Imperial Dilemmas

It is an organization clothed in power. From its ranks comes a disproportionate share of the United States establishment – Presidents, cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, captains of industry, generals, professors, princes of the earth. Its real estate holdings are worth billions, its buildings are conspicuous in the choicest districts of great cities and small towns. Its art collection is beyond price. Its leaders sit in the councils of state, of war, of finance, and of culture, direct armies, order their global affairs to their liking; their counsel is sought, their word is heeded. It has been powerful for centuries, and owes its ultimate allegiance to the British Crown.

On the other side of the equation are the sworn enemies of this powerful entity. Emancipated, but only just, from discarded colonialism, they are black and brown, fighters for freedom in some of the most downtrodden and exploited backwaters of empires gone by. They are poor, desperately so, and still they feed the hungry, bless the lonely, comfort the lepers. And today, they have risen in revolt against the imperialist dominance of this metropolitan entity in defense of their own values and their own way of life. This revolt is complicated, because these black and brown defenders of their own culture depend on a constant stream of money from the American center to fund themselves. Indeed, they are willing to cut off the stream of money that keeps them in bondage to alien ideas perilous to their indigenous way of life.

The first organization is America's Episcopal Church, and its adversaries are the African provinces of the Anglican Communion. The former ordain and affirm women and homosexuals; the latter consider that practice an alien, imperial, white idea. They're now fighting to stop these alien ideas from having any role in their own churches; indeed, they want things to change in the Episcopal Church itself, not least because, having thrown off the shackles of imperialism, they see no room for the imposition on them of the culture and values of the metropolis by mere association with it. It is their own native, independent, African culture they wish to preserve, and that in turn has no room for acceptance of gays or for women in the priesthood. In this effort, they are aided by and allied with the most bigoted segments of the American right.

So you tell me who the good guys are.


Michael Bouldin's picture

|

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
darkdaughta's picture

Now, that's the problem,

Now, that's the problem, isn't it?

Logical allies "fight" on opposing "teams". Slit not only each other's throats but in doing so, their own as well. If that isn't insanity, I don't know what is. There are no good guys. We're all severely fuk'd and bloodied. We harm each other, ourselves and the planet and still the issues get no clearer to understand, just more messy and layered. We are just animals who learned to use tools and to walk upright. We were arrogant to think we ever had the answers or to believe we had special access to the ear of any creator.


Michael Bouldin's picture

Well, either that...

...or we can just say that the Episcopalians are right, and the African bishops are a bunch of bigoted neanderthals. Point being that oppressed brown people have no monopoly on virtue, and metropolitan whites no monopoly on vice.


darkdaughta's picture

Sadly, it's a bit more

Sadly,
it's a bit more complicated than that. European colonizers made sure of that a long, long time ago when they decided they would dominate the world scene.


Michael Bouldin's picture

Disagree, and here's why

...when you say that the actions of X are determined solely by historical/circumstantial factor Y, or more generally by external factor Z, you

a) absolve X of all responsibility for his/her actions, and

b) you're also saying X has no autonomous moral agency.

Both are essentially infantilizing, because this is the standard we apply to children.

I find that just as philosophically troubling as the inverse, which is the idea that X can act entirely outside of the historical framework. Neither approach is tenable, frankly.


JJ Ross's picture

Neither is tenable

but both have potent power of story, especially woven together. Which is what I thought darkdaughta was saying, about it being more complicated? Smiling


Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Poll

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 1111 guests online.

Online users

Words to live by


It's time to be patriotic about something other than war.


— Senator John Edwards at Pace University, 9/7/07


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify