From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 11:12:00 MST
>
> Steve,
> I think you and I may have a problem of not having made the meaning
of
> our labels both clear and agreed upon.
This is clearly the case. Sorry about that.
> For example, imperialism in my mind applies only with the taking of
> land. By that definition you British were had an empire in that you
> conquered countries and subjected them to your ownership. By and large
the
> US has stayed away from that sort of thing.
Imperialism means a bit more than that. Obviously the core aspect is one
nation or state ruling over territory not it's own original territory and
(the really important part) the people who inhabit that territory. It's the
rule of one people over another that makes a state an empire. An important
point is that you may not need to directly rule over land/people de jure if
your power is such that you effectively control it anyway eg British rule
over about half of India plus places like Argentina. I'm afraid that while
the US avoided that until the 1890s it caught a bad case after then, viz
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Philippines. The policy followed in the middle east
after any war will tell us if it has embarked on another round of
imperialism.
> On the other hand some folks talk about cultural empirialism. That
> term is a little more vague in my mind. However I happen to be in a
position
> where I observe everyday the rush of young people around the globe taking
up
> the standards and pasttimes of American teenagers. Perhaps you could
> describe that as cultural imperialism? On the other hand it seems to be
done
> without coercion.
I think the concept of cultural imperialism is rubbish.
> I confess to not having a clue as to what you are talking about
when
> you use the term "liberal empiralism." In my experience liberal is a term
> that socialist apply to themselves to disguise who they really are. Are
you
> suggesting that the Americans will attempt to turn the Iraqi into a bunch
of
> democratic socialists?
You need to forget about the unique American use of the word 'liberal' to
mean 'socialist' - this makes political conversation between Americans (and
Canadians) and people from other parts of the world unnecessarily difficult.
"Liberal imperialism" is originally a term used by historians to describe
the kind of 'New Imperialism' that appeared after the Berlin Conference of
1878, to some extent in reality, much more in theory. By extension it means
a policy motivated or justified by the same kinds of ideas. That is, the
notion that imperialism is not about simply conquering other peoples for
wealth, power, or glory. It is about advanced or civilised nations ruling
over other (not so advanced) nations so as to bring them the benefits of
law, modernity, democracy, Christianity etc. In other words to rule over
other people for their own good, with a kind of tutelary role. Basically
it's a fabian welfare state but on an international level (one reason why
most Fabians were ardent Imperialists). It seems to me that this kind of
thinking is a major element in much argument about a war on Iraq, e.g the
idea that the US will reconstruct Iraq in the way it (allegedly) did in
Germany and Japan after 1945. The faction in Washington and elsewhere that I
was referring to (see my other response to Lee) are arguing, as I understand
them, that the unique position of power the US found itself in at the end of
the COld War gives it the opportunity and the responsibility to shape the
world in a way that both protects US interests and security and advances
certain political ideals. Sounds a lot like liberal imperialism to me, could
come straight out of late nineteenth century British imperialist writings of
the Cecil Rhodes variety. This is very much where Tony Blair and his
advisors are coming from.
> All in all I am asking you to expand and expound upon what you
mean.
> For example, I have no idea what you mean by the following sentence, "The
> evidence as to whether this is "what the US government is thinking" will
only
> become really clear
> after any way in Iraq." Would you mind helping me with that sentence.
Whoops! That is a typo (red face). I meant of course "after any war in
Iraq".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 11:19:14 MST