WESTERN IMPERIALISM: It’s Causes, and It’s Impact on the World

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dear Sir,

I am please to read your artical. I wish our people who are blind and love to follow western values and materilism with out knowing the consequences should read your artical.Western and American media provides free tv and satellite channel to corrupt African children but do not provide free food to their starving people.

Please keep it up.

Regards

Rahman

re Ferozk (#15)

thanks ... will probably be reading the bibliographic references for my thesis ... should be enlightening ...

regards dL

Re: Dl

I am sorry, but I have not read any of the authors which you mentioned.

To clarify, I have no objections against books of history on a given topic, because such volumes often have excellent biliographies that can be used for further research. I object to textbooks, because they are more often course surveys and do not really address the problem. Case in point, most college texts say that Vietnam was a mistake, but do not explain why.

My own opinion on reading the history of the sub-continent is that it can be classfied within two groups; an idealistic version which sees South Asia, i.e India in the context of Ghandian perceptions and one which saw the region in the context of the Cold War. Since US foreign policy is a favorite past time of mine, I can tell you that the official American policy still sees India in idealistic terms and has not accepted the fact that India wants to challenge China for the status of a regional power.

Another basic rule of thumb is that most historians, like any other humans, have biases and prejudices and these show up in their works. History is baised, because it is a perception of how the author wishes to see the past.

Try reading some of the works listed in the bibliography and draw your own conclusions...thats what the author is doing !

Hope this helps....

re FerozK, reply #11

I was intrigued by your reference to the wave of atonement that is sweeping across western campuses. I have recently read a lot of writing on south asia by Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal and C. Bayle on the subject. While I`m interested in the history of the sub-continent -- primarily because I think its a mistake to attempt to approach its problems without context -- I`m also wary of judging the very history and basing my analysis of it on a biased evaluation. My question to you is, have you read any of these works? Because I would be very interested in knowing what you think of their views and analysis of south asian history and development. Especially considering your not quite explicit, opinion of textbooks as sources of information! regards dL

RR

quote

If anyone thinks that West is not alone in what it`s done, well, you`re welcome to write about the misadventures of the ``others.`` But please do point out any historical inaccuracies you find. BTW, I consider ALL imperialism to be bad, period.

unquote

While you might consider all imperialism to be bad, unfortunately your history starts only a few centuries back. Your focus seems to be on Western imperialism and does not state other imperialisms that might have existed before Christopher Colombus and Vasco de Gama.

I don`t think anybody disputes the fact that there was western imperialism the only point we dispute is the fact that imperialism seems to be projected as the sole domain of the west which is clear from Ferozk`s reply.

When I say bogey man (I use at something elusive - something unreal), I mean that we are trying to find scape goats for all the ills of the developing nations. Yes they have been catalyst in developing nations downfall but there is no way that developing nations should not take the bigger chunk of the blame.

very nice but why stop at western imperialism. What about Arab imperialism and colonization??

Re: RR

If you would read my first post, you`ll see that I mentioned that I did not disagree with your central hypothesis. What I objected to was your interpretation of some events as a cause for western imperialism and your litany of western imperial excesses.

Your article, as you claimed in your most recent post, was a critical analysis of western imperialism and its impact on the world. A critical analysis, on any topic or a subject, includes both sides of the argument and lets the reader decide for him herself the question posed. Also, a critical analysis starts with an open minded approach and its final conclusions, based on the evidence it used, are determined by the weight of the arguments and the context in which those decisions were originally made.

Your article, by high lighting the faults of the west, and ignoring the good that it did, was leaning towards a classification that could be at best described as biased. Your approach, your first paragraph, created a tone of anti-western imperialism and you supported that argument with the worst excess of western imperialism`s consequences. I only wished that you had included a more balanced view, because it would have further strenghtened your central argument.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. Great Britain did not actually embark on its imperial destiny till the 1870s. Prior to that, it was deeply engrossed in a parliamentary debate, between the Tories and the Whigs, to formulate a British policy on the matter. Gladestone was not interested in imperial policies, but was more interested in Home Rule and improving the lot of the average Englishman than he was in seeing the Union Jack fly over an island or a port. British imperialism took on a coherent approach under Disreali, who replaced Gladestone as the Prime Minister.

The final result, encouraging imperialism, was based on the vote that changed the government; from one that was anti-imperial (Gladestone) to one that was pro imperialism (Disreali). This was also the case during the time of American agiation against the Crown in 1770s. British parliament was divided between giving independence to the American colonies and resisting their political demands. After the American revolution till the time of Crimean War in 1850s, Britain was in an isolationist mood. It is the misfortune of history that the opponents of imperialism lost the elections for their causes, but that does not minimize the fact there were internal debates on whether Britain should follow the cry ``Britannia rule the waves`` or not.

On the other side of the coin, Britain as an imperial power did a lot of good. It was the Royal Navy, operating out of Africa, that interdicted the slave traffic and freed the human cargos. It had a standing orders to hang any capitan, from the yardarm, that was smuggling slaves. It ended the practise of Sutee in India. It taught the future leaders of India about the constitutional law and the very arguments that they would utter to determine their own political future.

British imperialism would ensure a period of free trade, by controlling the sea lanes, that ultimately caused the United States to step on the threshold of being a great power in the late 1890s. It was the Royal Navy that implemented the Monroe Doctrine and made sure that no European power invaded the Americas.

Where did Ho Chi Minh learn about self independence from France; he learned the ideals of the French Revolution as a young student in Paris, watching the proceedings of the Peace Conference of 1919 at the Palace of Versailles.

It was the western concepts of justice and equality, once taught to young men from the colonies, that would finally end imperialism. If western imperialism taught the young Jinnahs, Nehrus, Ho Chi Minhs anything, it was that they could question its validity, within their rights allowed by the ruling European powers, to govern over them. In the end imperialism failed not, because of a show of arms, but because of the ideals of democracy, equality and justice that Europeans could not deny themselves as valid reasons against their rule.

Rehan, there were many voices in Europe against imperialism. The present PC wave of anti-western impuses, as taught in American campuses, are based on the notions a guilt complex as suffered by the 1960s generations, now in the mainstream, to atone for the sins of their forefathers. I do not care what the color of your skin might be if your analysis is wrong. Everyone has a story to tell, but if you really want to research the causes of imperialism, I suggest you go to a library and read the original documents themselves. Read the Hansard reports of debates on the issue. If you want the truth, go to the primary sources and not to the secondary sources such as text books.

It`s a bit sad that none of the replies had anything concrete to say when disputing my account of history. It only could mean one thing, people either don`t believe a word I`ve said, or they don`t want to believe that it`s the truth.

Well, back in the college days, right here in the U.S., and not very long ago, no one thought that it was an ``unfair criticism`` of the West when we used to discuss the causes and effects of Western Imperialism. And it was the native-born, whites of European ancestory who used to criticize the imperial past and present of the Western hegemons the most.

I fail to understand why the educated elite from South Asia considers it a blasphemy? Then, again, the agony of knowing the answer...

Well, if people have a problem with a Pakistani-Muslim, with an Arab-sounding name, writing this article, then, following is the address and a brief excerpt from a similar article written by, and behold everyone, a non-Arab, non-Muslim and a non-Pakistani peace activist:

Imperialism and Racism behind victimzation ............... from Brian Becker

From: Free Press: fpsusa@yahoo.com

November 22, 1998

by Brian Becker

``More than 1.6 million Iraqi`s have died from the sanctions during the last eight years. Those who have died have been largely infants and their grandparents. Economic sanctions kill the most vulnerable in society.

``Once they drank pure water but now the water is poisoned. The U.S. won`t let Iraq import chlorine or spare parts for its water system.

``These people are dying for one reason. They are Iraqi`s and for that reason alone they have become victims. This is part of a long pattern of genocide and murder practiced by the U.S. Ruling Class in the United States. It`s been acceptable as long as the victims were Indian people, or people of African descent, or for Latinos, or Asians, or Arab people.

``The decision makers in the United States ruling class openly promoted an ideology of white supremacy for nearly four hundred years. Today, they don`t speak in the language of open white supremacy. The fierce civil rights struggle in the 1960`s required the U.S. ruling class to adjust its language.

``Patriotism is the last refuge for scoundrels. It is better to stand up for the truth. To expose the war-makers. To combat the racist propaganda of the Pentagon killing machine and to attempt to build a new mass anti-war movement that can demand that money be spent for jobs, health care, housing and education rather than imperialist adventures on behalf of Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Chase Manhattan and Citibank!``

The address where the entire article

can be found is:

http://paknews.org/articles/nov98/art1nov-22.html

The writer is associated with the IAC.

International Action Center (IAC)

39 W. 14th St., #206

New York, NY 10011

Phone: 212-633-6646

Fax: 212-633-2889

E-Mail: iacenter@iacenter.org

Internet: http://www.iaccenter.org

FREE PRESS SYNDICATE (FPS)

International News & Info Service

WWWeb Site: http://www.angelfire.com/va/freepress

E-Mail: fpsusa@yahoo.com

Mail: P.O. Box 7111, Washington, DC 20044-7111 U.S.A.

Re: RR

You are right to say that the defination of the term ``rights``, even after the including women and non-whites, did not change the imperial policies.

Those imperial polices were motivated, not by altrustic reasons, but by economic considerations. Europe needed cheap access to raw materials to manage its power relations with other states. The exploitation of the colonies was undertaken in lieu of status quo ante of European balance of power which dominated the mid nineteenth and early twentith century European politics. All the changes, amended later on, in those rights were meant for the Europeans themselves. Western attitude towards imperialism was based on the principles of nationalism and each country`s imperial rule was colored by its own domestic political institutions. British and French colonies enjoyed more ``legal rights`` than German colonies.

Imperialism, when originally undertaken, had nothing to with enlightening the colonists. Its sole purpose was to exploit the resources of the conquered lands. RR, you are mixing apples and oranges when you suggest that it was supposed to help the local populations. Enlightenment was not supposed to benefit the colonies either. To say so is historically wrong and misleading. Enlightenment was an ideal for domestic consumption for the Europeans themseves, but was used later as a reason by the subjugated people to question imperialism itself and finally over throw it.

As to your examples of imperialism in the latter half of this century, it was justified in the name of the Cold War, another excuse for policies of nationalism played out on a global scale. The Americans and the Soviets merely replaced the imperial powers, at the end of the Second World War, and used the rhetoric of the Cold War to reinforce their own power blocs. What would you call the Soviet domination of East Europe; it was imperialism by any other name.

What would you say to the Turkish Ottoman rule over Eastern Europe ? The advent of Islamic enlightenment ? RR, the west was, and is, a vitimizer in a long line of victimizers. There will be someone else after it, you can be sure of it. Bill Gates would make a good candiate. If the defination of imperialism to to exploit, what about Microsoft, MacDonalds, etc. Corporations have replaced the nations, but the rules of the game are still the same.

This post should not construed as a apologia pro forma for imperialism. Considering your rapist analogy, it appeals to the emotions and not to the instinct of imperialism. As I keep reminding all my friends who lament their tradegy at the hands of the west; you should have fought harder, shouldn`t you !

RR, you have every right to voice your opinions and if you know the truth, you should shout it from the roof tops, but you do not have a monoploy on the truth. No one does. I am victim of British imperialism myself. According to my late grandfather, my ancestors were hanged, after the Mutiny of 1857, while the English ladies present drank tea and clapped. I can critise the west`s past conduct all I want, but that is
not going to change the past. I am more interested in living in the present and making tomorrow a more better place than I am in feeling sorry for my past. I can not undo the past, but I can certainly influence my future. That is where my enegries will be directed.

The author makes it sound like imperialism is a

concept that was invented by the ``Western`` world,

and is practiced exclusively by it. I do not

agree with that interpretation. Every country

which is powerful is imperialist in that it seeks

to promote its own interests at the cost of

others. This has been true throughout history,

though in the past technology limited the

geographical spread of such imperialism.

I think a much more important contribution of the

western world is that it created the concepts of

law and justice based on which, we, the

colonised, could critize them, and through which

we could fight them. We should not so much

critize the western world for what is ultimately

a human failing, but commend them for giving us

alternatives other than brute force for bettering

our lot.

Re: Ferozk

Why do you ask?

In your first point you say that the two docs and imperialism are not related. I agree. But what you are overlooking is that all the subsequent changes in the definition of ``rights`` did not alter the Western attitude towards imperialism. In other words, enlightenment had little effect on the colonial policies. Even after the inclusion of women and non-whites in the definiton, the imperial policies didn`t change.

Mosaddeqh in Iran, SE Asia esp. Vietnam, Palestine, the entire Latin America esp. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada and Chile, Marcos in Phillipines, Suharto in Indonesia, Zia in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt, Fahad in Saudia, Iraq, Cuba, Zaire, Angola, Lybia and the numerous other instances of blatant imperialism mostly in the latter half of just this century are more than enough to justify what I say.

Your second point: I never said that imperialism was THE cause of the slave trade. I just pointed out the role of imperialism in this heinous crime no matter who was carrying out the dirty work.

Your third point: Are you serious? Let me make an anology to what you are saying. John enslaves Mike and takes control of his store and takes all his things because David controls the only way to Mike`s store? And you are blaming David for what John did to Mike? and to Eric, and to Phillip, and to Donald, and to Stephen, etc. etc.

Your last point: Feroz, I`m merely stating the facts, though, I agree, my tone is critical. But that does not change the fact that the West was the victimizer and the rest were the victims.

I mean, I don`t know exactly how accomodating a reporter should be to the rapist when reporting the crime. Yes, the rapist was and still is an intelligent and industrious man. Yes, he took active part in the setting up of the civil rights committee in his town. Yes, he`s filthy rich. Yes, he`s an inventor, a philosopher, a doctor, an engineer, a scientist and a whole lot of other things. But, does that change the fact that he seduced and then raped a poor and powerless peasant?

Your last comment indeed says it all. You say that we should resign to the fact that the rapist is very powerful and has done and will do as he pleases. We should either learn to ignore his excessess or cross-out rape from the list of the crimes. And that, casting blame on the rapist will not absolve us from the fact that we still have to live in the same town where the rapist lives.

I rest my case.

Re: temporal

Thanks. I was around. You know how it is.

As far as your reply is concerned, I ask you and others to resist the temptation to point fingers at other rapists to justify what one rapist has done. Let`s discuss the case at hand and argue as to whether or not any crime was committed instead of saying ``don`t just single HIM out``. Well, I`m making a case against ``him``, a violent and serial rapist mind you, and not against every other rapist who ever walked on this earth.

Re: Amin Saleh

``Bogey man`` is a Western term. ``The Red Menace`` and ``The Green Peril`` are just two of the recent ones. Were you trying to say something?

Re: RanaRansher

Thank you! That was eloquent and very well argued. Coming from you, it`s a complement.

To All:

I write what I consider to be the truth. You may disagree with it somewhat. You may reject it completely. You may be offended by it. Or, you may agree with it one hundred percent. I`ll say what I have to say in the manner I deem appropriate.

If anyone thinks that West is not alone in what it`s done, well, you`re welcome to write about the misadventures of the ``others.`` But please do point out any historical inaccuracies you find. BTW, I consider ALL imperialism to be bad, period.

Thanks for taking the time...

Rehan.

What Bakwaas !

Re : Ferozk

Hey, very impressive, I should say.

Rishi

Bogey man is here. No No look he is there. Or is he in here.

Rehan:

Welcome back. Where have you been?

You say---we must remember that is was the greed and the lust for luxury that started the Western imperialism in the first place---now replace ``western`` and try to see Mahmud`s seventeen tours of Indusland. Or our fair skinned boys misadventures in the Juteland?

Domination, exploitation, subjugation are age old occurences. Happens in all corners of the world and has happened throughout history. If you have to criticise it from a moral loft, so be it. But you cannot single out the West.

regards