- This topic has 7 voices and 46 replies.
-
Posts
-
Yes--one wit said it was sort of acquired by accident
An apt description. The Brits never set out to found an Empire upon which the sun never set. They just chased the money.
An apt description. The Brits never set out to found an Empire upon which the sun never set. They just chased the money.
Who didn't ?
Isnt chasing the money or glory how just about every empire has been founded. Recently read a pretty decent book called Absent-minded Imperialists about England and her Empire.
The money (business) issue is why the US is often classed as imperialistic. Some look at our continental nation status calling Manifest destiny the culprit but the term came rather late in our expansion… which began simply because the first comers were sooo excited about all that free land. Remeber it was very hard to aquire land for most folks in Europe at that time.
The Term Manifest Destiny appeared before the Mexican-American War. Manifest Destiny The concept itself dates to before the revolution and really blossomed after 1814 and the drive west got underway. I refuse to make value judgments, American expansion is what it is and it is kind of pointless to spend time beating ourselves for what happened. But then again, I am a firm believer in Right of Conquest anyway.
I need help. I think I know what the “Right of Conquest” is, but I am not sure we share the sameappreciation of the definition. In my lexicon it works like this: I have more men/money/weapons than you do so I mobilize my resources and take away what was yours and claim it as mine. Is this what you mean?WillyD
I need help. I think I know what the "Right of Conquest" is, but I am not sure we share the sameappreciation of the definition. In my lexicon it works like this: I have more men/money/weapons than you do so I mobilize my resources and take away what was yours and claim it as mine. Is this what you mean?WillyD
That is what I mean and that is the historical meaning of the term as well. Throughout most of human history might has indeed made right, despite what some people would like us o believe. Hobbes was essentially correct if his famous quote is applied to nations or sovereign entities; nature is indeed red in tooth and claw.
So having asked for a date and getting several; did one happen to be correct? ??? If so, which? ???What justification for its correctness? ???
So according to your definition, if we decide we no longer want to pay Argentina high prices for beef, we are fully justified to warn them that unless they lower prices we will loose hell upon them and make them our latter-day helots?
You are excused, Wally. Actually it would be cool to have a helot or at least a dweller around.Willy D
Okay, I see now… you were responding to scout; not my question about the correct answer to the question. Sorry to appear obtuse (or oblique, for that matter). :-[
Wally:To blunder is commonplace for me--I too have your question in mind--when did this come back into fashion? Burn, rape, pillage, loot and justify it as right of conquest--sounds like a right of center plot to me!
I'm not sure those things are really still in play (at least from the more civil nations) but economic pressure is always in the tool box. Too bad it can now be used on us… as well as by us. 🙁
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
