"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests"
About this Quote
Reese’s line is a small demolition charge aimed at a comfortable national myth: that empire is something you do for other people. By opening with “The truth is,” he frames the sentence as a corrective, not an opinion, and the blunt parallel structure (“neither British nor American”) refuses readers the usual escape hatch of exceptionalism. There’s no virtuous alternative empire hiding in the wings; there’s only the shared machinery.
The key move is his attack on “idealistic.” He isn’t arguing that leaders never believed their own rhetoric; he’s arguing that the governing logic of imperial power doesn’t require belief. Moral language becomes a lubricant for projects whose real constraints are budgets, resources, sea lanes, and rivals. “Was or is” compresses centuries into a single continuity, insisting that the pattern didn’t end when the flags changed or the colonies became “partners.” It’s an accusation of rebranding: gunboats to bases, colonies to “markets,” conquest to “security.”
Subtextually, Reese is also disciplining the reader’s attention. Don’t ask whether the empire had good intentions; ask who profited, who gained leverage, who absorbed the costs. That shift matters because “idealism” is the alibi that lets citizens feel clean while benefiting from dirty outcomes. In the post-Cold War and post-9/11 American context where talk of freedom and democracy often accompanied interventions, Reese’s sentence functions like a paperweight: it pins soaring rhetoric to the hard table of interests, where strategic necessity and economic appetite usually sit, quietly, in charge.
The key move is his attack on “idealistic.” He isn’t arguing that leaders never believed their own rhetoric; he’s arguing that the governing logic of imperial power doesn’t require belief. Moral language becomes a lubricant for projects whose real constraints are budgets, resources, sea lanes, and rivals. “Was or is” compresses centuries into a single continuity, insisting that the pattern didn’t end when the flags changed or the colonies became “partners.” It’s an accusation of rebranding: gunboats to bases, colonies to “markets,” conquest to “security.”
Subtextually, Reese is also disciplining the reader’s attention. Don’t ask whether the empire had good intentions; ask who profited, who gained leverage, who absorbed the costs. That shift matters because “idealism” is the alibi that lets citizens feel clean while benefiting from dirty outcomes. In the post-Cold War and post-9/11 American context where talk of freedom and democracy often accompanied interventions, Reese’s sentence functions like a paperweight: it pins soaring rhetoric to the hard table of interests, where strategic necessity and economic appetite usually sit, quietly, in charge.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Charley
Add to List
