I came across this quote on a Baghdad blog and it got me thinking:

“the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

Before we all start dissing this as anti-Western propaganda, it’s worth noting the author of that truism is Samuel P. Huntington.

It is of course entirely possible that the West won through superior use of organized violence AND that it had superior values over the “non-West”, but I think this unlikely. The claim of moral superiority, although made by the West for centuries now, is conceivably true only recently.

When was it that the west acquired these superior moral ideas? Not in 1900, when colonialism by the Europeans and a policy of hemispheric domination by the US made such a notion laughable from a modern perspective. And if elections were held then, women and minorities and the poor were disenfranchised.

Only over the past 50 years could a case be constructed for moral superiority, primarily vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. And even then ends justified the means, in Vietnam, in Grenada, in Chile… Jeane Kirkpatrick famously explained why. If you don’t agree with her, then the West became virtuous only in the last 12 years, in part also because it is opening up its markets to imports from developing countries.

It seems to me that the things we celebrate about the West are a result of a successful completion of a two-stage process. The Greeks first invented democracy, but kept the definition of citizen conveniently narrow. So which is more monumental: The notion of democracy, or the notion of democracy for everyone? The democratic credentials of the US constitution, or the humanist Declaration of Human Rights? The latter, obviously. The former, while a clever bit of thinking, was never intended to give the vote to blacks or women.

So, granted, now we have a virtuous West, but one which reached its epiphany largely at the expense of others. The unfortunate result is that a portion of the globe has decided to reject the fruits of the West’s philosophical evolution because it cannot bring itself to separate the means used to reach this achievement from the achievement itself.

And I’m not just talking about the Taliban. Talk to any French activist student or half-arsed Marxist and you get the same suspicion. They still believe that democracy and free markets are shells used by the US and Europe to achieve world domination.

[Tue, Dec 03 2002 – 06:15] charles Hmmm. Victorian Brits thought they were terribly virtuous too –White Man’s burden and all that. And the US in 1900 was at least as smugly self righteous as the UK. Leads to horrible thought –what if Stefan, representative of the modern Western self image, is smug, self satisfied and completely missing the point as well. You have to admit it sounds plausible.

[Tue, Dec 03 2002 – 09:38] Matthew (www) (email) …and does it matter? winning, presumably, is the goal–meaning, being able to live your life free from interference–not ensuring intellectual rigor in dealings with the rest of the world. (unless that also matters, which one could argue it does right now).

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 05:24] eurof (email) well the US is as smugly self righteous — enemies as “evildoers” — as it has ever been.

ignorant matthew, it matters because it could make winning easier, and avoids horrible rebellions, which invariably make the imperial power look even more horrible, hypocritical and amoral to the subject peoples as they suppress.

also, as stefan astutely implies (I gag as I write these words), your subject people then throws babies out with the bathwater, and rejects all the good things the imperial power brought with it. like security, freer markets and trade, personal liberty and open societies. your saudi housewife, angry at the injustice of american policy in palestine, puts 50p a day in a jar to support al quaida, but probably likes being able to buy fridge freezers and would secretly like to drive a car.

the ends of Greece, Rome, Persia, the Ottoman, and the British Empires all show the bad things that happen once an empire collapses under the weight of its own arrogance. we all know who’s next.

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 05:54] Stefan (email) France Telecom?

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 08:33] eurof (email) Exactly!! Followed by the world economy and the pax americana. I don’t know if you ever look at FrogTel as a stock, but it is seriously cruising for a bruising, as we say in the business.

The day of doom is tomorrow, ;0) short that sucker oh yeah. Or potentially wait and do nothing or maybe even buy. Haven’t decided yet.

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 09:09] Matthew (www) (email) you’re confusing imperialism with fighting wars of self-interest. they can be the same thing, but aren’t, i don’t think, if you’re talking about what the u.s. may or may not do in the middle east.

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 09:18] Felix (www) (email) All wars are wars of self-interest. Imperialism is just when an imperial power imposes itself on other countries. Since America is an imperial power and it is going to war with Iraq, we can easily deduce that what we are seeing is both imperialism and a war of self-interest.

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 10:20] eurof (email) which am i confusing with what? this is a classic “imperialist” –should you wish to call it that–war!

they are foreign and barbarous, they threaten us, our interests and our allies, we will go in alone if necessary, kick their butts with vastly superior tactics and technology, “reluctantly” occupy their territory, oh look yes they have some natural resources which we may possibly end up “administering” but only as a custodian for the people there, who are too let’s face it silly to run themselves i mean look what happened last time they were in charge, honest that’s not the real reason we are here and in the meantime we’ll bring them democracy and free markets.

hmmm. for the last line read “commerce, christianity and civilisation”, and that pretty much describes every british imperial war up until 1890. Or Roman wars before the Vandals arrived. Why do you need to be beaten around the head to realise this?

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 10:35] Jezza What’s got into you Eurof, where would you be without the self-interested and imperial (call them what you like) wars of our forebears. Collecting mistletoe for druids? If you think that sounds romantic, remember they would probably burn you afterwards as an offering to some undiscerning gods.

Yes the issue is oil. But there’s nothing wrong with this point not being emphasised because attitudes need to be herded. The reason why the US needs to control the middle east is because: otherwise the fundies get it and we’re all screwed, and it would be a good idea if the US got its hands on it before the yellow peril starts building roads and making cars. This isn’t commerce christianity and civilisation, its survival – long term.

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 11:14] Matthew (www) (email) an imperial war implies some kind of territorial accumulation for it’s own sake, or for the sake of power. the u.s.’s military, social and economic power stems from many things but occupying other countries isn’t one of them. no-one here wants or needs to invade iraq, for exmaple, just so we can color it pink on a map. so that’s hardly an imperialist war in the classic sense. also, it has no long-term territorial ambition either. the japan-model is one being talked about, and the u.s. occupied japan for how long before setting up a real government? 5 years? 10?

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 12:02] eurof (email) Jeremy, where did I say that I thought attacking iraq was wrong or not in my interests? Don’t be soft, I’m all for it!! In any case I like to think I would have been one of the druids as opposed to a misteltoe-gatherer.

I’m not anti-imperialism per se. In many cases it can be a good thing in the long run (e.g. Roman Empire) It stops lots of wars. I’m just not the misty-eyed stooge of the flag-waving rhetoric and cant coming out of some quarters, namely Matthew.

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 13:34] Matthew (www) (email) what am i a quarter of?

[Wed, Dec 04 2002 – 15:17] Charles Kenny (www) (email) What is the US version of pink? What color would a third of the map be if the US did take over the territory? I don’t think there is one. Perhaps this is evidence that it isn’t imperialist in the Mattheusian sense even whilst it probably is in Eurofian terms.

[Thu, Dec 05 2002 – 05:29] eurof (email) Blue. i think it would be blue, being the “opposite” of red, which is what they coloured the commie bits in the cold war.

Matthew, you are or have 25% (that’s a quarter, to you) of a normal educated person’s critical faculties. I can’t believe you studied history at college, but that’s Oxford for you. In fact most of the territory “occupied” by the Romans was ruled by nominally independent indigenous rulers, like Bad King Herod, in the case of Judea, the Mohammed Karzi of his time. Similarly the British in India kept on most of the obviously quiescent Rajas and princes, which as you may (but probably don’t) recall caused all that bother in Kashmir. In both cases the imperial power directly admininstered only a few provinces.

But then perhaps Rome and Britain never ruled “Empires” in the “classic” sense, Matthew. Pray tell who you think did?

[Thu, Dec 05 2002 – 09:02] Charles Kenny (www) (email) What about mauve? always an under-appreciated color, I think. Although on Changing Rooms, they do seem to like painting the kitchen in mauve and a bit of puce. So maybe its in with interior designers. Perhaps a more appropriate color for a Californian empire than a US one, then. But the US potentially neo-classical imperialist empire should be in mauve stripes, probably. That was the way that my historical atlas used to paint the bits that were ‘protectorates’ and the like.

[Thu, Dec 05 2002 – 09:18] Matthew (www) (email) this is silly. what, exactly, is the point of these semantic distinctions. eurof’s post-imperial guilt? we should color invaded territories yellow, to match your weakness.

[Thu, Dec 05 2002 – 12:45] eurof (email) the point is not semantic at all. i have no guilt about empire. i’m jolly proud the british had one and it was one of the bigger, better and relatively (not absolutely of course) humane ones, and possibly most impressive in its ending.

i even think invading iraq, net net, is probably a good thing. i’m all for it. it’ll probably be good for the iraqi people (not so sure how much it’ll stop terrorism, but who cares). i just don’t think the welfare of the downtrodden iraqi is at the top of the US’ geopolitical agenda.

i even think that the US administartion SHOULD lie about why they are invading, because the real reasons why it’s a good thing (oil) are not very marketable.

however, i don’t count myself as one of those who needs to be lied to, and am shocked that you do. You are Mr. Weakie here, not me, weak in the head, more like.

What colour is stupid? Colour in the spot on the map where you live.

[Thu, Dec 05 2002 – 16:27] Matthew (www) (email) read this.

[Fri, Dec 06 2002 – 05:10] eurof (email) sounds incredibly imperial to me! what is it about “imperial” you don’t understand? they’re saying they can go in and kick anyone’s butt who they THINK is a bad man.

[Fri, Dec 06 2002 – 06:52] Jezza Strictly speaking the yanks are not imperialists. They’re culturally more from the Viking school: grab and run. Besides their constitution, full of implied sanctimony about the evildoing English imperialists, they also fought off imperialism by the Brits and French (Suez etc). Ironically it is their lack of imperialism which is their undoing. If, when they started powerbroking in the middle east, they had suggested that the tent-dwelling billionaires did something useful with their money, like building schools, roads and factories, then maybe Saudi Arabians would feel a degree more tolerance for them than they do, knowing that the US simply encouraged their plutocratic fat-arsed leaders to do jack shit but spend their money in Mayfair boutiques and Western arms bazaars. Self determination rocks — the founding fathers would be proud.

[Sat, Dec 07 2002 – 16:22] critical contractor (www) (email)

All the high rhetoric and the low talk will come to nothing if you don’t bring a few children into this world to carry the torch.

Get busy. You’re getting old.