You are correct, I do not want to imply that China is the primary exploiter in Africa, nor is the belt and road as it currently exists nearly as bad as historical colonization in the region. My concern is that in a global crisis like the complete collapse of the US, China and others would take the opportunity to expand in a similar fashion.
I would argue that there is not a substantive material difference between imperialism since the 1900s and Rome. Each replacement empire brings new spins on the same formulas. The US empire isn’t much different at this point than feudal empires of the past, just with monopolies instead of aristocracy.
The problem I see is that there has never been a significant lag time between empires and is more a passing of the baton as additional empires either rise from the remains or are subsumed by another empire.
My concern is that in a global crisis like the complete collapse of the US, China and others would take the opportunity to expand in a similar fashion.
I personally think this is largely a hypothetical at this point. As you say, the BRI isn’t really the same as the historical colonialism/imperialism we’re discussing and I haven’t really seen anything from China that indicates that they have a desire to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. If anything, they’re often (rightfully, sometimes) accused of not interfering enough internationally against US influence.
I would argue that there is not a substantive material difference between imperialism since the 1900s and Rome. Each replacement empire brings new spins on the same formulas. The US empire isn’t much different at this point than feudal empires of the past, just with monopolies instead of aristocracy.
I would argue there are substantial important differences. Imperialism is different in both form and function than colonialism and neither are the same as the Roman empire. A notable thing about (Western) Rome as an example, though, is that its collapse did not immediately lead to a different empire taking over all its territories. I guess it can be argued that the “barbarian kingdoms” tried, but they failed. The Western Roman Empire faded away and was never unified again.
I think you’re right and we just have a disagreement on the inevitability of empire and the speed at which it would happen. Thank you for discussing, though! /genuine
I see the BRI as a soft precursor imperialism and just a different place on the same “spectrum” of imperialism. They aren’t committing crimes like Belgium, obviously, but China’s handling of Tibet and Interference with it’s other direct neighbors does signal to me more than willingness to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
I do not think this is unique to China in any way, mind you, but I do not see any indications China is better than any of the 5 eyes countries or Russia. I believe all governments are inherently amoral entities, being an abstract collection of laws and bureaucracy.
The Western Roman empire is an interesting case, as while the various “barbarian” empires were fairly short lived, the members each ended up running their own globe-spanning empires, not to mention the various Holy Roman Empires.
I would like to thank you as well, this has been an excellent discussion and I have enjoyed learning about your perspective.
You are correct, I do not want to imply that China is the primary exploiter in Africa, nor is the belt and road as it currently exists nearly as bad as historical colonization in the region. My concern is that in a global crisis like the complete collapse of the US, China and others would take the opportunity to expand in a similar fashion.
I would argue that there is not a substantive material difference between imperialism since the 1900s and Rome. Each replacement empire brings new spins on the same formulas. The US empire isn’t much different at this point than feudal empires of the past, just with monopolies instead of aristocracy.
The problem I see is that there has never been a significant lag time between empires and is more a passing of the baton as additional empires either rise from the remains or are subsumed by another empire.
I personally think this is largely a hypothetical at this point. As you say, the BRI isn’t really the same as the historical colonialism/imperialism we’re discussing and I haven’t really seen anything from China that indicates that they have a desire to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. If anything, they’re often (rightfully, sometimes) accused of not interfering enough internationally against US influence.
I would argue there are substantial important differences. Imperialism is different in both form and function than colonialism and neither are the same as the Roman empire. A notable thing about (Western) Rome as an example, though, is that its collapse did not immediately lead to a different empire taking over all its territories. I guess it can be argued that the “barbarian kingdoms” tried, but they failed. The Western Roman Empire faded away and was never unified again.
I think you’re right and we just have a disagreement on the inevitability of empire and the speed at which it would happen. Thank you for discussing, though! /genuine
I see the BRI as a soft precursor imperialism and just a different place on the same “spectrum” of imperialism. They aren’t committing crimes like Belgium, obviously, but China’s handling of Tibet and Interference with it’s other direct neighbors does signal to me more than willingness to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
I do not think this is unique to China in any way, mind you, but I do not see any indications China is better than any of the 5 eyes countries or Russia. I believe all governments are inherently amoral entities, being an abstract collection of laws and bureaucracy.
The Western Roman empire is an interesting case, as while the various “barbarian” empires were fairly short lived, the members each ended up running their own globe-spanning empires, not to mention the various Holy Roman Empires.
I would like to thank you as well, this has been an excellent discussion and I have enjoyed learning about your perspective.