The conservative Times of London ran an interesting book review of Bernard Porter's book EMPIRE AND SUPEREMPIRE: Britain, America and the World.
According to reviewer Paul Kennedy, Porter's book offers a vivid comparison between 19th and 20th century British imperialism and the present American version.
The US has 350,000 troops abroad. Only 11 countries in the world have more than that many men in their entire military! Quite a bit for a country that doesn't do empire, according to War Sec. Rumsfeld.
Kennedy noted that despite some bumps, the British Empire dissolved with a fair degree of grace and a decent sense of timing.
Will that also be true, one wonders, of America? Both Porter and, as will have been long obvious, this reviewer fear that America’s imperial retreat, when it comes, will be far less easy and smooth.
Worries about how conquered peoples would react to their conquerors is not some touch feely, post-World War II political correctness imposing modern day values on the past. That apprehension existed a long time ago, going back to John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith, if not before.
Additionally, For it was in that year that Sir Alfred Lyall, the British imperial administrator, offered the firm opinion that: "I know of no instance in history of a nation being educated by another nation into self-government and independence; every nation has fought its way up in the world as the English have done."
Because they rejected the obvious reality of America as an empire in the first place, the Crusaders in Washington did not heed these cautionary tales.
Though one need not be an expert in history to have predicted this. One only needed a rudimentary understanding of human nature.
2 comments:
I wonder how much your insights come from your Peace Corp experience?
"I wonder how much your insights come from your Peace Corp experience? "
Excellent question. Probably more than any specific insights, my PC experience changed my whole mentality, changed the whole way I looked at thiings. I stopped looking at world issues through the narrow lense of an American citizen who only cared about perceived American national interests. I started looking at things through the broader lense of someone who's a citizen of the world first. I know it sounds pompous but it's true. I don't wish ill on America by any stretch of the imagination. But now I consider the consequences of America's actions (not only military, but economic and political) on other peoples of the world as a primary concern whereas in the past, this was a peripheral concern at best.
As a soccer coach, it's a bit analogous to training players to see the whole field rather than just the 10 yard half circle immediately in front of them. Not simply perfecting this as a conscious technique but making it an unconscious habit.
Post a Comment