Chevalier
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Iowa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I invite you all to enter into the discussion of what foreign policy should be in the aftermath of colonialism and Cold War, so at some point today, I will return to this page and post what I believe is a non-partisan, peace-seeking, non-imposing approach to foreign policy. This is not an attempt to explain Iraq, and I am not going down that road with this discussion although Iraq will, because of its presence in world consciousness enter in. My goal is to elevate the debate to find a humanitarian foreign policy alternative to endless violent response. It will be idealistic, and you are free to rip it apart, but I ask as you critique and perhaps even destroy this idea, put something better in its place. We are all victims of colonialism and Cold War, rigid ideologies that served us well, but with grave implications for the present and future. For if colonialism, as applied from roughly 1500-1975, polluted indigenous cultures around the world seeding corruption, destruction and despair; then the Cold War, roughly 1947-1990, marked the era of the subjugation of personhood and community to wanton socio-political-economic goals. A new era beckons, calls us to respond. But how?
What happens now? The imperialist, colonialist wars are over. The struggle between capitalism and communism is at the very least pausing. What should the guiding principle of our foreign policy be? Terrorism threatens us and I think in the midst of the action we engage in now, part of our response must be to ask: “Why?” Several factors could be held up as causative, but among the most compelling are the very colonialism and Cold War strategies that have destabilized the world for no less than 500 years. The reality goes far beyond those 500 years, but for the moment I focus on that time-span. Please understand there will be gaps and over-simplifications in this discussion as time and space limit what I will say. I recognize and acknowledge it is incomplete and you are welcome to add to or critique what I say and what I leave out.
The case could be made that emergent nation states, mercantilism, industrialization and colonialism are natural, coincident partners in the continuing development of Western culture, though I see them more as an economic progression rather than hybridization. With the creation of the nation state came a settling economic base. New territory was becoming a premium resource, and so colonialism was born. Brave sailors, and later families, left home for untold riches in the Orient, and then took a wrong turn. Eventually, a prosperous merchant class rose on the city streets. As resources for investment grew industry began to take root. With industrialization came the need for two things: cheap resources and ready markets for goods. And so a re-invention of colonialism was born. Colonies became an economic panacea; they were a dumping ground for undesirable people, a ready base of resource materials, a market to sell things to.
I mentioned this economic progression, preferring that language to hybridization now let me explain where the latter fits in. As all of these events were taking place the Renaissance and the Enlightenment shaped and formed minds, pollinating the nation states, the merchants, the industrialists and even the colonists with new ideas. A scientific approach flowered in human activity and it effected change in nations, economies and so forth. But a dark fungus, a terrible addiction was growing at the base of this economic progression that tainted the Enlightened thought. Nations became economically dependent upon the cheap resources and labor of the colonies. Nations became economically dependant on the colonial market as an outlet for their goods.
With that realization came a re-invention of the intellectual perspective on colonies, a re-invention never far from the surface in the first place. Colonies must remain economically and materially bound to the “homeland.” Never mind that homeland for the colonist was under foot, not in Europe. They might be subjects to a European power, but they were still of a distinct tribe, where mother and father for generations are buried and hopefully children and grandchildren for generations will live. The limitations of colonialism were beginning to show.
A chill fear grew in the hearts of those that ruled over colonies, too few soldiers, too many colonists. If Europeans were to be in control, they must find allies within the colony to rule with brute force. Divide and Conqueor! Play one tribe against another. Never let one tribe gain complete supremacy. Trade on old, tribal hatreds. Now the United States was a kind of “Johnny-come-lately” to colonialism, and we had our failings, but we did seem to learn from European mistakes. There was usually some mitigation of the worst behaviors and attitudes, based in idealism and the strong missionary efforts. Paternalistic as missions were, they also developed relationships with the indigenous people and worked to meet physical and spiritual needs together.
In every single part of this progression the indigenous culture was revealed as somehow inferior. The indigenous identity was lobbied against as economically and socially inferior. “I mean, they don’t even have a shower and they wear feathers.” Said in an air that suggests showers and pants are necessary for full expression of life. Indigenous peoples began to resent being presented as inferior. Eventually, in the 20th century, two world wars tore into the myth of Western cultural superiority, and ended their enthusiasm for colonies. Too expensive you know and so colonies were gaining freedom. But that only began the struggle for what had Western nations taught their colonies: brutal repression, torture, dictatorial rule, military power keeps stability, denigration of smaller tribes, payback visited on tribal enemies, lack of administrative education that might have made transition possible.
The litany of crimes perpetrated against former colonies is huge. And the aftereffects? Well, former colonies showed they were good studies, embarking on genocide, mass murder, military repression, torture, disappearing opponents, tribal paybacks and others that are escaping me just now. This is the legacy of Western colonial rule. We in the West are to some large extent, responsible for the instability and violence perpetrated on innocents abroad. I am not suggesting personal responsibility is not applicable. We are not culpable instead of those who do evil, nor is our guilt on the same level as those who butcher their own people, but we have taught the lessons and now they are visited on a world struggling with terror. And if it only ended there, but later, I will post another article to hopefully kick this discussion off right. Next stop Cold War, or another form of colonialism, politicized and economic, but suppressing cultural.
If colonialism tore at cultures, the Cold War subjugated people for political and economic reasons. Humanity was dehumanized by the nuclear arsenals. The result was people were not people anymore, they were communist or capitalist (we always put it in terms of communist or democratic, but these are incommensurate categories), totalitarian or democratic. The first two are economic systems while the latter are political systems. To be sure there were other options, but the significance is less in the options but how the interaction between superpowers further damaged the colonies, hereafter refered to as the "Third World." The implication is there even in the name. Somehow, the third world is kind of the “also ran’s.”
The significance is that we only intervened when there was a perceived national interest. If not, too bad so sad. Millions have died from the way world powers stripped their resources and left them to waste away. That might seem bad, but worse were those areas where the powers saw national interest. Political, Military, Economic and Military support went to brutal leaders who held the people in line through force. It wasn't about ideology as much as location.
How many died is unknown, but the people learned lessons in power. Hussein and Milosevic are two of them we know too well. Spheres of influence were so important that we tolerated leaders who should never been in power simply because they gave us room for a base. Places seemingly forgotten were suddenly flying American and Soviet flags. Torture of persons was acceptable for the sake of the cause. People were expendable for the sake of the cause. Terrorism arose from this lesson of personhood expendable for the cause. Now this is a very brief summary.
Let me begin by asking for your help in this endeavor. It is never easy to open one's self for review, and this format tends to lend itself to harsh criticism, especially between people of differing views. I am not asking for you blanket acceptance of this platform, I am asking that if you rip something apart, then put something better in its place. Feel free to critique, but move the discussion forward with an idea with a purpose toward peace. I am seeking a better world, and want this discussion to be predicated on that assumption. To help in the tearing down and putting better in its place, I will try to provide reference numbers at the beginning of topical changes. I am sure this condensation leaves some things out, so do feel free to ask anything or challenge some transitions.
To be continued in the next post
What happens now? The imperialist, colonialist wars are over. The struggle between capitalism and communism is at the very least pausing. What should the guiding principle of our foreign policy be? Terrorism threatens us and I think in the midst of the action we engage in now, part of our response must be to ask: “Why?” Several factors could be held up as causative, but among the most compelling are the very colonialism and Cold War strategies that have destabilized the world for no less than 500 years. The reality goes far beyond those 500 years, but for the moment I focus on that time-span. Please understand there will be gaps and over-simplifications in this discussion as time and space limit what I will say. I recognize and acknowledge it is incomplete and you are welcome to add to or critique what I say and what I leave out.
The case could be made that emergent nation states, mercantilism, industrialization and colonialism are natural, coincident partners in the continuing development of Western culture, though I see them more as an economic progression rather than hybridization. With the creation of the nation state came a settling economic base. New territory was becoming a premium resource, and so colonialism was born. Brave sailors, and later families, left home for untold riches in the Orient, and then took a wrong turn. Eventually, a prosperous merchant class rose on the city streets. As resources for investment grew industry began to take root. With industrialization came the need for two things: cheap resources and ready markets for goods. And so a re-invention of colonialism was born. Colonies became an economic panacea; they were a dumping ground for undesirable people, a ready base of resource materials, a market to sell things to.
I mentioned this economic progression, preferring that language to hybridization now let me explain where the latter fits in. As all of these events were taking place the Renaissance and the Enlightenment shaped and formed minds, pollinating the nation states, the merchants, the industrialists and even the colonists with new ideas. A scientific approach flowered in human activity and it effected change in nations, economies and so forth. But a dark fungus, a terrible addiction was growing at the base of this economic progression that tainted the Enlightened thought. Nations became economically dependent upon the cheap resources and labor of the colonies. Nations became economically dependant on the colonial market as an outlet for their goods.
With that realization came a re-invention of the intellectual perspective on colonies, a re-invention never far from the surface in the first place. Colonies must remain economically and materially bound to the “homeland.” Never mind that homeland for the colonist was under foot, not in Europe. They might be subjects to a European power, but they were still of a distinct tribe, where mother and father for generations are buried and hopefully children and grandchildren for generations will live. The limitations of colonialism were beginning to show.
A chill fear grew in the hearts of those that ruled over colonies, too few soldiers, too many colonists. If Europeans were to be in control, they must find allies within the colony to rule with brute force. Divide and Conqueor! Play one tribe against another. Never let one tribe gain complete supremacy. Trade on old, tribal hatreds. Now the United States was a kind of “Johnny-come-lately” to colonialism, and we had our failings, but we did seem to learn from European mistakes. There was usually some mitigation of the worst behaviors and attitudes, based in idealism and the strong missionary efforts. Paternalistic as missions were, they also developed relationships with the indigenous people and worked to meet physical and spiritual needs together.
In every single part of this progression the indigenous culture was revealed as somehow inferior. The indigenous identity was lobbied against as economically and socially inferior. “I mean, they don’t even have a shower and they wear feathers.” Said in an air that suggests showers and pants are necessary for full expression of life. Indigenous peoples began to resent being presented as inferior. Eventually, in the 20th century, two world wars tore into the myth of Western cultural superiority, and ended their enthusiasm for colonies. Too expensive you know and so colonies were gaining freedom. But that only began the struggle for what had Western nations taught their colonies: brutal repression, torture, dictatorial rule, military power keeps stability, denigration of smaller tribes, payback visited on tribal enemies, lack of administrative education that might have made transition possible.
The litany of crimes perpetrated against former colonies is huge. And the aftereffects? Well, former colonies showed they were good studies, embarking on genocide, mass murder, military repression, torture, disappearing opponents, tribal paybacks and others that are escaping me just now. This is the legacy of Western colonial rule. We in the West are to some large extent, responsible for the instability and violence perpetrated on innocents abroad. I am not suggesting personal responsibility is not applicable. We are not culpable instead of those who do evil, nor is our guilt on the same level as those who butcher their own people, but we have taught the lessons and now they are visited on a world struggling with terror. And if it only ended there, but later, I will post another article to hopefully kick this discussion off right. Next stop Cold War, or another form of colonialism, politicized and economic, but suppressing cultural.
If colonialism tore at cultures, the Cold War subjugated people for political and economic reasons. Humanity was dehumanized by the nuclear arsenals. The result was people were not people anymore, they were communist or capitalist (we always put it in terms of communist or democratic, but these are incommensurate categories), totalitarian or democratic. The first two are economic systems while the latter are political systems. To be sure there were other options, but the significance is less in the options but how the interaction between superpowers further damaged the colonies, hereafter refered to as the "Third World." The implication is there even in the name. Somehow, the third world is kind of the “also ran’s.”
The significance is that we only intervened when there was a perceived national interest. If not, too bad so sad. Millions have died from the way world powers stripped their resources and left them to waste away. That might seem bad, but worse were those areas where the powers saw national interest. Political, Military, Economic and Military support went to brutal leaders who held the people in line through force. It wasn't about ideology as much as location.
How many died is unknown, but the people learned lessons in power. Hussein and Milosevic are two of them we know too well. Spheres of influence were so important that we tolerated leaders who should never been in power simply because they gave us room for a base. Places seemingly forgotten were suddenly flying American and Soviet flags. Torture of persons was acceptable for the sake of the cause. People were expendable for the sake of the cause. Terrorism arose from this lesson of personhood expendable for the cause. Now this is a very brief summary.
Let me begin by asking for your help in this endeavor. It is never easy to open one's self for review, and this format tends to lend itself to harsh criticism, especially between people of differing views. I am not asking for you blanket acceptance of this platform, I am asking that if you rip something apart, then put something better in its place. Feel free to critique, but move the discussion forward with an idea with a purpose toward peace. I am seeking a better world, and want this discussion to be predicated on that assumption. To help in the tearing down and putting better in its place, I will try to provide reference numbers at the beginning of topical changes. I am sure this condensation leaves some things out, so do feel free to ask anything or challenge some transitions.
To be continued in the next post