Next month, I’m starting a six-part course on Modern Empires. The intro music for the kick-off is the 1980s pop classic by Tears for Fears: “Everybody Wants to Rule the World.” This sets up my theme that empires are all about power; specifically, the projection of power by one people or society over another. Empires have been happening for thousands of years; modern empires (i.e., since the 15C) have been characterized by the distinctive technological sources of their power, the noticeably increased differential in their power vis-à-vis the people they control, and a broad shift to non-coercive/soft power, particularly economic. Oh, yes, most modern empires have been European/Western in origin, especially after 1800.
Empires are typically characterized by the enrichment of the elites (aristocratic, military, religious, commercial) of the metropole (home base) of the empire at the expense of the ordinary folks in the periphery (all the areas under control). This might come through simpler plunder, formal tributary payments, seizing land and natural resources and people, up to more sophisticated modes such as setting the terms of trade so that peripheral commodities are priced much lower than processed manufactured products from the metropole or charging monopolistic prices for shipping.
Prior to the 19C, most empires operated through direct “plant-the-flag-and-claim-the-territory” control, or what historians call “formal” empire.” The expansion of the commercial sector in modern times has meant that even after most of the formal empires were dissolved in the mid 20C, societies still exercise their power over other societies thru “informal” means, including finance/foreign investments and shipping. The Brits were really good at this in their heyday. Since the 19C, the US has excelled, as evidenced by the fact that the top global brands remain predominantly American even now (e.g., Coke, Apple, Google, Boeing). Similarly for media and cultural content (music, movies), not to mention the most powerful cultural export of all: the English language. This phenomenon highlights that imperial power can work “softly” and, often, unconsciously.
One session of the series will be devoted to the United States as an empire. It’s a label we have, as a country, had a lot of difficulty with. After all, we got started by rejecting the imperial claims of the British and have seen ourselves as the beacon of freedom for all peoples since then. We leaned on the Europeans to wind up their empires in the 20C and forced the Soviet Empire to collapse late in the last century. This stance, however, belies what can only be called a rich and consistent imperial past. We can start with our land grab from Native Americans, which was one of our principal national preoccupations from our initial colonialization efforts into the 20C. Along the way, the Monroe Doctrine claimed a sphere of influence across the Western Hemisphere, then we had our burst of formal empire at the end of the 19C, grabbing Cuba, the Philippines, and assorted other islands from the fading Spanish empire, along with Hawaii. American power reached its global stretch in the 20C, including a wide range of economic and cultural activities, as noted above, managing a series of military alliances during the Cold War (we still have hundreds of military bases), and overseeing a set of multi-national institutions (e.g., the World Bank). We’ve invaded more countries since WWII than any other. All in all, it’s a pretty striking record.
Modern imperialists get a pretty bad rap from most historians. Yes, there were benefits in terms of health, education, and other aspects of “civilization.” But much of those “blessings” were in terms of the conquerors’ values (e.g., Christianity, capitalism), that might not have been shared by the indigenous cultures onto which they were grafted. Moreover, they came as part of a package that included all manner of brutality and exploitation. Our (Western) claims to have helped these benighted peoples to make progress run into the famous quote from Gandhi who, when asked what he thought of Western Civilization, replied that “It would be a good thing” (at least hypothetically, compared to what the British and the others did to India, Africa, etc.).
On the other hand, the longer-term history of imperialism shows that modern European empires were not inherently any worse in moral terms than those of their predecessors. Millions were killed and stolen from by the Huns, various Chinese imperial configurations, Aztecs, Egyptians, Turks, Akkadians, and dozens of other earlier models. We tend to downplay their bad acts, losing them in the mists of ancient history. However, just because they were further away and accomplished with less technology doesn’t make them any better than Belgians of the 19/20C, the Spanish of the 17C, or the Brits at multiple times.
With the great wave of decolonization of the mid-20C, it seemed that the era of formal empires was coming to a close, especially after the fall of the Soviet empire 30-40 years ago. A variety of informal imperial projects (principally ours) have continued, but the idea of formal conquest and control seems to have lapsed. One of the interesting issues in our current geopolitical environment is whether the actions of Putin and Trump will revive the old model. HWSNBN has his “Don-Roe” Doctrine, justifying decapitating the leadership of Venezuela and Cuba, starting a war with Iran, and making a grab from Greenland. Putin seems to have a vision of reviving at least parts of the Russian empire, but has come up short in Ukraine.
Instead, the only country with the global power to re-establish imperial grandeur is China and they are doing a pretty good job at building an informal empire, at least in Asia, Africa, and South America. Whether their vision of conquest extends beyond Taiwan remains doubtful, however. Even a “successful” take-over of Taiwan would likely highlight the futile nature of imperial conquest, since it’s not clear how useful and productive that island would be in the aftermath of invasion. Modern military power is tremendously effective at destruction, but at a great cost which doesn’t clearly outweigh the projecting power’s potential benefit.
The idea of empire doesn’t seem to fit well into the 21C’s interdependent world where international relationships are far more complex than in past centuries and the idea of territorial control less relevant than the informal power of commerce and information. Ah, well, it’s been a grand run and thus a great topic for history.
Empires are typically characterized by the enrichment of the elites (aristocratic, military, religious, commercial) of the metropole (home base) of the empire at the expense of the ordinary folks in the periphery (all the areas under control). This might come through simpler plunder, formal tributary payments, seizing land and natural resources and people, up to more sophisticated modes such as setting the terms of trade so that peripheral commodities are priced much lower than processed manufactured products from the metropole or charging monopolistic prices for shipping.
Prior to the 19C, most empires operated through direct “plant-the-flag-and-claim-the-territory” control, or what historians call “formal” empire.” The expansion of the commercial sector in modern times has meant that even after most of the formal empires were dissolved in the mid 20C, societies still exercise their power over other societies thru “informal” means, including finance/foreign investments and shipping. The Brits were really good at this in their heyday. Since the 19C, the US has excelled, as evidenced by the fact that the top global brands remain predominantly American even now (e.g., Coke, Apple, Google, Boeing). Similarly for media and cultural content (music, movies), not to mention the most powerful cultural export of all: the English language. This phenomenon highlights that imperial power can work “softly” and, often, unconsciously.
One session of the series will be devoted to the United States as an empire. It’s a label we have, as a country, had a lot of difficulty with. After all, we got started by rejecting the imperial claims of the British and have seen ourselves as the beacon of freedom for all peoples since then. We leaned on the Europeans to wind up their empires in the 20C and forced the Soviet Empire to collapse late in the last century. This stance, however, belies what can only be called a rich and consistent imperial past. We can start with our land grab from Native Americans, which was one of our principal national preoccupations from our initial colonialization efforts into the 20C. Along the way, the Monroe Doctrine claimed a sphere of influence across the Western Hemisphere, then we had our burst of formal empire at the end of the 19C, grabbing Cuba, the Philippines, and assorted other islands from the fading Spanish empire, along with Hawaii. American power reached its global stretch in the 20C, including a wide range of economic and cultural activities, as noted above, managing a series of military alliances during the Cold War (we still have hundreds of military bases), and overseeing a set of multi-national institutions (e.g., the World Bank). We’ve invaded more countries since WWII than any other. All in all, it’s a pretty striking record.
Modern imperialists get a pretty bad rap from most historians. Yes, there were benefits in terms of health, education, and other aspects of “civilization.” But much of those “blessings” were in terms of the conquerors’ values (e.g., Christianity, capitalism), that might not have been shared by the indigenous cultures onto which they were grafted. Moreover, they came as part of a package that included all manner of brutality and exploitation. Our (Western) claims to have helped these benighted peoples to make progress run into the famous quote from Gandhi who, when asked what he thought of Western Civilization, replied that “It would be a good thing” (at least hypothetically, compared to what the British and the others did to India, Africa, etc.).
On the other hand, the longer-term history of imperialism shows that modern European empires were not inherently any worse in moral terms than those of their predecessors. Millions were killed and stolen from by the Huns, various Chinese imperial configurations, Aztecs, Egyptians, Turks, Akkadians, and dozens of other earlier models. We tend to downplay their bad acts, losing them in the mists of ancient history. However, just because they were further away and accomplished with less technology doesn’t make them any better than Belgians of the 19/20C, the Spanish of the 17C, or the Brits at multiple times.
With the great wave of decolonization of the mid-20C, it seemed that the era of formal empires was coming to a close, especially after the fall of the Soviet empire 30-40 years ago. A variety of informal imperial projects (principally ours) have continued, but the idea of formal conquest and control seems to have lapsed. One of the interesting issues in our current geopolitical environment is whether the actions of Putin and Trump will revive the old model. HWSNBN has his “Don-Roe” Doctrine, justifying decapitating the leadership of Venezuela and Cuba, starting a war with Iran, and making a grab from Greenland. Putin seems to have a vision of reviving at least parts of the Russian empire, but has come up short in Ukraine.
Instead, the only country with the global power to re-establish imperial grandeur is China and they are doing a pretty good job at building an informal empire, at least in Asia, Africa, and South America. Whether their vision of conquest extends beyond Taiwan remains doubtful, however. Even a “successful” take-over of Taiwan would likely highlight the futile nature of imperial conquest, since it’s not clear how useful and productive that island would be in the aftermath of invasion. Modern military power is tremendously effective at destruction, but at a great cost which doesn’t clearly outweigh the projecting power’s potential benefit.
The idea of empire doesn’t seem to fit well into the 21C’s interdependent world where international relationships are far more complex than in past centuries and the idea of territorial control less relevant than the informal power of commerce and information. Ah, well, it’s been a grand run and thus a great topic for history.
RSS Feed