Empire and Colonialism

 I found an interesting article on what a Chinese superpower might look like. The main premise of the article wasn't that illuminating - it was fairly lightweight and quite childlike. What I found interesting however were the comments that betrayed a common worldview here at home:

"China has never colonised any overseas territories. Overseas empires were a European speciality,"

"Europe, I would argue, has historically been an extremely aggressive and expansionist continent."

"Military might, the projection of power around the world, and the desire if necessary by force to impose our way of life on others, have been fundamental to the European story."

"China won't be like this. It is not in its DNA."

"Instead the quintessential forms of Chinese power will be economic and cultural."

I have often been baffled by the odd views of Empire and Colonialism that have become so fashionable among the left. Basically the narrative goes: White Europeans and Americans were racist, exploitative and sought to conquer brown and black people. You get the impression when reading views linked to this narrative (especially on forums and comments pages) that it was the white West that invented Imperialism, Colonialism and exploitation. Indeed, a parallel is often drawn between whites exploiting coloured people, and western industry raping the planet. Capitalism, rather than being a mere form of market exchange, is instead elevated to being an extension of white imperialism. And it's all our fault.

Never having been fashionable, I've long had a hard time swallowing this mickey mouse cartoon version of history, and I remain astonished that people better educated than me glibly believe it. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, because when I look at history itself, I just can't see this strange narrative. As a soft left liberal myself, or at least someone who fits the profile, I find this view absurd.

 Let's get a few facts out of the way first. Conquering and exploiting others is not a European invention. China may never have had overseas colonies, but it does indeed have a history of aggressive, military expansion. It's no accident that China is the size it is today, you know. Ask the Vietnamese what they think of the Chinese occupation that they fought against for centuries. Ask the Tibetans. The Mongols expanded (and contracted) a massive overland empire over the world's biggest land mass, ruling China and reaching the boundaries of Europe. The Islamic Empire conquered all of the Middle-East, North Africa, Spain and the Caucasus, finally stopping short of Vienna. And it expanded down the east coast of Africa and would have expanded further into the interior if the Tsetse fly hadn't killed their horses. Having laid the boundaries of Islam, they then set up a vast slave trade in Africa, long before the arrival of the Portugese. The Mughal empire expanded out of Afghanistan and made half of Indians its subjects before Queen Victoria was even born. The Aztecs expanded throughout Central America, conquering and enslaving every tribe it came across - the only reason the conquistadores were able to defeat the Aztecs was because the local tribes allied with them in order to topple their hated overlords.

Colonies are a way of establishing a presence somewhere. If you are the country right next door, then you don't need colonies. The threat of invasion will do just fine, and the subject nation will pay its tribute or give up its mineral wealth to you and not your rivals. If India had been on the Isle of Wight, and if it wasn't threatened by rivals looking to exploit it as well, then Britain wouldn't have had colonies in India at all. There would have been no need to rule it - a puppet ruler, as is traditional, would have done fine.

Prior to Europe's expansion, shipbuilding technology was still poorly developed. Zheng He's fleet, about which we know very little of, was created during the Ming Dynasty's declining years. The ships, we think, may have been impressive. They would certainly have been very expensive. Yet they stuck to conservative routes. And the Chinese Empire, wealthy already from its trade links with the Persian, Mughal and Islamic Empires, saw no benefit in exploring further. It had no need.

Portugal, blocked from the East by the Islamic Empire, had nothing to lose in trying to sail around the tip of Africa. They were attracted to the East by China's wealth. They wanted to trade with it. Their ships were used to the wild Atlantic, and so were tough. It was from there that Spain, Britain and the Netherlands, also facing the Atlantic and perched on what was seen as the 'edge of the world', also developed their maritime links and shipbuilding techniques.

If China had been in Ireland, they too would have done the same.

It was an accident of history that allowed Europeans to take advantage of long range maritime links, just as the technology to do so was emerging. The long distances involved and the lack of communications technology also meant that they had to rely first on garrisoned 'factories' (trading centres), then (when the Mughal empire imploded) on ruling areas that hitherto had been ruled by others. And that's it. It wasn't racism or militarism that produced Europe's domination of much of the world - just the usual human habits combined with lucky timing.

And they are human habits. It's fashionable, for instance, to blame the US's western expansion across America on some arrogant notion of 'Manifest Destiny'. But Manifest Destiny is just a made-up phrase, and nobody seems to know who said it first. Did Russians need that phrase in order to sweep across Siberia, Russia's 'Wild East'? No. They just did it. What the US did against Native Americans (taking their land, for gain, and killing them if they got in the way) was what all growing nations tended to do. The larger American Indian Nations did the same, eradicating smaller tribes as they expanded, and warring against those they couldn't destroy outright.

Will China, if it becomes a superpower, try to base itself overseas? Take a look at the furious row in the South China sea, where China, Japan and South Korea have been rattling sabres over a few uninhabited islands. With modern communications, ships and planes, such places suddenly assume strategic significance (as they did in WW2). This is why, for instance, America has an empire of bases, rather than colonies. Technology has shrunk distances further, so colonies are no longer needed (which is why 17th century European colonies looked obsolete in the 20th century). In the 15th Century, with China at the height of its power, occupying those islands would have made no sense. There was nothing there, they could not dominate the surrounding seas without the invention of radar, artillery or missiles, and a garrison stationed there would have starved to death. Now however, it is a different story, and again, not because of correct or incorrect attitudes, but because of circumstance.

If Chinese strategists see a real need to occupy a piece of land anywhere on this earth, they will pragmatically weigh up the costs and benefits, and if it was to their advantage - and they could get away with it - they would do it. They would not wring their hands in anguish, saying 'but we are not Europeans, it is not in our DNA'.

Chinese people are human people, and humans have always acted in this way, regardless of their skin colour, religion or ideology. To fail to see this is to succomb to the idiotic racialist theories that abounded in the last century - that, somehow, it is race that dictates a people's behaviour.

It is not.

It is circumstance that dictates a people's behaviour.

What is history really made of?

"For [Hitler's] sake a great nation has been willing to overwork itself for six years and then to fight for two years more, whereas for the commonsense, essentially hedonistic world-view which Mr Wells puts forward, hardly a human creature is willing to shed a pint of blood.

"Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to "enlightened" and hedonistic people.

"What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment.

"Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the "sacred soil of the Fatherland", etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered form.

"The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions–racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war–which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.

George Orwell, 1941, 'Wells, Hitler and the World State'.

What is Conservatism?

Conservatism, with regards to our political system, owes its origins to Edmund Burke's insightful and prophetic critique of the French Revolution. Conservatism basically said, don't pin your hopes on magical solutions, throwing away all tradition in favour of everything new. It embodies a wary scepticism of human, and humanity's, ability to always get things right. It urges us not to put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak.

Conservatism, then, urges Moderation. Moderation in progress, in government, in economics, etc.

Or rather, that's what it used to mean, for conservatism, like liberalism and socialism, has been shorn of its roots and changed almost beyond recognition.

In the US, for instance, conservatism means wildly unfettered markets, business without boundaries, and the bombing of Iran.

These are not conservative values.

Today, political philosophies are just convenient colours that one dons in order to have permission to dirty someone else's colours. They are team colours, to be worn in the arena.

One can only wonder at the wisdom of the Romans, who employed competing gangs of colours in the games. The reds and the greens, and their supporters, would fight it out, sometimes in violent street battles.

Politics is not only a substitute for fighting, it is an excuse for fighting, so why bother with complex ideologies that only philosophers understand when you can simply fight for a colour?

Any colour will do as long as you get to metaphorically punch someone's face in.

Into the Sunset

I have examined liberalism in this blog, and recently I have mentioned socialism. I should mention that, while a diluted and increasingly warped form of liberalism still exists in modern life (in the West), socialism is but a forlorn looking phantom compared to its old self.

If you are reading this in the US, you may perhaps think that socialism still exists in the UK, or at least in Europe. I cannot speak for continental Europe, but here in the UK socialism is like a small church with a dwindling congregation. There may be some earnest discussion among believers during the coffee morning, but the church roof is leaking and, with the grassroots gone, there is neither the money nor the expertise to fix it.

In fact, if it wasn't for its virulent atheism, British socialism would probably look like the Church of England, also mired in unfashionability and irrelevance.

As it is, both of them can walk hand in hand into the sunset together. Considering that they both sprang from the same root, it would perhaps be a fitting end.

And as conservatism is also a tired ideology preaching in an equally empty and drafty chapel, then maybe they can make it a threesome.

The rule of law

"The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. The decline in the desire for individual liberty has not been so sharp as I would have predicted six years ago, when the war was starting, but still there has been a decline. The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecuted."

George Orwell, 1945, 'Freedom of the Park'.

Moral Socialism

As Orwell has implied in the quote I posted before, the concept of Socialism, as a moral good, has more to do with religion than politics.

Indeed, these days politics has more to do with religion than politics. This is possibly due to the decline of Christianity in the West. People turn to something else to believe in, and believe in fervently. Hence politics becoming more fundamentalist and less debatable.

The first political Socialists were Protestant Christians in the English Civil War. The first communists were the Anabaptists in Germany in 1534.

The dream of a classless society, of an end to scarcity, of justice for all, is the same as the dream of the Kingdom of Heaven, or Nirvana. It is a profoundly human dream that has been with us since the beginning of history - we are social animals who wish to rise forever from the pain of nature's limits and social strife.

Paradoxically, within that dream of a classless society is the dream of the collective, of brotherhood (or sisterhood) and the bonding with other humans that, as social creatures, we crave. Bonding requires more than friendship. It requires 'being', a sense of being in a group, like a baby in a womb.

Which brings us to Nationalism. Again, like Socialism (and all the other 'isms') it is a moral, rather than political force. It arouses the passions and inspires sacrifice and martyrdom, among other things.

Clausewitz said that war is politics in another form.

Politics is religion in another form. It all stems from the passions. Reason is used in its arguments, but it is not reason that inspires rallies and demonstrations, and it is not reason that holds a political or religious group together as a band of believers.

Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by primal urges, and that Reason was just the clothing used to cover our naked passions when out in public.

He was right.

Socialism

"Some apologists try to excuse Marxism by saying that it has "never had a chance". This is far from the truth. Marxism and the Marxist parties have had dozens of chances. In Russia, a Marxist party took power. Within a short time it abandoned Socialism; if not in words, at any rate in the effect of its actions. In most European nations there were during the last months of the first world war and the years immediately thereafter, social crises which left a wide-open door for the Marxist parties: without exception they proved unable to take and hold power. In a large number of countries–Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, England, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, France–the reformist Marxist parties have administered the governments, and have uniformly failed to introduce Socialism or make any genuine step towards Socialism.... These parties have, in practice, at every historical test–and there have been many–either failed Socialism or abandoned it. This is the fact which neither the bitterest foe nor the most ardent friend of Socialism can erase. This fact does not, as some think, prove anything about the moral quality of the Socialist ideal. But it does constitute unblinkable evidence that, whatever its moral quality, Socialism is not going to come."

 George Orwell, 'James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution'.