Summary of “Three Views of Empire”
By Briana Gutfinski
There are probably as many views of empires, and imperialism, as there are scholars and writers who study them. Each seems to point out different strengths and/or weaknesses associated with the system, and with specific empires. In the “Three Views of Empire” packet, readers come to terms with three (actually, four) views of empire.
The first article, written by Tristram Hunt, opens with an age-old question: Why did the Roman Empire fall? The answer, Hunt reveals, was uncovered by historian Edward Gibbon, who wrote an account of the long, drawn out event. Basically, according to Gibbon, the people of Rome, including soldiers and influential leaders, became arrogant and cocky. Gibbon, who was British, was determined to not let that happen to his empire. Interestingly, one of Gibbon’s most famous students was Winston Churchill.
Robert Sibley, the author of the second article, states that the most important prerequisite for any empire is control. So, readers ask, is the U.S. an empire? Certainly, some would say no. The United States doesn’t go out and set up colonies in faraway lands. But it is an empire in a nontraditional sense—trying to extend freedom and stability around the world. John Watson, a Canadian philosopher, stated in the early 1900s that imperialism is a good thing, if it aims for morality. America’s role in Iraq would be a good example, then. America did invade Iraq, yes. But we are currently setting up a new, democratic system. We forced a tyrant out of power. If an empire is about control, then, yes, America is an empire. But a different “breed” of empire, really. How could anyone oppose an empire of freedom?
Tryst Williams, the author of the third article, seems appalled that British students are not learning enough about the British Empire in school. Some educators, he claims, argue that the era of the British Empire was horrible, that the Empire subjugated and oppressed too many people. But critics of that policy point out that the British Empire had its good points, too. One professor interviewed for this piece stated that there is nothing wrong with teaching about the Empire, just as there is nothing wrong with teaching students about Nazi Germany.
The fourth article (finally!), written by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, claims that imperial revisionism—manipulating the history of the Empire to make it seem better than it really was—is rampant in Britain. Alibhai-Brown asserts that while the British did have some positive accomplishments during their long reign as an empire—flush toilets, train systems, etc.. But the underlying fact is that the natives of these colonized countries, for the most part, did not want the British there! They were perfectly happy living by their old ways. The author seems to think that if British Imperialism is going to be taught in schools, it should be taught from both sides.
As for me, I have taken away a little something from each of these articles. Imperialism has its good points (sometimes exporting freedom and democracy and technology) and its bad points (subjugating and enslaving natives, stirring up old rivalries). Empires tend to fall when the people who lead them become arrogant and adopt an attitude of “Nobody can beat me,” similar to a sports team that has won the league championship for five years running and then underestimates their opponent on the sixth try. America could be called an empire, because we do control much of the world with our attitude toward government. And, no matter what the good and bad points of an empire, or government, or practice, are, those empires/governments/practices should be taught. Let people make up their own minds. Or, at least let students of all ages know the facts so that the same mistake isn’t made again.