Saturday, June 05, 2004
A very interesting documentary on Channel 4, American Colossus, in which Professor Niall Ferguson argued that the United States is a country in denial of it's status as an Empire.
Over two hours he made an interesting case, presenting a history of America that, presumerably for reasons of brevity, skipped fairly quickly over the founding to concentrate in more detail on the twentieth century and what little we've seen of the twenty-first. Ferguson argued that most of the US's problems in the world have been due to it's denial of it's Empireship (how this differs to what I'd assume is the States acceptance that it is a superpower is unclear), that wars in Korea and Vietnam were not lost because of the almost supernatural tenacity of the foe but because the leaders didn't explain them properly to their people, because they were in denial about what the US was for.
The two main flaws in the program were about perception. The first one may not be entirely Ferguson's fault. But he seems to take as a given that the United States is a benevolent entity. His common criticism seems to boil down to 'The United States is a benevolent empire, but it is not benevolent enough'. Now presuming that Ferguson believes that and I have understood clearly that he does, he doesn't seek to prove this. Admittedly tricky, the show might never have got anywhere and taken up all it's time arguing this sole point, but it could have been argued during the display of it's history. The mood is set by opening flashes of characters from the current administration basically saying variations on "Isn't the United States great?" No critics of the US are included.
The second one, and one that I presume would play well if this documentary were over shown in the States, is an attack on the UN. The US is fit to run the world because it is an Empire. It is the only entity big enough to invade failed countries and dictatorships, and force them to become democratic. The United Nations isn't big enough. Or to put it another way, the United Nations isn't as big an organisation as one of it's members, the United States. Ferguson points to Rwanda as the reason the UN can't be trusted to run the world. He doesn't mention that the US didn't do much there either. And he holds Kosovo as an example of the US doing better than the UN. But at no time does Ferguson even hint at the less memorable events in the United States past, such as Kissinger's bombings, or the napalming of civilians in Vietnam. You sense that if he could, Ferguson would like to blame every falter of American resolve on the UN, and each of their successes on the influence of the United States.
And the unexplained premise of Ferguson's is can a largely Conservative country like America, with Presidents such as Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushs, really bring liberal democracy to other countries as Ferguson describes? Or does he mean 'liberal' only by comparing it to what went before? Only if the US acted more like an tyrannical dictatorship, Ferguson seemed to me to be saying, would it be able to more effectively spread democracy.
And the photogenic Ferguson said all this while gazing whistfully off into the middle distance from a number of locations around the world.
Over two hours he made an interesting case, presenting a history of America that, presumerably for reasons of brevity, skipped fairly quickly over the founding to concentrate in more detail on the twentieth century and what little we've seen of the twenty-first. Ferguson argued that most of the US's problems in the world have been due to it's denial of it's Empireship (how this differs to what I'd assume is the States acceptance that it is a superpower is unclear), that wars in Korea and Vietnam were not lost because of the almost supernatural tenacity of the foe but because the leaders didn't explain them properly to their people, because they were in denial about what the US was for.
The two main flaws in the program were about perception. The first one may not be entirely Ferguson's fault. But he seems to take as a given that the United States is a benevolent entity. His common criticism seems to boil down to 'The United States is a benevolent empire, but it is not benevolent enough'. Now presuming that Ferguson believes that and I have understood clearly that he does, he doesn't seek to prove this. Admittedly tricky, the show might never have got anywhere and taken up all it's time arguing this sole point, but it could have been argued during the display of it's history. The mood is set by opening flashes of characters from the current administration basically saying variations on "Isn't the United States great?" No critics of the US are included.
The second one, and one that I presume would play well if this documentary were over shown in the States, is an attack on the UN. The US is fit to run the world because it is an Empire. It is the only entity big enough to invade failed countries and dictatorships, and force them to become democratic. The United Nations isn't big enough. Or to put it another way, the United Nations isn't as big an organisation as one of it's members, the United States. Ferguson points to Rwanda as the reason the UN can't be trusted to run the world. He doesn't mention that the US didn't do much there either. And he holds Kosovo as an example of the US doing better than the UN. But at no time does Ferguson even hint at the less memorable events in the United States past, such as Kissinger's bombings, or the napalming of civilians in Vietnam. You sense that if he could, Ferguson would like to blame every falter of American resolve on the UN, and each of their successes on the influence of the United States.
And the unexplained premise of Ferguson's is can a largely Conservative country like America, with Presidents such as Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushs, really bring liberal democracy to other countries as Ferguson describes? Or does he mean 'liberal' only by comparing it to what went before? Only if the US acted more like an tyrannical dictatorship, Ferguson seemed to me to be saying, would it be able to more effectively spread democracy.
And the photogenic Ferguson said all this while gazing whistfully off into the middle distance from a number of locations around the world.
