Thursday, March 5, 2009

I'm Sorry Woodrow, You're an Imperialist Too

For me, the most salient aspect of the Fourteen Points isn't how idealistic, modern, or incomplete it is, it's how imperialistic they are. The First World War was not an ideological conflict; it was a political and territorial one. However, the post-war wrangling over Europe's future took a decidedly ideological tone due to the American agenda to stuff self-determination and liberal democracy down Europe's throat. He writes, "What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in.... safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life [and] determine its own institutions." This is really no different from the rhetoric of imperialist apologists for French expansion in Algeria. While we (this writer excluded) may be more sympathetic toward Wilson's goal, the essence of imperialism remains. In the Fourteen Points America shrugged off the last vestiges of isolationism and asserted itself as the global vanguard of liberal democracy. 

Also interesting to note is Wilson's complete ignorance of examples of colonialist/imperialist oppression outside Europe. His notion of self-determination is evidently selective.

1 comment:

  1. "The First World War was not an ideological conflict; it was a political and territorial one. However, the post-war wrangling over Europe's future took a decidedly ideological tone due to the American agenda to stuff self-determination and liberal democracy down Europe's throat."

    It seems strange to me that a war that can solely about political and territorial considerations ends up being an exercise in ideological tonality in the peace making. Why did the US get into the war--why were they sympathetic to the English--just history--or did some of this ideological rhetoric already find itself spilling into war considerations--not just the liberal democracy stuff; but also the free trade stuff. It is economic and ideological--as the 19th century debates over the Corn Laws showed. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete