What we support and defend

[ganulv]

Ganulv:

I have a question. I think that for an empire to endure and be truly successful, like the British and Roman, for example, they have to bring some benefits to the subjects. It can't all be just suppressing and taking. That doesn't cut it over the long run. The empire has to benefit the subject people in some way, internal peace and order, increased opportunity for trade, suppression of suttee, things like that. I also think that is why Isreal, which runs a mini-empire, has continuous trouble. All they offer the subject people is suppression and humiliation. There is no great benefit.

What do you think?

there are no guarantees. From the stuff I can claim either a good (American Indian relations with the British, French, and U.S. & Latin American relations with the Spanish) or passing (West African relations with the French and British) knowledge of my impression is that at some point the folks in the periphery are going to expect comity of treatment or reasonable privileges. One does have to wonder about the good faith of empires in general given how many of them stood on principle rather than renegotiate the status quo. What would it have cost the British Empire to have really and truly extended political enfranchisement to the Founding Fathers? What would it have cost the French to have extended liberté, égalité, and fraternité worth calling such to the Arab inhabitants of Algeria?