The Danger of Paxism |
不吐不快 - 同修的文章感言 | |
作者 Leo (禪定) | |
2008-08-05 | |
The Danger of Paxism By Leo
2. (with initial capital letter) A period in history marked by the absence of major wars, usually imposed by a pre-dominant nation. Wikipedia has a thorough explanation of this word. Quite a powerful word. “Pax,” in Latin, simply means “peace.” Indeed, mankind’s history is marked by several (or shall we say quite envious) Pax eras: with Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, and Pax Americana as the better known ones. The dominant nations of the aforementioned three periods are Roman Empire, British Empire, and the What about “Pax Sinica?” Those who uphold the so-called “Greater China Ideology” love it. Such scholars and politicians’ favorite argument is to bring up the past glories of former Chinese dynasties such as Han and Tang. Unfortunately, these individuals are also in abundant supply at present day The truth is, there is no “Pax” Sinica this time around. Paxism, to paraphrase the above definition, is effectively an imperialism that ensures world wide peace and stability. Such an imperial structure must be based on democracy and respect for human rights. Humans are blessed with self-will. Such self-will subconsciously endowed people with the ability, and therefore the rights, to choose a better form of government. A Pax empire must expand by persuasion. It is the will of the colonial populace that counts. Empires built with military coercion will not last. Not to mention that military violence only breeds more resentment among the conquered, thereby planting the seeds for an empire’s eventual downfall. The Roman Empire was preceded by the Theories and histories notwithstanding, the saddest part of the “fake” Paxism, or authoritarian imperialism wolf in sheep’s skin, is actually the conquered people and the annexed states. I hope Ma knows what he is doing. I hope KMT know what they are doing. |