Err, hasn't, like, every writer of large-scale Rome histories cited giving away citizenship to those who would fight for it as a major cause of the empire's decline?
The common reason I can pull down from memory (derivative of Machiavelli's oft-cited thesis) is that it encouraged sloth, decadence, short-sightedness, etc among already-existing citizens. Machiavelli would probably say it destroyed their virtue, where virtue means something more like 'manliness' than 'goodness'.
That, and it gave citizenship to too many people who didn't have much invested in actually being Roman or defending Rome. They were not at all reliable, which is especially problematic if their leaders decided to start pillaging Roman lands anyway.
That, and it gave citizenship to too many people who didn't have much invested in actually being Roman or defending Rome.
This makes sense to me. As for the sloth and decadence of the current citizen, I think Ferguson would have us all fight as well, which might correct for that.
eh, I don't know how to answer this question. I guess I'd paraphrase Chinua Achebe (talking about western colonialism in general) and say good things have probably come from it, but not enough to justify the horrors of it.
The question strikes me as overwrought. Isn't it more interesting to ask if it's a net good? Then you can at least start to break it down and ask 'along which dimensions has it been positive?' and 'along which dimensions has it been harmful?' Then you can, err, weigh and make judgments. My own judgment is that we're probably gentler than your average hegemon, but considerably less reliable. There's a longer version of this, broken down on a few dimensions, but I have homework.
Asking 'has nothing positive come from American imperialism?' in my limited experience, just provokes people into writing anti- or pro-American polemics. Boring polemics. And the internet has enough boring polemics.
It's not "overwrought": Sean wrote "I obviously disagree with Ferguson's categorization of the American Empire as being a positive force in the world" which would indicate that he doesn't think that anything good has come of American imperialism. I asked the question to determine whether or not he is categorically opposed to imperialism, such that no empire could be a positive force in the world, or if he just thinks America has been a crappy empire.
If he (or anyone) categorically opposes imperialism, then arguing nuance would be pointless. However, if he (or anyone) isn't categorically opposed to imperialism, then I don't really see how he (or anyone) would be rejecting Ferguson's argument that while American imperialism has been a positive force in the world, it could have been better.
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
That, and it gave citizenship to too many people who didn't have much invested in actually being Roman or defending Rome. They were not at all reliable, which is especially problematic if their leaders decided to start pillaging Roman lands anyway.
Reply
This makes sense to me. As for the sloth and decadence of the current citizen, I think Ferguson would have us all fight as well, which might correct for that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Asking 'has nothing positive come from American imperialism?' in my limited experience, just provokes people into writing anti- or pro-American polemics. Boring polemics. And the internet has enough boring polemics.
Reply
If he (or anyone) categorically opposes imperialism, then arguing nuance would be pointless. However, if he (or anyone) isn't categorically opposed to imperialism, then I don't really see how he (or anyone) would be rejecting Ferguson's argument that while American imperialism has been a positive force in the world, it could have been better.
Reply
Leave a comment