Empires With Expiration Dates

[Kosmo]

There are limits to the extent of European unity. First of all, as W. Kymlicka points out in a different context, modern political life can exist only at national level because of the language barrier. See Belgium where the linguistic groups threaten to disband the country because no longer political parties cross the language barrier. So, no european parties. Second, national identity it's still the frame of reference for everybody and European identity could not replace that in the foreseeable future. The break ups of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, the movements in Corsica, Catalonia, Scotland etc. are clear proofs of the strength of nationalism.

European identity would be based on national identity not against it.

Because of the political fragmentation no dictator could hope to gain power in 30 different political systems and over 30 sets of national institutions. EU it's a bulwark against authoritarianism.

[ASCLEPIADES]

There are limits to the extent of European unity. First of all, as W. Kymlicka points out in a different context, modern political life can exist only at national level because of the language barrier. See Belgium where the linguistic groups threaten to disband the country because no longer political parties cross the language barrier. So, no european parties. Second, national identity it's still the frame of reference for everybody and European identity could not replace that in the foreseeable future. The break ups of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, the movements in Corsica, Catalonia, Scotland etc. are clear proofs of the strength of nationalism.

European identity would be based on national identity not against it.

Because of the political fragmentation no dictator could hope to gain power in 30 different political systems and over 30 sets of national institutions. EU it's a bulwark against authoritarianism.

A common misconception is that you can't be an imperialist if you are a democrat. V century BC Athens and XIX century Belgium are nice examples of the oppposite.

 

I'm not sure if the EU will some day be able to function as an empire as a whole; that seems not to be tha case right now.

 

Anyway, some members of the EU still qualify as Empires (or "empiroids" if you like) on their own; best example would be the stubborn France (just check on La Nouvelle Caledonie).

Edited June 24, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Kosmo]

They look more like ruins then empires to me... France, Britain, US, Holland were in late XIX - early XX imperialist democracies.

[Northern Neil]

is Britain going to be allowed to remain an essentially independent nation state with its own identity?

Independent maybe, but I think we are doing a very good job at submerging our identity already, EU or not.

[caldrail]

There are limits to the extent of European unity. First of all, as W. Kymlicka points out in a different context, modern political life can exist only at national level because of the language barrier. See Belgium where the linguistic groups threaten to disband the country because no longer political parties cross the language barrier. So, no european parties.

As things stand perhaps. But the EU is working to an agenda of political union, and that means conformity. Also, if dissident groups threaten the stability of the new USofE, what can they do about it? Send in the troops and force the issue, which is pretty typical of empires everywhere. Sooner or later, Europe will enforce its ideals (and its rule) on all of us, because it will have no choice if it is to survive as a homogenous culture. This is a point already brought up. The new empire will not tolerate diverse cultures that seek self-determination. It will want executive power, and seek to force conformity across its member states. This means that national institutions will be rendered obselete and swept away by a new bureaucracy, a process already underway, and I have to say I view the attitude of our current government with some alarm.

 

Second, national identity it's still the frame of reference for everybody and European identity could not replace that in the foreseeable future. The break ups of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, the movements in Corsica, Catalonia, Scotland etc. are clear proofs of the strength of nationalism.

European identity would be based on national identity not against it.

But europe has been working on this problem for some time. We've been introduced to european concepts, given european laws, and persuaded to conform to european standards. As for the break up of social cohesion in various places - that isn't always nationalism. Its more like social groups, a sort of 'tribal' phenomenon common to human beings. Some people rebel for natio nalsistic reasons, others do so because they feel their social group is denied certain things or is being unfairly targeted, others because they want a cause to fight for. In these cases, the underlying causes may even stretch back hundreds of years or longer, as folk sentiment persists for an incredibly long time. Also, the factional conflict that emerges was only kept in check by a strong central authority, and would have emerged at an earlier date with little provocation. Notice how the welsh and scottish are so keen to be independent now that governmental links are weaker in Britain, despite their dependence on english finance. Driving these sentiments are those very old attitudes that were 'settled' under english rule. But the sentiment still exists. The same is true of the places you mention, and ultimately, the same will occur within the USofE at some point. By creating a european empire, you are bequeathing internal strife to our descendants (if not ourselves if Prof Ferguson is correct). Is that worth a name in the history books? A united europe was sold on the concept of peaceful co-operation and has been built on the foundation of corrupt centralisation.

 

Because of the political fragmentation no dictator could hope to gain power in 30 different political systems and over 30 sets of national institutions. EU it's a bulwark against authoritarianism.

As the EU is now, yes. But the Treaty of Lisbon gives Europe the basis of a common government. If thats thew case, do you really believe an EU president with real ruling power putting up with nations states saying 'No!'. Course they won't. The whole point of such a position is executive power. For that reason, national institutions will be disassembled and the populations national identity with it. The process is already underway, and has been for some time. You wait - eventually the old national borders will be obselete and new area boundaries imposed, along with new local representation.

[Kosmo]

The so called national-states of Europe are under pressure from below and above. I don't pity them because they brought only absurd distinctions and conflicts. The desire for local autonomy it's understandable and so is that of creating a more meaningful federation where jingoist nationalism has no place. It' nothing wrong for us to have a say at local, national and federal levels and to have a balance of power between them. It's better to have international relations on a more equal, cooperative footing rather then hegemonic like before.

I think that you're wrong about the Treaty of Lisbon because it does not create a common government, but reduces the number of members in the existing Commission (because they can not use 27 people) and creates an office of president of the Commission. Also believing that the fledging Bruxelles bureaucracy will send troops (who's troops?) to quell dissent it's really ridiculous.

[caldrail]

No, I said its the basis for a common government, and only one step toward one. There will be others. As for sending troops, do you really believe that a future USofE would sit there while any local dissent grows in strength and confidence? No, I think the troops wouild eventually be used. In order for the empire to function, it needs loyalty and control. If people can't be persuaded to do that voluntarily, you need more persuasive methods, especially if your empire was founded whether the people voted against it or not.

[Northern Neil]

In order for the empire to function, it needs loyalty and control. If people can't be persuaded to do that voluntarily, you need more persuasive methods, especially if your empire was founded whether the people voted against it or not.

The control is in place already. English culture and autonomy has been eroded to such an astonishing degree - we in England have been persuaded for decades by guilty post - colonial liberals that English culture is virtually worthless compared to that of the Scots, Irish, Welsh and the plethora of other cultural influences we are exposed to. As a result we have no culture to speak of any more. And who objects? We have taken all this squarely on the chin with barely a word of protest. It would take an idiot not to be incensed at the degree this has happened, yet 95% of the English populace does not give a fig or even realise it has happened. That is because as long as there is pub football, X-factor, cheap talk shows and other trashy entertainment, and a supply of cheap consumer goods to soak up everyones cash, only the thinking 5% will actually get annoyed enough to express the dissent to which you allude. The only things most Brits know about the EU is that it bans bananas which are too bent, is top heavy with bureaucracy and wants the British to use monopoly money instead of good old Pounds, shillings and pence.

 

The Roman State knew that if people were comfortable enough, well fed and entertained, there would be little need for a standing army in most provinces because people were too comfortable to rebel. What the Romans had a vague view about, modern capitalist governments are aware of to the most acute degree. If the EU over the next 25 years were to ban our monarchy, compromise our sovereignty and make us part of a federated Europe, the most that would happen is that readers of newspapers with lots of words in would get slightly annoyed - and keep their mouths shut in case they get accused of some kind of bigotry. In my view however it matters not wether this is the work of the EU or ourselves. We are already quite adept at cultural suicide, and I cannot help but think, to take one very tiny example (I can think of LOTS more), that the absence of Britannia on our coins, breaking a nearly 300 years old tradition, is due to the fact that the Union Jack shield contains cross - shaped decoration which is offensive to a small but very vocal and irrascible section of our population.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Northern Neil

[ASCLEPIADES]

The Roman State knew that if people were comfortable enough, well fed and entertained, there would be little need for a standing army in most provinces because people were too comfortable to rebel.

Rebellions record of the Roman Empire tells us another story; even if most legions were primarily located over the Imperial borders, Roman viae were there to guarantee a quick access to punishment when required, and vexillationes were distributed up to the last place.

I think it was far more fear than comfort which discouraged the potential rebels.

[Kosmo]

No, I think the troops wouild eventually be used.

 

Your joking, right?

I've seen tanks ready to fire in front of the place where I live, but not even Ceausescu, a Stalinist dictator, could not convince the "communist" army to fire at us, again, with live ammunition. If you believe that the Romanian army would fire at Romanians exercising their rights because a EU bureaucrat said so or that it will allow foreigners to do it, it means things are pretty bad in Britain. This reminds me of a conversation with an American that was trying to convince me that he needs a sniper rifle to defend himself from the government, while for me it's obvious that in front of an MBT it's futile to fire back, but one could still hold it's ground. Do you really believe that the proud man and women of the British armed forces will ever fire at you in order to deny your, almost 1000 years old, rights?

 

I never read the full over 270 pages of the Lisbon Treaty and I can bet you did not either. I had to read the Treaty of Nice for some law school exam and it's boring and complicated. Jumping to conclusion it's, still, not the way to understand a complex process.

[caldrail]

No, I think the troops wouild eventually be used.

 

Your joking, right?

 

No joke. You want an example of military suppression of civil disorder? Northern Ireland. There. That wasn't funny was it?

[caldrail]

The Roman State knew that if people were comfortable enough, well fed and entertained, there would be little need for a standing army in most provinces because people were too comfortable to rebel.

Rebellions record of the Roman Empire tells us another story; even if most legions were primarily located over the Imperial borders, Roman viae were there to guarantee a quick access to punishment when required, and vexillationes were distributed up to the last place.

I think it was far more fear than comfort which discouraged the potential rebels.

 

 

Comfort? What comfort? Most people in the roman empire hardly had two sestercii to rub together. NN is quite correct, panem et circuses was a deliberate policy pioneered in the republic to keep the public sweet. Caligula, Nero, Didius Julianus, Commodus - even emperors pranced around in front of the public to project an image as much as enjoy themselves. Trajan gave 120 days of games to celebrate his victories. Thats a third of the year watching chariots, animal hunts, and swordfights. Its an astonishing display, and one intended to glorify Trajans reign by entertaining the public. It wasn't a profit making enterprise either remember - entry to the audience was free. It was projected as an act of generosity, a gift from the ruler to his people, and one that had become expected by those people. The lack of public entertainment was one reason why Tiberius was so unpopular.

 

Rebellions in the roman empire occured whether people were comfortable or not. That was because such rebellions were sponsored by ambitious individuals who wanted power, or by individuals persuaded to seek power by their legions.

[ASCLEPIADES]

viae[/i] were there to guarantee a quick access to punishment when required, and vexillationes were distributed up to the last place.

I think it was far more fear than comfort which discouraged the potential rebels.

Rebellions in the roman empire occured whether people were comfortable or not. That was because such rebellions were sponsored by ambitious individuals who wanted power, or by individuals persuaded to seek power by their legions.

Salve, Cal.

 

When NN talked about "comfort", I understood something like food. Starvation has always been a perfectly valid excuse for risking your life in a rebellion.

 

We're probably talking about different kind of rebellions; I was thinking most in nationalistic uprisings, like the Jews under Bar Kochba, or the Mauritanians under Tacfarinas. It's clear most of those rebels were more desperate than ambitious. Not all the rebels were Galbas or Vespasians.

Edited June 26, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

The supply of bread was an immediate concern of emperors - I seem to remember Claudius was pelted with stale crusts when grain shortages were apparent. Nonetheless, I'm not aware of a popular uprising in Rome by the common people, but then if the plebs were kept in place by social class and custom, and lets face it, the roman class system wasn't easily ignored, then without a suitable leader why would they revolt? Now you could quote the name Spartacus, but in his case he had his own motives for rebellion and people latched onto him nonetheless, so you can't really class him as a typical rebel leader defending peoples freedom.

[Northern Neil]

I'm not aware of a popular uprising in Rome by the common people, but then if the plebs were kept in place by social class and custom, and lets face it, the roman class system wasn't easily ignored, then without a suitable leader why would they revolt? Now you could quote the name Spartacus, but in his case he had his own motives for rebellion and people latched onto him nonetheless, so you can't really class him as a typical rebel leader defending peoples freedom.

As Orwell stated in 1984, common people never cause uprisings or revolutions - middle class people do, in the name of the common people, and using the common people as a means of changing place with the upper classes, who then become the new middle. The common people (as a group) always stay where they are. I think that applied then as now. Rebellions in the third and fourth century were military coups.