Anti-imperialism allowed me to feel sympathy for the Native Americans, and therefore allowed me to feel pride in Britain's struggle against the American colonists, wiping away years of liberal shame at the hands of Mel Gibson's "The Patriot", and other such pro-American works.
Professor Biggar sees this as imperialism, but I cannot deny a certain anti-imperial tinge to what he writes here.
If I am proud of Salisbury and Metcalfe standing up for the better Indian Princely states, am I an out and out imperialist, or a hybrid imperialist/imperial skeptic?
It seems to me that not all anti-imperialism is bad, especially when viewed with a conservative attitude.
I agree, and I think that's exactly his point—not all anti-imperialism is bad, just as not all imperialism is bad. Per usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Can we, as twenty-first century humans, examine that center with a pragmatic and objective lens and create a new model that marries the best traits of both imperialism (stability, progress, a generally higher standard of living) and anti-imperialism (compassion, empathy, a desire for everyone to have access to opportunity and prosperity)?
Asymmetry of power is not endemic to nation-states, of course, but rather to the human experience. As an American Anglophile who grew up attending British schools, I read enough Classics, Enlightenment philosophy, and Founding Fathers to qualify as a nerd among my friends. While watching, and simultaneously examining, the Left's teardown of Enlightenment ideals in the San Francisco Bay Area over the past twenty years, I've tested every idea I drew from my education. After thorough scrutiny, I've come down hard on the side that my original takeaways were, and are, still worthy of passionate belief and support: I believe the fundamental philosophies and ideas that created the British Empire and the American Empire are some of the best ideas we've had as a species. I believe they were constrained by the transportation, communication, (read: exposure) methods at the time, and were therefore applied tribally to the ruling classes in those nations by default.
I also believe that the strength and inherent rightness of many of those ideas can and should now be applied to everyone who wants to avail use of them—everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone should be able to progress to the natural limits of their competence and character. Everyone should be able to attempt to resolve power asymmetries for themselves if they so choose.
I'm also a realist, and I expect that the reptilian side of human nature will never let us fully achieve holistic application and adoption of such concepts. All the more reason why I would love to see the UK and the US reaffirm our connection to one another (and other allies, too), finally absolve ourselves of historical guilt for the misapplication of any of these principles, and confidently, competently, collaborate on building that "center". I would love to see us make it so strong, prosperous and appealing that any other philosophy can't compete on the world stage.
Is that ultimately Imperialist? Probably, but it is altruistic Imperialism.
Altruistic imperialism married to a serious-minded and competent anti-imperialism could work very well. You just need to find the right people to implement it.
This sounds AI generated, as the response is very robotic. Though this artificial author effectively points out the shortcomings of various empires and Christianity, he/she/it fails to acknowledge the notable positives that have resulted. Dr. Biggar effectively presents a balanced and fair analysis in his writings.
Anti-imperialism allowed me to feel sympathy for the Native Americans, and therefore allowed me to feel pride in Britain's struggle against the American colonists, wiping away years of liberal shame at the hands of Mel Gibson's "The Patriot", and other such pro-American works.
Professor Biggar sees this as imperialism, but I cannot deny a certain anti-imperial tinge to what he writes here.
If I am proud of Salisbury and Metcalfe standing up for the better Indian Princely states, am I an out and out imperialist, or a hybrid imperialist/imperial skeptic?
It seems to me that not all anti-imperialism is bad, especially when viewed with a conservative attitude.
I agree, and I think that's exactly his point—not all anti-imperialism is bad, just as not all imperialism is bad. Per usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Can we, as twenty-first century humans, examine that center with a pragmatic and objective lens and create a new model that marries the best traits of both imperialism (stability, progress, a generally higher standard of living) and anti-imperialism (compassion, empathy, a desire for everyone to have access to opportunity and prosperity)?
Asymmetry of power is not endemic to nation-states, of course, but rather to the human experience. As an American Anglophile who grew up attending British schools, I read enough Classics, Enlightenment philosophy, and Founding Fathers to qualify as a nerd among my friends. While watching, and simultaneously examining, the Left's teardown of Enlightenment ideals in the San Francisco Bay Area over the past twenty years, I've tested every idea I drew from my education. After thorough scrutiny, I've come down hard on the side that my original takeaways were, and are, still worthy of passionate belief and support: I believe the fundamental philosophies and ideas that created the British Empire and the American Empire are some of the best ideas we've had as a species. I believe they were constrained by the transportation, communication, (read: exposure) methods at the time, and were therefore applied tribally to the ruling classes in those nations by default.
I also believe that the strength and inherent rightness of many of those ideas can and should now be applied to everyone who wants to avail use of them—everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone should be able to progress to the natural limits of their competence and character. Everyone should be able to attempt to resolve power asymmetries for themselves if they so choose.
I'm also a realist, and I expect that the reptilian side of human nature will never let us fully achieve holistic application and adoption of such concepts. All the more reason why I would love to see the UK and the US reaffirm our connection to one another (and other allies, too), finally absolve ourselves of historical guilt for the misapplication of any of these principles, and confidently, competently, collaborate on building that "center". I would love to see us make it so strong, prosperous and appealing that any other philosophy can't compete on the world stage.
Is that ultimately Imperialist? Probably, but it is altruistic Imperialism.
There is alot to agree with here.
Altruistic imperialism married to a serious-minded and competent anti-imperialism could work very well. You just need to find the right people to implement it.
This sounds AI generated, as the response is very robotic. Though this artificial author effectively points out the shortcomings of various empires and Christianity, he/she/it fails to acknowledge the notable positives that have resulted. Dr. Biggar effectively presents a balanced and fair analysis in his writings.