File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_2003/postcolonial.0304, message 136


From: "Lawrence Phillips" <lawrence-AT-lphillips.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Thoughts on Said's "A Stupid War"
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:25:30 +0100


Ben,

I find the distinction you are attempting apply here -- for 'offensive
defense' against colonialism -- rather naïve if you will forgive me
saying so. Arguably the British in the nineteenth century didn't occupy
Afghanistan out of an urge to colonize but to protect its interests in
India from incursions from the Russians, just as it occupied Aden
(Yemen) to provide a coaling and refueling station on the way to India
as well as naval station to protect its trade route. In the same way
Britain ultimately occupied Egypt to protect its interest in the Suez
Canal and Hong Kong was extorted from the Chinese to protect trading
interests (especially Opium) in China. Moreover the British occupied the
three Ottoman provinces that would become modern Iraq towards the end of
the First World War to deny the oil fields to Turkey and protect them
for themselves. The British didn't entirely leave the Iraq it created
until the 1950s. It is a matter of historical note that the European
empires of the 19th century grew in this way and were emulated by the US
after the 1898 Spanish-American War from which it gained military bases
stretching from Cuba to the Philippines. This was another war that was
justified on the basis of 'liberation', in this case Spain's repression
of its colonies' right of self-determination -- a very pertinent
conflict given current events but oddly not mentioned at all. Compare
the pronouncements of Bush and Rumsfeld (and the neo-conservatives in
general) with the aggressive expansionism of Theodore Roosevelt; another
US president who firmly espoused the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike.
Compare also how long the US occupied the Philippines denying the people
the very self-determination over which the war had been ostensibly
fought.

Many other examples about the way the British Empire protected its
interests could be cited, but the point is all of these 'occupations'
were no doubt  interpreted as 'offensive defense', protecting the vested
interests of the British but history has recorded them as straight up
colonialism, or perhaps better imperialism. Like the British before them
(and again), the US's imperialistic intervention in Iraq on the spurious
claims that the regime would pass weapons of mass destruction onto
terrorists is rather thin, especially given the lack of evidence for
this on the ground. What is certain is that when the US does eventually
leave Iraq, it will leave in place a friendly government and will retain
military bases to protect its interests in the region (principally oil)
as it has done in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Lawrence Phillips,
Goldsmiths College, University of London 

  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of Ben
Sent: 16 April 2003 16:11
To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Said's "A Stupid War"

Thanks for the welcome Mohammed  :)  

(this would have been posted yesterday but I reached
my daily limit!  gasp.)

I think personal political stances are relatively
irrelevant to ideological discussion, but for the
record I was for the war (offensive defense) but am
against colonialism; in other words the US occupying
forces need to get the hell out immediately as soon as
the chemical trucks and all that are destroyed (and
there's no need for them to stay behind in
already-surveyed cities).  

As for finding nothing wrong with anti-colonial hate
speech, I have to admit that I find such a notion
appalling.  I'm assuming that you have equally no
problem with [the existence of, not the message of]
pro-colonial hate speech, or
hate speech for or against any other issue?  I'm just
personally inclined against any so-called 'hate' (ie,
one-sidedness, ideologically-irrelevant ad hominem
attacks, unwillingness to hear the point of view from
the other side, advocation of violence and prejudice
towards any with differing beliefs, etc); I think such
discourse is virtually useless for any kind
of enlightenment. 

Thanks again for the welcome!  
:)
Ben


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005