Because You Never Asked

     (This essay is the companion of the essay "The History of the World, I", which should be read before this one.)

     But the plot thickened in the 20^th century. The evolution of the species had now arrived to Bob Dylan, who sarcastically understood that whoever was doing the conquering did it "with God on our side". The religious gambit was running thin and was beginning to have the intellectual impact of a Jennifer Lopez song. The "morality" of conquest had to be upgraded. (For those of you who might think religion is a prime player in the current, seemingly endless strife in the Middle East, guess again. It may be camouflaged as such, but it is really a classic colonial-economic based war.)

     The 20^th century culminated a process that might have had its earliest significant  manifestation in the French Revolution. It had now become mainstream to accept the fact that all human beings were intellectually capable and had the same right to happiness and fulfillment. Putting such a creed into practice was far more difficult than proclaiming devotion to it. Conquering and exploiting one another had become a more delicate maneuver.

     Perhaps no conquering power has ever used the morality gambit to greater lengths than the United States of America.

     By the beginning of the 20^th century, the American colossus was starting to become a real player in the international predominance game. At the completion of WWII, its preeminence had been established, a preeminence that would continue to grow as the century faded into history. Its rise to power was premised upon the usual self interest and exploitation, but, perhaps due to a challenge by what could be called the world's first attempt at conquest based purely upon moral principles (more later), it was forced to disguise its self interest under an incessant barrage of moralistic preaching.

     A great part of America's national personality has always revolved around the ideas of liberty, freedom, opportunity and such, all distilled into a democratic government where anyone has a reasonable chance to succeed and be heard. Probably due most to the historic accident of a virtually empty continent ready to be exploited by outsiders with no claims to its resources (other than force), this attitude, in practice, has some basis in reality. But as the colossus began to grow it became necessary to dominate, like any industrial power, beyond its borders. Obviously, such domination could not be carried out in harmony with America's national rhetoric. (Just as the expropriation of the continent from its few inhabitants could not be so done). Someone had to be subdued.    Someone had to be exploited. In spite of all its attempts to sanitize such actions, the United States had to do it in the same way everyone else had done it before them.

     The "gringos" would have you believe they are doing everyone a favor by imposing their will, that it is not self interest but the altruistic nature of their political system which motivates "yanqui" intervention. But anyone paying a reasonable amount of attention soon begins to see that it is economic factors and not moralistic ones that create American friendship or hostility. If you will acquiesce to Uncle Sam's economic demands (which, of course, is favorable to their self interest) you will be considered a law abiding, peace loving, if not yet "democratic" nation, one that is well on its way to being one. If you will not play the Yankee economic game to specifications, it is now time to use the morality gambit. You will be branded a "totalitarian" (oh, the dreaded "T" word) state, lacking the most basic human rights displayed on the Jerry Springer Show. You will now be a "rogue" or "pariah" state.

     Viewed from this perspective, the conquests of the United States are not much different from the conquests that preceded it. Perhaps its only improvement over the subjugations of the past (and I say this with the same distaste I might have in trying to have sex with a thoroughly unattractive woman) is the fact that the Yankee economic game might provide a minimal amount of relief to the subdued victims (there, I said it). But it certainly doesn't change the overall panorama with regard to who is exploiting who.

     What really dragged America into the idea of having to morally justify its conquests were the Socialist movements hatched in the 19^th century and fully matured in the next. By this juncture in history, in spite of the wealth created by the Industrial Revolution, there was the realization that a large segment of the human race had been unnaturally denied the opportunity to develop their intellectual capacities. This engendered an unfair access to the joys of life, both materially and emotionally. This new idea of conquest, based upon a different way of economic distribution, was an animal that had never been seen before. It cut across all political-cultural entities, creating not a fight between warring nations, religions, cultures or ethnic-racial groups, but between "haves" and "have-nots". It was the first attempt at conquest based purely upon moral principles and not narrow political-cultural-national interests.

     The early icons of this movement --- Marx, Bakunin, etc. --- were some of the most perceptive philosophers the world has ever known. One can certainly quarrel or agree in a rainbow-like variety of ways with their ideas for solutions, but anyone with a truly objective outlook cannot help but marvel at their analyses of the human condition. As it turned out, the practitioners of their ideas were woefully not up to the task. The ebbs and flows of philosophical conflict are never easy to decipher. The failure of the socialist idea in the 20^th century was surely due to the convergence of many factors, including the lack of morality with which its political leaders tried to impose the system's morality. That's right, the usual gamut of hypocrisy, arrogance, stupidity, ignorance, self interest and general lack of evolutionary sophistication . and more, all figured into the equation for failure.

     So what's new?

     For many people, who could be labeled "pessimists", this is a permanent condition of "human nature" that will always rear its ugly head, thus precluding any real possibility of a moral triumph. For people like myself, who I will proudly label as "optimists", there is a tendency to believe that we are simply not ready for such a moralistic approach, that the thousands of years of selfish, narrow minded conquest that preceded our era has left a stubborn stain on our psyches that no emotional detergent has been able to erase. But we are still diligently working in the lab, trying to find the right formula. The fact that the history of the world has finally produced its first truly moral attempt at conquest, even if it was grossly mismanaged and ruthlessly imposed in a self defeating way, cannot help but fuel us "optimists". Once the question has been formulated, the answer is surely out there.

     But this story has a surprise ending. What I've referred to as "moral" conquest is really based upon the same self interest as the conquests of old. It is not a "bleeding heart" attitude concerned with the well being of others at the expense of oneself. It is the realization that the more well being we can spread to more people will further fulfill each individual. It is the realization that my happiness (for lack of a better word) cannot exist without the happiness of others . and the more the merrier.

     Relevant Material: "When the popular masses are patriotic, they are also stupid." From the 19^th century philosopher, Mikail Bakunin.