Doug Henwood wrote:
> Anyone know how British imperialism represented itself? Did it wear a
> "humanitarian" cloak, or is this a specifically American (moralizing)
> style? Was it more honest about "straight power concepts," as Kennan put it
> in that infamous memo?
It's most famous literary apologists were pretty devious about it -- I'm thinking mostly of Conrad and Kipling. And the 17th c. presentation of Dutchmen as monsters was a sort of backhanded apology for British imperialism as "not that bad." I hope someone can give more explicit answers, for this is I believe rather important, if only because the U.S. apologetic strategy, as the horrors of Vietnam apparently fade even in the memories of intellectuals, seems to be working all too well these days even on the supposed left.
The Athenians (as presented in Thucydides) show up well in contrast. Let's not beat about re Justice, one of the Athenian spokesmen quoted (or constructed) by Thucydides says -- it's to our interest, so go along with
us or we will bring about a final solution to the problem. That could be used as a benchmark for honesty.
Of course, however brutal Athenian imperialism, they did usually offer their victims protection against local oligarchies instead of imposing them as is the U.S. habit. And the tribute they demanded left the victims something to eat and a little more rather than bleeding them to death with free trade.
Carrol