More of a neoliberal, free-market philosophy?
Much more of that, even before these words were invented. That is how the United States has tended to operate. I mean, that is how they built up the Saudi oil industry. ARAMCO went in, and actually built the oil industry in Saudi Arabia, which the Saudis later took over with very handsome compensation, and permanent tribute basically to Washington. US companies would go in, personnel attached to their companies would go in, intelligence agents would go in to keep Washington informed of what was going on, but they didn’t like direct occupations or sending in troops unless it became absolutely necessary.
You’ve observed that England was very clever in using the antislavery platform to colonize Africa.
It’s quite interesting that the argument the British gave for the colonization of Africa, and for sending British troops, was that this is the only way we can end slavery, ignoring the fact that Britain and fortunes had been made in Britain from the slave trade for many, many decades. But that was the argument they used, and I compare it to the argument used by the United States that we’re taking this country or that country to defend human rights. These are ideological justifications, given largely to their own people at home, to make something that is unseemly more palatable. But the British were the cheekiest, actually.
Would slavery have ended otherwise, or did the British actually end it?
No, slavery was coming to an end, more or less. The process had begun in the nineteenth century, especially after the defeat of the South in the American Civil War. And in Europe, it was ending. The French Revolution had ended it. The Haitian slaves had revolted. So what the British said was very typical of British imperialism, a lot of bogus, hypocritical talk. The way they ruled Africa was totally racist. I mean, if you look at what they did when they ruled Africa, they imposed an apartheid system on the country. They built whites-only clubs, whites-only segregated areas. People say the Afrikaners did that in South Africa, but the British did it all over the world, in India as well, but largely in Africa.
I’d be curious, what do you think of Dr. Livingston, the Scottish missionary doctor?
Once you belong to an imperial country, an imperial race, you think the world is yours. And even good people, you know, they decide that they can go and explore the world, and discover things. In the back of their mind is the fact that we are the empire, everything I’m doing is for the empire. And Livingston was not immune to that. The Scottish are now very hostile to the English. But in terms of the British Empire, the Scotts sometimes tended to be the most die-hard imperialists. They played a big role in establishing the British Empire, and in administering it.
And there was a religious component, too. That was always part of it. We are bringing civilization and the Christian religion to the heathens. We will help them, but in return they have to become Christians. A lot of the missionaries believed that, and they believed it quite genuinely without any bad motives. In order to save these souls, we have to make sure the body is kept alive, too. The Brits did it in Australia to a certain extent, as well, converting the Aboriginals, bringing them to our way of life. And, of course, most of them were wiped out.
Would Sir Richard Burton be on your bad-guy list?
Well, Burton was a very interesting guy, and my bad-guy list isn’t so big, you know. I mean, there were lots of British scholars who went out into the world and did good things, discovered languages, wrote about them. Some of these individuals were Orientalists in the best sense of the word, that they wanted to learn about “Oriental” culture, learn the languages, translate them into English. And, for me, it is always a good thing when you begin to learn what other people are thinking. The early scholars who went to China provide us with insights into what fiction was being written in China in the eleventh century, for example, which we would never know otherwise. So, for me, these are, by and large, good guys.
Could you discuss your views of Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
Roosevelt was, I think, probably one of the most intelligent presidents produced by the United States in the twentieth century. When he decided something had to be done, he did it. He surrounded himself with very good people, strong-minded people, some of whom he trusted, some he didn’t, but by and large he took a decision and pushed it through. Whether or not you agree with the particular decision, that’s what he did. He was helped by the fact that, at the time of the Great Depression, the United States also had a strong labor movement. Today it’s difficult to think about trade unions playing a big part in national public life in the United States, but they did at the time. There were factory occupations taking place in Flint, Michigan, where autoworkers were occupying their factories, and women were setting up the women’s auxiliary, helping the strike, taking food for their men, building solidarity. And this pressure from below enabled Roosevelt to take on the giant corporations when he did, and pushed through the New Deal, which was essentially a social-democratic program for the United States. He couldn’t have done this at a different time. He had this ability to communicate with people through the wireless, before the age of television, and became an effective war leader.
Howard Zinn seems to think less of Roosevelt, seeing him more as a capitalist front man who was preserving a decayed system.
This is true on one level of course, but one can say this about every politician in the Western world. Sometimes people ask me questions about Obama. And I say, well, if you wear Caesar’s clothes, and you sit on Caesar’s thrown, you have to behave like Caesar. But there are choices even in how to be Caesar. You can be Caligula, or you can be Claudius. You can be Constantine, or you can be Julian. So you can say that about all politicians. They are capitalists, they serve capitalist interests, and it is true. But when there are no other alternatives, then you’re a bit stuck. So the question is: were there any big alternatives for Roosevelt? Looking back on the history of the twentieth century, at that point in time, Roosevelt was probably the best the United States could get. And his vice president, Henry Wallace, was a genuinely progressive soul, with genuinely radical ideas. And Roosevelt hung onto him until he was too ill and sick to fight the elements of his own party that wanted to get rid of Wallace. And the Democrats put in Harry Truman. I mean, what if Wallace had become president after Roosevelt died? Who knows how the Cold War would have unfolded, whether it would have started in that particular way or not, or whether Wallace would have used nuclear weapons against Japan.