I think the short answer to your first question is that the people who have developed
the most advanced military technology and with it the greatest military might hold a
great deal of hostility to the notion of empire/colonization. They also don't like
the idea of spending the tax dollars--some because they don't like taxes and some
because they don't want to detract from social welfare spending--required to maintain
an empire.
I can think of no comparable period in time in which the most advanced military powers
didn't conquer their weaker neighbors, although perhaps someone can think of one or
two. In every case that comes to mind where there wasn't some sort of local balance
of power, only natural barriers and great distances seemed to stop the spread of the
most militarily advanced powers.
I suppose you could look at the Mongol refusal to sweep into western Europe as a case
where the advanced power didn't conquer some weaker neighbors, but then you can say
the same thing about their refusal to conquer northern Siberian peoples and the
Kamchatdales (of the Kamchatka peninsula. The Mongols just didn't seem to consider
any of the three worthy of conquest. It pieces some of our Western vanity to equate
western Europe with Kamchatka,but from the Mongol perspective it's probably true. Of
course given the distance from Mongolia to Hungary, one could also categorize the
Mongol refusal to conquer western Europe as a question of distance, although in
reality it appears that they could have done so despite the distance had they been so
inclined.
As for whether or not the current situation constitutes a fluke, I guess it depends on
whether you think it's just an accident that people hostile to colonization should
develop the greatest military power. I really don't know. I'm tempted to say that
there's some correlation in that among a people who value individual liberty and
progress you'd expect the sort of innovation that leads to great military
techhology,and that such people might also tend to look less favorably upon
colonization. On the flip side, although private firms develop military technology in
the US, they tend to have a strong symbiotic relationship with government such that we
could hardly categorize them as free-market. We also see that in the case of the
British, for example, a long-term culture of individual liberty didn't prevent
governmental actors and other elites from desiring and acquiring a vast empire. Even
in the US certain elites like TR desire and acquire some (little) empire.
In the US in particular there's our own colonial heritage that tends to militate
against wanting empire, so that even when some elites wanted it they never got very
far. I don't see any correlation between being a former colony and having advanced
military technology (of if there is a correlation, it's probably negative, looking at
all the pieces of the former European empires).
As a first approximation then I'd be willing to say that there's some correlation
between our having the greatest military power and our dislike of empire, but probably
a low correlation (30%?).
I have little doubt that should a non-Western country ever develop techological
superority we would likely see some colonization. As it is the Chinese communists have
maintained their colonization of Tibet and would like to recolonize Formosa, and of
course the old Russian empire still stretches across Asia. I'm sure others can think
of continuing cases of colonization or perhaps one or two cases of new colonization
since WWII.
David Levenstam
David Levenstam
In a message dated 4/22/2004 3:20:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> > > It is a cliche that at least in the area of military technology,> countries
> > > rarely let themselves fall behind. At least historically,> countries either
> > > strived for parity or got conquered.> > But a weird thing has happened since
> > > WWII. The military ability gap> between the strongest countries and the weakest
> > > has gotten a lot bigger.> The British Empire in its heydey did not beat whole
> > > countries into> submission with 0 casualties, but that is basically what NATO
> > > did to> Yugoslavia. Colonial kill ratios were something like 20:1, not 3000:0.>
> > > > But despite this widening gap, the idea that the weakest countries are> going
> > > to be recolonized is now laughable. What in the > world is going> on? Are we
> > > in a weird fluke? Are there any parallels?> --
