Winds of Change.NET: Moral Imperialism & the Empire for Liberty

June 11, 2003

Moral Imperialism & the Empire for Liberty

by Joe Katzman at June 11, 2003 11:13 AM

Noted historian Paul Johnson's essay "From the Evil Empire to the Empire for Liberty" is worth a read (thanks, Pejman). His definition of 'Empire' is historically correct, highly relevant to America and its future, and not at all what you think. Along the way, he also answers Michael Totten's need for a word to replace "colonialism" with respect to intervention in places like the Congo. How about "moral imperialsm?" Take this revealing anecdote from our past:

"One area where moral imperialism was active was the Persian Gulf. In Arabia, slavery and slaving were endemic, run by the fierce Wahhabi religious sect, whose leaders were the forebears of the Saudi ruling family. The Wahhabis also sponsored piracy in the Indian Ocean, threatening Britain�s trade with India. From the first decade of the nineteenth century, Britain made allies of the Gulf States, such as Bahrain, Qatar, and Muscat, which resisted Wahhabi encroachment, and these allies provided footholds for a local form of moral imperialism which lasted into the oil age."

Of course, that was a couple hundred years ago, and couldn't possibly be relevant to events today. Johnson's essay is a fascinating journey through our history, from the Greek city states to Britain's empire, America's founding as a child and inheritor of imperialsm, the growth of the Anglosphere, and our challenges post-Sept. 11th.

UPDATE: Michael Totten responds. Still not satisifed, but emails to say I'm one of the best in the blogosphere for bouncing ideas off of. Thanks! Caerdroia also has some good thoughts, and Abiola has a term of his own to suggest.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/1371

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Moral Imperialism & the Empire for Liberty"

Comments

#1 from Abiola Lapite at 1:22 pm on Jun 11, 2003

I wrestled with this issue a while back, *&lt a href="http://reti.blogspot.com/2003_05_25_reti_archive.html#95031065"&gt here*,
and I don't see that a new word is necessary when there's a perfectly good old one lying right in front of you - "trusteeship", as with the old League of Nations' mandate system.

#2 from MommaBear at 7:30 pm on Jun 11, 2003

... and couldn't possibly be relevant to events today...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA and a hearty har-dee-har-har !!

#3 from Andrew Mayo at 4:54 am on Jun 13, 2003

Moral imperialism? By jingo, what a genius. Imperialism to fight slavery in Arabia in "the first decade of the nineteenth century?" What do you think was goin on in Dixie at that time? And our moral superiority in the Phillippines? 200,000 civilians killed. And finally, quoting Washington and Jefferson as somehow promoting empire-building -- what a sad display of intellectual dishonesty. America's "morality" is the same as its policy toward "free trade." It's strictly "Do as I say. Not as I do." Johnson's article is bunk.

#4 from Joe Katzman at 1:01 pm on Jun 13, 2003

Andrew, if you had actually followed the link and read the article, you would have seen that Johnson was talking about the British in that paragraph.

Earlier comments in other threads about the "one true religion" mindset of the modern left just rang a bell. This is just like those preachers who condemn movies and books as obscene without having to be bothered to see or read them...

#5 from Mark Bahner at 10:54 pm on Jun 17, 2003

"And finally, quoting Washington and Jefferson as somehow promoting empire-building -- what a sad display of intellectual dishonesty."

Or ignorance. Both Washington and Jefferson made pretty clear their disdain for people who wanted to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

From Washington's Farewell Address:

"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it." Above all, "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."