the Germans in Southwest Africa – and this is saying a lot. Yet prior to the arrival of the Belgians the Congo basin was dominated by Afro-Arab slavers from Zanzibar and cannibal chiefdoms of the interior that built fortified towns lavishly decorated with human skulls. A culture that is on a moral par with the Aztecs but without the astronomy and fancy architecture frankly deserves to lose.
Empires that disprove the rule by being phenomenal paragons of physical destruction and looting rather than economic order – Tamerlane’s, Attila’s, The Third Reich, the Soviet Union – were all exceptionally short-lived. Ah, but Alexander’s empire too was short-lived ? Yes, but he ushered in the Hellenistic Age and his successors all founded dynastic states.
2. What is ” Empire”? Are there generations of Empire ?
Page 1 of 2 | Next page