5 ms·

Lessons of Demopolis

23 points by diodorus 11y ago

vinceguidry 11y ago
The United States is really weird and wonderful. Geopolitics teaches that whichever group of people that managed to tame the Mississippi river basin was destined to become a world power. The most advanced society in the world at the time of colonialism was Great Britain. Great Britain had no idea at the time of what they had in their part of North America, otherwise they would have fought harder to keep it. It just so happened that the most valuable region of the world came under the control of peoples hailing from the most advanced society in the world. It was a complete, but happy accident. Imagine what the world would be like if this part of the world were more like China. Liberal democracies only flourish if they are protected from the rest of the world around them. Native Americans couldn't put up much of a fight against the Europeans because they were geographically stunted, they didn't possess the guns, germs, steel, and horses needed to mount an effective resistance. Had they, the course of history would have been very different. China has the second-most valuable real estate on the planet. But as it was not separated geographically from its neighbors, it did not have the long periods of peace needed to evolve liberal democracy, so it never did. Someone posted a question on Quora once that struck me. What would have happened if the Japanese never gave up China after the war? Would the Chinese all be speaking Japanese? The pithy reply was, "if the Japanese had actually tried to rule China, then the Japanese would now be speaking Chinese." Such would have been the fate of Europeans trying to conquer North America had it not been utterly stunted the by lack of horses and other necessaries to a technologically-advanced society.
- civilian 11y ago
  I really like parts of your post, but I need to call BS on the strength of "geography as destiny". I think I support something like a "weak geography as destiny". Like, I believe that China did have periods of peace that would have been long enough to develop liberal democracies. China was the strongest country in their region, sure they had borders to watch but they were just as protected as France or Germany during their conversions to democracy or republics. I don't think that it's peace that drives that kind of change-- it's a cultural change, and people in the country need to want it to happen. France is a great example of this-- they underwent a revolution and faced multiple challenges from their european neighbors, simply because they were choosing to rule with a republic rather than with a monarch. If peaceful & isolated countries should develop into democracies, what about ancient Egypt? The US fluorish, and our geographical heritage is part of that, but it's not all of it. I think that the things that helped us were: being cast off from europe (their legacy bureaucracies didn't suppress innovation), being free-market inclined, having a group identity ("American") that all migrants can share, practicing freedom of religion and inheriting the british common law framework.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    Ancient Egypt wasn't all that isolated. They had threats from the west, south, and north. > Like, I believe that China did have periods of peace that would have been long enough to develop liberal democracies. China was the strongest country in their region, China was not one country until 220 BCE, and afterwards, they had to adopt an imperialist expansionist policy to shore up their borders. They had a long period of political stability, but they still had to defend themselves from threats without. Democracy only happens after all these are removed so the population can build up the political will to challenge the power structures. It has a flow to it, the building up of democracy. Power flows outward from the ruler to an aristocracy, which eventually engages in trade, building up the merchant class. In order for citizens to want to participate in a democracy, they need to be economically well-off, this means something like a middle class. Countries go through these phases all the time, but only in a really geographically isolated place can they actually build to the point where there's a real democracy. > sure they had borders to watch but they were just as protected as France or Germany during their conversions to democracy or republics. France's democracy disappeared quickly with Napoleon and to me is an example of why isolation is absolutely essential to safeguard freedom. French Republican armies were nigh-invulnerable, and this whetted their appetite for empire. Napoleon gave them what they wanted. Again here, the world at large ruined their ability to self-govern. Germany's revolution was not a democratic one, but a socialist one. The socialism of the day was totalitarianism in democratic clothes, this to some extent remains true. Populists turn autocratic very quickly after getting elected. Germans of the era were every bit as militaristic as the French were after the Revolution. > being cast off from europe (their legacy bureaucracies didn't suppress innovation), being free-market inclined, having a group identity ("American") that all migrants can share, practicing freedom of religion and inheriting the british common law framework. These are all outgrowths of geographic isolation. The reason Europe left them alone was because it they were too busy dealing with each other, America was too far away for it to ever be more than a side-show. A free market flourishes in the kind of democratic environment that comes from isolation. Remember the Dutch and the British were the commercial masters of the colonial age, both nations were extremely well-isolated. The group identity aspect Americans took straight from the British, it's a very British idea. English common law is, again, one of those social innovations that can only come from a long period of time where there is no credible external threat sapping public will to uphold legal freedoms against aristocratic depredations. You should read the very excellent Inventing Freedom, it elaborates on how British legal and commercial innovations came to be. http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peoples-Modern/dp/0062231731 http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peo...

23 points by diodorus 11y ago

The United States is really weird and wonderful. Geopolitics teaches that whichever group of people that managed to tame the Mississippi river basin was destined to become a world power. The most advanced society in the world at the time of colonialism was Great Britain. Great Britain had no idea at the time of what they had in their part of North America, otherwise they would have fought harder to keep it. It just so happened that the most valuable region of the world came under the control of peoples hailing from the most advanced society in the world. It was a complete, but happy accident. Imagine what the world would be like if this part of the world were more like China. Liberal democracies only flourish if they are protected from the rest of the world around them. Native Americans couldn't put up much of a fight against the Europeans because they were geographically stunted, they didn't possess the guns, germs, steel, and horses needed to mount an effective resistance. Had they, the course of history would have been very different. China has the second-most valuable real estate on the planet. But as it was not separated geographically from its neighbors, it did not have the long periods of peace needed to evolve liberal democracy, so it never did. Someone posted a question on Quora once that struck me. What would have happened if the Japanese never gave up China after the war? Would the Chinese all be speaking Japanese? The pithy reply was, "if the Japanese had actually tried to rule China, then the Japanese would now be speaking Chinese." Such would have been the fate of Europeans trying to conquer North America had it not been utterly stunted the by lack of horses and other necessaries to a technologically-advanced society.

civilian 11y ago
I really like parts of your post, but I need to call BS on the strength of "geography as destiny". I think I support something like a "weak geography as destiny". Like, I believe that China did have periods of peace that would have been long enough to develop liberal democracies. China was the strongest country in their region, sure they had borders to watch but they were just as protected as France or Germany during their conversions to democracy or republics. I don't think that it's peace that drives that kind of change-- it's a cultural change, and people in the country need to want it to happen. France is a great example of this-- they underwent a revolution and faced multiple challenges from their european neighbors, simply because they were choosing to rule with a republic rather than with a monarch. If peaceful & isolated countries should develop into democracies, what about ancient Egypt? The US fluorish, and our geographical heritage is part of that, but it's not all of it. I think that the things that helped us were: being cast off from europe (their legacy bureaucracies didn't suppress innovation), being free-market inclined, having a group identity ("American") that all migrants can share, practicing freedom of religion and inheriting the british common law framework.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  Ancient Egypt wasn't all that isolated. They had threats from the west, south, and north. > Like, I believe that China did have periods of peace that would have been long enough to develop liberal democracies. China was the strongest country in their region, China was not one country until 220 BCE, and afterwards, they had to adopt an imperialist expansionist policy to shore up their borders. They had a long period of political stability, but they still had to defend themselves from threats without. Democracy only happens after all these are removed so the population can build up the political will to challenge the power structures. It has a flow to it, the building up of democracy. Power flows outward from the ruler to an aristocracy, which eventually engages in trade, building up the merchant class. In order for citizens to want to participate in a democracy, they need to be economically well-off, this means something like a middle class. Countries go through these phases all the time, but only in a really geographically isolated place can they actually build to the point where there's a real democracy. > sure they had borders to watch but they were just as protected as France or Germany during their conversions to democracy or republics. France's democracy disappeared quickly with Napoleon and to me is an example of why isolation is absolutely essential to safeguard freedom. French Republican armies were nigh-invulnerable, and this whetted their appetite for empire. Napoleon gave them what they wanted. Again here, the world at large ruined their ability to self-govern. Germany's revolution was not a democratic one, but a socialist one. The socialism of the day was totalitarianism in democratic clothes, this to some extent remains true. Populists turn autocratic very quickly after getting elected. Germans of the era were every bit as militaristic as the French were after the Revolution. > being cast off from europe (their legacy bureaucracies didn't suppress innovation), being free-market inclined, having a group identity ("American") that all migrants can share, practicing freedom of religion and inheriting the british common law framework. These are all outgrowths of geographic isolation. The reason Europe left them alone was because it they were too busy dealing with each other, America was too far away for it to ever be more than a side-show. A free market flourishes in the kind of democratic environment that comes from isolation. Remember the Dutch and the British were the commercial masters of the colonial age, both nations were extremely well-isolated. The group identity aspect Americans took straight from the British, it's a very British idea. English common law is, again, one of those social innovations that can only come from a long period of time where there is no credible external threat sapping public will to uphold legal freedoms against aristocratic depredations. You should read the very excellent Inventing Freedom, it elaborates on how British legal and commercial innovations came to be. http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peoples-Modern/dp/0062231731 http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peo...