The Goal Is To Not Have Civilization Clash But To Have Civilization Struggle

Since ancient time, most parts of the world (whatever form a country has taken to govern the population) have had to contend with the central (very top level) all the way down to the local (very bottom level) governments.  In the ancient world, some parts of the world were experienced democracy, but most parts of the world were experienced hierarchy sorts of governance.  To further breaking down the atom, some ancient parts of the world were experienced class struggles much more than most parts of the ancient world.  With the look into the past and until now, the contemporary governance images of our world, we can safely assume that even though the central government of a country does hold a lot of power, but usually the local governments are more creative in supporting the local population.

Whether a country’s governmental system is democracy or communism or whatever, a country has had to deal with a strong central government and the uncooperative local governments.  Breaking down the atom at the level of inner working details between the central and the local governments can be complicated, and so I’m not going to even try in this blog post.  Nonetheless, in a layman conception, we can safely assume that if the central government is too weak, the local governments can be divided throughout the country, and the whole country can be on the verge of civil war or worse.  If the local governments are too weak, certain local populations will feel as if the local governments are corrupted and not serving the local populations’ interests, because the central government has always been controlled by larger group of interests and opinionated power driven politicians.  I think the balance must be met in a scale of strong central government and productive local governments.  Nonetheless, you cannot have a weak central government, because a country with weak central government may become so divisive to a point of splitting a country into warlordism (i.e., local governments are at war).

We cannot run away from corruptions no matter what form of governance system is taking on by a country, because corruption is inherently built into human nature.  Thus, we cannot use the argument of strong central government will lead to more corruption.  Instead, we must look at how to relax some unhelpful regulations and how to build up some helpful regulations to a balance that can regulate and weed out corruptions effectively.  Trial and error approach is the approach that a progressive country should take.  Once a country thinks it’s already too developed, it is probably already too corrupted and growth stagnated.  Ongoing reform must always be at the forefront of the conversation and practice for a governmental system to stay in synch with the populations’ demands.

Anyhow, we have seen from the ancient world till now that the struggle of creating the right balance for the central government and the local governments to work as a whole country is real.  Thus we can argue that if we are going to make the struggle for this balancing act to be even more complicated, we are going to face a much tougher time in making it right.  This means some parts of the contemporary world that are trying to merge government systems together without any consideration for local populations’ cultures will have a harder time in creating a right balance in governance.  Instead of creating the right balance for governance, these multiple governance mixed parts of the world may eventually experience wars and chaos, because the differences of native, local cultures are too different to reconcile (e.g., class, economy, ideal, belief, tradition, etc…) .

Humans are not robots, thus native, local cultures can never be eradicated.  With emotions and free thoughts, human nature tends to form local cultures that represent the local peoples.  Although there are exceptions such as for greater good, mostly people tend to think in local culture and local flavors.  For an example, the majority peoples would think what is best for the family first, then the rest would come after naturally.  Breaking down the atom even more, besides the exceptions to the rule such as the greater good of parents, each human tends to think selfishly, and so each of us tends to thrive on individuality.  So, even in the smallest unit of humanity, we are going to see the struggle of balance between the central and local centers.  Within each of us, we want the central center of a family to be strong and prosperous, but we also want the local center that speaks individuality to be strong and prosperous.  Thus, we must seek out the right balance of the centers.

I think human cultures are there to make us human, thus to destroy cultures with force will yield chaos.  Human cultures should be changed from within and not to be forced and shaped by the external demands unless the local population demands to be shaped by the external factors.  If the border of a country isn’t clearly drawn on the map or clearly dictated to the population, I think the balance of the central and the local centers are going to be a lot more complicated… may destroy a civilization and create extremisms such as genocide.

Of course, one can argue that humans should work together, thus all borders should be crossed.  I think this argument is somewhat flaw.  Of course, humans should work together, but all borders should not be crossed.  Instead of having all borders to be eliminated, we should focus on having some borders to be compromised in truces and agreements!  This means we should focus on civilization struggle and do away with civilization clash.  Civilization struggle is where each nation tries to defend its own border and make compromises for advancing the local populations’ interests.  Civilization clash is where each nation tries to eradicate its enemies at all cost (i.e., genocidal behavior).

In short, I think the central government should be strong and stay slim in a way that allow local governments to breathe and govern with local distinct flavors — all in all, to allow a nation to be strong to a point that a nation’s culture should not be eradicated (i.e., border should be clear on the map and in world economy).  The goal is to not have civilization clash but to have civilization struggle.  We cannot do away with the struggle part, because to be human is to struggle!  Nonetheless, we should do away with the clash part, because it’s a genocidal behavior.

Each of us human is unique and precious, thus genocide is the opposite of humanity as it tends to try to eradicate the unique, precious parts of humanity.  In my opinion, struggle is to reform and to stay in synch with time; to become more progressive.  Clash is to be genocidal, and we should do away with genocidal behaviors at all cost.  Say no to all forms of genocide!  Say yes to reform struggles!  This means we should say no to the genocide of cultures also!  Each culture is different and unique and may provide different insight into humanity, and we should not allow a genocide to wipe out a culture.  The world is much more colorful when we have the struggles of cultures.  The world is much more evil and sad and genocidal when we have the clashes of cultures!

How To Build An Empire

I’m no expert in world affairs at all, and I know little of what I’m about to spew.  Nonetheless, here I believe some of the things I’m about to expand in this blog post.  There were so many factors that had Europe gave way to the rise of the United States.  For an example, Europe was so divided in World War I and World War II, thus Europe was self-destructive in economics and military.  United States was an ocean away from the self-destructive Europe and entered World War II only after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941.  Perhaps, Europe was so self-destructive in which leaving United States and few other countries as the last countries standing?  After World War II, the world began to see clearly the forming of the two new superpowers, and these were United States and the Soviet Union.  Eventually, we all knew that the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the United States as a sole superpower until the rise of China as now.

Regardless of how one believes some of the things that had given and may give rise to a nation, state, country, empire, and civilization, but I do think a rising tide cannot rise from nothing.  This means for a country to rise up, the country needs able human resources to find fuels, produce foods, create industries, invent ideas and technology, educate youths with necessary skills and valuable lessons of life in general, and so much more.  With a strong foundation to back a country, this may be just enough to give a country a chance to rise above all others.  Besides a strong foundation, a country needs to feel its purpose such as how to identify itself to the rest of the world for a specific purpose or purposes.  This means such a country needs a leader and able brains around such a leader and sub-leaders to push the rise of a country into a reality.  A tide cannot rise from nothing!  A rising empire has to be built on a strong foundation, and so a tide too must have been rising from something!

Remembering Roman Empire?  Roman Empire started out from an unknown small civilization.  This must have been the case, because many things were usually started out small and then grew larger.  Of course there was, is, and will always be an exception to the rule, nonetheless all babies must start from being small and then growing into adulthood.  This means Roman Empire was not an empire from the beginning.  Most likely, Roman Empire was begun with a strong foundation of a small state, and such a strong foundation had given rise to a strong Roman civilization.  With a stable and strong civilization, the Roman Empire was then sprouting forth.

History had shown us that the Roman Empire success was not the exception, because throughout history ancient people had built many rising empires just so they could see them empires tumbled and crashed into nothingness.  Some few lucky ancient empires were able to extend past influence into modern days through few elements and customs, but most ancient empires are no long exist.  Thus we all should know that empire is to be built and is to be destroyed eventually.  Nonetheless, no empire could rise from nothing.  Then again, ironically speaking, ancient empires had been risen from having nothing in the beginning, but I bet these ancient empires did start out with fiery will in civilization building.

I believe before an empire could be built, a civilization needs these elements in strong foundation building.  I expand as you continue to read on…

Building a strong foundation for an empire, a civilization needs to have a sizable population that live in a favorable geography, thus landmass size is also important but not the exception.  Nothing is exceptional, but many non-exceptional elements take into the account, together these elements can contribute in creating an exceptional event or phenomenon.  In our case, a rising empire may not need huge landmass size, because her people may be able to conquer the world through technology and whatnot.  Nonetheless, if another civilization which has greater landmass size and more resources to consume, this strange civilization may also be able to educate a population to be innovative enough to come up with the same technology or even better technology, and so landmass size and population factors do come into play as important elements that contribute to empire building, eventually.  The non-exceptional elements may be exceptional after all!

Besides a united sizable population and landmass size as the necessary elements but not the exceptions to have building a strong foundation for empire building, the innovation in reinventing and reforming a state/civilization is also very important to the building of a rising empire.  Without fear in absorbing knowledge and apply useful knowledge such as new important and useful technology, a civilization can catapult herself into a grander stratosphere.  We all know that good technology does provide opportunities for improving lives and whatnot.  In war, good technology provides means to victories in battlefields.  In economy, good technology provides means to efficiency, productivity and whatever else.  So on and so on…  Thus, I think as long a civilization can see her own mistakes and abandon such mistakes to accept the changes, this in itself is almost like creating a new technology, providing a chance for a civilization to revitalize.  Without failing in finding ways to reinvent and revitalize a civilization image to fit with time, such a civilization may have a chance in striving for empire building.

We don’t live in a perfect world, thus building an empire is not going to be all about having all the positives and none of the negatives.  This means as long a civilization is able to sustain the negatives and yet being stable still to take the advantages of the positives, eventually such a civilization may be able to build an empire.  I guess such a civilization needs to be more practical and less idealistic.  Once having an empire, such a civilization can then enjoy to be more idealistic in whatever.  Of course, having of too much of something may turn out to be just having too much of something to handle.  Being too ideal won’t lead to good ending in my opinion.  An empire can crash and tumble for being too idealistic in my opinion.

Although we all like to think that the impossible will stay impossible, thus Africa may never become her own empire in the future, but I beg to differ.  China was one of those poorest nations on planet earth in her humiliated time, and yet she is now a rising dragon and had lifted hundred of millions of her own people out of poverty.  United States was a colony and now is still one of the strongest nations on planet earth.  With the examples of China and United States, who say Africa will be forever poor and backward?  Just like anywhere else, Africa needs a spark of fire to begin to build the bricks of her strong foundation.  So, I believe nothing is exceptional, and yet the non-exceptional elements in combination can become rather exceptional!  Building an empire is not exclusive to one group of people or geography, albeit population and geography are the two necessary elements in building empire.

I had emphasized in — population, landmass size, technology, innovation, reform, absorbing necessary knowledge, letting go mistakes to accept changes, and balancing act of juggling between the practicality and ideal — as the necessary elements in building empire.  I also emphasized that these elements are not exceptional, but in combination these elements can generate exceptional phenomenon such as building an empire.  Of course, I had said that I’m not an expert in this field, whatever this field is, but I believe the things I mentioned could be just the things a civilization needs in building an empire.

Why building an empire?  In my opinion, an empire isn’t necessarily evil.  I don’t think greatness can come from a forever nothing, but greatness can be built from nothing!  Thus to build an empire is to build something great from having nothing, and how evil or holy an empire becomes is another story entirely.  Perhaps, the Roman Empire had left something great for the modern world to latch onto?  Perhaps, the Chinese ancient dynastic empires had left something great for modern world to latch onto?  Perhaps, the Egyptian Empire had found a place in our modern imagination?  Of course, all empires were, are, and will be built to last, but the truth is none shall last forever.  Regardless the lasting forever part, whatever left of awesome ancient empires might still be something of use for modern societies.  For an example, Chinese ancient dynastic empires’ technologies helped modern societies to innovate and build modern technology and societies (e.g., gun powder, compass, paper, printing press, etc…).  We could say the same thing about ancient Greece, India, and so on.