The Case *for* an American Empire

[shamrock_uk]

This is a great article I was sent. It will either amuse or resonate, depending on which side of the political spectrum you are on, but I thought it was a good read anyway. Anyone who thinks Pat Buchanan is too left-wing maybe is slightly misguided, but he makes several good points I think.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2004/crocker.htm

And to avoid getting the thread closed, please stay clear of debating his initial assumption that Catholics are naturally right-wing [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-25-2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[JrKASperov]

Too bad they take the Roman Empire as an example, an empire that was clearly spoken *against* in the Bible.

[Stratos]

It's an interresting position he takes. It's seems to be "either we dominate everyone, or we're doomed as a country".

I just see the old idea that the various 'savages' around the World need the West (and implied; God). That, and economic interrests, was what was behind the European imperialism.

[ 11-25-2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I haven't laughed that much in days...

"What about 13-year-olds being given contraceptives?

These days, all American teenagers are clinically obese and incapable of sexual intercourse anyway—so it’s a moot point."

[The Hierophant]

For what it's worth, I don't think that there's any shame in being violent and imperialist, but if you choose to be so, don't make yourself look foolish and hypocritical by claiming to be the opposite, that is, a turn-the-other-cheekist, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[ 11-29-2004, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Davros]

Funny ....... and scary that this sort of fervour has very thick blinkers on its views.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Stratos: It's an interresting position he takes. It's seems to be "either we dominate everyone, or we're doomed as a country". I just see the old idea that the various 'savages' around the World need the West (and implied; God). That, and economic interrests, was what was behind the European imperialism.

Money and power were behind European expansionism, not desire for people to know God. Christians took advantage of the situation to spread the word, while empires used there desire to spread the word, as justification. Not the same thing. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
However, let's just play devils advocate for a minute.

What if the "savages" did need God? What if they did need to be freed from being human sacrifices as per Inca America? Freed from Emperor worship, where a ruler rules unchecked as "God-King"? Free to abuse whatever power they have.

What if humans have a better, longer, healthier life with the principles of a society founded on Jesus "love doctrine"? Who are we to keep our light under a bushel? Who are we to hold on to the recipe for better living like some eleitist?

If... and work with me for a minute here... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It's so easy to percieve western missionaries as cultural imperialists. The reality was that many had to become absorbed within the culture - learn the language, contribute to the society - in order to be effective.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anyhow, have a think on that. Let me know what you think. [img]smile.gif[/img] Does the same thing apply to capitalist democracy? Are we so sure that it is the ultimate state of being for a society?

[ 11-29-2004, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

And another topic is condemned... There *is* a ban on religious discussion, you know. I'd contest several points you made if the thread wasn't doomed to locking.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: And another topic is condemned... There *is* a ban on religious discussion, you know. I'd contest several points you made if the thread wasn't doomed to locking.

So get your contests in before it locks then lass [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Lucern]

Interesting advocacy on behalf of the devil Yorick [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll play the poor sucker who has to go up against him.

To advocate imperialism, one has to make an assumption: one's culture, belief structures, way of life, and/or religion is right or at least better than those which one seeks hegemonic domination over. You have to accept it to the point that you don't mind destroying a way of life you consider inferior. Fundamentalist (in a broad sense) belief in any faith that tells you that your way is the absolute truth has to affirm the assumptive declaration above. This is not to say, of course, that all who hold a view of cultural (et al.) superiority are also imperialists. It just seems a prerequisite.

I think it's worth noting that studies of sociology and anthropology - two different yet similar approaches to actually looking at human societies, including "our" (Western influenced permutations included) own, will always espouse change from within over coerced change from the outside; that's only in the rare event that a researcher thinks such an opinion based on an individual judgement is appropriate. These are generalizations, but we do have ways of qualitatively, if not quantitatively, studying societies.

So the short answer: So what if we're sure! It doesn't mean we're right. It NEVER means we're right. And who are "we" anyway? Certainty about the uncertifiable isn't enough for world-changing actions IMO. That would have to be determined less subjectively.

And I do feel the need to interject something into your post Yorick, so pardon my intrusion. Though it's evident you've studied missionary work and/or met missionaries, and though it's true that many did what anthropologists do in order to gain trust before having any success, I'd argue that at some point all missionaries (as well as people trying to assert economic hegemony) have to affirm the same basic assumption that imperialists must make. They can have a respect for the culture, learn the language, earn their trust, but at some point they have to assert their own culture as an alternative. To do this, and to care whether or not a potential convert chooses to pursue it, must mean that the missionary thinks his/her way is right. If not, then why would they be there? I acknowledge that this is different from making a blatant, conscious decision to change a culture perceived as inferior, but the end result of this particular equation remains the same.

[ 11-26-2004, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Lucern ]