By Kim Scipes
September 19, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.
U.S. Pacific Fleet - 210719-N-NJ919-1153. Flickr.
Today, Americans are getting an education in reality that generally cannot be bought, although it might not quite seem that way. We are seeing Israel committing genocide as it is happening, in real time, and not only is our country failing to stop this, but the US government is collaborating, not only enabling it by not stopping Israel, but by supplying the weapons! And politically protecting Israel’s despicable behavior. At the same time, we are supplying almost unlimited weaponry to Ukraine in it’s so-called “noble” fight against the terrible Russians, weaponry that could easily lead to World War III, which will probably be a nuclear war. At the same time, the US media is cheering on the Ukrainians while mostly being silent against Israel’s genocide. US university “leaders” are doing everything they can to keep either situation from being properly understood, including eliminating the concept of “free speech” from campuses, the very essence of learning (as they’ve been telling us for years). And with a presidential campaign in full bore—the one time that some of these contradictions get pushed to the fore—nary a real discussion of what’s going on. As folks would say: WTF?
And I can easily imagine for those of you who are seeing some of these “contradictions,” they make no sense: how can we (or anyone) understand what’s going on? On a personal level, am I going crazy???
No, I’ll vehemently assert you are NOT going crazy! But it is not understandable because you have not been given the tools and concepts to understand a situation like this.
First of all, you’ve been consciously lied to by US society’s “leaders.” Consistently and pretty consciously. You have been told there is something in the world called the “West,” and that the West has all of these wonderful values that they’ve spent years in teaching—in this case, cramming down your throat—such as “truth,” “beauty,” “justice,” etc., and that these are values by which we should judge the rest of the world’s actions.
But let’s think about this. Is the term “The West” a realistic term or does it cover something else? I’m going to argue that it covers something up: imperialism.
What is imperialism? I’ve never heard of that! Or if I have, I’ve only heard it in regard to British imperialism in the late 1800s; I’ve never heard it used in regard to the United States….
Basically, the term “imperialism” is one that explains the concept of differential power between nation-states; recognizes that all nations do not have equal power; and establishes those that have more power have tried to dominate those with less. (NOTE: this holds true on differences in all kinds of things, such as spiritual power: not all countries are equal. However, in reality and for sake of this article, we are limiting the discussion to political-economic power, which also includes military, cultural, and diplomatic power, all which undergird today’s relations between political communities in the world today.)
We can see this quite clearly IF we even question what we’ve been taught ad nauseum: not all nation-states have equal political-economic power. In fact, there are two groups of countries in the world today. The first group, individually and together, has dominated the members of the second group, especially over the past 500 or so years; since roughly 1492, although the groundwork began being laid earlier. This powerful group, what I’ll call “imperial” countries, have dominated the weaker, second group of countries over this time period. Interestingly, these imperial countries have overwhelmingly come from Western Europe and their “settler” colonies—countries such as the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and, after 1948, Israel—as well as Japan. (These are the countries, upon examination, that are conveniently labeled “The West,” although that term has been superseded sometimes with “developed” or “industrial” or “modernized” country descriptions. Note that none of these terms explains the process by which these countries “developed” their political-economic power and a qualitative higher standard of living for their peoples over the weaker countries, and that they are each hidden behind euphemisms to help ensure your confusion.)
The second group, the less powerful group, can generally be referred to as “formerly colonized” peoples or countries; they each experienced colonization by at least one stronger country—the Philippines was colonized by both Spain and the United States!—but have subsequently garnered at least their political independence from their former colonial master—either through armed struggle or being “granted” their independence because of no longer bringing sufficient benefits to the colonizer—although are less likely to have achieved their economic independence.
Consider this: as of 1915—the beginning of World War I—every country in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East had been colonized (subjugated) by at least one of the dominant countries. There were only three exceptions that I know of: Iran (formerly known as Persia), Ethiopia, and Thailand (Siam).
What does it mean to say they were “colonized”? Basically, they were conquered by the imperial country; and yes, the indigenous lands in North America were taken as colonies of Great Britain, although mostly through outside settlement instead of naked military conquest, although that option was always at hand by colonial governments.
Colonization means domination (or as much of complete control as possible) of the indigenous people by the colonizer, who then steals (or forces them to give up) their natural resources (such as lumber, land for growing food, etc.) and/or raw materials (minerals such as gold, silver, diamonds, platinum, etc.), which are taken to or at least made available to the colonizing country to aid in its subsequent development. In some cases—the US is perhaps the foremost example—some of the people colonized were stolen from their original land and were taken to another country to aid in the latter’s development.
Understand, I am painting with a broad brush here. The actual practices of colonialism differed; Spanish colonialism differed from Dutch, which differed from the English, etc. But colonial practices differed even by the same colonizer: the English treated India differently from their colonies in North America, which were treated differently from Ghana….
These policies—domination by external forces—were joined by actions of colonial settlers, foreign nationals from the colonizing countries who had migrated or had been transported to the colonized countries. These settlers organized themselves from within the colonies to dominate indigenous peoples and to seek their own independence from the colonizer, thus enabling the settlers to dominate ultimately the indigenous themselves. The role of British imperialism is especially important here, with settlers coming to dominate the indigenous in what is today known as the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and, after 1948, Israel.
But these colonizing practices can be generally referred to as “imperialism” because they each involved a stronger people dominating a weaker people, and that while military power was threatened in every case, it was not always utilized to gain control; other tactics, such as the use of “divide and conquer” techniques were sometimes sufficient to dominate. In each case, however, they each involved stealing natural resources, raw materials, and sometimes people from the colonized country and exploiting them inside the colonized country itself and/or sending them to the colonizing country for its subsequent development. Further, the colonizing countries’ forces did not care about the deleterious impact of their action—death, destruction, social devastation (including health), etc.—on the colonized country or people.
Thus, imperialism, is arguably the dominant form of international relations over the past 500 or so years.
The 1917 Russian Revolution was the first successful effort to throw off rule by the Russian elite who had subordinated the country to France and other outside investors. Despite whatever weaknesses and problems that developed (including invasion by British, French, and US forces right after the successful revolution)—and there were many—this, and a number of revolutions that have followed, has inspired people around the world to resist foreign domination.
The two world wars were basically fought to see which imperial countries would dominate the world; forget any claptrap about “democracy” or “freedom” or “liberation,” etc., although these concepts were later used in the fights for decolonization and independence against the imperial powers after each.
The United States—Canada was basically an economic subordinate—was the only imperial country to emerge generally unscathed from World War II. Besides its awesome military power—including having dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan—it was the most economically powerful country in the world; by the early 1950s, it produced more value in goods and services than all of the other countries in the world combined.
The other “victor” to emerge from the war was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union suffered approximately 27 million dead and suffered untold misery and social devastation from the Nazi invasion, but it was this country that defeated the Nazis, NOT the United States and “the West.” (Without trying to denigrate anyone’s personal loss, the US suffered about 400,000 dead in the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of the war combined, mostly military men, while the Soviets suffered about 27,000,000 dead in Europe alone, men, women and children.)
Instead of working with the Soviets after the war to ensure that fascism never raised its ugly head again, the US under Harry Truman decided it wanted to dominate the world, and this included trying to resubjugate the Soviets. Since 1945, this has been the overwhelming purpose of the United States government: to dominate the other countries of the world.
We in the US have generally not been told this: we’ve been told that the Soviets wanted to subjugate us! But this ignores the actual history of the post-World War II period, where the Soviets actively worked to join with the US to develop a peaceful world at least until about mid-1947 when they realized that, despite any rhetoric, the US sought to resubjugate the USSR. It was only then—after a couple of years of actual Soviet engagement was repudiated—that the Soviets understood and became belligerent themselves against the US.
[The Soviets, just like the US and the UK, were not saints; they had their own interests, and they sought to achieve them. The same of the US and UK. But the Soviets were willing to work with the US and the UK for about the first two years after the war, and only then began to prioritize their immediate national interests, as they defined them, after their collaborative efforts were repudiated by the US and UK.]
The period between 1947-1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, was known as the “Cold War,” where nuclear war between the US and USSR was averted while proxies of both sides fought, at least in part, to advance their patrons’ interests.
After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US was the dominant, most powerful country in the history of the world. Through economic and political domination—not territorial acquisition, ala the Romans—the US enhanced the empire that had been building since at least 1945. But throughout this entire post-World War II period, the US never spoke of its “empire”; it only spoke of bringing truth, justice, and the American way to the world, lying to both Americans as well as to the rest of the world. Especially since 1945, the US has acted to dominate the rest of the world, along with the other “Western” imperial countries as junior “surrogates.”
The point I’m trying to make here is that the way the US has consistently tried to portray itself in the post 1945 period, especially to its own people——as benign, democratic, seeking justice for all, etc.—has overwhelmingly been a lie; its purpose has been to dominate the world. If you doubt me, ask the Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Afghanis! Or in countries where dictatorships were established and supported by the US: can we mention, at least, Brazil (beginning in 1964), Chile (1973), Congo (1964), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1965), Iran (1953), the Philippines (1972), South Korea (1948), and Taiwan (1949)?
We can see this today in two cases and the interplay between them: Ukraine and Israel.
The US has cried big duck tears about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but this has been a sham. The Russians, under Vladamir Putin, had shown no territorial aspirations prior to 2015 according to the US Ambassador to Russia, but somehow that’s gotten lost in “Western” accounts. What happened in 2015? A democratically elected government in Ukraine was ultimately overthrown by pro-European forces, and with the direct support of the United States, after they accepted a Russian loan instead of a European one. The “revolutionary” government killed something like 10-15,000 Russian speaking citizens in the eastern part of Ukraine, utilizing fascist-led forces, some that harken back to the Nazis. But it was the efforts by the new Ukraine to join NATO, the US-dominated military alliance that threatened Russia, that led to the Russian invasion after multiple warnings not to do so, and after “Western” sabotage of peace efforts. This despite the George H.W. Bush—the old man’s—Administration’s verbal promise not to move NATO one step further to the east in exchange for the Soviets not sending the tanks in to suppress Eastern European independence movements in the late 1980s-early 1990s. (This is not to excuse the Russian invasion, but merely to explain it; something the US media in general does not do, preferring condemnation.)
The Russian invasion came after numerous warnings against Ukraine joining NATO; Ukraine was seen as an “essential” part of Russian defense from the West. (Think how the US would have responded had Mexico or Canada invited Russian forces to base in their countries, much less to engage in offensive operations against the US!)
But, because the US is always benign, its motives are always “pure,” and everybody trusts the US—even in the face of reality—it usually gets its way. But the fact is that the US says that Ukraine can defend itself in the face of outside aggression.
Then consider the case of Israel. Basically, after the Nazis had exterminated somewhere around six million Jews during World War II, in order to compensate the Jewish people for Christian oppression, the imperial powers of the UK and US decided to compensate the Jewish people with Muslim land! Why didn’t they give them parts of London, New York, or Berlin, parts of Christendom???
The story was that these poor, mistreated Jews had to be compensated with their traditional homeland. But, not surprisingly, it’s more complicated.
One part of the Jewish people adopted the political—not religious—goal of establishing a “Jewish” homeland to provide protection for Jews, arguably the single most persecuted people in the history of the world; other parts of the Jewish people rejected this project, known as Zionism, and chose to stand with labor movements, arguing their interests could be better served in alliance with workers. Then the Zionists then did something very interesting; they appropriated the interests of Jewish people as a whole as their own, arguing that the Zionists represented all Jewish people. Accordingly, seeking to establish a “Jewish” state when, in reality, it should have been known as a Zionist state.
Originally, the Zionists sought to establish their Jewish state in Uganda, but the Ugandans refused this “privilege.” Then, the Zionists decided to go to Argentina, where that project was rejected as well. Then, citing “historical precedent,” they sought to go to Palestine. With the support of the British—the imperial masters of the area—they were allowed to settle in Palestine. When the Palestinians ultimately protested, eventually the Zionist influx was limited, where upon the Zionists created terrorist groups and fought the British. Using the Holocaust to justify Zionist expansionism, the US and the British (as well as the Soviets) agreed to establish the State of Israel in 1947.
This establishment of Israel in 1948 came with the Nakba, where approximately 750,000 Palestinians were forced off their land and/or killed; the Zionists appropriated almost everything created in over a thousand years of Palestinian settlement. Again, this was a Zionist political project acting supposedly as a Jewish religious project, where social justice is at the heart of its practice. But Zionism is based on colonialism and racism, which it has always been. And that has continued over the past 75 years since Zionist independence.
Over the years, the Zionist project of Israel has been based on subjugation and oppression of Palestinians. And its one unwavering supporter throughout has been the United States of America.
And now, in response to Hamas’ attack of October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 Israelis, both from Hamas and the panicked response of the IDF (Israeli “Defense” Force), the Israelis have killed somewhere between 40,000-186,000 Palestinians. They have tried to destroy basically all forms of Palestinian society and knowledge in Gaza in one of the most one-sided “wars” in human history. Lately, the Israelis have projected their “jihad” against Palestinians on the West Bank; still with the support of the US.
And the US has not only accepted it, but they have collaborated by supplying extensive numbers of weapons and providing unlimited political support to Israel.
—
So, how do progressives understand the contrast? How does we understand support for the Ukrainians from “outside” invasion, when we don’t support the Palestinian’s on-going resistance to outside Zionist forces?
First of all, this difference should not be attributed to incoherent “inconsistency”; there is no inconsistency. Any inconsistency is due to accepting US rationales for both accounts, looking at each one separately.
What you are actually seeing is US consistency, however, even though most Americans have not been given the tools to understand such. The consistency is US dominative power, as it continues to defend if not expand the US Empire: the US Empire neither seeks nor expects social justice in the world; it seeks, expects, and demands subservience to the Empire and its masters. And I don’t care who says otherwise; it is all about power, baby, no matter the lack of consistency, unequally applied “morality,” or any other rationalization: it is about Empire.
And until Americans understand the US Empire, and the need to dismember it from inside our social order, we will flounder in our struggle for social justice. (See my previous article, “What’s Our Left Strategy Going Forward in the US?” Z Network, August 25, on-line at https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/whats-our-left-strategy-going-forward-in-the-us/, for further elaboration.)
Yet, there is another reason to tackle the Empire: our political leaders are stealing our US resources—and especially our tax dollars—and utilizing them for their world-domination project. Which is more important: taking care of Americans, or dominating the world? The US government has spent approximately $18.3 trillion in the last 40 years, between 1981 (when Reagan became president) and 2021 (the end of the Trump Administration, before the Russians invaded Ukraine in February 2022). That’s $18.3 trillion, under both political parties, that could not be spent on health care, education, improving the infrastructure, mitigating the climate crisis, etc., as it was feeding the war machine and its world-domination project. (The actual amount is even higher, approximately $1 trillion a year for costs of previous wars, veterans’ benefits, and nuclear weapons, the latter whose costs are subsumed under the Energy Department’s budget.)
In short, whether to end the Empire’s world-domination project and/or end this theft of our resources from the US public, our goal needs to end the US Empire. Until we strategically align our organizing projects accordingly, we shall only flounder and cry helplessly.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.Donate
Kim Scipes
Kim Scipes, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Purdue University Northwest in Westville, Indiana. He is one of the founders of LEPAIO, the Labor Education Project on the AFL-CIO International Operations (https://aflcio-int.education). . A former Sergeant in the USMC, he “turned around” on active duty, and has been a political and labor activist for over 50 years. He has published four books and over 250 articles in the US and in 11 different countries. His writings, many with direct links to the original article, can be found on- line at https://www.pnw.edu/faculty/kim-scipes-ph-d/publications/; his latest book is Building Global Labor Solidarity: Lessons from the Philippines, South Africa, Northwestern Europe, and the United States (Lexington Books, 2021, 2022 paperback). Kim can be reached at kscipes@pnw.edu.
U.S. Pacific Fleet - 210719-N-NJ919-1153. Flickr.
Today, Americans are getting an education in reality that generally cannot be bought, although it might not quite seem that way. We are seeing Israel committing genocide as it is happening, in real time, and not only is our country failing to stop this, but the US government is collaborating, not only enabling it by not stopping Israel, but by supplying the weapons! And politically protecting Israel’s despicable behavior. At the same time, we are supplying almost unlimited weaponry to Ukraine in it’s so-called “noble” fight against the terrible Russians, weaponry that could easily lead to World War III, which will probably be a nuclear war. At the same time, the US media is cheering on the Ukrainians while mostly being silent against Israel’s genocide. US university “leaders” are doing everything they can to keep either situation from being properly understood, including eliminating the concept of “free speech” from campuses, the very essence of learning (as they’ve been telling us for years). And with a presidential campaign in full bore—the one time that some of these contradictions get pushed to the fore—nary a real discussion of what’s going on. As folks would say: WTF?
And I can easily imagine for those of you who are seeing some of these “contradictions,” they make no sense: how can we (or anyone) understand what’s going on? On a personal level, am I going crazy???
No, I’ll vehemently assert you are NOT going crazy! But it is not understandable because you have not been given the tools and concepts to understand a situation like this.
First of all, you’ve been consciously lied to by US society’s “leaders.” Consistently and pretty consciously. You have been told there is something in the world called the “West,” and that the West has all of these wonderful values that they’ve spent years in teaching—in this case, cramming down your throat—such as “truth,” “beauty,” “justice,” etc., and that these are values by which we should judge the rest of the world’s actions.
But let’s think about this. Is the term “The West” a realistic term or does it cover something else? I’m going to argue that it covers something up: imperialism.
What is imperialism? I’ve never heard of that! Or if I have, I’ve only heard it in regard to British imperialism in the late 1800s; I’ve never heard it used in regard to the United States….
Basically, the term “imperialism” is one that explains the concept of differential power between nation-states; recognizes that all nations do not have equal power; and establishes those that have more power have tried to dominate those with less. (NOTE: this holds true on differences in all kinds of things, such as spiritual power: not all countries are equal. However, in reality and for sake of this article, we are limiting the discussion to political-economic power, which also includes military, cultural, and diplomatic power, all which undergird today’s relations between political communities in the world today.)
We can see this quite clearly IF we even question what we’ve been taught ad nauseum: not all nation-states have equal political-economic power. In fact, there are two groups of countries in the world today. The first group, individually and together, has dominated the members of the second group, especially over the past 500 or so years; since roughly 1492, although the groundwork began being laid earlier. This powerful group, what I’ll call “imperial” countries, have dominated the weaker, second group of countries over this time period. Interestingly, these imperial countries have overwhelmingly come from Western Europe and their “settler” colonies—countries such as the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and, after 1948, Israel—as well as Japan. (These are the countries, upon examination, that are conveniently labeled “The West,” although that term has been superseded sometimes with “developed” or “industrial” or “modernized” country descriptions. Note that none of these terms explains the process by which these countries “developed” their political-economic power and a qualitative higher standard of living for their peoples over the weaker countries, and that they are each hidden behind euphemisms to help ensure your confusion.)
The second group, the less powerful group, can generally be referred to as “formerly colonized” peoples or countries; they each experienced colonization by at least one stronger country—the Philippines was colonized by both Spain and the United States!—but have subsequently garnered at least their political independence from their former colonial master—either through armed struggle or being “granted” their independence because of no longer bringing sufficient benefits to the colonizer—although are less likely to have achieved their economic independence.
Consider this: as of 1915—the beginning of World War I—every country in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East had been colonized (subjugated) by at least one of the dominant countries. There were only three exceptions that I know of: Iran (formerly known as Persia), Ethiopia, and Thailand (Siam).
What does it mean to say they were “colonized”? Basically, they were conquered by the imperial country; and yes, the indigenous lands in North America were taken as colonies of Great Britain, although mostly through outside settlement instead of naked military conquest, although that option was always at hand by colonial governments.
Colonization means domination (or as much of complete control as possible) of the indigenous people by the colonizer, who then steals (or forces them to give up) their natural resources (such as lumber, land for growing food, etc.) and/or raw materials (minerals such as gold, silver, diamonds, platinum, etc.), which are taken to or at least made available to the colonizing country to aid in its subsequent development. In some cases—the US is perhaps the foremost example—some of the people colonized were stolen from their original land and were taken to another country to aid in the latter’s development.
Understand, I am painting with a broad brush here. The actual practices of colonialism differed; Spanish colonialism differed from Dutch, which differed from the English, etc. But colonial practices differed even by the same colonizer: the English treated India differently from their colonies in North America, which were treated differently from Ghana….
These policies—domination by external forces—were joined by actions of colonial settlers, foreign nationals from the colonizing countries who had migrated or had been transported to the colonized countries. These settlers organized themselves from within the colonies to dominate indigenous peoples and to seek their own independence from the colonizer, thus enabling the settlers to dominate ultimately the indigenous themselves. The role of British imperialism is especially important here, with settlers coming to dominate the indigenous in what is today known as the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and, after 1948, Israel.
But these colonizing practices can be generally referred to as “imperialism” because they each involved a stronger people dominating a weaker people, and that while military power was threatened in every case, it was not always utilized to gain control; other tactics, such as the use of “divide and conquer” techniques were sometimes sufficient to dominate. In each case, however, they each involved stealing natural resources, raw materials, and sometimes people from the colonized country and exploiting them inside the colonized country itself and/or sending them to the colonizing country for its subsequent development. Further, the colonizing countries’ forces did not care about the deleterious impact of their action—death, destruction, social devastation (including health), etc.—on the colonized country or people.
Thus, imperialism, is arguably the dominant form of international relations over the past 500 or so years.
The 1917 Russian Revolution was the first successful effort to throw off rule by the Russian elite who had subordinated the country to France and other outside investors. Despite whatever weaknesses and problems that developed (including invasion by British, French, and US forces right after the successful revolution)—and there were many—this, and a number of revolutions that have followed, has inspired people around the world to resist foreign domination.
The two world wars were basically fought to see which imperial countries would dominate the world; forget any claptrap about “democracy” or “freedom” or “liberation,” etc., although these concepts were later used in the fights for decolonization and independence against the imperial powers after each.
The United States—Canada was basically an economic subordinate—was the only imperial country to emerge generally unscathed from World War II. Besides its awesome military power—including having dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan—it was the most economically powerful country in the world; by the early 1950s, it produced more value in goods and services than all of the other countries in the world combined.
The other “victor” to emerge from the war was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union suffered approximately 27 million dead and suffered untold misery and social devastation from the Nazi invasion, but it was this country that defeated the Nazis, NOT the United States and “the West.” (Without trying to denigrate anyone’s personal loss, the US suffered about 400,000 dead in the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of the war combined, mostly military men, while the Soviets suffered about 27,000,000 dead in Europe alone, men, women and children.)
Instead of working with the Soviets after the war to ensure that fascism never raised its ugly head again, the US under Harry Truman decided it wanted to dominate the world, and this included trying to resubjugate the Soviets. Since 1945, this has been the overwhelming purpose of the United States government: to dominate the other countries of the world.
We in the US have generally not been told this: we’ve been told that the Soviets wanted to subjugate us! But this ignores the actual history of the post-World War II period, where the Soviets actively worked to join with the US to develop a peaceful world at least until about mid-1947 when they realized that, despite any rhetoric, the US sought to resubjugate the USSR. It was only then—after a couple of years of actual Soviet engagement was repudiated—that the Soviets understood and became belligerent themselves against the US.
[The Soviets, just like the US and the UK, were not saints; they had their own interests, and they sought to achieve them. The same of the US and UK. But the Soviets were willing to work with the US and the UK for about the first two years after the war, and only then began to prioritize their immediate national interests, as they defined them, after their collaborative efforts were repudiated by the US and UK.]
The period between 1947-1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, was known as the “Cold War,” where nuclear war between the US and USSR was averted while proxies of both sides fought, at least in part, to advance their patrons’ interests.
After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US was the dominant, most powerful country in the history of the world. Through economic and political domination—not territorial acquisition, ala the Romans—the US enhanced the empire that had been building since at least 1945. But throughout this entire post-World War II period, the US never spoke of its “empire”; it only spoke of bringing truth, justice, and the American way to the world, lying to both Americans as well as to the rest of the world. Especially since 1945, the US has acted to dominate the rest of the world, along with the other “Western” imperial countries as junior “surrogates.”
The point I’m trying to make here is that the way the US has consistently tried to portray itself in the post 1945 period, especially to its own people——as benign, democratic, seeking justice for all, etc.—has overwhelmingly been a lie; its purpose has been to dominate the world. If you doubt me, ask the Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Afghanis! Or in countries where dictatorships were established and supported by the US: can we mention, at least, Brazil (beginning in 1964), Chile (1973), Congo (1964), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1965), Iran (1953), the Philippines (1972), South Korea (1948), and Taiwan (1949)?
We can see this today in two cases and the interplay between them: Ukraine and Israel.
The US has cried big duck tears about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but this has been a sham. The Russians, under Vladamir Putin, had shown no territorial aspirations prior to 2015 according to the US Ambassador to Russia, but somehow that’s gotten lost in “Western” accounts. What happened in 2015? A democratically elected government in Ukraine was ultimately overthrown by pro-European forces, and with the direct support of the United States, after they accepted a Russian loan instead of a European one. The “revolutionary” government killed something like 10-15,000 Russian speaking citizens in the eastern part of Ukraine, utilizing fascist-led forces, some that harken back to the Nazis. But it was the efforts by the new Ukraine to join NATO, the US-dominated military alliance that threatened Russia, that led to the Russian invasion after multiple warnings not to do so, and after “Western” sabotage of peace efforts. This despite the George H.W. Bush—the old man’s—Administration’s verbal promise not to move NATO one step further to the east in exchange for the Soviets not sending the tanks in to suppress Eastern European independence movements in the late 1980s-early 1990s. (This is not to excuse the Russian invasion, but merely to explain it; something the US media in general does not do, preferring condemnation.)
The Russian invasion came after numerous warnings against Ukraine joining NATO; Ukraine was seen as an “essential” part of Russian defense from the West. (Think how the US would have responded had Mexico or Canada invited Russian forces to base in their countries, much less to engage in offensive operations against the US!)
But, because the US is always benign, its motives are always “pure,” and everybody trusts the US—even in the face of reality—it usually gets its way. But the fact is that the US says that Ukraine can defend itself in the face of outside aggression.
Then consider the case of Israel. Basically, after the Nazis had exterminated somewhere around six million Jews during World War II, in order to compensate the Jewish people for Christian oppression, the imperial powers of the UK and US decided to compensate the Jewish people with Muslim land! Why didn’t they give them parts of London, New York, or Berlin, parts of Christendom???
The story was that these poor, mistreated Jews had to be compensated with their traditional homeland. But, not surprisingly, it’s more complicated.
One part of the Jewish people adopted the political—not religious—goal of establishing a “Jewish” homeland to provide protection for Jews, arguably the single most persecuted people in the history of the world; other parts of the Jewish people rejected this project, known as Zionism, and chose to stand with labor movements, arguing their interests could be better served in alliance with workers. Then the Zionists then did something very interesting; they appropriated the interests of Jewish people as a whole as their own, arguing that the Zionists represented all Jewish people. Accordingly, seeking to establish a “Jewish” state when, in reality, it should have been known as a Zionist state.
Originally, the Zionists sought to establish their Jewish state in Uganda, but the Ugandans refused this “privilege.” Then, the Zionists decided to go to Argentina, where that project was rejected as well. Then, citing “historical precedent,” they sought to go to Palestine. With the support of the British—the imperial masters of the area—they were allowed to settle in Palestine. When the Palestinians ultimately protested, eventually the Zionist influx was limited, where upon the Zionists created terrorist groups and fought the British. Using the Holocaust to justify Zionist expansionism, the US and the British (as well as the Soviets) agreed to establish the State of Israel in 1947.
This establishment of Israel in 1948 came with the Nakba, where approximately 750,000 Palestinians were forced off their land and/or killed; the Zionists appropriated almost everything created in over a thousand years of Palestinian settlement. Again, this was a Zionist political project acting supposedly as a Jewish religious project, where social justice is at the heart of its practice. But Zionism is based on colonialism and racism, which it has always been. And that has continued over the past 75 years since Zionist independence.
Over the years, the Zionist project of Israel has been based on subjugation and oppression of Palestinians. And its one unwavering supporter throughout has been the United States of America.
And now, in response to Hamas’ attack of October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 Israelis, both from Hamas and the panicked response of the IDF (Israeli “Defense” Force), the Israelis have killed somewhere between 40,000-186,000 Palestinians. They have tried to destroy basically all forms of Palestinian society and knowledge in Gaza in one of the most one-sided “wars” in human history. Lately, the Israelis have projected their “jihad” against Palestinians on the West Bank; still with the support of the US.
And the US has not only accepted it, but they have collaborated by supplying extensive numbers of weapons and providing unlimited political support to Israel.
—
So, how do progressives understand the contrast? How does we understand support for the Ukrainians from “outside” invasion, when we don’t support the Palestinian’s on-going resistance to outside Zionist forces?
First of all, this difference should not be attributed to incoherent “inconsistency”; there is no inconsistency. Any inconsistency is due to accepting US rationales for both accounts, looking at each one separately.
What you are actually seeing is US consistency, however, even though most Americans have not been given the tools to understand such. The consistency is US dominative power, as it continues to defend if not expand the US Empire: the US Empire neither seeks nor expects social justice in the world; it seeks, expects, and demands subservience to the Empire and its masters. And I don’t care who says otherwise; it is all about power, baby, no matter the lack of consistency, unequally applied “morality,” or any other rationalization: it is about Empire.
And until Americans understand the US Empire, and the need to dismember it from inside our social order, we will flounder in our struggle for social justice. (See my previous article, “What’s Our Left Strategy Going Forward in the US?” Z Network, August 25, on-line at https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/whats-our-left-strategy-going-forward-in-the-us/, for further elaboration.)
Yet, there is another reason to tackle the Empire: our political leaders are stealing our US resources—and especially our tax dollars—and utilizing them for their world-domination project. Which is more important: taking care of Americans, or dominating the world? The US government has spent approximately $18.3 trillion in the last 40 years, between 1981 (when Reagan became president) and 2021 (the end of the Trump Administration, before the Russians invaded Ukraine in February 2022). That’s $18.3 trillion, under both political parties, that could not be spent on health care, education, improving the infrastructure, mitigating the climate crisis, etc., as it was feeding the war machine and its world-domination project. (The actual amount is even higher, approximately $1 trillion a year for costs of previous wars, veterans’ benefits, and nuclear weapons, the latter whose costs are subsumed under the Energy Department’s budget.)
In short, whether to end the Empire’s world-domination project and/or end this theft of our resources from the US public, our goal needs to end the US Empire. Until we strategically align our organizing projects accordingly, we shall only flounder and cry helplessly.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.Donate
Kim Scipes
Kim Scipes, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Purdue University Northwest in Westville, Indiana. He is one of the founders of LEPAIO, the Labor Education Project on the AFL-CIO International Operations (https://aflcio-int.education). . A former Sergeant in the USMC, he “turned around” on active duty, and has been a political and labor activist for over 50 years. He has published four books and over 250 articles in the US and in 11 different countries. His writings, many with direct links to the original article, can be found on- line at https://www.pnw.edu/faculty/kim-scipes-ph-d/publications/; his latest book is Building Global Labor Solidarity: Lessons from the Philippines, South Africa, Northwestern Europe, and the United States (Lexington Books, 2021, 2022 paperback). Kim can be reached at kscipes@pnw.edu.
No comments:
Post a Comment