A new term that has been popping up a lot lately is the term of "neo-imperialism". What is this neo-imperialism thing?
Well first of all the prefix "neo" indicates something new, and it is used to distinguish from two similar terms that are different chronologicaly speaking. "Neo-imperialism" is different from regular "imperialism" in chronology - but not just.
There can be little doubt regular, old-style imperialism is bad. It brought with it exploitation and humiliation as well as a couple of diseases previously unknown to the natives, which in turn retaliated by giving the imperialist invaders a bunch of diseases of their own. Imperialism was bad because only one side truly benefited from the relationship, and that was usually the side with the bigger guns. Examples of old imperialism are plentyful - Spain's colonies in Latin America, England's colonies that were scattered around the globe, France's colonies and even the Danish colony of Greenland. Old Imperialism lead to the death of millions by an invading nation that didn't care for the life of the citizens of its colonies and cared even less for its culture.
Now a new time has arisen. After the First World War, when Imperialism began to crumble under the iron boot of Nationalism, there was a transition period. From 1918 to 1933 radical elements took power of three major nations in Europe (Germany, Spain, Italy) and a rather radical Emperor emerged in Japan. I'm fairly certain I don't have to elaborate on World war 2. It was a horrible time which led to a slightly less horrible but nonetheless scary war, the cold war.
You can sum up the cold war in one word: MADness, both in the sense of being an insane time and a time of "Mutually Assured Destruction" tactics.
After the fall of one of the two superpowers, we can start saying the age of "Neo-Imperialism" began. When you have two superpowers, their influences are cancelled with each other and thus you have a stalemate. I will assume this is true for every case of every even number, since it would seem reasonable for an equal number of nations to neutralize another equal number. In an age in which only an odd number of superpowers exist, such as today with the United States, visions of a great empire can begin. Thus we can begin considering the 1991 Gulf war as the first campaign in the age of "Neo-imperialism".
The question presented now is this:
Is "Neo-imperialism" is really that bad? Old imperialism was brought forth with only one purpose and goal: Money. Wars were fought over maritime trade routes (Pirates and Privateers), nations were overrun for rare minerals and "luxury" items such as silk and spices and a lot of people from both sides died. Old imperialism regarded the imperialist to be more important than the colony-man, thus a British soldier in India was "worth" the lives of many Hindus.
Neo-imperialism is different. The last war in Iraq can be considered an imperialist campaign by many - it was after all for oil, no? EVen if it was only for the materialistic reason of petroleum, which is highly unlikely on its own right, this war was set aside by the fact the coalition army went to painstaking steps to minimize casualties - both military and civilian. The war in Iraq demonstrated the "neo-imperialist" army to be respectful and as less intrusive as possible with every day life, an army with one goal to achieve (a protectorate over Iraq) that doesn't resort to public executions and control through fear. Is this form of imperialism, the "neo-imperialism", as bad as its predecessor? Can an occupying force that bring forth part of its own values and culture into a country is occupies be a positive influence, and not just a recipe for a massacre or a revolution?
Well first of all the prefix "neo" indicates something new, and it is used to distinguish from two similar terms that are different chronologicaly speaking. "Neo-imperialism" is different from regular "imperialism" in chronology - but not just.
There can be little doubt regular, old-style imperialism is bad. It brought with it exploitation and humiliation as well as a couple of diseases previously unknown to the natives, which in turn retaliated by giving the imperialist invaders a bunch of diseases of their own. Imperialism was bad because only one side truly benefited from the relationship, and that was usually the side with the bigger guns. Examples of old imperialism are plentyful - Spain's colonies in Latin America, England's colonies that were scattered around the globe, France's colonies and even the Danish colony of Greenland. Old Imperialism lead to the death of millions by an invading nation that didn't care for the life of the citizens of its colonies and cared even less for its culture.
Now a new time has arisen. After the First World War, when Imperialism began to crumble under the iron boot of Nationalism, there was a transition period. From 1918 to 1933 radical elements took power of three major nations in Europe (Germany, Spain, Italy) and a rather radical Emperor emerged in Japan. I'm fairly certain I don't have to elaborate on World war 2. It was a horrible time which led to a slightly less horrible but nonetheless scary war, the cold war.
You can sum up the cold war in one word: MADness, both in the sense of being an insane time and a time of "Mutually Assured Destruction" tactics.
After the fall of one of the two superpowers, we can start saying the age of "Neo-Imperialism" began. When you have two superpowers, their influences are cancelled with each other and thus you have a stalemate. I will assume this is true for every case of every even number, since it would seem reasonable for an equal number of nations to neutralize another equal number. In an age in which only an odd number of superpowers exist, such as today with the United States, visions of a great empire can begin. Thus we can begin considering the 1991 Gulf war as the first campaign in the age of "Neo-imperialism".
The question presented now is this:
Is "Neo-imperialism" is really that bad? Old imperialism was brought forth with only one purpose and goal: Money. Wars were fought over maritime trade routes (Pirates and Privateers), nations were overrun for rare minerals and "luxury" items such as silk and spices and a lot of people from both sides died. Old imperialism regarded the imperialist to be more important than the colony-man, thus a British soldier in India was "worth" the lives of many Hindus.
Neo-imperialism is different. The last war in Iraq can be considered an imperialist campaign by many - it was after all for oil, no? EVen if it was only for the materialistic reason of petroleum, which is highly unlikely on its own right, this war was set aside by the fact the coalition army went to painstaking steps to minimize casualties - both military and civilian. The war in Iraq demonstrated the "neo-imperialist" army to be respectful and as less intrusive as possible with every day life, an army with one goal to achieve (a protectorate over Iraq) that doesn't resort to public executions and control through fear. Is this form of imperialism, the "neo-imperialism", as bad as its predecessor? Can an occupying force that bring forth part of its own values and culture into a country is occupies be a positive influence, and not just a recipe for a massacre or a revolution?
I would like to see the world just be a nice and friendly place, without all this warfare and power struggling, but I'm just a dreamer.
:whip:
