Is hegemony inherently bad? Those who say it is argue that it is a close cousin of full-on imperialism. Those who say it isn't point out that hegemonic periods of history have been relatively peaceful and stable. What are your thoughts?
Hegemony usually comes at a great human cost, that is, the imposition of hegemonic rule involves the violent suppression of the losers. For example, trade routes in the Mongol Empire were remarkably safe because of the Mongols simply extinguished any form of opposition to their rule, including local banditry. The body count from a Mongol invasion was astronomical.
63rd Knight of TITO, Grand Knight Armada Commander Steward of the House of Improving Wordiness Namesake of The Escanaba Generation
Post by New Rogernomics on Nov 28, 2012 4:40:13 GMT -5
Something wrong with your sig Escanaba?
Depends on what ideological, political and economic policies the hegemony supports. It is possible to be a hegemony without necessarily undermining subject states, such in the case of the League of Corinth; but there are always abuses such as with Thebes which was effectively burned to the ground. I think a hegemony should be viewed in context of how willing the subject states are; as well as the results of that hegemony (negative or positive). In the case of Alexander the Great's Empire you could argue the Greek subject states gained, and the Persian and Egyptian states didn't weaken or lose prosperity as a result.
Posts: 3,638
Likes: 623
XKI Generation: The New Taco Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Red XKI NS Join Year: 176 - Tuesday, 27 November 2012 Historical XKI Political Party: MSPP - Mayor Shelter Political Party Ancient House of: Markanite
That's only if you accept that the ends justify the means. Alexander spent his reign killing. While Greece gained, it was through the blood of everyone who opposed Alexander, and those who died for him.
Post by progutopia on Feb 18, 2014 21:01:55 GMT -5
Political hegemony is good as it allows a hyper power (US) the ability to stop genocide and other human rights violation, grow partnerships with strong nations and regions and it establishes an untouchable status among powerful nations. Cultural hegemony is good because as a dominant culture introduces its products and values into the lifestyles of others, those products are often modified to suit local tastes and interests. At the same time, local culture is incorporated into the dominant social structure, making both groups more culturally diverse.
Last Edit: Feb 18, 2014 21:02:45 GMT -5 by progutopia
Political hegemony is good as it allows a hyper power (US) the ability to stop genocide and other human rights violation, grow partnerships with strong nations and regions and it establishes an untouchable status among powerful nations. Cultural hegemony is good because as a dominant culture introduces its products and values into the lifestyles of others, those products are often modified to suit local tastes and interests. At the same time, local culture is incorporated into the dominant social structure, making both groups more culturally diverse.
You talk about "justice and cultural values", but you talk like these because you're from the U.S. I want to be clear, I don't want to start a flame or insult the U.S.A., but there are many points of view, and as an european, i think that egemony is only a waste of men's lives and a power abuse. The right to stop a genocide or assure human rights (things that America don't do, there are genocides in many parts of the world and u.s. government simply ignore them) is not a prerogative of only one nation, but of a council of nations (like the U.N.). Hegemony only helps the lead nation, and destory cultural, economic and social structures of others nations.