Only a fool would try to impose democracy on a backward nation. Only a dunce would attempt to impose Western democratic values on a country steeped in tribal strife. Only idiots would think a place like Iraq could ever be Westernized, even civilized.
But apparently it is sagacious to expect that an Iraqi criminal justice system executes its convicts humanely; it is couth and cool to demand that Iraq accepts that even the death penalty is barbarism.
Oh, the tedium of it all. America is grotesque for attempting to Westernize Iraq; while America's many critics laud themselves for attempting to Westernize Iraq. Once again, I am dulled by paradox. But something an Army major told me only days ago gives me some bearing in the whirling, conflicting rhetoric tossing so many of us to and fro. I will speak of that in a moment.
It is clear that the videotape of Saddam Hussein's hanging makes many of us squirm. The cold and impersonal gallows (the very ones Hussein used to execute prisoners); the chatty guards; the informality and undignified quality of it all; all of these combined to make Western observers faint. "Death with dignity" was not merely tossed aside, it appeared to many observers that Iraqis lack such a moral category.
Ever quick with voice and pen, Western human rights groups swiftly charged that Hussein's hanging was a "war crime." Italy, no doubt influenced by the enclave of the Holy See within its borders, called such violence barbaric, a charge that might be entirely true. But what is striking is that such rhetoric comes from people dripping with Western, even Christian values. These are critics quick to proclaim Iraq a lost cause spiralling into civil, tribal war; a place where Western values cannot be imposed; a place where such values might not ever even simply evolve. And yet Iraq should be more squeamish, less violent; in short, Iraqis should behave like Parisians, Londoners, and San Franciscans.
But lost on too many is the glaring fact that Iraq elected a government, forged a constitution, constructed a judiciary, and held a lengthy trial against Mr. Hussein. True barbarism would not have tolerated this for one second; barbarians would have lopped Mr. Hussein's head -- and perhaps other extremities -- from his body within hours of his capture. Instead, Iraq showed a restraint not often seen in that country for decades; and for this they are rebuked by the morally superior consciences of Europe, Washington, Manhattan.
While enjoying a bonfire at a party two nights before Christmas, I had a conversation with an Army major who had fought in Baghdad during its liberation in 2003. When US military personnel were working security in that city, the major revealed, Iraqis would be caught attempting to steal gas.
"We would take their gas cans and punch holes all through them," the major told me. "We'd tell them that they'd all get gas and there was no need to steal, and then we'd send them on their way. The Iraqis saw us as weak for doing this; but Americans would see this as a sign of strength. But it wasn't strong to the Iraqis at all. They would respect us if we had beaten them for stealing; but then, if we did that, we'd have their respect but not the respect of the people here in the United States. So we were constantly battling between whether we wanted the Iraqis to respect us, or the Americans."
Telling stuff, indeed. What is moral to American and Western sensibilities may be seen as immoral in Iraq; our strength is to them nothing but moral weakness. Moral authority that is couched in grace is not one whit authoritative to many in the Muslim world, or so suggests my friend the major.
But what astonishes me most in all of this is how aggressively the critics of "American imperialism" attempt to export American morality. It is its own form of imperialism. Curiously, either they do not see it as such, or they do not care to see it as such.
I guess it all matters on doing whatever is opposite of George W. Bush and his minions, dunces that they are.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Imperialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Imperialism. Show all posts
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Moral Imperialism: The Episcopal Church Of The United States
Prologue
I recall standing in Canterbury, England in 1986 and shaking my head. There was an American restaurant tucked in the heart of that gorgeous city, serving burgers and fries in the shadow of the great Canterbury Cathedral. Later, in London, amidst several American fast-food joints, I had a conversation about American colonialism; about how "greedy Americans" were wiping cultural and economic diversity from the face of the earth. The American scourge was unabated; one English clergyman shared how he and his parishioners believed America was the apocalyptic Whore of Babylon.
In the 1980s, as American President Ronald Reagan expanded American influence on the world, many people were concerned about the new colonialism, that such neo-colonialism meant not just the Americanization of the world, it was the epitome of hubris. Nations appeared to be bullied into compliance by American political and economic interests; dictators were propped up in Central and South America, and in the Middle East; weaponry was delivered to American allies; economic sanctions and divestment were used to threaten, chide, cajole, intimidate. America was expanding, and the world must follow. After all, liberty, capitalism, jobs, security: everybody benefited from a safe and happy America. Who could stand in America's way? Americans were right, and might makes right. Or so it went, or so it was perceived.
No single group during this fast and furious time was more critical and circumspect about American neo-colonialism than my leftist peers. Christian leftists even abhorred America's penchant for pushing its agenda on lesser nations; America was "un-Christlike" pushing itself uncritically on its neighbors as it exported Hollywood, McDonald's, gas-guzzlers, the Dallas Cowboys.
(Im)Moral Imperialism?
Imagine what would have happened if, in the midst of America's emergence as the world's sole superpower, a leader said of those third world countries alarmed by American expansionism that they should submit to American ideals since they have "yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we’ve had to face in the developing world." What if an American, particularly an American bishop of one of the wealthiest Christian denominations on the planet, spoke so dismissively of Africa, Nepal, Tibet? Would anyone care?
Well they should care, for what we are currently facing is a leftist neo-colonialism the likes of which rivals any sort of economic imperialism we have seen in America's past. You see, the above condescending quote is from the wildly liberal bishop (retired) John Shelby Spong of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA). And Mr. Spong, whose heterodoxy is well-known and even self-admitted, does not speak in isolation: there are many in the Episcopal Church (my church) who think like him: the other nations of the world that do not think and act like the American Episcopal Church are backwards. And his sentiments, quoted by The New Yorker, were introduced by that esteemed publication with these words, "The liberal American bishop John Shelby Spong, of Newark, disparaged the Africans’ form of Christianity—." Such haughtiness is now American to the core: we are better, we're the best.
What I am getting at is that the American left is particularly expansionistic and imperialistic; but instead of exporting military might or capitalistic ventures it is exporting sexual liberty and the apotheosis of self. And the Episcopal Church is leading the way.
As you know, the Anglican Communion comprises dozens of smaller denominations and affiliations, of which the Episcopal Church is one. Since the consecration of New Hampshire bishop V. Gene Robinson in 2003, the Anglican Communion's conservative members have stood in defiance of the American hubris embodied in Robinson's consecration, calling for censure of the ECUSA and even its expulsion from the world-wide Anglican Church. Recent Anglican documents have even exhorted America to repent of Robinson's appointment; more moderate ones have asked that the ECUSA abstain from ordaining controversial clergy and blessing "same-sex unions." And it was expected that the ECUSA's recent General Convention in Ohio would lead to some healing and resolution. Instead, the ECUSA appointed a new national leader -- a woman who is pro-gay marriage and ordination -- and did not apologize for or repent of its misplaced consecration of an openly and proudly gay bishop. As a result of this apparent intransigence, several American dioceses want out of the ECUSA and the Anglican Communion is more sharply divided than ever. How can it not be when many of the Anglican Churches don't even accept ordained women as a theological or ecclesiatical possibility? (In the United States, retired bishops secretly ordained women as priests decades ago against the wishes of the Anglican, and Episcopal Church; call it guerrilla consecration.)
The New Yorker writes (of Henry Luke Orombi, the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda), "To the Global South primates, such acts as the consecration of Gene Robinson without the broad assent of the whole church reflect an arrogant indifference to the consequences. 'If you want to be very blunt about it,' Orombi says, 'it’s a form of neocolonialism.' "
It is hard to disagree with Archbishop Orombi: An arrogant indifference to the consequences, indeed. Sounds a lot like nearly every leftist criticism ever uttered against American foreign policy. But now it is the leftists who are indifferent, haughtily indifferent.
But it is not just the threat American sexual and identity imperialism poses to the rest of the Anglican world, it is the threat that the ECUSA holds with its purse strings. For the ECUSA is no doubt poised to tyrannize the Anglican Communion with its wealth: the ECUSA is undeniably the wealthiest member of the Anglican Communion, and its wealth is distributed to the far-flung lands which so adamantly oppose the American church. Should the ECUSA be pushed out of the broad Anglican fold, the financial repercussions will be felt by everyone, and everyone knows it. ECUSA is the new face of American hegemony. And the liberals, religious or otherwise, are clapping with delight. After all, might makes right.
I would point Contratimes readers to an op-ed and subsequent discussion at the UK's Guardian Unlimited. The essay is written by a Peter Tatchell, "gay rights campaigner". Mr. Tatchell takes serious issue with Anglican Church of Nigeria Archbishop Peter Akinola, who is (perhaps) the loudest and most influential voice of Anglican conservatism in the entire Communion. Tatchell's column is recommended reading, and I would urge you to scroll through the comments to see what I posted on May 22. But what I really want you to read is the comments of Maduka (halfway down) who immediately follows me in the comments thread. Maduka is Nigerian, and his words are amazing:
Where, pray tell, is the outrage at exporting Western ideals -- pressing weaker nations toward conformity -- by liberals who extol democracy and diversity, and yet fall deaf and mute at their own imperialism? Why should the religious world conform to American ideals of self and "gender identity" if that world should resist other forms of American economic and political empire-building? Why should Nigeria look like Provincetown (MA); why should Uganda or even Canterbury look like Key West (FL)? What about the rights of people for self-determination, even that determination which defines for itself what is sexuality, marriage and democracy?
For shame the Episcopal Church of the United States. It has become -- as I've said too many times to count -- the Unitarian Church with a fetish for vestments. And it is absolutely devoid of anything desirable at the center, at least anything religiously desirable. For its "spirituality", its "revelatory message and prophetic voice", are remarkably familiar, being, as they are, identical to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. And it is all sounding a lot like the fodder offered as "new" by young 1960's radicals: it's really just hypocrisy in acid-flashback.
OK. That was harsh. Forgive me. We beg for grace, for mercy. And wisdom.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gene Robinson, Peter Akinola, Imperialism, Neo-colonialism, Neocolonialism, The New Yorker, Henry Luke Orombi, Peter Tatchell, Guardian Unlimited, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics
I recall standing in Canterbury, England in 1986 and shaking my head. There was an American restaurant tucked in the heart of that gorgeous city, serving burgers and fries in the shadow of the great Canterbury Cathedral. Later, in London, amidst several American fast-food joints, I had a conversation about American colonialism; about how "greedy Americans" were wiping cultural and economic diversity from the face of the earth. The American scourge was unabated; one English clergyman shared how he and his parishioners believed America was the apocalyptic Whore of Babylon.
In the 1980s, as American President Ronald Reagan expanded American influence on the world, many people were concerned about the new colonialism, that such neo-colonialism meant not just the Americanization of the world, it was the epitome of hubris. Nations appeared to be bullied into compliance by American political and economic interests; dictators were propped up in Central and South America, and in the Middle East; weaponry was delivered to American allies; economic sanctions and divestment were used to threaten, chide, cajole, intimidate. America was expanding, and the world must follow. After all, liberty, capitalism, jobs, security: everybody benefited from a safe and happy America. Who could stand in America's way? Americans were right, and might makes right. Or so it went, or so it was perceived.
No single group during this fast and furious time was more critical and circumspect about American neo-colonialism than my leftist peers. Christian leftists even abhorred America's penchant for pushing its agenda on lesser nations; America was "un-Christlike" pushing itself uncritically on its neighbors as it exported Hollywood, McDonald's, gas-guzzlers, the Dallas Cowboys.
(Im)Moral Imperialism?
Imagine what would have happened if, in the midst of America's emergence as the world's sole superpower, a leader said of those third world countries alarmed by American expansionism that they should submit to American ideals since they have "yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we’ve had to face in the developing world." What if an American, particularly an American bishop of one of the wealthiest Christian denominations on the planet, spoke so dismissively of Africa, Nepal, Tibet? Would anyone care?
Well they should care, for what we are currently facing is a leftist neo-colonialism the likes of which rivals any sort of economic imperialism we have seen in America's past. You see, the above condescending quote is from the wildly liberal bishop (retired) John Shelby Spong of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA). And Mr. Spong, whose heterodoxy is well-known and even self-admitted, does not speak in isolation: there are many in the Episcopal Church (my church) who think like him: the other nations of the world that do not think and act like the American Episcopal Church are backwards. And his sentiments, quoted by The New Yorker, were introduced by that esteemed publication with these words, "The liberal American bishop John Shelby Spong, of Newark, disparaged the Africans’ form of Christianity—." Such haughtiness is now American to the core: we are better, we're the best.
What I am getting at is that the American left is particularly expansionistic and imperialistic; but instead of exporting military might or capitalistic ventures it is exporting sexual liberty and the apotheosis of self. And the Episcopal Church is leading the way.
As you know, the Anglican Communion comprises dozens of smaller denominations and affiliations, of which the Episcopal Church is one. Since the consecration of New Hampshire bishop V. Gene Robinson in 2003, the Anglican Communion's conservative members have stood in defiance of the American hubris embodied in Robinson's consecration, calling for censure of the ECUSA and even its expulsion from the world-wide Anglican Church. Recent Anglican documents have even exhorted America to repent of Robinson's appointment; more moderate ones have asked that the ECUSA abstain from ordaining controversial clergy and blessing "same-sex unions." And it was expected that the ECUSA's recent General Convention in Ohio would lead to some healing and resolution. Instead, the ECUSA appointed a new national leader -- a woman who is pro-gay marriage and ordination -- and did not apologize for or repent of its misplaced consecration of an openly and proudly gay bishop. As a result of this apparent intransigence, several American dioceses want out of the ECUSA and the Anglican Communion is more sharply divided than ever. How can it not be when many of the Anglican Churches don't even accept ordained women as a theological or ecclesiatical possibility? (In the United States, retired bishops secretly ordained women as priests decades ago against the wishes of the Anglican, and Episcopal Church; call it guerrilla consecration.)
The New Yorker writes (of Henry Luke Orombi, the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda), "To the Global South primates, such acts as the consecration of Gene Robinson without the broad assent of the whole church reflect an arrogant indifference to the consequences. 'If you want to be very blunt about it,' Orombi says, 'it’s a form of neocolonialism.' "
It is hard to disagree with Archbishop Orombi: An arrogant indifference to the consequences, indeed. Sounds a lot like nearly every leftist criticism ever uttered against American foreign policy. But now it is the leftists who are indifferent, haughtily indifferent.
But it is not just the threat American sexual and identity imperialism poses to the rest of the Anglican world, it is the threat that the ECUSA holds with its purse strings. For the ECUSA is no doubt poised to tyrannize the Anglican Communion with its wealth: the ECUSA is undeniably the wealthiest member of the Anglican Communion, and its wealth is distributed to the far-flung lands which so adamantly oppose the American church. Should the ECUSA be pushed out of the broad Anglican fold, the financial repercussions will be felt by everyone, and everyone knows it. ECUSA is the new face of American hegemony. And the liberals, religious or otherwise, are clapping with delight. After all, might makes right.
I would point Contratimes readers to an op-ed and subsequent discussion at the UK's Guardian Unlimited. The essay is written by a Peter Tatchell, "gay rights campaigner". Mr. Tatchell takes serious issue with Anglican Church of Nigeria Archbishop Peter Akinola, who is (perhaps) the loudest and most influential voice of Anglican conservatism in the entire Communion. Tatchell's column is recommended reading, and I would urge you to scroll through the comments to see what I posted on May 22. But what I really want you to read is the comments of Maduka (halfway down) who immediately follows me in the comments thread. Maduka is Nigerian, and his words are amazing:
It is true we inhabit the same planet, but our [the Nigerians] experience is so different that it will be dangerous to thrust the "latest fad in Western thinking" on a society that is still discovering itself. ... I understand socially conservative environments. People in Africa are not evil because they are socially conservative? [sic]... Just as you crave understanding, we crave to be understood. There are no no quick fixes in social engineering. Societies will evolve at their own pace.Please, go read the Tatchell piece. Maduka's four postings are illuminating, particularly in the context of Spong and Tatchell's rebukes of African capacities. Besides, the comments I left there are pretty good, too.
Where, pray tell, is the outrage at exporting Western ideals -- pressing weaker nations toward conformity -- by liberals who extol democracy and diversity, and yet fall deaf and mute at their own imperialism? Why should the religious world conform to American ideals of self and "gender identity" if that world should resist other forms of American economic and political empire-building? Why should Nigeria look like Provincetown (MA); why should Uganda or even Canterbury look like Key West (FL)? What about the rights of people for self-determination, even that determination which defines for itself what is sexuality, marriage and democracy?
For shame the Episcopal Church of the United States. It has become -- as I've said too many times to count -- the Unitarian Church with a fetish for vestments. And it is absolutely devoid of anything desirable at the center, at least anything religiously desirable. For its "spirituality", its "revelatory message and prophetic voice", are remarkably familiar, being, as they are, identical to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. And it is all sounding a lot like the fodder offered as "new" by young 1960's radicals: it's really just hypocrisy in acid-flashback.
OK. That was harsh. Forgive me. We beg for grace, for mercy. And wisdom.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gene Robinson, Peter Akinola, Imperialism, Neo-colonialism, Neocolonialism, The New Yorker, Henry Luke Orombi, Peter Tatchell, Guardian Unlimited, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)