I
think one of the most interesting concepts that I came to when I was reading
was honor and imperialism. The acts that made up honor back then were burial
practices, the practices between armies that let each side acquire their dead
after any battle, and also the mutual respect enemies had with one another that
let them negotiate their indifferences before their imminent clash. But, aside
from all these different practices the one scenario that interested me in the
reading was the situation the Helians had with the Athenians. The Athenians
came to their little island and demanded that they were to join them and that
staying neutral was not a question. The Athenians were, during the time, trying
to acquire as much land due to the fact that they were powerful (imperialism).
They negotiated but I don’t necessarily think that they were fair with their
proposals. Even though the two powers were mutually and honorable talking out
the situation with one another it came to a point where the Athenians were not
being fair and honorable with their demands. A larger power can’t just
necessarily force a smaller power to join them due to the fact that they are
simply more powerful it isn’t just. The Helians though handled it incredibly
well even though they were destroyed later on. They did not seem intimidated
and were honorable with their intentions of not selflessly giving themselves
up.
-Wendell Pfeffer
-Wendell Pfeffer
Imperialism and the need for power are central theme of the PW and the entirety of history. Often the conquerer, or imperialist group does not view their own actions as wrong but act of divine right and survival. The attitudes towards powers and conquest were different then. In Greek culture there is an emphasis on physical power and victory through war. From our reading, I gleamed that it was respectable to overpower other states and groups of people because it meant survival. Now, we look at imperialism with disgust. We look at more recent examples such as Africa and see our own nations' greed. British, Dutch, French, and Americans used their sense of importance and power as excuses acquire more land and power. These Western nations did not need to expand. There is the argument that the Athenians did not need to expand either but it is difficult to compare the two since they are from two quite separate contexts. Imperialism in ancient times is slightly different because there was more emphasis on survival rather than the greed that we see in more recent imperialism.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that it is difficult to compare our modern notion of imperialism with the Greek notion of imperialism. I would also agree that the modern notion of imperialism is certainly linked with self-importance. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the Greek idea of imperialism is linked with survival. Of course, in many cases, The Spartans and The Athenians used imperialism as a means to keep their empires alive. However, in the case of the Melians and the Athenians, I don't think that the Athenians were using imperialism as a means of survival. In reality, the Melians wouldn't have posed a significant threat to their survival. Thus, the imperialism for the Greeks is not necessarily tied to survival.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sophie that manifest destiny has a lot to do with why communities did not see expansion and imperialism as something that goes against their honor codes. Additionally, part of what was seen as honorable in that time was bravery and willingness to go to war-- either to protect or expand territory. It was respectable to be able to fight and kill, and to put the city over the individual, all of which, when seen through a modern lens, may not fit with our moral codes.
ReplyDeleteAmy Shih