|
Conquer we Must
Reasons for the “New Imperialism” (1)
– Economics was the most important single factor in this “New Imperialism”. Much of this economic emphasis was brought about by the industrial revolution, which created large surpluses of European capital and heavy demands for raw materials. Additionally it brought about the accumulation of major european countries which sought investment abroad.
– Nationalism was another powerful factor. Social Darwinism, with it´s concept of “Survival of the Fittest” and the obligations of the “White Man´s Burdon” made popular by the Englishman Rudyard Kipling contributed to the spirit of nationalism in extending colonialism. There was also political prestige in having colonies as imperialism became a race to aquire more in the spirit of nationalism.
– A third reason for this “new” imperialism was military. Military organizations in each major countries wielded great political power, and they emphazied the need, whith their respective governments, of controlling strategic areas and establishing key military bases.
– A fourth reason was humanitarian/religious, which often became intertwined with nationalism.
(1) “NEW IMPERIALISM (1870 – 1914)” Lecture Notes by Professor Henry, William Paterson University
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
The Star Spangled Banner Francis Scott Key, adopted as National Anthem 1931
Bernhard, I’m really not much of a “morning person”–in fact I’m at my most comfortable after everyone goes to bed, fter the phone stops ringing, and when the dogs have settled down to a silent, if waking, state.
In the morning I try to avoid the net, and if I visit a site like this one, I try not to post any comments.
I forgot to mention that my time zone is CDT in North America–GMT+6. At the moment, it’s shortly before 11 AM–a time when I’m not inclined to post things. But….
Congratulations, first of all, for bringing this site up to speed! I can’t imagine what it involves, only that it takes a whole lot of time, patience, energy, money (at some point, and in some way) and humor. I hope you’d never do it if you didn’t value the product–but you’re right to value the product. Thanks for all that initiative, and congratulations for the success!
I especially like the thread itself. It catches the spirit of the Whiskey Bar. It has the scope, reach, latitude and specificity of the Barkeep’s threads.
The key to this thread, from my own personal point of view, is that puts forth, as a question, something so quickly disposed of with “an answer”–which is really no answer at all, just a foreclosure of further discussion.
The concept “nation” cannot be taken as a political and sociological topic merely. It’s a theological topic too. Trust me, I’m certainly not a theologian, and it may surprise some theologians that they have a special relationship to the concept of the “nation”. But for those of us who read a little philosophy, the time is long since past when we could hope to ensconce our deliberations about the “nation” within the tidy limits of a single, positive field.
When I approach this topic, I cannot ignore the writings of Carl Schmitt, Kojeve, Benjamin, Strauss, Adorno, Heidegger, Lukacs, Nietzsche or Freud, all of whom have very interesting points to say about “political theology”. And of course they only take off from their readings of Kant, Hegel, Fichte and Schelling, who only took off from their readings of Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Voltaire, who only took off from their readings of Machiavelli and Luther (as a reader of Shakespeare, trying to get a grip on his concepts of civil polity, I have no choice but to read Luther’s 1523 declaration “On Secular Authority,” and with the greatest of care, if only because Shakespeare so insistently sends me there. And it doesn’t surprise me to hear that the great Giorgio de Sanctis once said that he couldn’t tell Luther and Machiavelli apart–that they were like two peas in a pod.)
Political philosophers are not theologians–we know and respect this fact. It’s just that they live, like everyone else (Marx and Hegel included) off the more or less inexhaustible resources of theology’s capital. Call it “metaphysical/theogical” capital, since there would be no theology without Plato and Aristotle.
As for me, I rather suspect that the great political entities–the community-determining entities–are not the institutions of “nations” or even of “empires”–they are languages. The reasoning to support this point is rather extensive, and I can’t go into it here. But I’m told that there’d be no Germany without German, and no German without Luther, who invented German–or so the historians tell us–in order to help the people living beyond the Rhine to read the Bible in the vernacular.
It can be shown that the same process happened in England, with English, and with the English: modern English is largely the product of the Bible as translated by William Tyndale. But Tyndale translated the English Bible from Luther’s German Bible–in fact, according to one authority, he actually spent a year with Luther in Luther’s study, learning how to do this. All speakers of modern English are therefore in some degree Lutheran–perhaps too Lutheran, as committed Calvinists would argue.
When I mention these things–in response to your invitation, so to speak–I feel the awkwardness that anyone feels at stating the obvious, as when we feel obliged to say that “two and two makes four”. No one wants to be rude or outlandish, least of all when benefiting from someone else’s hospitality.
And it may very well be the case that the war in Iraq is only a play for terrain, for some land that lies on top of a pool of oil; but I’m struck by the fact that a whole lot of folks–English-speaking folks–claim to know how a population should behave, politically speaking, when they haven’t learned a word of Arabic, haven’t laid eyes on the Koran, and haven’t heard a single word about the intricate legal codes developing out of the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.
The great power–call it the blessing–of this site is its capacity to assist us in exchanging information about our ignorance. It goes a long way towards justifying the fact that the medium of exchange here is only a single language (namely English). It gives me the hope that I can read a post from someone in Iraq who knows English, and who can point me to this or that book, author or concept in my hour of need. Someone prepared to tolerate my ignorance of his or her mother-tongue
And, Bernhard, this post would be a third its length, and three times as crisp, if I’d taken the time to make it so. But it’s almost 1 PM, and I really shouldn’t be here at all. I just got carried away by the opportunities afforded by this thread….
Posted by: alabama | Jul 7 2004 17:34 utc | 15
|
