An Empire Like No Other: The British experience was unique; America will write its own chapters

National Review, Sept 1, 2003 by John Derbyshire

Here on my desk I have a 1924 atlas of the world that belonged to my grandfather, an Englishman. Its actual title is: The British Empire Universities Up-to-date Atlas-guide to the British Commonwealth of Nations and Foreign Countries. The book is divided into three sections. First, of course, are the maps, 136 pages of them. Then comes "British Commonwealth of Nations: Descriptive and Statistical Notes," covering 97 pages. Finally there are 56 pages on "Foreign Countries: Descriptive and Statistical Notes."

Published as it was at the very high tide of British imperialism, this atlas is an instructive document. Even its title is instructive, the grander term "Empire" yielding to the more diffident "Commonwealth," as actual British political control over self-governing "white dominions" like Australia and South Africa became ever more theoretical. These dominions were not recognized as free countries within the Commonwealth until 1926, and this status was not formalized by statute until 1931. Lesser places were still colonies, protectorates, mandates, or possessions; and India was an empire all by itself.

This confusion of nomenclature betrayed a weakening of confidence. While the British Empire described in Granddad's atlas was indeed at its largest physically, imperial self-assurance had peaked a quarter century earlier. The bumptious innocence of Victorian imperialism was long lost. Doubt and cynicism had fixed their clammy grip on the British, at least on the educated classes (1924 was also the year E. M. Forster published A Passage to India). The imperial idea soldiered on for a surprisingly long time, though. I am merely middle-aged, but I have a very dim memory from my English childhood of an Empire Day-May 24-when my entire elementary school was formed up in the playground to sing one of the first songs I ever learned, "There'll Always Be an England."

Red, white and blue- What does it mean to you? Surely you're proud, Shout it loud: Britons awake! The Empire, too- We can depend on you. Freedom remains; These are the chains Nothing can break.

Britain's was not the only empire extant in 1924. Take the very first map in Granddad's atlas-"The World: Colonial Powers and Communications." The British Empire is colored pink, of course. There are also distinctive colors for the imperial possessions of France, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States.

The inclusion of the United States in a list of imperial powers can be disconcerting to us Americans, accustomed as we are to think of ourselves as a nation radically hostile to the very notion of imperialism. There on the map are those U.S. possessions, though, colored a delicate shade of green: the Philippines, "Porto Rico," Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone. The United States was in the business of 20th-century imperialism right along with those other nations identified on my 1924 map, and with some not identified, or recently out of the game: Japan, Belgium, Turkey, Russia, China, Denmark.

Not all Americans were happy about this. An Anti-Imperialist League had been formed to fight the annexation of the Philippines in 1898, with worthies like Andrew Carnegie and Samuel Gompers leading the charge. Our imperial adventures were carefully cloaked in talk of "tutelage" and "protection." Not for us the plumed helmets and durbars of "official" imperialism, as practiced by the European powers. The American style was reserved, apologetic, respectful. We planted no settlers, transported no convicts, established no Colonial Office, and always insisted that our occupation of other people's land overseas was temporary, and entirely against our better instincts. In most cases, we meant it.

And now our thoughts are turning-with proper republican reluctance, but turning nonetheless-toward the necessity for a new imperialism. Since that dreadful day two years ago, it has dawned on large numbers of Americans that dysfunctional states in remote places can be dire and immediate threats to us. Third-world sinkholes can no longer be left to fester in their own backwardness. It is necessary, simply as a matter of self- interest, to go into them and sort out their affairs. More recent events suggest, too, that the threats are not limited to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Three years ago, the Clinton administration's declaration that AIDS is a threat to our national security was much scoffed at. (I know it was-I was among the scoffers.) On reflection, though, and particularly following the SARS epidemic, it is hard to argue with the proposition that public-health issues in benighted parts of the world might indeed be of pressing concern here at home.

Few of us believe these matters can be left to international agencies like the U.N. In certain special circumstances-where there is no strategic interest on the part of important powers, no bitter dispute over sovereignty, and some long-standing sense of nationhood to build on-the U.N. can help matters along, as it has in Cambodia. In places where America's interests are at stake, however (and in conflict with those of other nations)-and where national feeling is divided, or artificial, or non-existent, so that patriotic native elites cannot easily take control of the situation-we need to act in our own interests. We are unlikely to be able to restrict our actions just to diplomacy, or to in-and-out police action. The trumpets are sounding; we are called to our imperial duty; we must take up the White Man's Burden. (It is worth noting Kipling's definition of "white man," given in 1897: "the race speaking the English tongue, with a high birth rate and a low murder rate, living quietly under Laws which are neither bought nor sold.")