In class, we argued whether or not a modern day empire would be feasible/accepted. I believe that a modern day empire would be a practical means of living for the most people. In a successful empire, there is a strong sense of stability, and a fairly direct line of authority. Although each region is under its own separate governor's rule, all regions of the empire pledge fealty to the emperor. The Roman Empire lasted for so long because of its strong sense of commitment to the prosperity of the empire. Because there was such a massive land holding, there was limited conflict over land. With the world being in the hands of only a few major empires, there were few land disputes and peace was maintained for relatively long periods of time. I believe that if the world today were modeled in a modern empire style, there would be a few major empires that controlled the world (i.e. the U.S. controlling much of North/Central America, China controlling Asia, etc), which would limit the amount of land disputes and decrease the amount of war. Because much of the fighting in the world today is done between neighboring nations, this issue would be relatively eliminated.
Although a modern day empire might be optimal, there are some shortcomings to this idea. For starters, one of the oppositions brought in class was the issues of upward mobility. Because social classes are fairly set in stone in an empirical system, there is a limit on how much upward mobility there is. However, I believe that the stability of the most citizens would be preferable to the prosperity of few. Another major issue that is brought up is the lack of sovereignty of individual states that is enjoyed today. In an empirical system, there is a slight sense of sovereignty under the individual governors, but the fealty is ultimately sworn to the empire as a whole. The issue of putting so many people's hands in the fate of one person may be daunting. The Roman empire thrived for over 500 years, I believe with minor tweaks in today's society an empirical system could survive in the modern world.
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteHow different is this from colonialism? I do not imagine that you would say that colonialism was a positive thing for colonized peoples correct? How would we make sure any modern day empire isn't a colonial enterprise? How is power checked at the top?
Professor Shirk,
ReplyDeleteI think that there are definitely comparisons to colonialism, as there are both direct lines of control. I would liken the checking system on the top to a variation of the one the Roman Empire had. I think a way to have a check on the modern empires is to have a council, constructed of members from each governance (i.e. Mexico, Canada, U.S., etc), to serve as a guidance for the emperor in making decisions. The council would have the power to overrule the emperor if they felt that his (or her) decision were irrational.
Since each of the governors has virtual control over their region, they have a better understanding of what is happening throughout the empire. This is a bit different to colonialism, as there is more of a check on the power.
This could work, thought he 'governors' could simply be appointed by the central authority and not be accountable to the people of that province. Might we want to separate the local rulers from the people in this case?
DeleteDo you think that the way the US is set up now, with states who have representatives in Congress, governors, and mayors for cities, that we are set up more or less like an empire? As you said each region would be under a separate governors rule (our states) but still pledge loyalty to the emperor (our president). Following this logic could we conclude that the US is possible smaller version of a modern day empire?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think in a way we are set up in respects to what a modern day empire would look like. Although each individual states has powers within their borders, the federal government ultimately rules supreme over most matters. If this were to be translated on a larger scale, mostly in regards to land holdings, then I feel as though it would represent the modern day empire as a translation of previous times.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up some interesting points about war being between neighbors and how a few major empires could negate that risk somewhat. However, in the world today, war is not necessarily fought between geographic neighbors. The US, for example, never fought a war in close proximity to North America throughout the 20th Century. Moving past that however, I think a modern empire would have to be set up much like a democratic nation in some way. When you say empire, I envision a large nation set up like the United States with many states, possibly territories, but that are all ruled locally and then have some say in national matters. I think that could work, but I'm not sure if it would be termed an "empire" per say. An empire set up like the Roman or British, in which the central authority is brutal to subjected peoples, would not be stable due to human rights advances of the past century.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're are saying and believe the US could represent a miniature model of a democratic empire. However, I do not believe many states would be willing to give up sovereignty to be apart of a larger world government. For your theory, I am curious as to where a country like Russia would be. Its on both the European and Asian continent. Would you want to BRIC countries in the same empire and when forming empires you would have to take into account both historical and modern feuds between nations. North and South Korea for example would be in the same empire. I agree with Matt, I think the term "empire" carries a negative connotation for those people who were conquered or subjected to one.
ReplyDeleteI like how you mentioned that upward mobility would be severely limited in an empirical system.I also agree that states under rule of the empire would not be completely free. I do not, however, believe that a modern world dominated by a few empires could work. I believe there is a reason we have seen in the past countries gaining their independence, or fighting hard to. Ultimately every country has its own culture, own ways, and own ideas/dominant religions. I strongly believe empires did not work out because large areas of land and people could not simply fall under one empire. I think there would be constant strive for freedom, even from the smallest countries.
ReplyDelete