UNCOMFORTABLE SUBJECTS : IMPERIALISM AND CONQUEST

AN ESSAY

Over the last half century, "imperialism" has become a dirty word in American academic discourse. During that time, prevailing rhetoric has extolled multiculturalism, tolerance and multiperspectivism. It has championed the rights of historically disadvantaged groups while denigrating traditionally powerful ones. It has empowered the downtrodden and strengthened the weak. It has justified the historically unjustifiable. In the process, university rhetoric has identified "imperialism" as the worst thing one culture can do to another. Great civilizations, so the rhetoric goes, no longer conquer and dominate others. Great civilizations tolerate everyone and allow every culture to flourish within their borders.

Yet I venture that this is an anomalous trend. In fact, I argue that Nations unafraid to act imperialistically are strong Nations, while Nations afraid to do so are weak.

I understand that this squarely contradicts how we are "supposed to think" about imperialism today. But true to my word, I am determined to speak out this week about uncomfortable subjects. To use Nietzsche's term, I am determined to make "Uncontemporary Observations" concerning subjects we have been taught never to consider any other way.

Imperialism is about national power. In its purest form, it means the purposeful, intrusive projection of one Nation's military and cultural power over another Nation. To understand what that entails, it is essential to understand what "Nations" are. In past essays, I have noted that "Nations" and "States" are distinct terms. "Nations" refer to discrete populations united by common linguistic, cultural, genetic and religious traditions. "States," on the other hand, refer merely to a population's adherence to a particular governing instrument for the sake of common administration and convenience. Many Nations can exist under a common State. But Nations are unique.

Throughout history, some Nations have prevailed, while others have fallen. Nations that have prevailed generally have successfully engaged in imperialism. They have crushed and dominated their neighbors. They have brutally stamped out opposition and imposed their own cultural traditions on their defeated enemies. These Nations cared nothing for multiculturalism or tolerance. They did not blink at brutality. Rather, they felt so secure in their own power that they gladly violated other Nations' territory to absorb them into their own realms. This is not a popular thing to do these days. But history shows that the most influential Nations have been the most imperialistic, too.

Consider Rome. Rome grew to eminence because it projected its values across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. By sheer will and military prowess, it subjugated its neighbors, occupied their territory and imposed its values on them. It even made them speak Latin and build infrastructure according to the Roman model. It forced them to live under Roman law and observe Roman customs. Rome was strongest when it was unafraid to conquer. It affirmed its own beliefs when it ruthlessly destroyed all who stood before it. Through imperialism, Rome made itself great. At its height, Rome conquered and killed without a second thought. It believed so strongly in its own values that it did not hesitate to eradicate whole Nations.

But consider now how Rome fell. Rome collapsed several centuries after it stopped waging imperial wars. Once it reached its territorial zenith, Roman values began to weaken. Its government began tolerating new ideas and new cultural trends. Internal cultural cracks developed. Its military power waned. Barbarians began picking away at the frontiers. Put simply, Rome lost its appetite for imperialism. It lost faith in its own rightful dominance. So Nations with more assurance in their own values filled the void. They overran Rome and destroyed it.

Turn now to England and Spain, the "great" European colonizers of the Americas and Asia. Both Nations achieved spectacular eminence because they shamelessly engaged in imperialism. Both Nations reached their zenith when they brutally laid claim to others' land and genocidally slaughtered anyone who opposed them. They unswervingly believed in their own causes: Just like the imperial Romans, the British and the Spanish believed that their values were far superior to the Natives they displaced. So they killed, enslaved and uprooted them without a second thought. In the process, they reshaped the world. Like it or not, the fact that English and Spanish are among the world's most spoken languages is the direct result of unabashed, vicious global imperialism. Like it or not, the only reason why European white people live in North America today is because England and Spain barged in and killed everyone else who used to live there. The very existence of the United States is the product of an original, shocking act of imperialism by Great Britain.

To summarize, Nations are strong when they conquer. They believe in their own values so much that they do not shrink from trampling and absorbing other Nations. Nations weaken when they lose faith in their own dominance and begin tolerating dissention in their own borders. Imperialism showcases a Nation's shameless belief in itself; and its contempt for any culture that differs from it.

Needless to say, it is no longer popular to endorse imperialism. It is no longer acceptable to say that one Nation is rightfully superior to another, let alone to suggest that one Nation has the authority to seize territory and butcher native inhabitants in another country. Yet it is precisely that vicious cultural intolerance that created the United States. That same intolerance sustained all the world's mightiest empires. When a Nation engages in imperialism without shame, it declares to all the world: "My Nation is so great that it deserves to dominate you."

America presents an interesting case. Despite all the recent discourse condemning imperialism, the United States remains an immensely imperialistic country. Since roughly 1865, America has engaged in imperialism all over the world. First, it eradicated or marginalized native populations in its own continental borders. Second, it overran Hawaii. Then it battled Spain and conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, the Philippines and numerous Pacific islands. In World War I, it projected its national power into European affairs, playing a substantial role in dictating the peace terms at Versailles. In World War II, the United States achieved monumental national power by almost single-handedly defeating Japan and Germany, then permanently occupying both defeated countries. After World War II, the United States created the United Nations and oversaw "world peace" by policing various national conflicts from Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan and Central America. Later, the United States invaded Iraq on fabricated "self-defense" grounds, plunging that country into civil war.

America's voracious imperialism does not end with military conquest. Beyond physical incursions into other Nations' affairs, America also engages in unabashed cultural intrusion. Its music and film industry dominate the entire world. Children from China to Germany to Africa all learn English so they can listen to American songs and watch American movies. People in Beirut listen to Michael Jackson and Rihanna. Business people all over the world adopt English as their lingua franca. America's cultural imperialism is so complete that when two foreign businessmen meet, chances are they will speak English to each other, even if neither is a native English speaker. None of these things would ever have come to pass if America had not engaged in overwhelming, successful imperialism over the last 150 years.

In this light, perhaps it is not a bad thing to say that a Nation like the United States is "imperialistic." After all, America dominates the world in a way not seen since Rome. Its culture, language and military cow the globe into submission. All other Nations measure themselves by the American standard. Like all empires in history, America's imperialism shows that the United States ruthlessly believes in itself. It does not tolerate dissention abroad. And it has shown that it will crush any Nation that opposes its power. Put simply, America is strong; and it is not afraid to beat anyone down who thinks otherwise.

Is imperialism unpopular? In university rhetoric, of course it is. But when we look closely at what imperialism means--and what it has wrought in the United States--we discover an embarrassing truth: We are all the products of imperialism. Our "American civilization" arose because England and Spain were unafraid to savagely kill the natives who once occupied this land. We speak English and Spanish in North America because the British and Spanish felt so superior that they had a right to set up shop on a foreign continent. And we now live in the world's most powerful Nation because the United States carried on the imperialistic tradition that gave it life in the first place.

America was born in imperialism. It will always be imperialistic. Imperialism showcases American values. It reflects intolerance for all who oppose us. In a perverse way, however, it also confirms America's health. As long as America is unafraid to savagely destroy its enemies and to project is culture over all the world, it is still--as Rome was--at the height of its power. America has not stopped expanding. Indeed, it is not in our nature to stop expanding. Once we stop expanding--whether culturally or militarily--we are no longer imperialistic. And when that happens, we can expect our power to gradually wane, just as Rome's did.

Thus, despite all the criticism, an imperialistic Nation is a healthy Nation. Imperialistic Nations might act like ferocious animals, but ferocious animals defeat any living thing that opposes them. In that light, we can thank imperialism for giving us this mighty Republic, as well as all the comforts it brings.

This is my uncontemporary observation for the day.

NATIONS AND STATES ARE NOT THE SAME THING : IS THERE AN AMERICAN NATION AT ALL?

AN ESSAY

What are nations? What are states? Are they the same thing? If you listen to mass media in the United States, you might think they are. Politicians talk about the "American Nation." Colloquially, we hear terms like "all over the Nation" and "nationwide." Somehow, we have equated the word "Nation" with "country" or "state." But the word "Nation" exists for a reason: It has its own meaning. And upon closer inspection, we see that the United States really may not be a "Nation" at all.

Nations are not political entities. Nations are human populations that share common ethnic, religious and linguistic traditions and values. States are political entities. It makes sense to create a State from a Nation, but it is not necessary. In that sense, States are artificial while Nations are genetic. People in a Nation intuitively understand one another because they all speak the same language, look basically the same and represent the same cultural traditions. By contrast, there is no need for people in a State to understand one another. Several Nations can agree to live under the same State. States simply administer the law and keep order. But Nations exist regardless of the State that rules them.

States are artificial because they depend on artificial members: Citizens. The word "citizen" is a technical term. It has a specific definition by law. True, the definition varies depending on the State that creates it. But it is still a legal conclusion, not a genetic fact.

Aristotle defined "citizen" in The Politics. He said that "citizens" are people who are qualified to participate in government and to hold office. The Politics, Book III ch. i § 1275a22. "Participating in government," in turn, means "deliberating or judging" on all matters relevant under the Constitution. Id. at § 1275b13. And only States create Constitutions. Aristotle continued this reasoning by concluding that "a number of [citizens] large enough to secure a self-sufficient life we may, by and large, call a state." Id. He then posited that states only exist to the extent that citizens associate with each other under a particular Constitution. The Politics, Book III ch. iii § 1276a34. By this reasoning, states are technical: They exist only to the extent that citizens continue to recognize a particular Constitution. When they no longer agree to abide by the Constitution, the state ceases to exist. Id.

What is so significant about these definitions? They are significant because they say nothing about nations. According to Aristotle, a State exists only as a matter of law; it does not require national identity. States are technical fictions created by people who want to secure a better life. To achieve that goal, they create a Constitution that delineates government power and the rights of citizens. Citizens take their identity in the State from the Constitution, not from their national origins. As a legal matter, nations are irrelevant to the State. Strictly viewed, states are not nations, and nations are not states.

But that is just the legal view. Reality exists quite apart from law, and reality shows that national identity greatly influences state power. States function more effectively when their citizens all come from the same national background. States are more cohesive when all their citizens speak the same language, represent the same cultural traditions and live by the same basic values. When States create Constitutions to reflect shared national values, they simplify the business of government. No matter what anyone says, it is much easier to govern a relatively homogeneous population in which everyone views life in a similar way.

Perhaps it sounds archaic--or even racist--to suggest that States function best when they comprise a single Nation. After all, popular American rhetoric holds that America's strength flows from its diversity. According to that rhetoric, anyone can be an American "citizen" no matter what "nation" they represent. As long as they "participate in government and hold office" under the Constitution, they are "citizens," even if one comes from Iraq and the other from Holland. In other words, the United States--at least on paper--takes pride in the fact that its "State" represents every "Nation" on earth.

That may be so. But it is inaccurate to call the United States a "nation." Our Constitution certainly makes the United States a "state." Everyone within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States abides by technical laws passed in compliance with a Constitution that every citizen theoretically supports. Every "citizen" under that Constitution may "participate in government or hold office." That suffices to call the United States a "state." But it does not suffice to call it a "nation."

Our American republic is unique among world States because it has virtually no national identity. Our citizens represent every possible cultural, religious, linguistic and racial group. Culture, religion, language and race all influence the values that people hold dear in their lives. As such, the United States is at war with itself; its citizens hold every conceivable value and they frequently clash. There is no simple cultural unity. While every "nation" in the United States might contribute to the state's overall strength, they certainly do not contribute to a united American culture. American culture exists only as far as a particular "nation" within the United States observes it. As such, it is confusing discuss "American identity." To really understand "American identity," it is insufficient to examine whether a person is a citizen. Rather, one must look further into the person's national identity to figure out who he is. And in a state that comprises a thousand nations, that is a hard task.

Despite America's uncertain national character, there are other ways by which to measure cohesion between American "citizens." There are other ways to assess whether people come from the same "nation." Indeed, Americans from every cultural tradition have created "pseudo-nations" that link them in ways that language, race or ethnicity cannot. For example, millions of Americans love football. That makes them part of a "football nation" with a common culture and language. Millions more love television shows. That makes them part of a "television" nation with shared values and traditions. These might be weak replacements for true national identity. But Americans make do in whatever ways they can.

People yearn for national identity. States that encompass a single Nation generally radiate that identity without trying too hard. But the United States is a problematic case. Americans yearn to be "American" without really understanding that there is no "American nation." To fulfill that longing, they rally around things they all like, especially commerce.

Americans are notoriously commercial. They turn to commerce for meaning in life more than many other people in the world. I argue that this is due in part to the fact that they long for something to define them as a national group. If Americans can't all belong to a single value system or cultural heritage, they at least can all represent a worldview based exclusively on commercial success.

For better or worse, this "replacement identity" has stuck: Most people in the world associate Americans with business success, enterprise and "do-it-yourself" entrepreneurship. That is America's "national identity." If the United States cannot be a "nation" in traditional sense, it can simply rewrite the rules to suit its situation.

Commerce is America's national identity. We are a "money nation." We don't all speak the same language or have the same hair color. We don't all worship the same God or observe the same holidays. But money unites us: The maniacal, ruthless, insistent, all-consuming urge to amass cash. German-Americans do it. Irish-Americans do it. Chinese-Americans do it. Russian-Americans do it. Sengalese-Americans do it. Mexican-Americans do it.

That is our Nation. That is our culture. That is our language. That is our common ground.

One Nation, under cash, with liberty and justice for all.

FLAG-BURNING AND NATIONALISM : WHOSE FLAG IS BETTER?

A REFLECTION

Flag-burning is an interesting subject. So are flags. The first thing I notice when I get back to the States from a long trip to Germany is that there are flags all over the place. In Berlin, you only see flags on the Bundestag building, and that's understandable because it's the seat of government. But private citizens don't fly German flags over their homes, businesses don't drape them over their lobbies, people don't sticker them to their cars and they certainly don't wear flag lapel pins, even the newscasters.

By contrast, it seems that flags are everywhere in the United States. From the moment you step off the plane you see flags. There are flags hanging everywhere at the airport. You can buy little flags at the gift shop, people wear flag T-shirts and even the Dunkin Donuts shop sports a flag, since it is very patriotic to buy pastries and coffee. Outside the airport, there are even more flags. You can't drive through many suburban neighborhoods without seeing flags in windows, flags on poles on lawns, and, if you go inside a house, flags on quilts and blankets, or flags in picture frames. If you get a cocktail at a bar, you might find a paper-flag toothpick in it. Car dealers fly enormous flags over their parking lots. So do amusement parks and waterslides. In New York, every commercial building has a flag in it. Every apartment building I've ever lived in has had a flag in the lobby. I don't know how paying rent to a private landlord (who probably hates taxes) is patriotic, but what do I know?

America is unabashedly nationalistic. It doesn't like flag-burning because it loves flags. Many Americans attach mythical status to their flag. Personally, I don't like unchecked nationalism. I think it's fine to be proud of your country, but I don't feel the need to blare it by displaying flags and shouting down those who burn them. Not only that, but Americans don't really object to flag-burning "in the abstract." You can burn an Afghani or Russian flag and no one would give a fart. No, Americans don't like American flag-burning. So it's more a selective objection than a principled one.

Congress criminalized American flag-burning in the late 1980s. In a brave moment, the Supreme Court invalidated that law. But many saw the same case as a betrayal and reviled the Supreme Court for deciding it. Trouble is, we have a little thing called the "First Amendment" which guarantees "free speech." I think flag-burning is speech. You might hate what the speaker believes, but I think he has a right to say it without being jailed.

Beyond that, I find America's obsession with flags very disturbing. Relentless nationalism is dangerous, pure and simple. If anyone knows that, it's the Germans. That's why they aren't so zealous about flying flags all over the place anymore. 50 million dead worldwide (including genocide) convinced Germany that blind patriotism really wasn't a healthy prescription for anyone, including themselves.

I have difficulty according blind respect to any symbol. True, the American flag has long stood as a symbol for democracy, freedom and self-government. But sadly our Nation often falls short on its promises. As a "world leader," it often comes across as intransigent and churlish, not compassionate or principled. If people burn the American flag, they probably object to some perceived injustice America has committed. In my view, it makes no sense to categorically condemn flag-burning without at least acknowledging what the speaker means to say. Perhaps America truly has done something blameworthy. If we are committed to our principles, shouldn't we want to rectify a bad situation rather than ignore it?

This is the trouble with nationalism: It prevents people from rationally considering divergent opinions, even if they voice legitimate objections. From a nationalist's perspective, there is the "American way" or there is "no way." But life is never so simple. Still, America's love affair with flags all too often reveals that many Americans believe exactly that. In my view, simple-mindedness is not something to be proud of. It is just foolish. And it stifles rational dialogue that could lead to progress.

PROTECTING AMERICA : ONE TOOTH AT A TIME

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS DIVISION

DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT

May 1, 2009

RE: Dr. Agostinho Calabras (Portugal), File No. 08-09126G; Applicant for Clearance to Practice Dentistry in the United States.

Dear Dr. Calabras,

You recently petitioned this Department for clearance to practice dentistry in the United States. To support your petition, you enclosed your university performance records, your Portuguese professional licensure documents and several articles you published in Portugal’s leading dentistry journal (Jornal nacional da odontologia em Lisboa). You further certified that the Portuguese government named you as one of the ten best dental scientists in the country. According to the records you provided, you have practiced dentistry for over 20 years with a special focus in pain management, beautification and general oral health. You also noted that you established a charity clinic in Russia to assist low-income children address their dental needs.

Although we applaud your accomplishments, we must refer you to Homeland Security Code § 245(b), specifically: “[A]ll ‘foreign dentists’ must register for and complete at least three (3) years of qualified dental instruction at a certified American institute for dental science (West 2002).” Foreign dentists must receive American dental education in order to obtain professional licensure in the United States. Your materials disclose that you were aware of this rule. Yet you ask this Department to grant an exception in light of your “distinguished record of flawless dental service in Portugal.” You also submitted an essay in which you attempt to justify your qualifications to provide dental care in the United States. We hereby deny your request for an exception.

By law, this Department has no authority to grant exceptions to Homeland Security Code § 245(b). Even if we did have such authority, we are not inclined to craft exceptions to this rule because Congress explicitly intended to protect Americans by enacting this statute. Specifically, Congress noted that: “Foreign dentists pose a realistic danger to all Americans. Dental terror is a genuine threat; only American-born and American-trained dentists can fully be trusted to care for American teeth. Al-Qaeda operatives may disguise themselves as foreign dentists and cause untold damage to American dental enamel and tooth roots. Terrorists may use laughing gas, Novocain, bleaching agents, x-ray machines and dental instruments to disrupt American business enterprise and frighten children. Only strong oversight and strict professional regulations can protect American mouths against invasion by belligerent foreign dental operatives.” Preamble to Homeland Security Act §§ 201-250; Subchapter H : Anti-Dental Terror Act (ADTA). Given Congress’ extremely clear mandate on this subject, we refuse to make any exceptions for foreign dentists. All foreign dentists—whether they hail from Canada or Burkina-Faso—must obtain a full American dental education prior to treating American teeth. This is the only way to ensure that a foreign dentist will not maliciously or negligently destroy the means by which Americans eat, chew, smile and bite. Congress understood that Americans’ teeth are vital. Congress also understood that Al-Qaeda knows that, too. For that reason, they enacted these regulations without provision for exceptions. If Al-Qaeda waged a calculated campaign of dental terror against the United States, the result could be devastating. For that reason, all foreign dentists must first learn how to treat American teeth according to American standards prior to plying their trade on our soil.

You write that there is no functional difference between American teeth and Portuguese teeth. Specifically, you point out that all human teeth share identical biological characteristics. You argue that because all human beings have biologically identical teeth, dental science may adequately treat anyone, no matter their ethnicity, nationality, race or religion. You say that our regulations draw an irrational distinction between American teeth and all other teeth. In conclusion, you argue that we should make an exception to the Homeland Security Act in your case because you already possess the education, training, skill and experience necessary to effectively treat “human teeth,” whether American or Portuguese.

We profoundly disagree with your position. There is a fundamental difference between American teeth and all other teeth. Congress has a right to draw a distinction in this regard. Specifically, American teeth face unique dietary dangers. Unlike the Portuguese, who eat hayseed, mulch and strange fish, Americans eat processed cheeseburgers, curly fries, cotton candy, microwave insta-Lasagna, canned meatball soup, Wonder® bread and liverwurst-flavored muffins on a regular basis. These foods present unique dental hazards that do not exist in Portugal. Americans do not pick through scant meals like mice. They engulf large amounts of food and drink, including chili dogs, hush puppies, double Big Mac® burgers, fried mayonnaise cookies, Filet-O-Fish® sandwiches with extra tartar sauce, whole Dominos® pizza pies, sugar-coated corn puffs, grape soda, super-sweetened iced tea, Royal Crown Cola®, Lucky Charms® marshmallow breakfast cereal, and pork sausage melts. At times, they consume these foods and drinks without chewing or breathing. In a word, Americans consume foods in different quantities and qualities than the Portuguese. They eat and drink in a different manner than the Portuguese. These differences necessitate education in American dental health prior to practicing dentistry in the United States.

American breath smells considerably different than Portuguese breath. Your training in Portugal will not prepare you for the smells you will encounter in American mouths. For instance, in order to repel terrorists, Congress recently authorized Americans to eat both onions and tuna salad during the same meal. Before 9/11, it was forbidden to simultaneously eat tuna and onions because these two foods lead to noxious odors when combined in an American mouth. But Congress rightly believed that a terrorist would retreat if faced by several Americans breathing rancid tuna and onion vapors toward him. Bad breath can be a potent deterrent. In Portugal, however, you do not face the same issues. Your citizens do not constantly worry about terrorism, nor do they deliberately poison their breath with tuna, raw eggs and onions in order to ward off would-be assassins. In that light, you are incorrect to conclude that your dental experience in Portugal will easily translate into dental expertise in the United States. Here, you will encounter completely different teeth because Americans eat completely different foods—in much larger amounts than the Portuguese. We face unique dental threats. Our breath is substantially different. With all respect, your Portuguese dental education has not prepared you for the tremendous challenges American teeth face every day at every meal. We must reject your essay’s reasoning on these points.

American teeth are different than foreign teeth for several other reasons. Unlike European and African teeth, American teeth are enterprising and ambitious. They make their own way in the world; they do not receive free government insurance. American teeth bite, chew, tear, rip and grind on their own; they do not need anyone else’s help. In the centuries since our country was born, American teeth have helped great Americans consume food, propelling them to success. American teeth have helped great Americans speak and communicate, since the English language requires a special interplay between throat, lips, palate and teeth. Without teeth, Americans would not be able to properly enunciate English words; and without proper enunciation, Americans would not communicate effectively. Americans pride themselves on excellent communicative skills. Business and commerce depend on communication. American teeth help make that communication possible. Only dentists who understand America know how to properly treat these American dental issues. If you wish to practice dentistry in our country, you must learn the values that keep American teeth strong and healthy. We are proud of our teeth because they are the best. You must learn why before you treat them.

In closing, we note that you strike a particularly defiant tone. You seem to think that your intelligence, training, education and dental skill entitle you to practice dentistry in the United States. You voice contempt for our regulations as “superfluous,” “unnecessary,” “irrational,” “bigoted” and “nationalistic.” Although we praise you for learning English, we do not approve your tone. In our country, professionals are not critical. They merely provide client service, bill their time and go home at night. They do not voice unwarranted opinions, nor do they criticize popular Congressional legislation. You may think that our regulations are “irrational,” but we have reasons for our laws. We do not trust defiant foreigners like you to care for our teeth. For all we know, you could be Osama bin Laden’s dentist. You might be coming to America incognito to train an elite cadre of terrorist dentists to sow dental panic amid the population. Do we not have a right to protect our borders from such attacks? Put simply, we believe our regulations are fair. They do not bar all foreigners from practicing dentistry in America; they merely require foreigners to receive American education prior to thrusting sharp instruments into American mouths. We will not make an exception for you, no matter how qualified you may be to treat Portuguese teeth. We invite you to receive instruction concerning acute Kool-Aid® stains, corndog molar spurs and Whopper®-related extractions at an American Dental Academy. We also welcome you to receive instruction concerning Dental Practice Billing Management and profit fund distribution plans. But until you receive the required instruction, we cannot grant you professional licensure to practice dentistry in the United States of America.


Very sincerely yours,


Mr. Bartholomew D. Kaye

Associate Licensure Executive