Imperialism (Noun) “A policy of extending a
country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.” (Oxford
reference)
Today’s local rag
sports a new, fresh faced, op-ed writer named Alyssa Ahlgren. (is that name “Aryan”
enough for ya?) The title of the piece is, “The Unmatched Exceptionalism of Western
Culture.” At first blush one might think,
“Well, that’s a bit heavy handed but….” In
truth, what the essay actually implies, and states is just another “But Whatabbout?”
collection of jingoistic garbage.
Of course, being who she apparently is, Ms. Ahlgren
just can’t help herself. She has to begin with a negative reference to Congresswoman
Ilhan Omar. She implies that it is a negative statement when Ms. Omar is quoted
as stating, at an early November Bernie Sanders rally, that we need to end “Western
Imperialism.” She than somehow conflates
ending Imperialism with rejecting western culture, which was not what MS. Omar
said or implied. Of course, Ms. Ahlgren lacks any part of Ms. Omar’s frame of
reference re: prejudice, racism, religious intolerance. She apparently has two egregiously
incorrect points, be they her personal beliefs or simply Far Right boiler plate.
The first would seem to be that if it doesn’t happen to her, then it doesn’t
happen. The second and far more troubling to me is after listing all the ways
in which women and minorities are treated badly elsewhere in the world, we
should apparently simply rejoice that we are “better.” The terribly misguided
implication here is that “better than (whomever)” is good enough. The bar she sets
is typical of those white nationalists and other who reject the idea that, in
the spirit of recent AT&T commercials, “okay” is what we should expect and
be content with as regards our nation’s ideals regarding equality for all
persons.
I must, at this point, quote from the
article, so that my contrasting statements to follow have frame of reference
for the reader.
“First of all,
Western culture has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. To believe that western
civilization’s sole contribution was and is minority oppression and bigotry is
not only a misread of history, it’s a misunderstanding of reality. The United States, like, all developed and
successful nations, has embraced Western values and in turn benefits from free,
tolerant, and prosperous societies.”
She then goes
on to praise Israel as the only middle East country to “adopt western
principles.”
Where to start?
As an actual historian, the first thing which leaps out of this drivel is that
Ms. Ahlgren is looking, not at the process, but at the current result. It was quintessentially
Western culture which elevated The Church to positions of primacy in all of Western
European emerging nation states, where “Western Culture” originated, post Renaissance.
It was those same nation states which with the Pope’s blessing Spain and Portugal were allowed, in 1494 to split the World into two distinct spheres of influence
(Treaty of Tordesillas). That same Pope blessed the issuance of a document written
by the Council of Castile asserting Castile's divinely ordained
right to take possession of the territories of the New World and to subjugate,
exploit and, when necessary, to kill the native inhabitants. It mandated that
Spanish explorers were to read (in Spanish, which of course locals couldn’t
understand) a document known as the “Requerimiento” to native populations.
Failure to do as the Spanish demanded (including conversion to Catholicism) was
grounds for death. This death could be by fire, sword or in some cases being
torn to death by dogs. While there is no
definitive toll of Spanish orchestrated Taino, Arawak and Cariban deaths. It is
indisputable that it was “western culture” which was responsible.
In like manner, the horrors of race based African slavery began with the Portuguese and were
readily adopted by the British in such hell- holes as Barbados, driven by practitioners
of Ms. Ahlgren’s “free market” zeal. Early attempts to enslave native populations
failed, primarily due to native susceptibility to European diseases, especially
Malaria, to which Africans had some natural resistance. Between 1640 and 1834,
Christian Britons bought and worked to death, in many cases, hundreds of thousands
of Africans, trafficked until 1807 by British, Spanish and American slavers.
Some Western culture of morality, huh?
,
Similarly, devout
British Christians in Massachusetts Bay colony, whenever possible, forced conversion
of native populations into “praying towns” or drove them off their lands
farther North and West. The Pequots, resisting these attempts retaliated with
minor skirmished against armed colonists. On May 26, 1637, two hours before
dawn, the Puritans and their “praying” Indian allies marched on the Pequot
village at Mystic, now in Connecticut, slaughtering all but a handful of its
inhabitants. On June 5, Captain John Mason attacked another Pequot village,
this one near present-day Stonington, and again the Indian inhabitants were
defeated and massacred. On July 28, a third attack and massacre occurred near
present-day Fairfield, and the Pequot War came to an end. Most of the surviving
Pequot were sold into slavery, though a handful escaped, the Mashantucket group,
to Long Island, where they remained for several decades.
The incidents
above are only the tip of the iceberg of how “moral”, “Christian”, Western Culture dealt with the original inhabitants of
America. Sadly, every single current state, including Hawaii would see repetition
of this arrogant, "our way or the highway" approach to native populations.
Sadly, farther south,
In Virginia, a year before the Mayflower sailed for Plymouth, Residents of Jamestown were
already being seduced by slavery, having purchased Africans, who were eventually
enslaved, from the Dutch in 1619. Even more contrary to Ms. Ahlgren’s proposition,
these slaves were to replace indentured servants – Christians being virtually
enslaved by richer Christians. This indentured servitude would continue in
America for almost two centuries. Between the 1630s and the American
Revolution, one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies
arrived under indentures. These persons had few or no civil rights, depending
on colony of residence, and were little more than slaves.
The definition
of Imperialism with which I began this monograph, does not speak to colonization,
although Western Civilization, into the 20th century, was
responsible for the colonization of most of the African continent. Without details,
too numerous to recount here, suffice it to say that all these exploits
were engaged in by Western European Christians who deemed Black Africans
as inferior humans, and justified horrors inflicted upon native populations on
that basis.
As for the
United States which Ms. Ahlgren seems to allege was “above all that”, consider Hawaii.
Forced religious conversion by US missionaries was followed by overthrow of government
and annexation in 1898. To figure out why, one only needs to know that the
first governor of newly annexed Hawaii was one Sanford Dole (does that last
name ring a bell? Can you say government action in favor of big business?)
Or, perhaps, consider
the Philippines, freed from Christian Spain, and overwhelmingly Catholic in settled
areas. Following their liberation, the US instead “pacified” and annexed them, controlling
their destiny until 1947. The fact that there was the framework of government
by Filipinos in place was merely a nuisance. The book “Benevolent
Assimilation” recounts that, then Governor General, William H. Taft, "assured President McKinley that
'our little brown brothers' would need 'fifty or one hundred years' of close
supervision 'to develop anything resembling Anglo-Saxon political principles
and skills'", and reports that the military greeted Taft's assertion,
"that 'Filipinos are moved by similar considerations to those which move
other men' with utter scorn." Accordingly, McKinley announced that he had
prayed and “God told him” to annex the Philippines. 220,000 dead Filipinos
later, resistance ended. Similarly, American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico also “entered
the fold.” So, colonialism wasn’t
completely absent from the American story after all. We just got into the
business late.
As for the beginning
definition: The meaning has been in transition since at least the end of WWI. Imperialism
in the modern world and current sense of the word is more about projecting
a nation’s philosophy and political beliefs and attitudes to other cultures than
actual military acquisition of territory. As this has already become longer
that I intended, I’ll just mention examples of US political and economic imperialism.
Korea, Vietnam,
Iraq, Afghanistan are all exemplars of US troops deployed in the interest of either
propping up friendly governments (Korea and Vietnam) or attempts to establish “friendly”
regimes in nations whose original leaders were unfriendly to Western Democracy.
You know, Imperialism? Of these, only one, Korea, has exhibited lasting success
and that was a multinational UN effort. The rest have accounted for millions of
military and civilian deaths. Vietnam is as it would have been had there been
no war, except 2 million of them are dead. Iraq and Afghanistan remain unresolved,
but body count is closing in on ¾ of a million total. Afghan civilian deaths alone
are at around 58,000. The horrific events of 911 are a fringe result of US
Imperialism as involvement in Mid-East politics.
I have written
all the above to show that, contrary to Ms. Ahlgren’s criticism of Ms. Omar’s statement,
US Imperialism continues into the 21st century. I am making no
judgement (here) as to whether it is justified or not, simply that it does
exist.
Regarding Ms. Ahlgren’s
assertion that all good things American are a result of western culture, as she
states: One simple point: African slavery and its lingering effects in the US,
as well as the 58 broken treaties between the US government and native tribes was a direct result and, initially supported by,
Western self-image of racial and religious superiority. This is undebatable.
Have we made
some strides? Yes, so have most Western European nations and some of those have
made more than we. Norway, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Iceland, Australia are
just some of those. My problem with Ms. Ahlgren’s conclusions is that she seems
to be stating that having achieved some gains in the areas of minority rights
and racial and gender issues we should be bragging about what we have done
rather than focusing on what remains to be done, which is significant.
She has simply set the bar low, so as to claim victory with
minimal effort. As for her spin on imperialism, she simply doesn’t know what
she doesn’t know.
