(Click to invert colors, weenie.)
(Requires JavaScript.)
Scroll down for Prelinger stuff Email: darkblogules at yahoo dot com
All email will be assumed to be for publication unless otherwise requested.
What's in the banner?
Father of Bloggers
InstaPundit We. Are. Not. Worthy. James Lileks Your Tour Guides to the Abyss Charles Johnson Damian Penny Intel Rantburg Aussie Oppressor Team Bleah! Punk Author Dr. Frank Insolent Woman Natalie Solent People who still read this blog for some reason Alien Corn Gother than thou Ghost of a Flea Prelinger Stuff Introducing the Prelinger Archive Tuesday in November Make Mine Freedom Prelinger Writes In! Freedom Highway Mental Hygiene The Snob Prelinger's web site The on-line Prelinger Archives Mental Hygiene by Ken Smith |
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Posted
9:20 PM
by Angie Schultz
Nelson Ascher of EuroPundits brings us word of this Guardian piece by Marxist historian (or "historian", as Ascher would have it) Eric Hobsbawm. Oh, this is rich, ripe fruit. I found something to object to in nearly every paragraph, and so have had to pare it down considerably, lest I end up reproducing the whole thing, which would be Fair Use, you know. Sit down (er, which you probably are already), because there are many astonishing assertions here.
Well, it's hard to argue that the present world situation is not unprecedented, because it is. So he's right there. But he immediately begins to go off the rails with his implication that the US aims for global domination. And it's pretty clear that the US does not feel itself to be invulnerable, or else it would not have felt threatened enough to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which, of course, Hobsbawm does throughout this entire article. But he assures you that he sees the quagmire, so you know that he will not step right into it. Pay no attention to that ooze lapping at his collar bone. That's not quicksand, no.
Whereas the US is "administering" (He makes it sound so nice! I would have thought ruling would be a more appropriate word) much less land than that. Er, in fact, very little at all.
And those satellite states would be...? Well, aside from the Phillipines (which was our fling at colonialism), there's...uh... Well, there's Japan and Germany, in which we had "armed intervention", in that we defeated them in a war they started (rumor has it that other countries were involved in defeating them, but I wouldn't know much about that). Then there's South Korea (which would be my vote for sole significant "satellite state"), except that was UN action. And then there's our satellite states Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Vietnam. There is also, of course, a large chunk of Central and South America. I suppose Panama might be our satellite state. Some empire we are. All these military interventions, and hardly any useful satellite states to show for it. I mean, they aren't nearly as useful to us as the Soviets' satellites were to them. I wonder how Hobsbawm felt about Soviet imperialism, by the way?
There's the sort of thing we like to see in our Marxists---complete disconnect from reality. More unpopular than Hitler? Than Stalin? Than Mao? Than---gasp!---Israel? Here comes another broadside from a parallel universe:
Hello? September 11th? Remember that? Airplanes, terrorists, thousands dead in Manhattan? Ring any bells at all? Even if he thinks military action in Afghanistan was the wrong response to that; even if he thinks that Iraq is completely unrelated, and so its invasion was ill-advised, illegal, EEEEEvil---surely he has to realize that's what's behind this sudden spurt of "imperialism".To completely ignore these facts is to concede utter irrelevance.
This paragraph is shocking for more than one reason. Firstly, the Iraq war is barely over (having barely begun, of course). I think it's a bit early to decide that the US has "neglected the necessities of running the country"---in essence, lost the peace. This would be an unremarkable bit of disingenuity for a mere pundit---for a Fisk or a Pilger or a Monbiot. But Hobsbawm's supposed to be a historian, and at least a competent one. You'd think a historian would have a better grasp of timescales, and how much time is required to help a country recover from three decades of misrule. The other, more shocking thing is that apparently Hobsbawm is comparing the British rule of India favorably with the American occupation of Iraq. Presumably Hobsbawm would be happier if we treated Iraq as an outright colony. Behold---a Marxist approves of imperialism, and it's not even Soviet imperialism! More shocks ahead:
Did you see that?! It's NOT all about the oooiiillll. I'm stunned that Hobsbawm rejects this beloved theory, and the only explanation I can see is that he's determined to be unfashionable. If all those third-rate minds are convinced of it, I can hear him thinking, it must be wrong. But, really, "an exercise in showing international power"? Bush looked around, said, "Hmmm...we have to show our power somehow," and decided to invade Iraq? Apparently so:
I've seen this in any number of punditry venues, and I always wonder how literally the authors take it. The US "can invade anybody small enough and where they can win quickly enough". Well, it can, but will it? Will it invade Belize? Burma? Bolivia? Burkina Faso? Does Hobsbawm fret that the US might invade Saudi Arabia or Indonesia? France? Canada? What would be the point?
No, domestically the real danger is that the public will get sick and tired of paying for war and the upkeep of conquered countries, and elect someone new to office.
Hobsbawm must belong to that new political party, Revolutionaries for the Status Quo.
Wrecked NATO---if I recall, the major (or sole) objections to NATO involvement were the French, who did not want to do so much as protect Turkey. I don't think that NATO should have been involved in Iraq (or Bosnia or Kosovo), but protection of Turkey is clearly within NATO's avowed purpose. Seems to me the French have wrecked NATO, if it is wrecked. Sabotaged the EU---Er, how? By asking Eastern European countries for help directly rather than going through the Fr---I mean, Brussels? Ruining "prosperous democratic social welfare states"---er, huh? Maybe we're ruining them by taking on their burden of defense, thereby allowing them to grow ever more bloated. Unless he just means the Soviet Union. And apparently the UN was never hampered by a British, French, Chinese, or Soviet veto---only an American one.
...which is...what? We are not to know.
Be sure and read Oliver Kamm's response to that. Snork.
First, to say that the US does not "understand" the world would be to suggest that somebody, somewhere, does. Secondly, think of all the countries which have done "anything" Washington didn't like. Think of how many of them remain unbombed (by us) since Bush became President. Maybe it'd be easier to make a list of those we have bombed.
In the interests of fairness, I'll note he's correct about this.
Indeed, as I mentioned above. However this would be true whatever the state of the economy. I don't believe the economy is particularly weak by historical standards, but only by the standards of the tech bubble of a few years back---another thing a historian might've known.
Ah, yes---the famous squabbling of the Bush administration.
That first sentence is not only not a sentence, but it doesn't tell us for whom this is "the major preoccupation". For Hobsbawm, presumably. However, having failed to note (or notice) any reason for this recent American "imperialism", he also must fail at demonstrating what sort of "education" is now lacking. This next bit tells all:
I must say that this is very much in keeping with the flavor of other Le Monde articles I've read, whether translated into English by other bloggers, or (with great difficulty and heavy assist from Babelfish) in French. They tend to be densely constructed on a foundation of air, propped up here and there by cryptic (often irrelevant) assertions, and decorated with hyperbole. How they manage to keep from crashing under the weight of their absurdities, right there on the page, is a mystery to me. Truly, it concerns me that this represents the best of our supposed intellectual and cultural betters.
|