IMPERIALISM: TRULY ACTIVE IN OUR TIME

Conceptual overview of imperialism

In a publication titled “The Age of Imperialism (1870-1914)” posted on www.tamaqua.k12.pa.us, we read what serves as a rapid overview of the concept and essence of imperialism as follows: imperialism is the domination by one country or people over another group of people. In effect, imperialism is operational when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain. Basically, the goal of imperialism is to acquire resources, often through exploitation and force. From the title of our piece, there’s an implicit reference to the time frame in the unfoldment of our subject; thus affirming the widely shared position that imperialism has undergone two phases such that we distinguish between old imperialism and new imperialism.

On this distinction, the publication cited above makes clear that, under old imperialism, European nations established colonies in the Americas, India, South Africa, and the East Indies, and gained territory along the coasts of Africa and China. Thus, the essence of the old imperialism was direct colonization, in which, by 1800, Great Britain was the leading colonial power with colonies in India, South Africa, and Australia. Spain colonized Central and South America. France held Louisiana and French Guinea, and Holland built an empire in the East Indies. However, from the late 1800s through the early 1900s, Western Europe pursued a policy of imperialism that became known as New Imperialism-defined more by the intensification of expansion by the imperial powers, culminating in World War I in 1914.

The most active European countries in terms of imperialism were Britain, France, and Germany. In the late 1800's, economic, political, and religious motives prompted these nations to expand their influence over other regions, each with a goal to increase their power across the globe. It is pertinent to note that imperialism and colonialism are closely related, but imperialism can occur without colonialism if the invading country does not send in settlers. The word “imperialism” comes from the Latin term “imperium,” which means "to command." Colonialism, on the other hand, means control by one power over a dependent area or people, often involving the implanting of settlers in a foreign country. It comes from the Latin word “colonus,” which means farmer. The settlers intend to live in the dominated country permanently, but they keep their allegiance to their country of origin. A common thread running through both phases of imperialism is control and exploitation for self-enrichment on the part of the imperialistic parties.

Motives and Forces Behind Imperialism

Examples of imperialism include France’s control of Vietnam from the mid-to late-1800s and Britain’s control of several countries in the early 1900s, including India, Australia, and many countries such as Nigeria, and Ghana- in Africa. More generally, countries that have practised imperialism include Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and the U.S. By the way, the competition among European countries to claim parts of Africa and Asia was among the driving forces behind World War I. We recall how the Russian Marxist philosopher Vladimir Lenin had demonstrated that imperialism was a form of late-stage capitalism. Capitalism, he said, led to powerful monopolies that were forced to expand their empires by seizing colonies and creating dependencies to serve as markets, investment outlets, as well as sources of food and raw materials. Lenin’s thesis remains unfalsified.

In all these and in broad terms, of the various motives for imperialism five are considered notable; these are: economic, political, military, cultural and religious forces. As clarified by Kimberly Amadeo and Matthew R. Webber in their article of November 30, 2022, concerning the economic factor, the Industrial Revolution stimulated the hunt for colonies; first, colonies provided raw materials, and second colonies served as a market for surplus manufactured goods. As to the political factor, every country wanted national hegemony – that is, to be the No. 1 imperialist country in the world. To achieve this, they wanted to control as much of the world as possible. The nation’s greatness is measured by the quality and quantity of its colonies. Folks wanted to plant the flag in as many places as possible. Every country wanted recognition as a world power. They wanted to improve their reputation among other European countries. Thus, they wanted to increase their political power and prestige, thereby making every country to be in competition with its rivals. Coming to the military factor, as expected, every imperialist country was worried about its own national security: this explained why the competition among imperialist powers was vicious. One had to protect one’s own country and its colonies. Every country wanted to gain a military advantage over its rivals. A colony could serve as a fueling station for the Navy; a ship could stop and load up on supplies. In this vein, some spots in the world, especially waterways, were strategically important; so, the Navy was paramount: to have freedom to travel to and from the colonies.

The cultural factor operated on the basis of social Darwinism which was the prevailing belief in Europe and the prism through which it explained why some countries were rich and some were poor; people compete for survival, the strong survive and the weak marginalized, being unfit and drowned in poverty. In practical application, the European colonizers were the superior races while the African and Asian colonized were perceived as inferior races. In other words, the Europeans regarded themselves as racially and culturally superior to the people of Africa and Asia. Therefore, the argument of the ‘humanitarians’ which was how they presented themselves, was that it was Europe’s noble duty to uplift and enlighten the backward peoples. All these are topped with the religious factor: the “missionary impulse”, in which Christianity was considered superior to all other religions-fuelling the belief that they must spread Christianity to Asia and Africa; thus, religion encouraged imperialism, the fact that under Christianity all people are equal in God’s eyes, notwithstanding. Of course, there was also a certain element of hypocrisy: While the Europeans spoke of uplifting people, they were actually motivated by profit and greed. On this consideration, Michael Parenti, the author of “History as Mystery” has argued that: as with all hegemonies, Christian teaching and preaching is really just an ""ideological justification for the worldly interests of a ruthless slaveholding class.

It is clear from the foregoing that the main motive for imperialism was to obtain and control a supply of raw materials for industries. This meant that a weaker country with abundant natural resources would be colonized. Imperialists were often brutal in the way they treated the indigenous population. Ironically, the leaders spearheading the movement cited the “white man's burden,” a term popularized in Rudyard Kipling's poem to morally justify imperialist expansion. The philosophy underpinning the “White Man's Burden” consisted of the “Three C's of Colonialism: Civilization, Christianity, and Commerce. As Eric Beckman and Vladimir Genkovski pointed out in their January 22, 2023 article on “Rationales for Imperialism”, imperialist countries developed rationales for what they were doing. As already alluded to, imperialism was justified using various beliefs, including Social Darwinism, nationalism, the idea of a "civilizing mission," and the goal of converting indigenous populations to a particular religion. Incidentally, to this day, the goal of imperialism has remained constant; it’s just the mechanism that changes in response to the dynamics of history.

Imperialism Alive and Active: Military Bases as Graphic Illustration of Foreign Domination

Way back in 1999, Prakash Karat had written in The Marxist Journal, Volume: 15, No. 02-03 on “The Military Strategy of US Imperialism at the Turn of the Century”, highlighting the new strategic military doctrine of the USA and its imperialist allies. On March 1, 2002, the editors of Monthly Review quoted historian Arnold Toynbee in his America and the World Revolution –published in 1962- as declaring how empires throughout human history have relied on foreign military bases to enforce their rule, and in this respect at least, Pax Americana is no different than Pax Romana or Pax Britannica. The principal method by which Rome established her political supremacy in her world,” According to the radical outfit, the official stance of the United States toward these military bases after the war was that they should be retained to whatever extent possible, and further bases should be acquired.

Gilberto López y Rivas, in the article, “The Military Bases of U.S. Imperialism”, published on May 26, 2023, noted how “some of these facilities are located on tracts of land considered spoils of war, although most are maintained through collaboration with governments, many of them brutal and oppressive, who benefit from the presence of the bases. Undoubtedly, this has caused displacement of populations engaged in agriculture and other productive activities, provoking high levels of many types of contamination of local water systems, habitat and atmosphere, and, consequently, has given rise to the emergence of resistance movements against this neocolonial occupation of the territory. This phenomenon has given rise to the concept of the global police state. A team of analysts had commented on the US military bases as follows: Expanding settlement of military bases of the United States out of its national territory really began, on a large scale, in the very last years of the 19^th century. Already before this period, marked by the cutting up of the world among the major powers and by the rise of the interests of the high finance (particularly the Rockefeller and Morgan groups), U.S. armed forces had already intervened more than a hundred times beyond the boundaries of what would become the new hegemony of the capitalist world system. Furthermore, they noted: A first estimate of the total personnel of the U.S. armed forces distributed around the world on September 30, 2011 is given by adding to the 201,167 militaries stationed in the territories outside the Continental United States and 205,118 others stationed in foreign countries, including 59,680 “undistributed” (in transit or in exercises, among other activities), the troops engaged in the wars in Iraq (92,200 militaries) and in Afghanistan (109,200 supplementary persons), that is more than half a million soldiers: 548,105 soldiers exactly. However, we will show that these figures, as well as those taken from the mentioned.

There is a video shared on social media, put together by Kwesi Pratt Jr. which paints a graphic picture-in words-on Foreign Military Bases on the African Continent, with Ghana-his home country as concrete illustration, hence the content of his opening statement on how the American military base in Ghana is run; his approximate words: I feel sad that Ghana is hosting one of these (American) military bases. In Ghana, we have allowed the US to establish military bases in Ghana. Under the agreement (binding the operation of the military bases), our head of state is stopped from entering the base; if a US military kills a Ghanaian, no redress, same for the destruction of a Ghanaian property, you cannot go to court . . . US soldiers entering Ghana are not subject to a search- they cannot be searched; they do not need a passport to enter Ghana-all they need is their ID Card. In any case, what are these soldiers doing on our continent? Yes, we are supposed to be operating in a global village-but if Ghana cannot establish a battalion in Washington, why should the US be allowed to set up a military battalion in Ghana?

The blatant inequity carried by the military base project and especially its accompanying agreement in post-independent African countries is eloquent and embarrassing evidence of the vibrancy of imperialism as we speak. The relationship clearly is that of an oppressor and a victim of oppression in tango.

Victims of imperialism

The illustration of imperialism provided by y Kimberly Amadeo and Matthew R. Webber –in their November 30, 2022 article, “What is Imperialism?” is insightful as they make the point that imperialists view economics as a “zero-sum” game in which there's a finite amount of riches in the world. They believe that in order for someone to gain wealth, someone must lose wealth. We are reminded by Israel Amter in his piece, The Black Victims of Imperialism, published in The Communist International, No. 26-27, 1923- of the sheer physical atrocities of the imperialists viz his recollection that: There is no story of human exploitation and degradation more horrible than the history of the mistreatment and massacre of the black race by the whites. The slaughter of 8,000,000 natives of the Congo by the agents of King Leopold; the extermination of the Hereros by the Kaiser’s government; the brutal march of French imperialism into Tunis and Morocco; of Italy into Tripoli; the invasion of South Rhodesia by the British marauders—these are a few chapters in the bloody story. Directing his gaze to his homeland, America, Amter wrote: The plight of the negro tenant farmer in America is tragic. Always in debt, he obtains supplies and provisions from the merchant on credit, giving him a lien on his crops in exchange. At last, he becomes a peon—a serf owning neither himself nor his land. He may be arrested for debt, and then be “farmed out” by the State in payment of bail money or the debt. Once sold into peonage in this manner, he can never escape. To obtain proper work out of him the “whipping boss” beats and tortures him, and at times he dies under the flogging.

The point of central relevance in the above observations is the inhuman essence of the imperialist actions visited on their victims in Africa and elsewhere; however, the case of Africa deserves our special focus.

Imperialist Plunder of Africa

Going back to its beginnings, imperialism disrupted traditional African ways of life, political organization, and social norms. To start with, European imperialism turned subsistence farming into large-scale commodity exports and patriarchal social structures into European-dominated hierarchies and imposed Christianity and Western ideals. Thus, colonialism had a huge impact on the lives of Africans. As recalled earlier, Africa was damaged economically, politically, and culturally- as Africa's traditional lifestyles and culture were destroyed. Furthermore, colonialism's impacts include environmental degradation, the spread of disease, economic instability, ethnic rivalries, and human rights violations—issues which as we can see all around us, can long outlast one generation's colonial rule.

The consequences of economic imperialism on Africa have included exploitative resource extraction, proxy and resource-influenced civil wars, illegal trade in natural resources, mass poverty, and external migration of skilled workers necessary for national development. The colonies had no freedom; they were plunged into poverty and unemployment due to the disappearance of indigenous industries. Under foreign rule, imported goods wiped out local craft industries. By using colonies as sources of raw materials and markets for manufactured goods, colonial powers held back the colonies from developing industries. In some parts of Africa, though, the local kingdoms were able to successfully counter the spread of European control. In particular, Ethiopia was able to negotiate alliances with the surrounding North African kingdoms and Russia, allowing it to be the only country in Africa to successfully withstand European colonialism.

Of course, imperialist plunder was not limited to Africa. For example, as reported by Aljazeera on December 19, 2018 through the voice of Jason Hickel-Professor at the Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA-UAB) and Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts-in the piece, “How Britain Stole $45 trillion from India”, drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, the economist, Utsa Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. As the global news medium commented: It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. It followed with the following details: It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way – mostly with silver – as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade. Here’s how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, “buying” from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them. It was a scam – theft on a grand scale.

In these ways, imperialism ensured a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich-by trick and treachery. The dispiriting scenario exposed notwithstanding, as one philosopher argued, a pessimistic intellect is a feeble intellect; history expects victims of oppression not to eternally surrender to their fate but take measures to assert their humanity and work towards the creation of an alternative vision of the future.

Creating the Future We Want

The year 2023 brought into further prominence the reality of the persistence of imperialist forces in handcuffing weak nations just as this is increasingly met with popular resistance. I draw the reader’s attention to the debates that ensued following the coups of rapid succession on the African continent, especially that of Niger in that year-seen widely as anti-imperialist in persuasion and orientation. True, the term "anti-imperialism" is most commonly applied by Marxist-Leninists, and political organizations of like ideological persuasion who oppose capitalism, present a class analysis of society and the like. But liberation is a human vocation for people of dignity. Meanwhile, long before the present era, Corn Tassel-in a Speech to the United States Congress in July 1875, titled: “History Is a Weapon”, had averred that: we cannot simply be passive. We must choose whose interests are best: those who want to keep things going as they are or those who want to work to make a better world. If we choose the latter, we must seek out the tools we will need. History is just one tool to shape our understanding of our world. And every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. I come in peace, please.