Benefits Versus Responsibilities: The Nature of Imperialism and Conquest
Part I: Introduction
The West's responsibility to the people who have been victimized by supremacy are tantamount also to it's benefits received by those who atypically bear no specific responsibility to the people who have been wronged. What I would like to pay attention to, is the idea that people seem to focus on, the idea of a specific people being harmed versus the people who have benefited from those harms. One's situation has to correlate with the aspect of life they have no control over by the time they are born. The situation that one finds themselves is based on an inherited society and should be governed as such. The idea that we should govern society based on those who are exceptional is a very ludicrous idea and one of the most ludicrous ideas espoused by, not only certain conservative thinkers, but libertarians and neoliberals as well. The focus of this article will be based on the idea of reparations, the wealth disparities between classes of people, and Western Supremacy. Now the specific question that people want to know is: should the West pay reparations to those harms, whether they be descendants of the Native American genocide, the descendants of slaves, or any other imperialist action taken by the West that can be somewhat remedied?
Part II: Reparations
On June 2014, Ta-Nehisi Coates released a piece in the 'Atlantic' entitled 'The Case for Reparations'. The piece has been charged with a lot of controversy among peers and rivals alike, since its release. He establishes the issues faced by black people, outside of slavery. The idea of reparations is seen as undeserved, but what is not considered is what was stolen and the benefits obtained via slave labor, land and property theft, as well as the destruction of property to limit wealth increases among the black population. As Mr. Coates states;
"The demobilization of soldiers after the war, which put white and black veterans into competition for scarce jobs, produced the red summer of 1919: a succession of racist pogroms against dozens of cities ranging from Longview, Texas, to Chicago to Washington D.C. Organized violence against blacks, continued until the 1920's - in 1920 a white mob leveled Tulsa's "Black Wall Street," and in 1923, another one razed the black town of Rosewood, Florida - and virtually no one was punished."
This same destruction and absolutely no recompense is infuriating. Black people are some of the most forgiving people in the world, after all of the heart ache and oppression. Black people get up every morning and put their pants on, even after suffering some of the gravest tragedies in the new millennium and while not holding a grudge against all white people, even though certain people believe that to be the case. James Baldwin has said, "to be black and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage all the time." And those progressives who were and still are for the 'New Deal', which I agree is landmark legislation, have selective memory when it comes to the pieces of legislation placed in the 'New Deal'. Mr. Coates states;
"The omnibus of programs passed the Social Security Act of 1935 were crafted in such a way as to protect the southern way of life. Old age insurance (Social Security proper) and unemployment insurance excluded farmworkers and domestics - jobs heavily occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, 65 percent of African Americans nationally and between 70 and 80 percent in the South were ineligible."
This landmark legislation that white progressives herald as one of the greatest things passed came to the exclusion of working class blacks. For certain people these facts are hard to bear. We must be honest and tell the truth, when it comes to things such as this and not omit sections we happen to dislike. So, yes, reparations for black people is not only the right thing to do in terms of economic growth for the black community, but it's morally necessary.
The Native American genocide was one of the worst atrocities in American history, not only before the construction of the US, but even after, specifically during the Jackson administration. According to 'United To End Genocide', before the arrival of the Europeans in the early 15th century around 10 million+ Native Americans were living in what is currently the US. By the early 20th century, around 300,000 were living in the US. These atrocities were done by Columbus, who killed many Native people, because the people were unwilling to accept the values of Catholicism. The trail of tears is another incident in which death and chaos effected Native Americans. In 1830, Pres. Jackson signed into law the 'Indian Removal Act', which in fact took Native Americans off of their native lands and placed them elsewhere. Around 15,000 Creeks were driven from their homes and around 3,500 died just based on the removal alone. This form of violence is the most extreme form of structural violence against people in American history. This should go with out saying that, they themselves deserve compensation for those actions, if they don't, its just a denial of these incidents.
What people fail to grasp in the debate about Western supremacy's harms on marginalized groups is that these are not one-dimensional issues. In the piece Kevin D. Williamson wrote in the 'National Review' entitled 'The Case against Reparations' in which he responds to Ta-Nehisi Coates' piece 'The Case for Reparations'; he writes "But dealing with that reality inescapably treating people as individuals, and treating people as individuals makes reparations morally and intellectually impossible." The problem with this statement is that it ignores that the mass discrimination and white supremacist terrorist violence was based on the fact that these people were judged to be part of a certain group, not in fact, that person being judged a individual. They hate the 'nigger' because he's a 'nigger' not because he specifically has any traits designating differently from that group. Kevin D. Williamson also discusses that their are poor whites versus middle class blacks, he states, "Did Barack or Michelle Obama inherit that forced them to perform twice as well, and bear twice as much, as a white woman born into horrific poverty in Appalachia?" The aspect of social standing should be relative when talking about race and class, specifically one must just judge Pres. Obama's disadvantages among his social standing as well, not just simply his race. But this is the act of Western apology, since one is a citizen of the West, those crimes are not only downplayed but minimized to such an extent it becomes laughable. The person engaging in this exercise, try to find one or two examples in which that is not the case, and apply that person or people to the whole group. The dishonesty expressed is tantamount to the apologetics expressed by not only the West, but to white-supremacy, as well.
Part III: Western Apologetics
On May 1, 2015, Sam Harris released a set of emails involving himself and linguist Noam Chomsky on different applications of foreign policy and the nature of intentions. He states that he is afraid that Chomsky and others like him, such as Arundhati Roy are forgetting the West, specifically, the US' intentions are typically better compared to those who are the legitimate enemies of the U.S. Therefore, according to Harris, the US shouldn't be judged by the same moral framework as the US' enemies, such as ISIS or Al Qaeda. Mr. Harris quotes Ms. Roy in full:
In this exchange, Mr. Kulinski states "the thing that is so concerning about a guy like, Dick Cheney, is that he seems to genuinely believe by definition, we're the good guys, therefore literally whatever we do is okay, because we've already decided we're the good guys." Mr. Harris responds to this by saying, "But we are the good [guys], we speaking 99.9% are the good guys, when you're talking about ISIS, when you're talking about jihadism, or when you're talking about other cases like Nazism, yes, we are the good [guys]." Mr. Harris displays the same Western white apologism that I see very frequently in the nature of discourse online and elsewhere, in which he comes across as 'well, white people have done some terrible things, but we have a superior society, now look at those brown people over there', that's not a quote of Mr. Harris by the way, it's just an example of some of the tactics Mr. Harris employs in discussing these issues. This same Western white apologism is dangerous because it pushes a grotesque false equivalency of what Westerners have done in modern history versus the others, which include Native Americans, Arabs, Africans, Asians etc., to downplay Western violence. Mr. Harris also has a very black or white and reductionist view on the subject of geopolitics and things separate from that, such as radical Islam. This is what I like to call the 'Thanos Effect', in which a person makes excuses of something catastrophic that someone has done, because you personally believe it was done without malice or done for the greater good. Noam Chomsky talks about this very clearly in the email exchange he has with Mr. Harris, Chomsky states;
"I also reviewed other cases, pointing out, that professing benign intentions is the norm for those who
carry out atrocities and crimes, perhaps sincerely - and surely more plausible than in this case. And only the most abject apologists justify the actions on the grounds that perpetrators are adopting the normal stance with criminals."
It also seems that Mr. Harris gets into a debacle between the rational and the irrational, well, he is an atheist after all, so it's not at all that surprising. The problem with this, is that he perpetuates a dichotomy in which he believes that the irrational side is wrong because the ideas expressed are irrational and the ideas expressed by the rational side are right because the side is rational. Without holding the fact that, just because a side is secular doesn't make them rational by definition, but tabling that for now, let's focus on the main point of rationality and irrationality in terms of the one who perpetuates violence. Okay, the main question of who is more responsible the rational or irrational actor? Well, it is more complicated question than it may seem, but if I had to give a definitive answer, it would be the rational actor. The rational actor does not have an excuse, when it comes to the type of violence that they perpetuate and there is no religion or other force to blame, so by Mr. Harris's own logic, the rational actor should be more responsible. As Reza Aslan notes on his appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher, where they discuss the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Mr. Aslan states, "this idea that somehow since Hamas is a terrorist organization and Israel is a democracy, there is no moral equivalence; you're absolutely right, there is no moral equivalence, it is the democracy that deserves greater criticism, it is the democracy that has to live up to the values it ascribes for itself." Now back to the discussion of secularism versus rationality, secular reasoning doesn't always equate to rationality, just because you can point to a non-religious reason for doing something, does not and I emphasize, does not, mean that the logic is sound in your argumentation. And just to contend with those who would claim that I am misrepresenting or misunderstanding Mr. Harris and his point of view: I, Irving "Trey" Baker am not attributing the fragmenting discussion of irrationality versus rationality to Mr. Harris's views . What I am saying is that, from an outsiders perspective that is what it feels like, that is my interpretation of his views. Mr. Harris is welcome to correct the record, if he so chooses.
Part IV: Western Imperialism and Its Goal
Western Imperialism has had a hand in creating the worst disasters in world history. The formation of Saudi Arabia, the displacement of the Palestinians, the slaughtering of the Native Americans, and the subjugation of Africans and Asians has all occurred by the West. People may use the logical fallacy of 'whataboutism' to say, what about the Africans enslaving Africans or the Muslims throwing gays off roof tops. If this argument is being used, then the person attempting to discuss this issue doesn't want to engage in an honest discussion. Yes, I am concerned about all of those incidents, but they are just a symptoms of a larger problem, which is imperialism. And no, I don't believe that there are no problems outside of Western Imperialism, I just think it's the biggest problem.
2a. Africa
"Any betrayal you can see is trivial, what is truly frightening and much more lethal is the betrayal you cannot see." -Sosuke Aizen, Bleach
The dilemma we have when discussing imperialism and the arguments used to try to downplay the significant role in past and present world politics is that it had and continues to have an effect on past and present world politics. The scramble for Africa, in which many of the European countries divided Africa up between themselves and committed many atrocities over the many years of colonization. An example of these atrocities was King Leopold cutting off the hands of many of the Congolese people and subjugating them, in order to steal their rubber. This is also the betrayal you cannot see, as seen from the quote above, even though the people were primitive and unsophisticated by Belgian standards, the treatment of the Congolese was still immoral. The treatment of Belgians compared to the Congolese people was much different. It's almost as if their values changed based on if the person was of Congolese or Belgian dissent. If murder and genocide is wrong for the people in which you belong, than it should be wrong, universally. This is also the case with Apartheid South Africa and the subjugation of those people for their diamonds and oil. The colonization of the Congo lasted for about fifty years, up until 1960, but the colonization and oppression of the Native South Africans lasted up until 1994, that constant oppression is still fresh in the brains of many of the Native South Africans living today. This proving that colonization isn't just a past problem, but a present one, this is without holding the fact that the Middle East, which includes cases like Iran, Iraq, and Israel/Palestine have been under strict poverty, oppression and so forth, in many respects due to imperialism. And yes, I know some of the cases presented are democratic/electoral interference, rather than straight out imperialism, but please bear with me, are still being controlled by Western actors in a sense and have caused many deaths due to interference and/or intervention.
2b. Indochina
The bombing campaigns of poor indigenous people such as those that took place in Laos, Cambodia, as well as a full out war in Vietnam were devastating. Laos faced devastating effects, when it came to the actual numbers, it was clear, the inhumane treatment of those killed by U.S. bombing campaigns are in a since, an expression of apathy by the US. The campaign had 2 million tons of cluster bombs, around 270 million bombs in total, dropped from 1964 to 1973. Around 20,000 people died in total from just unexploded ordinance left there after the campaign and around 50 people die in Laos every year, by unexploded ordinance from 2008 up to now. And also the bombing campaign in Cambodia that lasted from 1969 to 1973, called 'Operation Menu' in which 500,000 bombs were dropped on Cambodia, killing anywhere between 150,000 to 500,000 civilians, at least. But the worst atrocities have yet to be explored, let's discuss the issue of Vietnam and very specifically, the My Lai incident. Vietnam was a sure tragedy of a war, in terms of lives lost and bombs dropped. 81.66 million people died in the 'Vietnam War', with the vast majority of them being non-Americans as well as civilians. The rape and death of women, many of whom were pregnant. The murder of 504 people, 182 of which were women, 17 were pregnant, 173 were children and 56 of those children were infants. This was known as the My Lai massacre and 14 men were responsible for this abhorrent atrocity, but only one was held accountable, or was he? All were acquitted except William Calley, who was sentenced to life in prison, but after three years of serving the sentence, he was pardoned by then Pres. Richard Nixon after years of public pressure. This is the point, we don't apply the same moral standards evenly across the board. Those gentlemen who participated in those grotesque acts, would've been hanged, if the Nuremberg Trials were still in place. The point is that, the US is too harsh on those that are considered 'enemies', but not harsh enough, when it comes to people that are considered Americans. Those people whether they be Iraqis, Palestinians, Southeast Asians, Arabs, or Africans, their lives matter and they should be treated with dignity, regardless of nationality. The apathy we've seen is just a symptom of a form of moral tribalism that most human beings face, but this type of moral tribalism expresses itself as imperialism.
2c. Middle East
"The price is worth it" is the phrase used to espouse such grotesque and disgusting apathy. When confronted about the 500,000 children, whom of which had died because of US/UK sanctions, Madeileine Albright said that famous line. The structural violence committed by the US and the UK doesn't register, because they are working with a form of moral tribalism in their narrow moral framework. Saudi Arabia is another case in which the West help create and that the US/UK continue to back, while at the same time professing to be for human rights. Saudi Arabia was created with help from the British after the fall of the Ottoman empire, in order to control the region. As Saudi Arabia is an oil rich country, that thrived off the use of oil to garner a great economy. But Saudi Arabia is a theocratic state, which abuses women and is carrying out, as I stated earlier, a full scale war, likely genocide, against the Yemeni people. Iraq is another case of British interference, in which it was a country created specifically to exploit its resources and that forced three distinct groups to be together, even though, all three groups despised each other. Those groups are the Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis, in which they were forced to contain the same space and conflict arose, because the British needed to have control over the region. Their was also US and UK interventions in the Gulf, specifically Iraq, after 9/11 for over a decade, which decimated the region and killed upwards of 655,000 people based on a lancet study, reported by the Rand Corporation.
Part V: Conclusion
In this, we see a very real problem with supremacy and control that people in the West think that they have over countries. The West does some of the worst atrocities, but we can get away with it because of the well meaning nature of our goals. Well, Osama Bin Laden meant well based on his personal beliefs, do we excuse him or how about the Nazis. It is incumbent among apologists of atrocities, to put in place such a caveat. The truth of the matter is, the action was wrong and to put in place such a caveat, is to deflect from the real issue of imperialism and control. I've shown the crimes and atrocities committed by the West, so the question is, what is it we do?
I contend the goal should be non-interventionism as a first step. The next thing to do should be to help rebuild societies lost and pay back the people harmed by imperialism. For example; the Obama administration is paying 30 million dollars every year for the atrocities that happened in Laos, during the bombing campaign, to make up for what was lost. The West should do everything it can to help all these places devastated by constant imperialism, just like the reparations being paid by Germany to the Jews and the families of the Jewish people that were killed and/or harmed during the Holocaust. Reparations isn't just necessary to pay for the harm that was caused, but to make a conscious effort to understand those harms and to take an institutional approach to honestly heal from those tragedies, so these grotesque acts may never happen again. Lastly, below is a video of Christopher Hitchens discussing the idea of reparations:
The West's responsibility to the people who have been victimized by supremacy are tantamount also to it's benefits received by those who atypically bear no specific responsibility to the people who have been wronged. What I would like to pay attention to, is the idea that people seem to focus on, the idea of a specific people being harmed versus the people who have benefited from those harms. One's situation has to correlate with the aspect of life they have no control over by the time they are born. The situation that one finds themselves is based on an inherited society and should be governed as such. The idea that we should govern society based on those who are exceptional is a very ludicrous idea and one of the most ludicrous ideas espoused by, not only certain conservative thinkers, but libertarians and neoliberals as well. The focus of this article will be based on the idea of reparations, the wealth disparities between classes of people, and Western Supremacy. Now the specific question that people want to know is: should the West pay reparations to those harms, whether they be descendants of the Native American genocide, the descendants of slaves, or any other imperialist action taken by the West that can be somewhat remedied?
Part II: Reparations
On June 2014, Ta-Nehisi Coates released a piece in the 'Atlantic' entitled 'The Case for Reparations'. The piece has been charged with a lot of controversy among peers and rivals alike, since its release. He establishes the issues faced by black people, outside of slavery. The idea of reparations is seen as undeserved, but what is not considered is what was stolen and the benefits obtained via slave labor, land and property theft, as well as the destruction of property to limit wealth increases among the black population. As Mr. Coates states;
"The demobilization of soldiers after the war, which put white and black veterans into competition for scarce jobs, produced the red summer of 1919: a succession of racist pogroms against dozens of cities ranging from Longview, Texas, to Chicago to Washington D.C. Organized violence against blacks, continued until the 1920's - in 1920 a white mob leveled Tulsa's "Black Wall Street," and in 1923, another one razed the black town of Rosewood, Florida - and virtually no one was punished."
This same destruction and absolutely no recompense is infuriating. Black people are some of the most forgiving people in the world, after all of the heart ache and oppression. Black people get up every morning and put their pants on, even after suffering some of the gravest tragedies in the new millennium and while not holding a grudge against all white people, even though certain people believe that to be the case. James Baldwin has said, "to be black and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage all the time." And those progressives who were and still are for the 'New Deal', which I agree is landmark legislation, have selective memory when it comes to the pieces of legislation placed in the 'New Deal'. Mr. Coates states;
"The omnibus of programs passed the Social Security Act of 1935 were crafted in such a way as to protect the southern way of life. Old age insurance (Social Security proper) and unemployment insurance excluded farmworkers and domestics - jobs heavily occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, 65 percent of African Americans nationally and between 70 and 80 percent in the South were ineligible."
This landmark legislation that white progressives herald as one of the greatest things passed came to the exclusion of working class blacks. For certain people these facts are hard to bear. We must be honest and tell the truth, when it comes to things such as this and not omit sections we happen to dislike. So, yes, reparations for black people is not only the right thing to do in terms of economic growth for the black community, but it's morally necessary.
The Native American genocide was one of the worst atrocities in American history, not only before the construction of the US, but even after, specifically during the Jackson administration. According to 'United To End Genocide', before the arrival of the Europeans in the early 15th century around 10 million+ Native Americans were living in what is currently the US. By the early 20th century, around 300,000 were living in the US. These atrocities were done by Columbus, who killed many Native people, because the people were unwilling to accept the values of Catholicism. The trail of tears is another incident in which death and chaos effected Native Americans. In 1830, Pres. Jackson signed into law the 'Indian Removal Act', which in fact took Native Americans off of their native lands and placed them elsewhere. Around 15,000 Creeks were driven from their homes and around 3,500 died just based on the removal alone. This form of violence is the most extreme form of structural violence against people in American history. This should go with out saying that, they themselves deserve compensation for those actions, if they don't, its just a denial of these incidents.
What people fail to grasp in the debate about Western supremacy's harms on marginalized groups is that these are not one-dimensional issues. In the piece Kevin D. Williamson wrote in the 'National Review' entitled 'The Case against Reparations' in which he responds to Ta-Nehisi Coates' piece 'The Case for Reparations'; he writes "But dealing with that reality inescapably treating people as individuals, and treating people as individuals makes reparations morally and intellectually impossible." The problem with this statement is that it ignores that the mass discrimination and white supremacist terrorist violence was based on the fact that these people were judged to be part of a certain group, not in fact, that person being judged a individual. They hate the 'nigger' because he's a 'nigger' not because he specifically has any traits designating differently from that group. Kevin D. Williamson also discusses that their are poor whites versus middle class blacks, he states, "Did Barack or Michelle Obama inherit that forced them to perform twice as well, and bear twice as much, as a white woman born into horrific poverty in Appalachia?" The aspect of social standing should be relative when talking about race and class, specifically one must just judge Pres. Obama's disadvantages among his social standing as well, not just simply his race. But this is the act of Western apology, since one is a citizen of the West, those crimes are not only downplayed but minimized to such an extent it becomes laughable. The person engaging in this exercise, try to find one or two examples in which that is not the case, and apply that person or people to the whole group. The dishonesty expressed is tantamount to the apologetics expressed by not only the West, but to white-supremacy, as well.
Part III: Western Apologetics
On May 1, 2015, Sam Harris released a set of emails involving himself and linguist Noam Chomsky on different applications of foreign policy and the nature of intentions. He states that he is afraid that Chomsky and others like him, such as Arundhati Roy are forgetting the West, specifically, the US' intentions are typically better compared to those who are the legitimate enemies of the U.S. Therefore, according to Harris, the US shouldn't be judged by the same moral framework as the US' enemies, such as ISIS or Al Qaeda. Mr. Harris quotes Ms. Roy in full:
"[T]he U.S. government refuses to judge itself, by the same moral standards by which it judges others....its technique is to position itself as the well-intentioned giant whose good deeds are confounded in strange countries, by their scheming natives, whose markets its trying to free, whose societies trying to modernize, whose women it's trying to liberate, whose souls trying to save....[T]he U.S. government has conferred upon itself the right and freedom to murder and exterminate people "for their own good."
In response, Mr. Harris states in effect the U.S. is a "well-intentioned giant". This position Harris holds is very naive and also, not in fact true. The support for a theocratic despotic state like Saudi Arabia, as they do a murderous and genocidal illegal war in Yemen, where they don't allow in food or supplies, in which almost half the population is deceased or will be deceased if the war, likely genocide, continues. Saudi Arabia is our client state and Pres. Trump just gave them 8 billion dollars worth of weapons, because he wants to heat things up with Iran. And I also get a sense of tribalism from Mr. Harris's words. In my opinion, it seems that because he sees himself as a citizen of the West, he must believe that his leaders would not intentionally act immorally to establish their goals. In a conversation conducted by Kyle Kulinski of the YouTube channel 'Secular Talk', Mr. Harris and Mr. Kulinski discuss the nature of certain political actors on foreign policy, such as Dick Cheney et. al.
"I also reviewed other cases, pointing out, that professing benign intentions is the norm for those who
carry out atrocities and crimes, perhaps sincerely - and surely more plausible than in this case. And only the most abject apologists justify the actions on the grounds that perpetrators are adopting the normal stance with criminals."
It also seems that Mr. Harris gets into a debacle between the rational and the irrational, well, he is an atheist after all, so it's not at all that surprising. The problem with this, is that he perpetuates a dichotomy in which he believes that the irrational side is wrong because the ideas expressed are irrational and the ideas expressed by the rational side are right because the side is rational. Without holding the fact that, just because a side is secular doesn't make them rational by definition, but tabling that for now, let's focus on the main point of rationality and irrationality in terms of the one who perpetuates violence. Okay, the main question of who is more responsible the rational or irrational actor? Well, it is more complicated question than it may seem, but if I had to give a definitive answer, it would be the rational actor. The rational actor does not have an excuse, when it comes to the type of violence that they perpetuate and there is no religion or other force to blame, so by Mr. Harris's own logic, the rational actor should be more responsible. As Reza Aslan notes on his appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher, where they discuss the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Mr. Aslan states, "this idea that somehow since Hamas is a terrorist organization and Israel is a democracy, there is no moral equivalence; you're absolutely right, there is no moral equivalence, it is the democracy that deserves greater criticism, it is the democracy that has to live up to the values it ascribes for itself." Now back to the discussion of secularism versus rationality, secular reasoning doesn't always equate to rationality, just because you can point to a non-religious reason for doing something, does not and I emphasize, does not, mean that the logic is sound in your argumentation. And just to contend with those who would claim that I am misrepresenting or misunderstanding Mr. Harris and his point of view: I, Irving "Trey" Baker am not attributing the fragmenting discussion of irrationality versus rationality to Mr. Harris's views . What I am saying is that, from an outsiders perspective that is what it feels like, that is my interpretation of his views. Mr. Harris is welcome to correct the record, if he so chooses.
Part IV: Western Imperialism and Its Goal
Western Imperialism has had a hand in creating the worst disasters in world history. The formation of Saudi Arabia, the displacement of the Palestinians, the slaughtering of the Native Americans, and the subjugation of Africans and Asians has all occurred by the West. People may use the logical fallacy of 'whataboutism' to say, what about the Africans enslaving Africans or the Muslims throwing gays off roof tops. If this argument is being used, then the person attempting to discuss this issue doesn't want to engage in an honest discussion. Yes, I am concerned about all of those incidents, but they are just a symptoms of a larger problem, which is imperialism. And no, I don't believe that there are no problems outside of Western Imperialism, I just think it's the biggest problem.
2a. Africa
"Any betrayal you can see is trivial, what is truly frightening and much more lethal is the betrayal you cannot see." -Sosuke Aizen, Bleach
The dilemma we have when discussing imperialism and the arguments used to try to downplay the significant role in past and present world politics is that it had and continues to have an effect on past and present world politics. The scramble for Africa, in which many of the European countries divided Africa up between themselves and committed many atrocities over the many years of colonization. An example of these atrocities was King Leopold cutting off the hands of many of the Congolese people and subjugating them, in order to steal their rubber. This is also the betrayal you cannot see, as seen from the quote above, even though the people were primitive and unsophisticated by Belgian standards, the treatment of the Congolese was still immoral. The treatment of Belgians compared to the Congolese people was much different. It's almost as if their values changed based on if the person was of Congolese or Belgian dissent. If murder and genocide is wrong for the people in which you belong, than it should be wrong, universally. This is also the case with Apartheid South Africa and the subjugation of those people for their diamonds and oil. The colonization of the Congo lasted for about fifty years, up until 1960, but the colonization and oppression of the Native South Africans lasted up until 1994, that constant oppression is still fresh in the brains of many of the Native South Africans living today. This proving that colonization isn't just a past problem, but a present one, this is without holding the fact that the Middle East, which includes cases like Iran, Iraq, and Israel/Palestine have been under strict poverty, oppression and so forth, in many respects due to imperialism. And yes, I know some of the cases presented are democratic/electoral interference, rather than straight out imperialism, but please bear with me, are still being controlled by Western actors in a sense and have caused many deaths due to interference and/or intervention.
2b. Indochina
The bombing campaigns of poor indigenous people such as those that took place in Laos, Cambodia, as well as a full out war in Vietnam were devastating. Laos faced devastating effects, when it came to the actual numbers, it was clear, the inhumane treatment of those killed by U.S. bombing campaigns are in a since, an expression of apathy by the US. The campaign had 2 million tons of cluster bombs, around 270 million bombs in total, dropped from 1964 to 1973. Around 20,000 people died in total from just unexploded ordinance left there after the campaign and around 50 people die in Laos every year, by unexploded ordinance from 2008 up to now. And also the bombing campaign in Cambodia that lasted from 1969 to 1973, called 'Operation Menu' in which 500,000 bombs were dropped on Cambodia, killing anywhere between 150,000 to 500,000 civilians, at least. But the worst atrocities have yet to be explored, let's discuss the issue of Vietnam and very specifically, the My Lai incident. Vietnam was a sure tragedy of a war, in terms of lives lost and bombs dropped. 81.66 million people died in the 'Vietnam War', with the vast majority of them being non-Americans as well as civilians. The rape and death of women, many of whom were pregnant. The murder of 504 people, 182 of which were women, 17 were pregnant, 173 were children and 56 of those children were infants. This was known as the My Lai massacre and 14 men were responsible for this abhorrent atrocity, but only one was held accountable, or was he? All were acquitted except William Calley, who was sentenced to life in prison, but after three years of serving the sentence, he was pardoned by then Pres. Richard Nixon after years of public pressure. This is the point, we don't apply the same moral standards evenly across the board. Those gentlemen who participated in those grotesque acts, would've been hanged, if the Nuremberg Trials were still in place. The point is that, the US is too harsh on those that are considered 'enemies', but not harsh enough, when it comes to people that are considered Americans. Those people whether they be Iraqis, Palestinians, Southeast Asians, Arabs, or Africans, their lives matter and they should be treated with dignity, regardless of nationality. The apathy we've seen is just a symptom of a form of moral tribalism that most human beings face, but this type of moral tribalism expresses itself as imperialism.
2c. Middle East
"The price is worth it" is the phrase used to espouse such grotesque and disgusting apathy. When confronted about the 500,000 children, whom of which had died because of US/UK sanctions, Madeileine Albright said that famous line. The structural violence committed by the US and the UK doesn't register, because they are working with a form of moral tribalism in their narrow moral framework. Saudi Arabia is another case in which the West help create and that the US/UK continue to back, while at the same time professing to be for human rights. Saudi Arabia was created with help from the British after the fall of the Ottoman empire, in order to control the region. As Saudi Arabia is an oil rich country, that thrived off the use of oil to garner a great economy. But Saudi Arabia is a theocratic state, which abuses women and is carrying out, as I stated earlier, a full scale war, likely genocide, against the Yemeni people. Iraq is another case of British interference, in which it was a country created specifically to exploit its resources and that forced three distinct groups to be together, even though, all three groups despised each other. Those groups are the Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis, in which they were forced to contain the same space and conflict arose, because the British needed to have control over the region. Their was also US and UK interventions in the Gulf, specifically Iraq, after 9/11 for over a decade, which decimated the region and killed upwards of 655,000 people based on a lancet study, reported by the Rand Corporation.
Part V: Conclusion
In this, we see a very real problem with supremacy and control that people in the West think that they have over countries. The West does some of the worst atrocities, but we can get away with it because of the well meaning nature of our goals. Well, Osama Bin Laden meant well based on his personal beliefs, do we excuse him or how about the Nazis. It is incumbent among apologists of atrocities, to put in place such a caveat. The truth of the matter is, the action was wrong and to put in place such a caveat, is to deflect from the real issue of imperialism and control. I've shown the crimes and atrocities committed by the West, so the question is, what is it we do?
I contend the goal should be non-interventionism as a first step. The next thing to do should be to help rebuild societies lost and pay back the people harmed by imperialism. For example; the Obama administration is paying 30 million dollars every year for the atrocities that happened in Laos, during the bombing campaign, to make up for what was lost. The West should do everything it can to help all these places devastated by constant imperialism, just like the reparations being paid by Germany to the Jews and the families of the Jewish people that were killed and/or harmed during the Holocaust. Reparations isn't just necessary to pay for the harm that was caused, but to make a conscious effort to understand those harms and to take an institutional approach to honestly heal from those tragedies, so these grotesque acts may never happen again. Lastly, below is a video of Christopher Hitchens discussing the idea of reparations:
Thanks for sharing your views. You provide real insightful critiques and approaches. How do we do something? Take the next step to get our voices heard...
ReplyDelete