Howard Zinn and the Morality of Imperialism

Howard Zinn, author of the notorious anti-West manifesto A People's History of the United States, died this week. The narrative of this diatribe against America and the West in general regurgitates typical liberal rhetoric. It champions the oppressed (non-white) as victims of a violent (white) people, the poor as casualties of the self-aggrandizing system of the elites, and women as pawns in a rigidly patriarchal society. Are there some nuggets of truth buried in these polemics? Admittedly, yes, but the overall message depicts America's founding peoples and visionaries as nothing but racist, classist, sexist, and xenophobic. The fact that such a vile screed is common in our education system speaks to the suicidal nature of our culture. For this post, I'll focus on an axiomatic principle inherent to all works written in this vein.

Western Imperialism is one of those phrases Berkeley political science students love to say while sipping their lattes and musing on the world's problems. Implicit in the condemnation of imperialism is the idea that forced subjugation of an indigenous population is immoral, that forcibly supplanting a given ethnic group represents a moral wrong. As everyone knows, the formation of the American colonies required the displacement of Native Americans. This also occurred in Latin America and in Africa due to the slave trade and subsequent colonization.

The leftist assumes this is wrong. But why? The only tenable argument for such a position is the correspondence between empire-building and violence. But violence is merely an unnecessary consequence of imperialism, an act engaged in by a group stubbornly opposing positive change. Of course, such an assertion requires the context I provide below.

In dilemmas involving large groups of individuals, the most rational avenue for resolving conflict is appeal to utilitarianism. In any debate, we simply define a reasonable measure of good or "gross utility" and seek solutions that most readily maximize these aspects of life. In this situation, the task is formulation of civilization and the "goods" are societal stability, crime, technological advancement, industrial advancement, development and attainability of luxury, harvesting of natural resources, food, etc. As any Gaia-worshipping leftist knows, planet Earth has a limited number of natural resources, especially in a time where society was solely agrarian. Land is the most important commodity, along with trade routes along rivers.

So which group, Native Americans, South Americans, and Africans or Europeans, is best able to utilize the land and natural resources of the Western Hemisphere and Africa? While Jared Diamond might disagree, HBD research, including Lynn's seminal work on IQ and wealth of nations, tells us ethnic and racial groups will succeed or fail relative to their innate predilections. [This also applies to Asian countries, but they formed largely insular societies during this global colonization.] If we seek to maximize gross utility, and do so by taking into account all peoples, it's clear that imperialism represents the most moral strategy available for dividing land.

Leftists seek a global society where arbitrary borders have little meaning. So why then does imperialism, which is essentially a denunciation of traditional ethnic borders, represent such a dastardly activity? Further, European imperialists created daughter states that provided a boon to their home countries, early settlers, and subsequently, the world at large (where would Haiti be without America?). Native Americans, South Americans, and Africans are simply incapable of gross technological and societal advancement. If Europe hadn't set about colonizing the West, it would have possibly succumbed to overpopulation, disease, or have been stifled due simply to geography. [This may be a current problem for Japan.]

The argument against imperialism holds that all cultures and peoples have equal potential. But HBD directly opposes such an idealistic contention. Similarly, anti-imperialistic idealism holds onto the "noble savage" idea which I've previously covered. European colonization supposedly permanently tarnishes these glorified cultures.

Thus, the oppressed non-whites and their noble savage wisdom must possess truths not readily available to the privileged Westerners. Contrastingly, the non-whites possess an exotic quality closer to the spiritual basis of man, not besmirched by the racist, classist, and sexist West...[T]he noble savage doesn't engage in the deleterious activities of the oppressive Western classes.

Finally, there's the issue of violence and forced subjugation. I'm going to veer into eccentricity here and contend that the Native Americans and South Americans should have peacefully acquiesced to the demands of the European settlers. By engaging in a peaceful surrender, the conquered peoples may lose some freedom and cultural vigor, but the positive changes derived from increased trade, including medicine or technology, would offset these harmful ramifications. In the end, a conquered peoples loses autonomy, but again, utilitarianism sometimes must ignore emotional desires in order to achieve some greater good.