Quote:
Originally posted by Mouse:
Throughout history, a major catalyst for the social, cultural and political evolution of the nation state has been the subjugation of weak or declining geopolitical groupings by more vigorous ones, generally by conquest. It?s Darwinisn on a grand scale.
This does not always have to be a negative thing. There would not be the rich cultural mix in say Southern Europe if there had not been waves of conquest and reconquest over the centuries in that area.
Just a thought 
|
Indeed. Sometimes the sweeping away of the old by the new can lead to renewed growth in various fields. Like a West Australian bushfire [img]smile.gif[/img]
Then Mouse, would you say that the value of imperialist human expansion rests solely upon the personalized moral values of the individual? If it is immoral to subjugate others, then it is immoral to expand empire...surely? If not, then is it possible that the opposite applies? If all opposing voices are silenced, does morality change form? And in which case, does the christian-based morality of Western governments stem from the imperialism of the christian faith? Had the cult of the christ not been bureactratised by the Roman papcy and expanded (at times by force of arms), would the prevalent focus on guilt and judgment in Western philosophy be present today?
Is imperialism merely a concept of organized practicality? All forms of human social relationships involve the manipulation of others in some shape or form, no matter how subtle. When does manipulation become subjugation? How much 'freedom' really exists in the free world? When viewed from a far enough distance, are any modern Nations really any different from one another? Are we all part of the 'axis of evil'?
Thoughts... ?