From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 10:51:25 MST
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 09:20:16PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
> > It is simply not true that Europeans and people of European origin such as
> > Americans ruled over others for reasons of material gain. This was a motive
> > in the earlier phase of Empire in the 18th to early 19th century but is
> > mainly absent in the post 1878 period. Colonial empires lose money big time
> > and (contrary to the Hobson//Lenin view) there is not a substantial group
> > that gains economically at others' expense.
I read a fair bit of African history last year. The colonies tended to be
self-supporting, which meant there wasn't much too them. This is the century
of laissez faire, after all. Not much lost, not much money gained, not much
enthusiasm for getting more colonies.
Then there was a sudden land grab and division of Africa, apparently motivated
mostly by keeping other Europeans out of Africa, just in case. Think of it as
a stock market bubble of imperialism. Note African didn't get properly carved
up until the late 19th century; the "empires" were pretty short lived there,
compared to the British and Dutch in the far East, or the Spanish empire in
the Americas.
> strength to, and secondly, maintaining or extending
> world predominance is hardly going to be seen as an
> unfortunate side-effect.
Unless you've played Diplomacy, or read history, and fear a
"gang-up-on-the-leader" effect, especially if the leader looks aggressive.
> > > in Iraq would require an extended stay by the Coalition (or
> > > at least U.S.) forces. But the longer the stay, the more this
> > > is a case of liberal imperialism.
Tangent:
I'd just like to note the many uses of the word 'liberal'. We argue over
liberal bias in the media, and castigate liberal policies domestically, but in
international affairs, bam, guess what we are... this first hit me years ago,
when I read a Nation article condemning globalization, and then a Business
Week article extolling the liberalization of the world. Business Week a
liberal magazine? Well, internationally...
> Evidently his intuition is that Iraq could become democratic, were
> the occupying power sufficiently idealistic and willing to pay what
> ever is required to achieve that goal.
I don't think the US has ever been anywhere near sufficiently idealistic, nor
is it willing to pay whatever price, especially now.
> So I infer that in this case you're opposed to liberal
> imperialism because it won't work. You seem to believe
> that this particular Arabic country at this particular
> time cannot be other than it is; basically, a backward
Second sentence doesn't follow the first. The basic method of liberal
imperialism might be flawed, without any comment on the country we're
attempting to liberalize.
Then someone will mention Germany and Japan, so okay, it's more complicated
than that. But Germany and Japan were aggressor nations which got utterly
smacked down. We're trying to avoid the utter smackdown, and the Arabs have a
big sense of pride, and from what I see in the news they're just getting
angrier at us... well, never mind the details. But the fact that liberalism
by force worked in a couple of extreme cases doesn't mean it'll work here.
Not because the Iraqis can't deal with democracy but because most people won't
take being liberalized by force, Germany and Japan notwithstanding.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 10:58:52 MST