futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 1, 2018 0:10:11 GMT
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts on the mortality of conquering territory for living space--whether in the past or in the present--is.
I mean, I feel rather conflicted about this considering that, on one hand, I support national self-determination--for instance, allowing territories to secede from the country which they are a part of. (This is evidenced by my support of the break-up of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.) On the other hand, though, I really do have a soft spot for the U.S.'s conquest of large amounts of Mexican territory back in 1848 due to the fact that the U.S. managed to make excellent use of this territory afterwards (by turning it into its living space, et cetera). (I also like the fact that the U.S. gave U.S. citizenship to the people who were living in this territory at the time that it was conquered. Indeed, if one is going to expand, this is certainly the proper course of action.) In turn, this makes me wonder--if it was fair game for the U.S. to expand into northern Mexico in order to acquire living space, and it was fair game for, say, Russia to expand into Siberia and northern Kazakhstan for the same reason, shouldn't it be fair game for other countries to do this as well if these countries genuinely have an overpopulation problem and have a lot of people who are willing to settle on newly acquired living space?
I mean, we certainly have international law right now. However, powerful countries have the luxury of violating international law with relative impunity if they so choose--for instance, take a look at the U.S.'s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and Russia's annexation of Crimea. In turn, this makes one wonder if the current system of international law is the best one out there. I mean, I certainly don't approve of what the Nazis wanted to do considering that it involved mass ethnic cleansing and genocide, but if a country genuinely has an overpopulation problem (and Nazi Germany did not) and wants to expand its territory and also grant citizenship to everyone who is already living in its newly acquired territory (like the U.S. did in 1848), I'm not so sure that having this country expand is the worst thing that can happen.
Anyway, any thoughts on this? Indeed, do you view the U.S.'s expansion into northern Mexico and Russia's expansion into Siberia and northern Kazakhstan as being illegitimate?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 1, 2018 10:29:17 GMT
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts on the mortality of conquering territory for living space--whether in the past or in the present--is. I mean, I feel rather conflicted about this considering that, on one hand, I support national self-determination--for instance, allowing territories to secede from the country which they are a part of. (This is evidenced by my support of the break-up of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.) On the other hand, though, I really do have a soft spot for the U.S.'s conquest of large amounts of Mexican territory back in 1848 due to the fact that the U.S. managed to make excellent use of this territory afterwards (by turning it into its living space, et cetera). (I also like the fact that the U.S. gave U.S. citizenship to the people who were living in this territory at the time that it was conquered. Indeed, if one is going to expand, this is certainly the proper course of action.) In turn, this makes me wonder--if it was fair game for the U.S. to expand into northern Mexico in order to acquire living space, and it was fair game for, say, Russia to expand into Siberia and northern Kazakhstan for the same reason, shouldn't it be fair game for other countries to do this as well if these countries genuinely have an overpopulation problem and have a lot of people who are willing to settle on newly acquired living space? I mean, we certainly have international law right now. However, powerful countries have the luxury of violating international law with relative impunity if they so choose--for instance, take a look at the U.S.'s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and Russia's annexation of Crimea. In turn, this makes one wonder if the current system of international law is the best one out there. I mean, I certainly don't approve of what the Nazis wanted to do considering that it involved mass ethnic cleansing and genocide, but if a country genuinely has an overpopulation problem (and Nazi Germany did not) and wants to expand its territory and also grant citizenship to everyone who is already living in its newly acquired territory (like the U.S. did in 1848), I'm not so sure that having this country expand is the worst thing that can happen. Anyway, any thoughts on this? Indeed, do you view the U.S.'s expansion into northern Mexico and Russia's expansion into Siberia and northern Kazakhstan as being illegitimate?
futurist
Its a difficult question as most/all modern and historical states have been formed at least in part by such conquests. Not necessarily living space for ordinary people as often its to take new resources for an elite - i.e. land for farming, hunting, rich mines and other mineral resources, fishing grounds etc.
How much rights did the US actually give to the people in the lands annexed from Mexico? As I understand it the 'Mexicans' suffered a lot of discrimination while the native Indians, who were still the vast majority of the population in much of the area were badly exploited. [True in some cases, such as some of the Apaches in Texas they were not pleasant people themselves but a lot of the tribes in California for instance were largely peaceful I believe.] This was in part because Mexico itself was badly governed and if it had been better organised it might well in time have sought to disposes those people or might have treated them better.
California and Texas before it pose another question. What happens when migrants to a land/region decide to break away from its government and either establish their own independent state or merge with the land they originally come from? This happened with Americans [mainly] settling in Texas who later rebelled against Mexican rule, in part because they refused to keep to the terms under which they were originally allowed in - such as conversion to Catholicism and having no slaves. Here again at the time of the rebellion they were a minority in what became the new country of Texas. Or if say the OTL war hadn't happened and gold had been discovered in California while its still under Mexican rule. Your likely to get a flood of migrants from all over the world, but largely people of European descent because their more likely to have the wealth and capacity to reach California. If as a result California becomes predominantly 'Anglo' does its people have the right to rebel and establish their own country or say join the US? How much does the answer depend on how well or badly their treated by the Mexican government?
I'm using examples from the US here because their fairly well known. Not sure how much Russian expansion over Siberia and parts of Central Asia was in displacing local populations or simply bringing higher levels of technology/organisation so they can settle markedly larger populations here. Plus the original eastward expansion was started in part because Muslim remnants of the Golden Horde in a series of Khanates along the central and lower Volga and in the southern Ukraine posed a continued threat to its people by slave raids and other attacks. Later expansion into Siberia was initially driven by the fur trade but when and how that shifted from traders to military rule and actual colonists I'm unclear.
Similarly to my example above on a Mexican California you could there were the Boer 'republics' in what's now S Africa. They were founded by Boer farmers, mainly because they wanted somewhere where they could escape British rule and especially the ending of slavery. However great gold and diamond wealth was discovered and prompted an influx of setters, mainly from British lands. Those by most accounts formed the majority of the population [or the white population as neither group really counted the natives at the time] but were denied citizen rights and heavily taxed. Ultimately this was decided by the 2nd Boer War but would the Anglo's have had a right to rebel against the Boer minority and establish their own state?
To most people in the modern west its considered wrong and evil to deposes someone else of land and resources by brute force simply because you have the capacity and want those resources for yourself. However for most of history, including until recent times in Europe itself this was standard operating procedure. There were often restrains but they tended to be practical ones rather than moral. You didn't try to attack too large and powerful an opponent because you might lose. A power that has been friendly is also often a poor choice because you might need its support in the future while it also makes other powers less likely to ally with you in the future. It might be political 'morality' developed to a degree here because it was seen as wrong to attack a friendly power for the reasons mentioned above but over time began to be seen as a moral wrong in itself regardless of practicality. Of course alliances change and today's friends can become tomorrow's enemies and fairly naked betrays are far from unknown, especially if the power involved thinks it can get away with it even today.
Another factor of course is the question of survival as well as personal short term gain. If a number of states reject opportunities to expand at the expense of other states they have to watch that other, more aggressive powers don't do that and over time build up such a large and powerful state that they can be a threat to the 'moral' states.
Furthermore it depends on the attitude of the would be conquerors to their new subjects. For much of history its been relatively rare that people are ruled by leaders from their own community, at least in the more advanced areas. Sometimes empires give greater or lesser privileges to their own 'people' but in other cases, especially over time there may be little difference between the ruling 'nation' and its 'subjects'. Especially when the rulers see themselves as a separate elite. For instance in ancient Egypt, apart from the number of dynasties with foreign origins, I doubt many Pharaoh's saw much difference between their subject in what we call Egypt and lands in say Nubia or Palestine which were also under their control.
Basically its a very complex subject and I must admit I'm not sure whether the current western approach of viewing all 'colonisation' as wrong will be viable in the longer run?
Steve
|
|
