Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: What what what? | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 23:22:18 11/25/04 Thu In reply to: Ed Harris (Venezia) 's message, "Royal Titles" on 15:24:16 11/25/04 Thu Leopold of the Belgians supported and encouraged what was going on in the Congo. I'm not entirely sure how anyone can admire him, unless one imagines that African people are human forms of plastic cutlery: use them, and then throw them away when they break. No person is anything of the kind, and a failure to recognise this, such as that of Leopold III, is the sign of rather evil derangment. There is a distinction between mere empire-building and imperialism. The latter is not merely the acquisition of territory, but the expansion of its usefulness through improvements. It all goes back to Locke and that passage in his Second Treatise on Government where he contrasts Spanish imperialism in America with British imperialism. The Spaniards, he argues, do not really 'own' their empire, since their claim is based on landing on it, putting a flag on it, digging something out of it and then buggering off. The British, on the other hand, had real claim to property over their acquired territories because they took them out of the state in which they found them and, through their labour, improved them. In short, empire-building is just an activity; imperialism is a political philosophy. It may now be discredited, but it had real thought and real goals, not just some phallic imperative to own more stuff. In this context, Paddy is right to say that very few nations which had empires were actually imperialist. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Spanish/British | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:47:25 11/26/04 Fri "The Spaniards, he argues, do not really 'own' their empire, since their claim is based on landing on it, putting a flag on it, digging something out of it and then buggering off. The British, on the other hand, had real claim to property over their acquired territories because they took them out of the state in which they found them and, through their labour, improved them." I believe this merely shows the superiority of British Imperialism. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Okay, we can agree to differ: because to me it shows that the Spaniards weren't imperialists but conquerors! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:07:39 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: conflicting definitions | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:33:02 11/26/04 Fri "the practice by which powerful nations or peoples seek to extend and maintain control or influence over weaker nations or peoples" "national policy of conquest of other regions or peoples for the purpose of extending political and economic control and of exploiting the resources of other regions or people" "any instance of aggressive extension of authority" "Control of other countries by a dominant nation " These are just some of the many definitions I found on google of the word Imperialism that support my view. On the other hand I found one that supports your ideas: "The drive toward the creation and expansion of a colonial empire and, once established, its perpetuation. (de Blij & Muller, 1996) Infrastructure. The foundations of a society: urban centers, transport networks, communications, energy, distribution systems, farms, factories, mines and such facilities as schools, hospitals, postal services, and police and armed forces." [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:42:20 11/26/04 Fri I won't be convinced. Imperialism was an ethos, not a set of actions. I don't care if even the OED contradicts me: in this context, I know better! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: too specific | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:30:08 11/26/04 Fri I think your looking for something to specific in the meaning of imperialism. When words are too specific we have to invent new words. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |