The perennial debate when it comes to “empire” is: Who benefits? But before we deal with that question we have to distinguish between the two major types of empire, what I will call the expansion type vs. the overseas type. The expansion type is as old as human history – in fact, in a way it is human history, in that so much of what we know of ancient civilizations consists of their wars of conquest. (No one ever writes about, or memorializes, peace – too boring! The ancient inscriptions, steles, obelisks, etc. were overwhelmingly devoted to military campaigns – victories – conquests. (I have yet to hear of one commemorating a defeat.)) And this was all about expansion – enlarging an area of control (by a given race, ethnic group, tribe, etc.) beyond its current borders. And the motivation? Sometimes it was all about simply winning – conquest for its own sake. What king or emperor wouldn't want to expand his area of control? But it could also be about resources – arable land, timber, access to waterways, acquisition of slaves (conquered peoples), trade routes, minerals – even the need for a “buffer zone” between one empire and another, i.e. take over a given piece of territory but not make it an “official” part of the empire, just maintain it as a protectorate and a first line of defense against whatever's on the other side. (Ukraine, anyone? This is exactly what Putin is up to.)
And, of course, there is just plain old glory – being famous and celebrated far and wide – having a large chapter in the history books, etc. “The Sun never sets on the British Empire” – remember that? It was actually true within living memory. If we can “plant our flag” far and wide (and even on the Moon!) that makes us conquerors – winners – superior in every way.
But this introduces the second type of empire, which is relatively recent and which can be traced to the discovery of America. And that is the overseas empire, which is, to a significant degree, based on, and energized by, trade. But “trade” is a relatively peaceful enterprise, so it has to be backed up by strength – military certainly, but economic and diplomatic as well. I mean, think about it, what's the first thing that happened when the European powers started to colonize the Americas? Trade – followed fairly closely (in some cases) by missionaries. And then the powers had to get together and agree to keep their hands off each other's stuff, i.e. colonies (which pretty much worked most of the time, except when the colonies became spoils of war).
And what is trade? It's trading something of less value (to one party) for something of more value (to the same party) – and ideally, both sides of the trade realize a benefit, or profit. “Free trade” – the ideal of all good libertarians – is a deal from which both profit. Another way of putting it is that if a given trade raises the standard of living, or quality of life, for each party then it was a good trade.
But how much of the “trade” between the European powers and their colonies can be described as “free”? In other words, what did the colonies get out of it? In the worst cases, no material benefits but plenty of exploitation and slavery. In the more moderate cases, certain benefits, but you can be sure that the colonizers always came out better, bottom line-wise, than the colonized.
But here we have to make a distinction. When we say “colonizers” whom are we speaking of? The on-the-ground traders? The ship owners? The merchants back in the home country? The governments or rulters of said home country? It kind of depends on whom, or what, we're referring to. To oversimplify a bit, if it doesn't pay, it won't be done – which means that if someone back home isn't making a bundle from the colonial trade, said trade will come to an end (or never be initiated).
As usual, follow the money. Who got rich from the colonial trade – from, let's say, the conquest of America right up to World War II? The merchants, certainly – and the privileged few who managed to get their products sent back in the other direction. And if we say “the merchants” we are also saying the politicians, and even the ruling class, because they are dependent, to a greater or lesser extent, on the largesse of the merchant class, who – among other things – help them to remain in power.
But how about “the people” – the “man on the street” – the ordinary Joe? Were they better off living in a country that was a colonial power than in one that wasn't? One could make a “trickle-down” argument here – or, the crumbs from a rich man's table are better than nothing. But that would be to ignore the costs (both hidden and obvious) of empire. Number one, as I've said – trade is all well and good, but it's always backed up by military might. And who, pray tell, is in the military? The sons of the ruling elite? Very seldom. More likely, the average Joe who is either drafted into the military or who sees it as preferable to his other prospects (if any). So his blood may very well be shed in order to expand, consolidate, and maintain the empire – with very little in return except, as always, for a few memories of valor and heroism – a few “rusty medals”, if you will.
And is it worth it, to him? Well, the “common folk” of any country or empire are typically much more patriotic, if in a somewhat naive way, than the ruling elite, who tend to be self-serving and cynical. When Joe Snuffy shows off his medals to the folks back home, he's expressing a deep feeling of pride and patriotism, even if the jaded politicians who sent him over to some hell-hole on the other side of the world couldn't care less. Was he exploited? Hell, yes. Was he “cannon fodder”? Ditto. But as a “rite of passage”, military service in time of war has no peer. The guys who come home in body bags don't vote. And this is, sadly, the lot of fallen mankind and his various societies from time immemorial. The rulers have one set of values, and the common people have another, and ne'er the twain shall meet. And all of the “consciousness raising” on the part of antiwar activists is of no avail, as long as the people insist on clinging to their images and delusions (which are, of course, programmed into their brains by the ruling elite).
(When things eventually boil down to human nature, which is intractable, it may be time to turn around and walk away. But I would like to expand on the topic a bit more.)
So – the second type of empire – the “overseas empire” – really began in earnest with the discovery, and conquest, of the Americas. All of a sudden a European nation could flex its muscles without having to challenge, or even offend, its neighbors – and, by the way, sustain little or no damage or even inconvenience on the home front. Just take over a huge chunk of North, Central, or South America! Nothing to it! But at the same time, note, much the same was happening in Africa, Southern Asia, and East Asia. The European powers had become empire-happy, and any place that offered the least resistance found itself forcibly colonized (if not conquered in the strict sense). And again, it was about trade, first and foremost – but also about glory, and power, and being a major player on the world stage. And the point is that it was always a profit-making enterprise, at least for the ruling elite – and a net loss in blood and treasure (think increased taxation to support the whole thing) for the common folk.
And this, by the way, continues right up to the present day! There is nothing ancient, or merely “historical” about this. It's going on even as we speak.
Of course, there is a certain feeling of quaintness about some overseas empires of old. The Germans had one, right up to World War I. The Italians... the Portuguese... the Belgians... the Dutch... and so on. Eventually, it boiled down to the British and French, and that's when things started to change. All of a sudden the benefits of the traditional-style empire came under scrutiny – not only who profits (we always knew that), but do they even profit any longer? And then you had the curious phenomenon of what's called “self-determination”, and it started to catch on, big time, after World War II. Countries that had been consigned to abject slavery and servitude – especially in sub-Saharan Africa – started getting funny ideas about independence. And a lot of the “credit”, if you will, for this, goes to the international communist movement, and their agents from Soviet Russia and Maoist China (throw in Cuba if you like). They talked a lot about “freedom”, “liberation”, and self-determination, all of which was designed to conceal the actual agenda, which was simply a new and different kind of slavery – slavery not to another nation but to an idea. And, I might add, to create a new ruling elite (“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”). But to people who had been under the boot of one or more European powers for, in many cases, centuries, this was music to their ears. So we had uprisings in India, Algeria, the Congo, Vietnam, and so on – not to mention uprisings against the ruling elite in Latin America, where liberation had already arrived once with Simon Bolivar. (Time for another revolution! Latin America became notorious for this after World War II – almost as if it were a national pastime.)
But what was it, really? Throwing off the colonial yoke, or boot – certainly. Rebelling against exploitation and the racism which usually accompanied it? Absolutely. Assertion of politcial ideas, and ideals which had no precedent in the “primitive” tribal culture? That too. (It was always the “intellectuals” of any given country – typically products of the Sorbonne – who spearheaded these movements.)
But... why was it always communism and never capitalism? Why was the red flag always being waved? Because they saw capitalism as part of the problem – as the economic model of their oppressors (“Yankee go home!”). Communism, on the other hand, was a new, fresh breath of freedom – never mind what it meant to the hapless citizens of the Soviet Union. (And quite frankly, maybe the lot of the average citizen of the USSR looked pretty good compared to the lot of the average “coolie” in one of the European colonies.) (The hackneyed term “it's all relative” comes into play here, and in this case it really is all relative.)
So if there is a mass movement in post-WWII history, it's the breaking free of the former colonies from the former colonial powers. And with the exception of France with Algeria and Vietnam, said powers were, by and large, remarkably docile and accepting of the situation, as if they could see that the time had come. There were struggles, of course – quite violent at times (India being an example, and the Congo) -- but the handwriting was on the wall. Suddenly the satisfying status quo had turned into a burden. The colonial empires were turning out to be more trouble than they were worth, so they were broken up – sometimes peacefully, sometimes not – but broken up nonetheless, with very few pieces remaining.
And too, on the home front, people started to question not only the wisdom but the moral validity of overseas empires – of coercing people of a wide range of races, ethnicities, religions, etc. into fitting into the “colony” mode. We speak – to this day – of the “Third World”, but are they truly inferior? Second-class citizens at best? Perhaps this is what the “diversity” movement is all about – not only on the domestic front, but the global front as well.
Of course part of this has to do with the admission – a tough pill to swallow! – that our “values” are not only not shared by much of the world, but that they aren't even interested – and in some cases, despise our “values”, and consider us fools for adhering to them. (This attitude seems especially prevalent in the Muslim world.) And doesn't this fly right in the face of our most basic, founding ideas – that the “American way” is not only good for us, but is good (or should be) for the world at large? One of the basic – I'll call it myths – of the American founding is that our values, as expressed in our founding documents, are universal, i.e. that they are valid above and beyond any accidental considerations of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Any speech by any politician from 1776 on has this as its conceptual underpinning.
But what if it's not true? What if it really is “all relative” – to what I call the eternal verities, i.e. race, ethnicity, and religion? (And gender as well, for that matter.) What if religion, for example, is a more basic, deeper, and profound aspect of a given people's world view than what's in our founding documents? I don't think we have, yet, fully come to terms with this possibility. We're still convinced that “the American way of life”, and “democracy”, are universal values, and there are none higher. And note that our foreign policy is ultimately based on this – and backed up by military might whenever and wherever needed. Yes – all our blood and treasure is spent trying to convince the rest of the world of this one simple idea – so obvious to us, but so foreign and even perplexing to most of the rest of the world. And we find this highly offensive, and spare no expense to convince them (by persuasion or otherwise) that we're right and they're wrong. (And George W. Bush asks “Why do they hate us?”)
But is that the end of the story? Hardly. The colonial model is alive and well, but it has morphed into a new, different – more efficient – form in our time. It's no longer about large numbers of troops stationed in the colony – that pretty much ended with Vietnam. So it's not about overt brute force as much as economic and political colonization – and for this to work we have to, basically, bribe the rulers of any given country in order to secure their cooperation, while at the same time overtly “respecting” the “independence” of the country in question. And at the same time we have to coordinate with international organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, because they have their own agendas – their own empires, if you will (I leave out the U.N. because it's basically become the court eunuch of the planet). And the goals? Basically the same as always --”trade”, which means exploitation to a greater or lesser degree, and political cooperation, i.e. don't get too friendly with any communists who might be lurking about, and keep any rebels and insurrectionists at bay (with the help of our military, if needed – but usually on a covert basis).
So the plunder continues – and it appears that sub-Saharan Africa is the most prominent example. How does the man on the street in Africa benefit from his government's “cooperation” with America (you know, the dictator who used to stash his bribes in Swiss banks, although maybe the Cayman Islands are the hiding place of choice now)? In many cases, enslavement on the same level, or nearly so, as in days of old when the colonial powers were issuing stamps with the name of his country on them. Or, at the very least, questionable benefits or a break-even situation where they're neither better off nor worse off for our involvement. And behind it all is – shocking, I admit – a kind of newly-minted racism on the international scale – as if to say, well, technically these people aren't inferior to the white race (PC check-off), but they really aren't ready for full self-determination (AKA “democracy”) as yet, so we're going to help them along. Help them in the usual way, that is – by supporting home-grown tyrants and doing battle with insurgents and rebels (who may be closer to “the people” than the tyrants are). (Any wonder why we actually have troops stationed in places like the Central African Republic, that most Americans don't even know exist? Here's your answer.)
So yes, the more colorful and stylish colonial era is long gone – as are the glories of the British, French, Spanish, etc. empires. The King of England is no longer the King of India. And so forth. But the Third World is still there, and it is still among the “done-to” as opposed to the “doers-to” (that would be us, sorry to say), although some countries are struggling, with mixed success, to overcome their Third World status – India comes to mind.
But wait! There's more. (And I'm not talking about steak knives.) A funny thing happened, just in the last few years. The denizens of the Third, AKA exploited, done-to, World started catching on – not to their sorry lot, which they've been aware of for generations, but to the fact that they could escape. Escape, that is, on foot or by boat or airplane (or surfboard, for all I know) from their ill-starred native land to – guess where? Yes! To the very land of their oppressors, their exploiters – the gold mountain, the promised land. Irony much? And yet it's happening before our very eyes on a daily basis. And all it took, really, was a bit of consciousness raising – perhaps not intentional so much as the overwhelming influence of news and entertainment media. These folks didn't all of a sudden acquire the resources with which to buy plane tickets, or boat tickets, or to pay smugglers – all they did was realize that it was possible. So now the world (literally) is pouring across our southern border and there's no political will to stop it – because... well, maybe it's some kind of guilt. Maybe it's the feeling that our karma is catching up with us. Maybe we genuinely feel that letting the world in the door will improve our lives in some way, or at least give us more respect. At any rate, it's happening, and all the quibbling about costs vs. benefits won't stem the tide. It is, arguably, one of the most significant human migrations in modern times (excepting war refugees, even though some of the current migrants are in that category as well as the economic one).
And what about the people who are paying the price for all this – in violence, competition for jobs, clashes of cultures, “no-go” zones in large cities, infrastructure costs, social programs, opportunity costs (dealing with refugees vs. improving or even maintaining the standard of living), etc.? Well, they don't count, as our politicians and their media facilitators tell us on a daily basis. Much better to be “compassionate” and “welcoming”, and so on, than to try and preserve what's left of the culture most of us grew up with and always assumed would last indefinitely. Because, after all, anyone with those outmoded ideas is, by definition, a racist/fascist/you name it. There is no more comfortable “majority”; what we have is a majority of minorities. Diversity is not a goal or ideal, but a fact.
But again – as always – who pays the price? The ruling elite in their gated communities and Martha's Vineyard mansions? The corporations in their blue-tinted towers? Surely you jest. It's the average Joe, the man on the street – the “deplorables” – who are seeing their way of life crumbling, their world view challenged, their welfare threatened, their prospects narrowing or vanishing. But how many of them connect the dots, i.e. from this to the politicians who they persist in voting into, or keeping in, office? Very few – because, again, the propaganda machine is permanently set on “anyone who questions any of this is a racist, fascist, etc. and deserves to be shunned”.
The world is being remade before our eyes, and it's – oddly enough – the “little people” from elsewhere on the planet who are doing it – the residents of the Global Village. The formerly dispossessed, done-to, exploited, bottom-rung people have become, in the aggregate, our “influencers” and tastemakers. They are voting, and have already taken over in many parts of the country. They own the streets, and are taking over the airwaves as well. (To become a stranger in a strange land – the one I was born in – is a bit disorienting. Now it appears that if I ever belonged somewhere, now I belong nowhere, and am only in the way.)
But is this truly something new under the Sun? Well, mass human migrations are as old as human history, and in fact older. When it comes to world history, instability seems to be the rule – which is why it's kind of hilarious when those in charge try to impose arbitrary borders on, basically, borderless groups of people, as happened in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. There are no more “no man's lands” – everything is on Google Maps, as if to say “This is the way the world is, and this is the way it's going to stay, and if you don't like it you can just leave.” But human nature, especially as expressed in societies, races, large numbers – has no interest in that sort of ossification. We are migratory creatures, after all. If we didn't come from somewhere else, we had an ancestor who did. So yes, this concept of “Native American”, or “native” anything, misses the point. Does anyone have a “right” to be where they are? I think the most we can say in this regard is that there is a “right of conquest”. If someone, at some point, took possession of a given piece of land, and is able to defend it, and their descendants are able to defend it, then that comes as close as anything to being a “right”, and being entitled to protection by the government. But if that government, or regime, should change, or if waves of “aliens” descend on that place, then all bets are off. Then we are back in a more primitive time, a Mad Max world, where everything has to be defended at all times, and nothing can be taken for granted. And this is where our so-called “leaders” seem to be taking us – into an age which is anarchistic in some respects but totalitarian in others. Property rights are in jeopardy, but the rules for proper behavior – and proper thinking – are more stringent than ever. In this sense, we come to resemble, more and more each day, those “Third World” peoples from whom we had always thought we were maintaining a comfortable distance – except that they are now here, and we are becoming them.
