On Saturday, March 18, 2000 3:53 PM john grigg starman125@hotmail.com wrote:
> Daniel Ust wrote:
> Very like "Manifest Destiny" during the expansionist, if not imperialist,
> phase of American history. "Nationalism" can degenerate into a perverse
form
> of religious fanaticism. This makes it sound like that phase is over.
> America appears to be very imperialist of late... I gather it depends on
how
> one defines imperialism. Surely, controlling other nations' internal
> politics is one indicator. If so, then in the past ten years, America has
> interfered in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Serbia. It's used military
> intervention in all four cases mentioned. This is aside from the various
and
> often routine bombings of ther nations -- Iraq, the Sudan, Afghanistan.
> Maybe there's some dividing line I'm missing here.
> (end)
Whoa! You've got stuff in there I did not freaking write!!!
In fact:
"Very like "Manifest Destiny" during the expansionist, if not imperialist,
phase of American history. "Nationalism" can degenerate into a perverse form
of religious fanaticism."
was from Robert Owen -- not me. I was actually questioning this statement
of his. To dovetail it in my comments makes me look blatantly incoherent.
(Not that I'm never guilty of blatant incoherence, but I plead innocence in
this particular instance.:)
It also appears Robert and I are closer on our views of this than I
originally thought...
> Robert, imperialism in the classic sense may be gone, but that is because
> it's too expensive and make's for poor public relations! We now live in
the
> age of neo-colonialism. It is at least superficially a more acceptable
> version of the old ways of doing things. Conquered territories are
occupied
> now by our corporate powers that bind and control (and for some mutual
> benefit) our third world neighbors. We control them, and in turn their
own
> ruling elite bind the common people of their nation's to supply us with
what
> we want from them.
"Neo-colonialism" has problems here as a contrast to imperialism.
Imperialism always has rested on influence and is generally when one nation
controls another. Paradigmatic cases of it are the British and Roman
Empires. However, even though these two nations managed to occupy a lot of
territory, one must also remember a lot of their control was mediated by
local authorities. In fact, even for bona fide provinces of Rome, the local
governor and local elites did much of the ruling. Granted, in any fight
between Rome and the Provinces, Rome usually won. (Not so later on when
emperors rose from provincial stock and used their resources at the edge of
the Empire to dominate Rome.) Britain, likewise, used the Indian elite and
even Indian soldiers to control India (as well as to fight elsewhere for the
British Empire).
True colonialism implies not just control but populating the dominated
regions. Empires usually do this to maintain control, just as Romans
populated Britain and Palestine with their own stock. The Greeks before
them did likewise. Colonialism is merely a tool of imperialism. But, in a
sense, colonialism at its extreme would lead to the empire not existing.
Why? Well, if the controlled areas become so much like the controllers,
then we would have a unified nation, not a conglomeration of nations which
is the hallmark of empire.
"Neo-colonialism" could be viewed as just another tool. In fact, long
before the term was invented, the British Empire was spreading through the
Niger River region via business and missionary influences. See Michael
Doyle's excellent work _Empires_ for more on this.
> Our global corporate CEO's are the new conquering Ceasers who write their
> version of the 'Gallic Wars' as business self-help manuals! And they are
> too hailed as great defenders of their respective way of life.
Now, John's rhetoric is getting ahead of him. Yeah, that sounds cute, but
truth be told, global corporations play boths sides of the game. Nor do I
think of CEOs as "the new conquering Ceasers[sic]..." There are some
unscrupulous businesspeople out there, but a Ceasar is not so petty and
small.
> And the 'barbarian hordes' of our day would be India and China who want
> desperately the technological and economic type of power we possess. As
the
> ancient Romans did, we educate and employ them but they often return to
> their own people to share our ways and secrets. Just as Rome was
partially
> bested because of 'Roman-trained enemies'
> will we go the same way? Where does the knife-twisting come from in our
> age? Our own government, ourselves?
The problem here is that John is taking the metaphor too far. Granted,
there are parallels between US behavior and that of many other empires, but
it's not just another production of the great "Tragedy of Empire." China,
e.g., is an empire in its own right. It controls Tibet and has a sphere of
influence on its periphery. It's by no means a disorganized horde. (I'm
not about to glaze over taking about the Yellow Peril. I'm just recognizing
that China is organized and has its own agenda apart from reacting to US
policy.)
India hardly is threatening the US. It's one of the disturbing features of
US foreign policy that it is not until this year that an American President
is seriously thinking of having good relations with the world's most
populated democracy.
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:46 MDT