Hmmm... interesting. What I agree with: The Islamic faith is by nature Imperialist, and after invading a culture works ceaselessly until that culture has been erradicated and the tenets of Islam are strictly followed in its place. Anti-Imperialism is not going to keep it from overtaking country after country. In that respect, I agree that we are not going to make friends with radical islamic states. The war in Iraq, which is no longer a 'war' since it has been over for some time, was a wise decision, but the outcome will all depend on each successive decision, because progress can be turned back in an instant. I also agree that allowing Communism to spread unhindered and working against the west to turn back from colonialism was not the wisest move. What I disagree with: Obviously, not being Catholic, the author's use of the Crusades as an argument in favor of imperialism falls flat. I am certainly not convinced that the Crusades was a great idea bringing glory to God's Kingdom, and arguments based on the Crusades being wise and righteous wars are not grounded as far as I'm concerned. I think he made a couple arguments like this, citing historical instances that are morally suspect to validate his present claims. The problem with Imperialism, is not that it is inherently good or evil, but that nobody has done a really good job of it. It's pretty good at building infrastructure and introducing new technologies and ideas. It's pretty bad at including colonized people with that new infrastructure, technology, or industry. The only really good example I can think of is Japan. Surely, the Last Samurai taught us that the Americans are evil, but once the last noble and honorable samurai was killed, the rest of Japan quickly adopted Western ways and became a technological powerhouse. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world has been used for cheap labor, natural resources, or both, and no real progress has been realized for the people that live there. I almost think that utter domination is better than trying to make compromises and appease a former way of life. Trying to balance traditional tribal farming with urban industry in Africa is an utter failure. Trying to balance autonomy and tradition with American capitalism on Indian Reservations is an abismal failure as well. I suppose, however, that since I do not value 'culture' and only care about what works, and my unwavering allegiance to the Kingdom of God, it's easy for me to say that it would be better for a culture to be dominated and for its people to conform to their new rulers. Problems for me arise when governments try to dictate religious policy as well. Then we got issue.
>>but the outcome will all depend on each successive decision, because progress can be turned back in an instant.<< It depends on how you define progress. I consider dead terrorists irreversible progress. Of the Iraqi republic experiment, who knows how that will turn out? There's a possibility Iraq may regress into a military dictatorship in ten years. Who can say? But one thing that's permanent is dead men.
>>Obviously, not being Catholic, the author's use of the Crusades as an argument in favor of imperialism falls flat.<< One needs not be Catholic to shrug off the popular notion that the Crusades were evil enterprises. The Islamic Turks conquered by the sword and threatened the Byzantine Empire and the church. It's easy to disparage the failures of the Crusades because they failed, but this doesn't mean they were wrongly undertaken.
>>It's pretty bad at including colonized people with that new infrastructure, technology, or industry.<< Compared to what? This process will inevitably be a difficult one. What is the standard?
>>Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world has been used for cheap labor, natural resources, or both, and no real progress has been realized for the people that live there.<< Being cheap labor is progress. Having someone to sell your natural resources to is also progress. Both of these situations enable one to have money. Money saves lives. Look at what the same hurricanes did to the Carribean vs. Florida.
>>Problems for me arise when governments try to dictate religious policy as well. Then we got issue.<< This is complicated. The government must dictate religious policy. The government must not allow murder under the auspices of religion, por ejemplo. Currently, the religion of secular humanism, which was recognized by the Supreme Court, is making war against Christianity in the US. This leads into a much larger issue; I wonder if a religious vacuum for the government to operate in is really an attainable goal. But, anyway, all of these considerations are absolutely better than the alternative: living in a world that the West did not conquer.
One last comment. I read the article over a few more times, and still I only agree in part. Righteous Imperialism could be a great benefit to the world. If one truly took up the "white man's burden", the world would certainly be a better place. I especially see that in the Middle East. In order for a society to have a strong economy there are a few basic necessities: freedom, property rights, contract law and a government that can protect all three. America could certainly provide this better than just about anyone else. Sure, I'm down with spreading democracy and capitalism, and if that's classified as Imperialism these days then sign me up. But that's not really the classic definition. From my understanding, imperialism means conquering other nations (since there are no new worlds to discover), and turning them into tributaries to the US.
Here are the snags: 1st, I worry that liberals would leave the job half-done. Just like anti-war protests have bolstered terrorist states into thinking Bush would never dare enter another country like Iraq, I think we would exit a country too soon before the job had been completed. Just like liberals are putting Iraq at risk by demanding our immediate withdrawal. In that way I think are ventures are at risk. 2nd, unless the colonies, the Middle East in our current situation, are participating in the venture, the Empire will only meet disaster. Crocker talked about Indochina, the Phillipines, and the conquests of Spain and Portugal in South America. Well, today Indochina is communist, the Phillipines harbor Islamic extremists, and South America is a drug haven. A similar story can be told of China, Korea, and Africa. When the people are not included in the Empire, they grow restless, they feel taken advantage of, they yearn for a government of their own people, they yearn to have the wealth of the nation in their own hands again, and they revolt. Colonies that feel oppressed will accept help from anyone, which is why Communism and radical Islam have spread so far, because they are the first to rush to the side of the colonies that want to rebel.
I think the "American Empire" may actually have a chance, because it is not a true empire, it is an ideal. I think Crocker compared American Imperialism with the past too much, because if it's anything like the past it won't work. He says at the beginning that anti-imperialists claim empires are launched in the interest of big business; that and big government. Slaves weren't taken from Africa so they could be taught proper irrigation techniques, and Opium wasn't traded to China so they could be converted to Christianity. I don't think the war in Iraq is for oil, but I also think that is what makes it unique. 3rd, the Roman Empire fell because of moral corruption from within. America sufferes many of the same illnesses that Rome also suffered from. I think we should do what we can while we can, looking outward rather than inward, but to ignore the decay from within is to invite distruction.
And I still hold that the Catholic church has and continues to hold some pretty screwed up ideas about evangelism and the spread of the Kingdom of God, which is not done by the sword. Hopefully, democracy and freedom will open up the Middle East to the scriptures and Christian workers so that Christ can be shared by peers and servants instead of overlords and employers.
I agree with most of what you are arguing, House. It is legimate to fear the left for they succeeded in undermining the Vietnam effort. There have been many terrible consequences to the Imperialism of old; however, I'm not sure you can say these places are worse off on the whole because of it. Good point about America's soul, but this is not a valid argument against imperialism, it is at best a reminder that there is change needed at home as well.
As far as Roman Catholicism, I wouldn't argue that their doctrine is great, but, I believe this is a separate issue that needs not be thrown into this mix. The least of our worries is that they are leaning too far in the warhawks' direction.
>>Hopefully, democracy and freedom will open up the Middle East to the scriptures and Christian workers so that Christ can be shared by peers and servants instead of overlords and employers.<< The fact is, the strength of the local church in Iraq is directly tied into the character of the employers there. Without employers, there will not be any peers to speak of.
The imperialism that is currently going on is mostly democritization and globalization, not traditional empire-building.
6 comments:
Hmmm... interesting.
What I agree with:
The Islamic faith is by nature Imperialist, and after invading a culture works ceaselessly until that culture has been erradicated and the tenets of Islam are strictly followed in its place. Anti-Imperialism is not going to keep it from overtaking country after country. In that respect, I agree that we are not going to make friends with radical islamic states. The war in Iraq, which is no longer a 'war' since it has been over for some time, was a wise decision, but the outcome will all depend on each successive decision, because progress can be turned back in an instant.
I also agree that allowing Communism to spread unhindered and working against the west to turn back from colonialism was not the wisest move.
What I disagree with:
Obviously, not being Catholic, the author's use of the Crusades as an argument in favor of imperialism falls flat. I am certainly not convinced that the Crusades was a great idea bringing glory to God's Kingdom, and arguments based on the Crusades being wise and righteous wars are not grounded as far as I'm concerned. I think he made a couple arguments like this, citing historical instances that are morally suspect to validate his present claims.
The problem with Imperialism, is not that it is inherently good or evil, but that nobody has done a really good job of it. It's pretty good at building infrastructure and introducing new technologies and ideas. It's pretty bad at including colonized people with that new infrastructure, technology, or industry. The only really good example I can think of is Japan. Surely, the Last Samurai taught us that the Americans are evil, but once the last noble and honorable samurai was killed, the rest of Japan quickly adopted Western ways and became a technological powerhouse. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world has been used for cheap labor, natural resources, or both, and no real progress has been realized for the people that live there. I almost think that utter domination is better than trying to make compromises and appease a former way of life. Trying to balance traditional tribal farming with urban industry in Africa is an utter failure. Trying to balance autonomy and tradition with American capitalism on Indian Reservations is an abismal failure as well. I suppose, however, that since I do not value 'culture' and only care about what works, and my unwavering allegiance to the Kingdom of God, it's easy for me to say that it would be better for a culture to be dominated and for its people to conform to their new rulers. Problems for me arise when governments try to dictate religious policy as well. Then we got issue.
>>but the outcome will all depend on each successive decision, because progress can be turned back in an instant.<<
It depends on how you define progress. I consider dead terrorists irreversible progress. Of the Iraqi republic experiment, who knows how that will turn out? There's a possibility Iraq may regress into a military dictatorship in ten years. Who can say? But one thing that's permanent is dead men.
>>Obviously, not being Catholic, the author's use of the Crusades as an argument in favor of imperialism falls flat.<<
One needs not be Catholic to shrug off the popular notion that the Crusades were evil enterprises. The Islamic Turks conquered by the sword and threatened the Byzantine Empire and the church. It's easy to disparage the failures of the Crusades because they failed, but this doesn't mean they were wrongly undertaken.
>>It's pretty bad at including colonized people with that new infrastructure, technology, or industry.<<
Compared to what? This process will inevitably be a difficult one. What is the standard?
>>Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world has been used for cheap labor, natural resources, or both, and no real progress has been realized for the people that live there.<<
Being cheap labor is progress. Having someone to sell your natural resources to is also progress. Both of these situations enable one to have money. Money saves lives. Look at what the same hurricanes did to the Carribean vs. Florida.
>>Problems for me arise when governments try to dictate religious policy as well. Then we got issue.<<
This is complicated. The government must dictate religious policy. The government must not allow murder under the auspices of religion, por ejemplo. Currently, the religion of secular humanism, which was recognized by the Supreme Court, is making war against Christianity in the US. This leads into a much larger issue; I wonder if a religious vacuum for the government to operate in is really an attainable goal. But, anyway, all of these considerations are absolutely better than the alternative: living in a world that the West did not conquer.
One last comment.
I read the article over a few more times, and still I only agree in part. Righteous Imperialism could be a great benefit to the world. If one truly took up the "white man's burden", the world would certainly be a better place. I especially see that in the Middle East. In order for a society to have a strong economy there are a few basic necessities: freedom, property rights, contract law and a government that can protect all three. America could certainly provide this better than just about anyone else. Sure, I'm down with spreading democracy and capitalism, and if that's classified as Imperialism these days then sign me up. But that's not really the classic definition. From my understanding, imperialism means conquering other nations (since there are no new worlds to discover), and turning them into tributaries to the US.
Here are the snags:
1st, I worry that liberals would leave the job half-done. Just like anti-war protests have bolstered terrorist states into thinking Bush would never dare enter another country like Iraq, I think we would exit a country too soon before the job had been completed. Just like liberals are putting Iraq at risk by demanding our immediate withdrawal. In that way I think are ventures are at risk.
2nd, unless the colonies, the Middle East in our current situation, are participating in the venture, the Empire will only meet disaster. Crocker talked about Indochina, the Phillipines, and the conquests of Spain and Portugal in South America. Well, today Indochina is communist, the Phillipines harbor Islamic extremists, and South America is a drug haven. A similar story can be told of China, Korea, and Africa. When the people are not included in the Empire, they grow restless, they feel taken advantage of, they yearn for a government of their own people, they yearn to have the wealth of the nation in their own hands again, and they revolt. Colonies that feel oppressed will accept help from anyone, which is why Communism and radical Islam have spread so far, because they are the first to rush to the side of the colonies that want to rebel.
I think the "American Empire" may actually have a chance, because it is not a true empire, it is an ideal. I think Crocker compared American Imperialism with the past too much, because if it's anything like the past it won't work. He says at the beginning that anti-imperialists claim empires are launched in the interest of big business; that and big government. Slaves weren't taken from Africa so they could be taught proper irrigation techniques, and Opium wasn't traded to China so they could be converted to Christianity. I don't think the war in Iraq is for oil, but I also think that is what makes it unique.
3rd, the Roman Empire fell because of moral corruption from within. America sufferes many of the same illnesses that Rome also suffered from. I think we should do what we can while we can, looking outward rather than inward, but to ignore the decay from within is to invite distruction.
And I still hold that the Catholic church has and continues to hold some pretty screwed up ideas about evangelism and the spread of the Kingdom of God, which is not done by the sword. Hopefully, democracy and freedom will open up the Middle East to the scriptures and Christian workers so that Christ can be shared by peers and servants instead of overlords and employers.
I agree with most of what you are arguing, House. It is legimate to fear the left for they succeeded in undermining the Vietnam effort. There have been many terrible consequences to the Imperialism of old; however, I'm not sure you can say these places are worse off on the whole because of it. Good point about America's soul, but this is not a valid argument against imperialism, it is at best a reminder that there is change needed at home as well.
As far as Roman Catholicism, I wouldn't argue that their doctrine is great, but, I believe this is a separate issue that needs not be thrown into this mix. The least of our worries is that they are leaning too far in the warhawks' direction.
>>Hopefully, democracy and freedom will open up the Middle East to the scriptures and Christian workers so that Christ can be shared by peers and servants instead of overlords and employers.<<
The fact is, the strength of the local church in Iraq is directly tied into the character of the employers there. Without employers, there will not be any peers to speak of.
The imperialism that is currently going on is mostly democritization and globalization, not traditional empire-building.
Post a Comment