perfidy

Hey guys, 

Many thanks to the Bucketman for opening a debate on the present and discussion of the past viz-a-viz empire. Thanks to Johnny for keeping it going. 

The first question is, does China in the fifteenth century constitute an empire because of its cultural influence elsewhere in Asia? This brings in the matter of derivative civilizations. The way I see it, Korea and Japan constituted derivative civilizations of Chinese civilization in that they were the product of East Asian peoples ethnically related to the Chinese, who voluntarily adopted aspects of their culture. Hence, they are derivative civilizations, not a product of cultural imperialism. The fifteenth century is too soon, tenth at the latest. As I am oriented toward European, British, Irish, American, and American ethnic history, I'll provide the testimony of an expert in support of my argument. I'll offer two quotations. According to Edwin O. Reischauer's Japan: The Story of A Nation, 

Japan nonetheless is culturally a daughter of Chinese civilization, much as the countries of North Europe are the daughters of Mediterranean culture. The story of the spread of Chinese civilization to the peoples of Japan during the first millennium after Christ is much like the story of the spread of Mediterranean civilization to the peoples of North Europe during the same period. But the greater isolation of the Japanese from the home of their civilization and from all other peoples meant that in Japan the borrowed culture had more chance to develop along new and often unique lines (7). 

I'll add that Highland Scottish culture is derived in an even more direct fashion from Irish culture. Highland Scots are the product of migrants from Ireland to Scotland. Even as late as the sixteenth century Gaelic and Gallic were so similar it is roughly analogous to a present-day American conversing with a present-day English person. Currently Ulster Gaelic and Scottish Gallic retain a high degree of similarity. The Irish were not engaging in imperial adventures against the Scottish, but Highland Scots and their culture are derivative of the Irish and their culture. Rome itself was in many ways a Hellenistic culture derived from Greece, and that occurred less through imperialism than voluntary admiration. Athens had colonies in Sicily, but not on the boot. These examples possess similarities with the situation in regards to China and other Asian cultures. 

So back to Japan. As to the origins of the Japanese themselves, Reischauer asserts that, “

the Japanese are closely related to their neighbors in Korea and China; but like all modern peoples, they are the product of extensive racial mixture (9). 

Thus, I take the position that the Japanese voluntarily adopted Chinese culture. You could argue that for the U.S. in many cases as well; Europeans constantly mimic American popular culture while simultaneously criticizing us for being boorish louts with no sense of culture. But in other cases, American cultural imperialism is a product of American economic imperialism. People in Thailand making Nikes for 3 cents a day are presented with a picture of American prosperity that they cannot themselves achieve, but American companies urge them to buy American products. Continuing the Thai example, corporate insensitivity was so much that Pepsi mis-translanted their slogan, "Choice of a new generation," to "Pepsi resurrects your dead ancestors."

I'll help Johnny out a bit with the admittedly opaque statement, if that's alright. Nations can have empires, nations can refrain from imperial exercises, but nations can also engage in imperialistic exercises that exist outside the realm of formal empire through cultural or economic rather than political and military dominance. Rome possessed such an empire, but the world has changed a great deal since the classical period, and definitions must be adjusted to incorporate change over time. Britain possessed an empire both formal and informal. If this assertion is doubted, I will carry out my previous threat to supply a bibliography. America possesses an empire that is more informal in nature than formal. We have thus seen change over time. Anachronistic definitions do not suit the present; the present is different than the past. That is not to say that formal imperialism has vanished, but it is growing increasingly archaic and atavistic. 

Finally gentlemen, thank you for reminding me that I still love history, despite the best efforts of the forces of evil in academia (IE postmodernists) to crush my spirit and swallow my soul.