I know this sounds odd, but what led to the fall of Imperalism, and what’s to stop it from recurring? I can think of a lot of good to be had from an American “Empire” and not just for America. A good example would be the much lamented Somalia…
If we had gone into Somalia in force, set up a government administered by the US, it would have benefitted everyone… more resources for us, control and stability for them, and jobs for our bloated military.
Anywhere we’ve had to deploy on “Humanitarian” or Peacekeeping missions, that we’ve done seperatly… instant colony…
For the fall of imperialism, I’ll just refer you to Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Good book, but very hard to summarize in a single post. Suffice to say that there are many reasons colonies want self-government and a bunch of reasons colonial powers find it difficult to hang on to colonies, or even may not want to.
The U.S., thankfully, has no desire for colonies. I can’t speak for very many Americans, but I believe that the purpose of a government is to provide a common set of rules for the people who collectively (if not individually) elect representatives to that government and participate in it. Making the rules for people who can’t participate in the government rubs me the wrong way… and I suspect if we did something like that in Somalia, the Somalians would have much stronger words they’d use in that phrase.
I pretty much support the idea of the international community stepping in during times of great disaster or the threat of tyranny or anarchy, but I think such interventions should be made with an eye towards getting these people to set up their own sovereign government so we can leave and take care of problems at home.
What, exactly, is the general question here? Asking when imperialism ended and why is fair, maybe, but very difficult to answer: The Germans and Japanese apparently still believed in it fifty years ago. Asking why the US is not more imperialistic isn’t a factual question, and should go over in Great Debates with all the other opinionated political arguments.
I’ve always blamed it on the failure of Mercantilism with the expansion of the Industrial Revolution and post-Renaissance political theories (Locke, Smith (Wealth of Nations, birth of modern Capitalism), Jefferson, American Revolutionary philosophy, to name a few). To take my points in order, Mercantilism is the concept of a mother country developing a network of ‘resource colonies’ they gain raw materials from without having any real industry there that also serve as captive markets for finished consumer goods from the mother nation. The economy of a ‘resource colony’ is entirely devoted to harvesting local resources and selling consumer goods. This works fine as long as all industrial might is centralized in the mother nation. With the Industrial Revolution, people can steal plans for things like mills (This was done by a British man who memorized the layout of a British mill and then came here, can’t think of the chap’s name, though.) and then build them in the ‘resource colony’. The British Empire tried to stop this technology hemmorage to the American Colonies in the 1760s and failed miserably. It tried again with the Indian Colonies in the 1930s and early 1940s and again failed. Gandhi’s main thrust with Indian Independance was starting a ‘thousand cottage industries’ locally and getting Indians to make for themselves, thereby ruining British Mercantilism in the subcontinenet. Both of those failures directly lead to the independance, political and economic, of those nations.
Now, post-Renassance political philosophy is marked by one thing not present in previous philosophy: Independant Individuals. Those philosophies originated the concept of free individuals with rights they have on their own, not at the sufference of some soveriegn. This did not set well with Imperialist powers, who depend upon institutionalized racism to keep the masses in the ‘resource colonies’ politically ignorant and economically docile. Once the thought of Locke and Smith and Jefferson spread worldwide, thanks to Industrial Age presses and fast, reliable shipping, those old modes became untenable and the masses rose up. Marx could only dream of a global revolution. Jefferson realized it centuries previous.
That, in a nutshell, is why I think Colonialism failed. I feel like I just summed up a year of college-level notes, and this was completely extemporaneous. My mind thanks you for the jog around the block.
I figure I know why Colonialism failed, so I guess the real question here was what stops colonialism from starting up… now the question is: Do I wait for a moderator to move this, or post a new question over in GD?
The U.S. still pratice imperalism with a few banana republics and military intervention (Dominican Republic, Panama, Honduras, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Grenada, etc…).
The problem with imperialism is that it is done not in the interest of the people in those countries but in the interest of the imperalism country itself.
And often, the self-interest of the U.S. translate into putting something similar to a dictatorship in the target countries, killing a large amount of people and general rape of the natural resources…
It costs too much now that we are more likely to treat the inhabitants like Americans. It costs a lot of money to run a country even when the people like the advantages that a stable, but foreign, administration can bring. But most people grow tired of their foreign overlords even if those administrators are benevolent. Americans did. Which, in itself, is a good reason why Americans, more than other western democracies hesitate to take over countries. Any take-over can have too many parallels to colonial America.
When you add in old feuds and cultural differences, Americans would rather not get involved. I would say that ambivalence may be the biggest reason that keeps America from becoming imperialistic again followed by the cost in dollars and in American lives.
Now American corporations… that’s a different story.
As anti-freedom as it is to say, empires do tend to create a sence of peace, even if it is somewhat debatable, starting with the original Pax Imperia of the Roman empire. India-Pakistan became much more frightening after The English empire ended, and the Eastern European conficts had the bloodshed far reduced under the Russian Empire. And for all the flag waving done about the 4th of July, America and Britain ended up pretty close after all was said and done.
It’s been over 200 years since the end of the American Revolution, yet American tabloid newspaper readers still suffer under the oppression of having to read about the Royal Family…
But I say, old chap, rather than get upset, why don’t you have a seat, and have a cup of tea… musn’t get upset now, wouldn’t be proper… hehehe
Seriously, I begin to understand… although I didn’t think of the whole economic angle in depth… I was thinking not so much of captive market as I was of captive resources.
Sounds like a good idea might be to step in, rule for a generation, and then do a gradual turnover to the people of the nation in question… Hmmmmm…
Perhaps you should read some histories of colonial rule and the process of decolonization. These are not new questions. I can not think of one instance where such ‘tutelage’ had a positive effect on the political culture of the country.
It may have escaped you, but Somalia was a colony of Italy (with the exception of the north east corner) and supposedly was ‘learning’ modern governance. Unfortunatley such lessons come at the point of a gun, and ultimately rule has to be dictatorial. The actual effective lessons are bad ones. North east Somalia has been stable and under its own government, which calls itself the Republic of Somaliland I think, for about ten years. No outside intervention, little outside aid. How did they do it? Went back to the traditional clan councils and created a “Shoura” or consultative body out of their own traditions rather than alien ones. Eventually, maybe, a real democracy will grow out of it.
Perhaps you are confusing imperialism with colonialism. Imperialism exists, colonialism doesn’t. Like colonialism it is a system allowing the ruling circles of the imperialist country to exploit entire nations. Colonialism accomplished this by an unequal exchange of colonial raw materials in exchange for manufactured goods. The colonial power normally prohibited other powers from exporting its goods to their colonies. The colonial power physically occupied the colony to keep the system going with the help of comprador elements of the colonial society. It is based on industrial capital.
Imperialism, on the other hand, is a system of exploitation based on the export of capital. Finance capital rules here. It requires no occupation forces, although that might happen. It is very much alive today and dominates the world economy. The imperial powers are the so-called group of seven, sometimes called the industrial democracies. They meet regularly to essentially determine the economic policy for the entire world. US imperialism is the most powerful member of this group.
Have you ever wondered why the US can run a trade deficit of a couple of hundred billion dollars a year and never have to make good on what are essentially IOU’S?
What about Guam.
Don’t we still control(probably not the correct word) them?Puerto Rico is a territory.
Previous the statehood Alaska and Hawaii were territories.They have only been states for 40years.
We just don’t hold them by force.
Guam and Puerto Rico are territories voluntarily. Haven’t you seen the periodic elections they have in Puerto Rico? They have had the options for statehood, status quo, or independence. The status quo got ~50%, statehood ~45%, independence ~5%. Clearly, the people of Puerto Rico desire some sort of close relationship with the US. This is not imperialism. Under imperialism you don’t get a choice.
Well, that’s what they get for learning from Italy… now the question is, how long ago did this arrangement come up, and what were the factors in it’s collapse.
I meant to imply that we would only step into area’s that have lost their own government and stability… Somalia was only an example.
However, I suppose in the end you are all correct, in that an American Empire, based on acutal land holings, is impractical and unrealistic in the modern age. However, I do think that we’ve managed to make much of the world our “Economic Empire”.
Now, how long will that last? (fade out, to sound of native drums getting louder…)
Perhaps it escapes you, but there was not much of a choice. You know, planes, machine guns, all that sort of thing.
What arrangement? Italian colonialism? Well, WWII did much damage but as I don’t recall the precise date of Somali independance. Post WWII. Factors? Well, the whole anti-colonial movement plus the Imperial powers facing up to their hyprocrisy.
Somalia is a good example of why that doesn’t work very well. First, their answers come best from themselves – as the example of Norht East Somalia, the only truly stable and relatively prosperous place in the country. Stepping in (Italians) helped create the problem in the first place, nor are examples from most other colonial holdings very encouraging. In general people resent interference in what they consider their own affairs. Look at how some vocal segements of the US pop. feel about their own Federal government. I don’t take much stock in such overblown rhetoric, but it is an example of an all-too human pattern.
Aide to countries which are trying to rebuild after they find their own solutions is probably the best route.
I think all this talk of an economic empire is exagerated to be frank.
