Posted under Political Philosophy & Sovereignty and Secession
Stephen Walt points out some embarrassing truths about empires (especially the British one) that should make us think twice about the path we’re on.
Not only does “empire” inevitably mean subjugation and brutality, it also means “multicultural.” After all, the whole point of empire is to force different cultures to conform to one political system. Tamping down self-determination becomes the imperialist’s full-time job. To pretty up the brutality, empires resort to Lesson 2:
2. All Empires depend on self-justifying ideology and rhetoric that is often at odds with reality.
You’ve heard them before: “White man’s burden,” “world democratic revolution,” “liberty, equality, fraternity,” blah-blah. All nothing but window dressing to dress up imperial rule. But sooner or later, the window dressing fails, and all empires run smack dab into Lesson 9:
9. Nationalism and other forms of local identity remain a potent obstacle to long-term imperial control.
Britain’s supposedly “liberal” empire contained a deep contradiction: a society that emphasized individual liberties could not hold in bondage whole societies and deny the inhabitants independence. Once nationalism took root in the colonies (intermingled with other tribal and/or religious identities), resistance to imperial rule increased apace. As the United States is now discovering in Iraq and Central Asia, most peoples don’t like taking orders from well-armed foreigners, even when the foreigners keep telling them that their aims are benevolent.
What the globalists of various flavors denounce as “racism” is actually the most human of impulses, to self-organize into compatible governing units. Nationalism, which is the loyalty people naturally feel for their own people, destroyed the Soviet Union, and it is today ungluing the Communist Chinese empire.
By the way, it’s happening here, too. The Confederate Battleflag that roused the peoples of Eastern Europe against Communism still stands for the same things it always has: resistance to foreign control, liberty, cultural preservation. And just as in the final days of Communism, as resistance grows, the impulse toward freedom will be denounced by those who feed off imperial rule.
Steve J. on 15 Jul 2009 at 12:45 pm #
Excellent! Makes vitally important Truths to the reality of ANY Empire, no matter how “benevolent” it claims ITSELF to be. I especially apprecited the remarks about The Confederate Battleflag – OF WHICH I KNEW NOTHING!! Probable reason: Public school brat, raised in Leftist New York – No ‘inconvenient’ truths allowed! Thank you for not only a well done and well-co-ordinated article, but also a very (pleasantly) informative one. God’s Blessings, SJIV
P.S.: Freedom & Democracy ARE LOCAL
Tyranny & Despotism ARE “NAZIONAL”/GLOBAL
“Nazional” is simply German for ‘national,’ but I love the
obvious ‘double-entendre.’
Weaver on 16 Jul 2009 at 9:55 am #
The Confederate flag was popular in Eastern Europe?! Nice find. That’s quite an honour.
roho on 17 Jul 2009 at 2:03 pm #
I recently read that in 1862, 60% of the United States Exports was cotton…………………………..What an industry!…….Imagine the jealousy?
Callahan on 19 Jul 2009 at 1:57 am #
Harrison Bergeron wrote:
“What the globalists of various flavors denounce as “racism” is actually the most human of impulses, to self-organize into compatible governing units. Nationalism, which is the loyalty people naturally feel for their own people, destroyed the Soviet Union, and it is today ungluing the Communist Chinese empire.”
What always irritates me is the notion among liberals — and many paleoconservatives — that ethnic loyalty and pride is pathological. The reason that this annoys me is because the truth is that ethnic nationalism is one of the most natural impulses. Follow the link:
http://www.amren.com/ar/2005/01/index.html#cover
Harrison Bergeron, I know that you are Mike Tuggle, and that you are a member of the League of the South Board of Directors. So you would be the man who could answer this question: Is the League of the South a Southern nationalist organization? This may come as a surprise to all the paleos here who despise nationalism but Wikipedia calls the League of the South a “Southern nationalist organization.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_south
Mike on 19 Jul 2009 at 7:29 pm #
Callahan,
Of course the League is a Southern nationalist organization. The “nationalism” we reject is the bloodthirsty jingoism that’s addled the brains of too many Americans.
Bede on 20 Jul 2009 at 7:47 pm #
Another lesson of empire: a shortage of soldiers in empires almost always leads to liberal immigration policies and liberal citizenship handouts. It certainly did in both the Roman and Ottoman empires.
MRob on 20 Jul 2009 at 7:49 pm #
As I commented sometime back at TakiMag:
It should be noted the traditional notion of a nation is prior to the state. As the Latin nasci suggests, the word ‘nation’ implies link by blood. Members of a traditional nation believe they are ancestrally related.
Discussing the traditional concept of a nation, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote some years ago:
“To be a nation, a people must believe they are a nation and that they share a common ancestry, history, and destiny.”
In recent years, however, this definition has become blurred. People now use ‘nation’ where the word ‘state’ would be more apt. (A state can consist of various nations.) Adding to this confusion is the notion of nationalism. Although a creation of the 19th century, nationalism is related to the ancient concept of the natio, but has taken on an ideological connotation. In essence, there are two visions of nationalism:
(1) A traditional understanding of nationalism as it relates to the ancient concept of the natio – the respect and admiration of one’s own nation, but the realization that it cannot, because it is ancestrally limited, be imposed upon others.
And its modern perversion:
(2) Ideological nationalism, the worship of the abstract state, and the drive to impose this ideology upon others.
Callahan on 22 Jul 2009 at 2:16 am #
Mr. Tuggle,
Thanks for your response. Here’s my favorite quote from the official site of the League of the South:
http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/faq.shtml
I definitely couldn’t have said it any better myself. That sounds like quintessential ethnic nationalism to me.
Perhaps some of the paleoconservatives who are members of the League of the South should rethink their stance on ethnonationalism. Either that or they should cancel their membership in order to not contradict themselves.
Callahan on 22 Jul 2009 at 2:43 am #
MRob,
Sorry, but I’m not sure that I completely understand your position on nationalism. Do you believe that each nation — or ethnic group — has the right to pursue its own separate state? In other words, do you think that the aspirations of ethnic nationalists are legitimate? Do you support those aspirations?
HarrisonBergeron2 on 22 Jul 2009 at 12:21 pm #
Callahan,
Please elaborate. What contradiction?
Callahan on 25 Jul 2009 at 2:26 am #
Harrison Bergeron,
I was merely saying that I think that it’s a contradiction for any paleoconservative who despises nationalism — and many do — to be a member of a nationalist organization. If you think that it’s morally reprehensible to fight for and take great pride in your ethnicity or nation, then I think that you should at least be consistent with you beliefs and resign yourself to the destruction and defilement of the South and the Southern people.
That being said, I know that there are some issues that even an anti-nationalist paleoconservative could agree with the League of the South on. Moreover, I know that any organization that wants to be successful must work with partial allies. However, in my opinion, to be a member of a nationalist organization you should be a nationalist yourself. At the very minimum you surely must not be hostile to nationalism.