I’m confused at what they think good imperialism looks like. Empire by it’s very nature, is a crime against humanity.
Regardless, all empires grow to be too large and unmanageable, eventually.
I think it’s their perspective, of seeing how awful empire is. The death and destruction it leaves in it’s wake, and every other awful thing that empires do.
Because objectively, America was the first real global hegemon, and created a brand new type of imperialism to achieve that objective. America was the best at empire.
But now that it’s dying many people wrongly assume there was any other way it could have gone, that there was a malevolent external actor who actually ruined it, or that it could have been done in a more just or humane manner.
Maybe there is some truth to the latter, on the margins, but ultimately those concepts are antithetical to the concept of empire.
What do you mean by empire, and if not immediately obvious in your definition of it, what makes it bad?
I don’t know too much, but I recall learning that the Ottoman Empire was supposedly kinda accepting of different religions and whatnot and kept the peace for a long time
Was there anything good there that we could’ve learned from? I’m guessing there’s some bad/immoral/unhelpful stuff they did but I also can easily imagine European countries just wanted their shit and thought they deserved it for whatever reason
Edit: reading rn. Ok they definitely did some fucked up shit to their enemies…
Sorry, meant that now deleted reply for someone else.
Two words: Armenian genocide
Also big players in the global slave trade.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_EmpireOh… I see. I’ll keep reading
deleted by creator
Yes, they were a regional hegemon.
If I’m being generous, from the view of the average Roman citizen, they were a global hegemony, because they didn’t know how big the world really was.
But they were not. There was no shortage of rival empires, some even right on their borders, and all during Pax Romana, including the Parthian Empire, Kushan Empire, and the Han Dynasty.
And my history is a bit rusty, but I’m pretty sure Rome tried multiple times to conquer the Parthian Empire, and failed.
Most importantly however, their reach did not extend across the globe, only where they could build their roads through, or sail their boats to, such as Carthage.
Also, Pax Romana, refers to a period of relative peace for Rome, brought by their imperial power. It’s only indirectly related to their hegemonic status, but it’s not in reference to it.
I’d say 16th century Portugal was the first world hegemony followed by the Netherlands, Spain, France, Britain, and then America or something like that…Gilgamesh was fighting against Kish “world” hegemony before the flood so this shit goes waaaaaay back
You’re confusing hegemon and classical empire, with global homogeny. We can debate whether or not global hegemony is unique to a unipolar world, but I don’t think it’s very debatable that it’s only been achieved through the use of neo-imperialism.
That is to say, no classical empire has ever achieved truely global hegemonic status, but there’s no shortage of historical hegemonic powers and classical empires, including that European ones you listed.
I will say that while I generally view the British empire as a classical empire, it’s competition with other European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries is what really gave rise to the concept of neo-imperialism.
But the Monroe doctrine put real checks on their imperial power and influence, that they could not, or would not, overcome. Which is why I have a hard time considering them a global hedgemon in the same context as America, but I realize for their time, they could be considered the first global hegemon.
Goddamnit, you’ve made one heck of a case and now I’m a believer.
