Writer and architect Jamie Blairford goes on a journey through history to examine modern imperialism and what it means for Scotland
"THE CALEDONIA SMASHED! The Pictish barbarians annihilated by Agricola at the battle of Mons Graupius," screamed the headline from Tacitus, the Roman spin doctor, (sorry historian), er some years after the event. Well, things did move a bit more slowly in those days, and Tacitus had been desperately trying to reinstate himself in the Roman elite during the delay. Even today, we view TV presenters standing beside Hadrian's Wall telling us that "south of this wall was civilisation, to the north, barbarians".
Let us look a bit more closely at that statement , then, stay with me, and we will look at what this has to do with the present day. Until recently, we, and in this I include Scottish archeologists and historians, knew and researched more into the histories of ancient Egypt and India than we did into the ancient history of our own country.
We could translate Egyptian hieroglyphics, but still haven't much of a clue about Pictish symbols. Recent excavations and discoveries have been improving our understanding of the level of civilisation in Scotland before, and during, the Roman occupation of the south, revealing a developing iron age civilisation with a centre of knowledge and skills that may well have spread far to the south.
Until recently, we, and in this I include Scottish archeologists and historians, knew and researched more into the histories of ancient Egypt and India than we did into the ancient history of our own country.
The work being done in Orkney, and other areas, is providing a new insight into the extent and level of this culture, and there is much more to come.
So what about this great Roman civilisation, what did it threaten to bring to this already developing civilisation? Through force of arms and a military machine that could overpower any other kingdom, it imposed imperialism on the people it succeeded in subjugating, which meant the following:
– Imposing their will on peoples through their superior military and economic power greater than any individual nation could resist.
– Ruling kingdoms often through their own tribal leaders employed as 'client' rulers on behalf of the Empire, leaving the leaders with an illusion of control.
– Reducing most of the populations to slavery, serfdom, or at best, a subsistence level of existence.
– Employing an 'extractive economy', stripping each country of its wealth and resources while putting little back.
– All the extracted wealth returned to the elite in Rome.
– Creating an illusion of progress by erecting large buildings and infrastructure, but only for the use of their citizens in imposing the rule of the empire.
– Employing historians, like our friend Tacitus, to spin their story.
By the way, is any of this starting to sound vaguely familiar? It is certainly what the Scots of the time were prepared to fight to the death, to avoid being caught up in.
Even Tacitus reveals the hollowness of the venture by putting this comment on the Roman Empire into the mouth of the supposed Pictish leader, Calgacus, at the start of the Battle of Mons Graupius: "They (The Roman imperialists) create a desert and call it civilisation."
So why was the Roman Empire seen as such a beacon of progress and a foundation of European civilisation, when it was in fact a brutal, extractive, imperialist machine? Well, could it be that this myth developed because much of the history and study of the period was evolving during another great imperial project, the British Empire?
That one brutal imperialist empire was seen as a model of progress by another brutal imperialist empire is not at all surprising. We Scots managed to stave off the Roman version, but we took part enthusiastically in the British version, boxing well above our weight, with a disproportionate presence in the armed forces and in the government machinery where our well educated, and adventurous young people played a significant role.
So how did this empire operate?
– By imposing its will on peoples through superior military and economic power, greater than any individual nation could resist.
– Ruling kingdoms, often through their national leaders, employed as client rulers on behalf of the empire, leaving the leaders with an illusion of control, ie. India's Mughals.
– Reducing most of the populations to slavery, serfdom, or at best, a subsistence level of existence.
– Employing an 'extractive economy', stripping each country of its wealth and resources while putting little back.
– All the extracted wealth returned to the elite in Britain.
– Creating an illusion of progress by erecting large buildings and infrastructure, but only for the use of their citizens in imposing the rule of the empire
– Employing historians to spin their story, with the added benefit of mass media newspapers and books.
So, even more familiar perhaps?
We still live in a post-imperial age, here in Britain where, despite the loss of the empire, many of the attitudes and thinking still pervade our systems and our view of history.
When you change your viewpoint, looking at 'imperial glory' through the eyes of a subjugated people, the indians rather than the cowboys, the african slave rather than the slave owner, or the Pict rather than the Roman, the world looks very different and our view of what is going on today might also be very different.
So what imperialism goes on today? It has been suggested that todays imperialism has one key difference from those of the past, that military power, while still being important, is eclipsed by economic and financial power.
It has been suggested that todays imperialism has one key difference from those of the past, that military power, while still being important, is eclipsed by economic and financial power.
We have vast, powerful, corporate entities in banking, resources, agribusiness, commerce and media that straddle the world and are more powerful than all individual states, possibly with the exception of the USA.
They can manipulate their global financial power to outwit any attempt to control them, through their client governments, kept in place by a media that manipulates, but maintains the illusion, of democracy.
This new 'empire' is not a single entity, as in the past, but a coalition of interests on accumulating power and wealth. So let us test this theory against the usual features of imperialism that we have identified.
– Are they imposing their will on peoples through superior economic power, greater than any individual nation can resist?
Yes, I think that's a tick.
– Are they ruling nations through their national leaders employed as client rulers on behalf of the empire, leaving the leaders with an illusion of control?
The Cameron government? Definitely a tick!
– Are they reducing most of the populations to slavery, serfdom, or at best, a subsistence level of existence?
Getting there through modern slavery and zero-hours contracts, etc, so another tick.
– Are they employing an 'extractive economy', stripping each country of its wealth and resources and putting little back? Any argument on that?
No, so tick.
– Is all the extracted wealth returned to the elite in their tax havens?
A tick.
– Are they creating an illusion of progress by erecting large buildings and infrastructure, but only for the use of their citizens in imposing the rule of the empire?
Docklands etc? Pretty much a tick.
– Are they employing historians to spin their story, with the added benefit of mass media newspapers and books?
Tick.
The cover on this imperialist underworld (or should it be overworld?) was drawn back a little in the panic at the end of the Scottish referendum campaign, just enough to reveal the real forces in our modern world and how they interact to preserve their power.
In the past, a Scotland threatening to secede from the empire would have been confronted by military force, as Ireland was, but now it is economic and financial force. The elite's global media, finance, industrial and political forces combined to threaten and induce fear in a way that military threats would have been used in the past.
Any attack on the status quo will be presented in the mainstream media as coming from anti-capitalists, waging the class wars of the past, and trying to impose 'failed' communist or socialist policies in their place.
In the past, a Scotland threatening to secede from the empire would have been confronted by military force, as Ireland was, but now it is economic and financial force.
To be quite clear, the view expressed here is not an attack on capitalism, which is a powerful force for progress when harnessed for the general good of a nation and done by getting a good balance of freedoms but also controls on its use.
The current elite pursuit of neo liberal/laissez faire capitalism, (which has always ended in tears in the past), is seriously skewing the balance against the interests of most nations and to the benefit of the corporate imperialist few, creating unstable, unequal societies.
It is not just Scots who feel that their Westminster government is a 'client' of the corporate imperialists, and that they are losing control of their national democracy. The English feel exactly the same over the EU, and the Americans over Washington or Greeks over the EU.
Thus we get growing support from electorates for 'outsiders' like the SNP, Jeremy Corbyn, the Brexit campaigners, Bernie Sanders and, God help us, Donald Trump, as means of sidelining the supine mainstream politicians backed by their propagandising media friends.
Any attack on the status quo will be presented in the mainstream media as coming from anti-capitalists, waging the class wars of the past, and trying to impose 'failed' communist or socialist policies in their place.
Scotland is ahead of the curve in this fight to recover control over its own economy and national interests, but as we know, it has some way to go to achieve its aims. It has elected a devolved government, substantially cleansed of the old establishment elites, but has yet to get full devolved powers to fully detach itself from the self-serving groups we have have seen revealed far more clearly in the Panama Papers.
The big issue still lying behind all this is, where would Scotland stand in freeing itself from the corporate imperialism set out above? You may get rid of the 'client government', but what about those corporate interests pulling the strings. Do you have to be a large, powerful, nation to stand up against these groups who work for the interests of the elites, and would a small country, like an independent Scotland, struggle to cope with the economic pressures from outside?
Iceland, population 330,000 is well worth examining as an extreme example. It is independent and retains its own currency. Yes, it got caught up in the banking frenzy that led to the crash, and apparently has an elite hiding its wealth in offshore tax havens, but the speed and effectiveness with which it has reacted to these problems has been very instructive.
Iceland let its banks go under. It tried, and imprisoned those responsible for the crash. Its tax shelter prime minister was gone within a couple of days of the Panama Paper revelations. Iceland has made good progress in rebuilding its economy and is no longer blacklisted for overseas investment. A key plank in its recovery from the banking crisis was having its own currency, which it devalued quickly and substantially, while protecting it with strict capital controls.
Scotland is ahead of the curve in the fight to recover control over its own economy and national interests, but as we know, it has some way to go to achieve its aims.
Without these levers, Greece has been in a very different position. Apparently Iceland, with its tiny population, was not too wee to have its own currency and to quickly sort out its own problems.
The lesson that could be drawn from Iceland is that small countries with a strong sense of nationhood, can react far more quickly than larger countries and fiscal unions. The citizens feel they have it in their power to do something to change unacceptable behaviour by however powerful a group, rather than the position in larger countries, where a sense of powerlessness, inertia, and competing interests, combine to stifle acting on a desire for change.
As with our ancestors, the Picts, empires can be resisted successfully, freeing the people to make a nation in their own image. Step forward our present day Calgacus/Calgaca, be brave, and inspire your people!
Opinion pieces published on CommonSpace represent the views of the named author and do not reflect the editorial position of CommonSpace itself. If you'd like to have a piece published, email CommonSpace editor Angela Haggerty at angela@common.scot
Picture courtesy of Phil Dolby