🚀 go-pugleaf

Quite a bit of awe for imperial power being evinced here. It's almost as if
the author views the United States as sitting at the apex of all history.
This none-too-subtle celebrating of power defines bourgeois history, but
it's still rather jarring to see such unapologetic Darwinism when you take
into account all of the intellectual developments of the last hundred years,
which when added up should allow us to trouble the self-congratulatory tale
of European man's triumph over all creation which the author seems to
prefer.

The dominance of the United States is as undeniable fact. However, the mere
fact of U.S. dominance doesn't prove anything on its own, and yet the author
seems to think it enough to just point to the superficially impressive
achievements of the American empire, as if that makes his entire argument
for him. In other words, to argue that the U.S. HAS triumphed is to say
nothing about whether it SHOULD have triumphed, or whether things couldn't
have possibly turned out any other way. It's easy enough to run off a litany
of American achievements, but you're going to have to do more to convince
some of us that we should be comfortable with all aspects of American power,
enough to cease our concern for the peoples of the world who have been
trampled by it.

 A word or two on this thing called "civilization." So, we are told that
civilizations "sprang up" in Africa, but they weren't very big, and they
didn't go anyplace. Of course, this assumes that we know all that there is
to know about Africa, that all of the archaeological work has been completed
and adequately summarized so that we can feel confident as we grade the
achievements of an entire continent within a few pithy paragraphs. It
assumes perfect knowledge, that nothing whatsoever is lost in translation as
we go from the complex reality of Africa to the snippets of pre-processed
information that we receive through media and textbooks.

The truth of the matter is that before the Age of Empire (of which American
slavery is a part) most Africans lived in stable, highly developed
agricultural settlements. This is certainly true of the West Africans from
whom most American blacks are descended. Whether this constitutes
"civilization" depends entirely on how enamored one is of things like
urbanization, militarization, administrative bureaucracy, heavy industry,
sophisticated trade and the like. The point is that people with more
scholarly training than ourselves are forever debating the meaning of
"civilization," and yet to read this thread it would seem that the issue has
already been settled: we are civilized; they are not.

For those of you who make a fetish out of the urban, technological side of
"civilization", it might behoove you to consider the following facts: modern
industrial societies tend to be less stable, more highly stratified, more
warlike, and less leisured than most "primitive" societies. This doesn't
even get into the issue of modern bureaucracy and its dehumanizing effects.
During the colonization of North America, the settlers frequently found the
openness and egalitarianism of Native societies so appealing that more than
a few colonies found it necessary to create laws in order to prevent
defections.

Some of you seem to be confused about one other point too, along these same
lines: the difference between traditional Africa and modern Africa. Make no
mistake, it is MODERN Africa that is screwed up. In other words, traditional
African society is less to blame for the degradation of the continent than
the modern institutions and political regimes that were erected during the
colonial period and underwent bizarre permutations thereafter. It is partly
the result of an educated elite wishing to ape Western political and
economic arrangements, ignoring or bypassing Africa's traditional cultural
and economic infrastructure.

The defining feature of modern Africa is arrogant, out-of-touch elites
plundering their own societies. By all means we should be critical of that.
But the crucial point is that there is nothing unique about black Africans
that gives them some sort of inherent affinity for corrupt leaders and
murderous political regimes. The only thing we've proven is that black
African elites will behave in EXACTLY THE SAME manner as elites
everywhere--distorting government to their own ends, and resisting
democratic reform. To point this out is merely to have proven that elites
are elites, regardless of race or geographical location.

  The Darwinian argument is easily disposed of, but to those of you who
would still like to shoehorn Africa's plight into a right-wing moral fable
about the need for people to lift themselves up by their bootstraps--again,
you do nothing but trivialize the very real problems of the continent.

And to the genius who asked, "Gee, why weren't the darkies able to maintain
what the colonial masters did once the colonials left?" I only have this to
say: that colonialism very often leaves the societies they colonize in a
weakened state is something that we progressive-types have pointed out from
the beginning. It's not as if you've made a new discovery. It was NEVER the
goal of the colonials to create a self-sufficient African capable of running
itself. That's why it's called a COLONY, friend. Technology alone never
delivered a better way of life to a people. Only stable and accountable
INSTITUTIONS can do that, whether the institutions be governments or tribal
councils.