Perhaps the most frightening trend in political circles is the idea that nations must stabilize as “civilization states.” Justifications for this view emphasize the stubborn persistence of ethnic and racial conflict. In Africa, this was cultivated when colonizers drew maps that splintered tribes into warring blocks. Elsewhere, it reflects the residue of conquest as cultural dominance shifted from region to region, leaving diverse mixtures of peoples in its aftermath.

The principles of hegemony – achieving a stable state through conquest – were laid out by Machiavelli in “The Prince.” His brutal prescriptions reflect the challenges of hegemony.

• Native languages allow resistance to consolidate before the state can respond.
• Historic practices for conflict resolution consolidate authority that can light the match of rebellion.
• Egalitarian philosophies of moral judgment (i.e. – redemptive religion) provide a foundation for critique of hegemony.

I would assert that all of the atrocities of the 19th and 20th centuries reflect the industrialization of the practice of hegemony. It should be no mystery that embedded cultures manifesting the characteristics described above are always the target of repression.

The concept of the “civilization state” is a rationale for hegemony. If the US does not robustly critique the threat represented by its proponents, the 21st century will eclipse the tragedies of our ancestors.