[lit-ideas] Empire definitions, British and Russian
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas " <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 06:09:08 -0700
In The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997, Piers Brenden on
page xviii and xix writes, "The British Empire had a small human and
geographical base, remote from its overseas possessions. In the late
eighteenth century it gained fortuitous industrial, commercial and naval
advantages that rivals were bound to erode. Having such a limited capacity
to coerce, it sought accord and found local collaborators. But imperial
domination, by its very nature, sapped their loyalty. . . The history of
empires,' he wrote, 'is the history of human misery.' This is because the
initial subjugation is invariably savage and the subsequent occupation is
usually repressive. Imperial powers lack legitimacy and govern
irresponsibly, relying on arms, diplomacy and propaganda. But no
vindication can eradicate the instinctive hostility to alien control.
Gibbon, himself wedded to liberty, went to the heart of the matter: 'A more
unjust and absurd constitution cannot be devised than that which condemns
the natives of a country to perpetual servitude, under the arbitrary
dominion of strangers.' Resistance to such dominion provoked vicious
reprisals, such as the British inflicted after the Indian Mutiny, thus
embedding ineradicable antagonism. Yet Britain's Empire, much better than
any other, as even George Orwell acknowledged, was a liberal empire. Its
functionaries claimed that a commitment to freedom was fundamental to their
civilizing mission. In this respect, Lloyd George told the Imperial
Conference in 1921, their Empire was unique: 'Liberty is its binding
principle,' To people under the imperial yoke such affirmations must have
seemed brazen instances of British hypocrisy. . . And in the twentieth
century, facing adverse circumstances almost everywhere, the British
grudgingly put their principles into practice. They fulfilled their duty as
trustees, giving their brown and black colonies the independence (mostly
within the Commonwealth) long enjoyed by the white dominions. The British
Empire thus realized its long-cherished ideal of becoming what The Times
called in 1942 'a self-liquidating concern.'"
Observations: While the above isn't precisely a definition, we who have not
been influenced by Lenin, will understand what Gibbons means when he uses
the word "empire." Rome and Britain subjugated a long list of cities and
tribes. After that it occupied them and made them colonies. Britain
because of influence of the Enlightenment and Humanism perhaps could not
feel good about all aspects of their empire building - at least not
ultimately. That did not seem to be true of the Russian empires.
In Russia's People of Empire: Life Stories from Eurasia, 1500 to the
Present, ed by Norris and Sunderland, we read on page 251, "In the last
years, enfeebled by strokes, Stalin was arguably the most powerful man in
the world. Not only did he control the USSR and much of Eastern Europe, but
the communist leaders of China, North Korea, and Vietnam deferred to him.
In 1950 he agreed that Korean leader Kim Il Sung could invade South Koreas,
thus opening the way to the Korean War. . ."
"Like his predecessors Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, and Catherine the
Great, Stalin was both a state builder and an empire builder. Historically
Russia's 'national' identity was an imperial one - nation, absolute state,
and empire intimately intertwined - and Stalin contributed to that tradition
in an exceptionally brutal manner. His legacy was a hypercentralized state,
a crudely industrialized economy, a country in which millions died to build
his idea of socialism, and other millions to defend their country against
the enemies of Communism."
Lawrence
Other related posts:
