_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism

Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 1 of 19

Imperialism
What exactly is imperialism? Imperialism has taken many forms and continues to exist in the world
today. It is the economic and/or political domination of a society by another society. More than
often the society under imperialist domination comes out of the relationship very much worse off
than the imperial country. In today's world, the imperialist power supreme is the United States of
America, along with some of the most powerful European states such as Britain. At one time 5
Britain was the supreme imperialist power of the world but with the collapse of the empire, this
status has slowly eroded.
Historians of imperialism usually divide the history of imperialism into a number of distinct epochs
or periods in time. It is crucial to understand and have an awareness of such history as many of the
economic problems experienced by Third World countries are in part caused by their domination 10
by imperialist powers.

Mercantile Capitalism
This is what many would refer to as the first stage of imperialism, or phase of
underdevelopment. This stage began about the 16th century being ushered into existence by the 15
pioneering journeys of people such as Columbus who "discovered" America. Almost immediately
merchants from the European nations, Spain, Britain et. al. began to set up operations in these
newly discovered lands. This stage is marked by the activity of plunder, that is, the robbery of
these countries' wealth and even of their people. When Columbus discovered the Indian people he
described them as gentle and placid people, he then promptly returned with 17 ships full of armed 20
soldiers. It was this superior military technology which enabled the European merchants, and
noblemen, to dominate the indigenous populations of such countries. With them, these Europeans
also brought diseases, diseases to which the indigenous population had never been exposed to and
which consequently they had little immunity. The result was that whole populations of people
were almost wiped out through murder and disease. This stage would not, and could not, last 25
indefinitely. There were certain contradictions built into this system which brought about its
downfall. Simply put, you can only plunder so long before there is nothing left to loot.

30
Colonialism
After mercantile capitalism came the next stage of imperialism - colonialism. During the stage of
mercantile capitalism companies were involved in the plunder of the newly discovered
territories. They were the governing power in the territories in which they settled. During the
colonial stage, European nation-states entered into the fray, and they actually took over the 35
administration of the colonies. Armies were sent to those countries in which the indigenous
population did not accept their rule. In many cases, immigration was encouraged to the given
country. Capitalists used these colonial markets, which were protected, to sell their
products. Sometimes the quite developed industries and systems of trade of the dominated country
were ruined. Historians such as Baran believe that this happened in India under British colonial 40
rule. India had quite a well-developed textile industry when Britain acquired it as a colony. Its
products, however, competed with British products and so Indian manufacturers were discouraged
through various means, such as tariffs. India was turned into a supplier of raw materials for British
industry and so the same thing happened in other countries, much the same practices being
perpetrated by other colonial powers. 45
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 2 of 19

Neo-colonialism/Neo-imperialism
This is the present-day stage, it began around 1945. Since then, many former colonized countries
have gained their "independence". For many Latin American countries this "independence" came
relatively early, with some gaining independence in the 19th century. Yet despite this 50
independence, it remains the case that many of these former colonies find that they are still very
much dominated by their former colonial masters, or, that they have gained new masters. Writers
such as Andre Gunder Frank believe that the West still dominates with regard to what is known as
the Third World. He uses the metaphor of satellite and metropolis to describe this
domination. Each metropolis dominates and draws wealth from its satellite(s), and at the top of 55
this hierarchy of domination and exploitation sits America. The point is simple, while the former
colonies have gained formal political independence they still remain economically dependent on
the West and thereby their "political independence" counts for little.

The Marxist View on Imperialism 60

As far back as the Communist Manifesto Marx had written of an international or world market. By
this, he meant that capitalism was slowly spreading across the world. As a result, the old modes of
production were being transformed. Although the costs for many were high this was necessary as
it was a further step along the road to socialism. In order for a socialist revolution to occur a
bourgeois revolution must have occurred. To put it simply, the material conditions must be in 65
existence. Marx appears to have believed that a world would be created in the image of the
capitalist West.
A more recent Marxist analysis of imperialism is given by Lenin in his book: "Monopoly
Capitalism". Imperialism was now less about finding sources of raw materials and markets and
more about investment. Finance imperialism involves the investment of capital in poorer countries. 70
This allows the company to take advantage of cheap labor costs and therefore higher profits. The
capitalist governments and states help this process by imposing their rule and dividing up the entire
world. Thus, during the early 20th century most of the world was divided between powerful
countries. New countries were created often by someone sitting down and drawing a line on a map.
Many historians would argue that part of the reason for the First World War lay in squabbling over 75
control of such foreign countries and their resources.
A more recent analysis of imperialism is given by Baran and Sweezy. They are writing from the
1960s whereas Lenin was writing from the turn of the century. In many ways, the work of Lenin
anticipates the work of later Marxist scholars. Like Marx, Baran and Sweezy see capitalism as a
world system of exploitation. They also see it as a hierarchical system with some societies at the 80
top, such as America, and others at the bottom, such as the countries that make up the Third world.
In between these two extremes come countries such as Britain and other European powers.
Like Lenin, they highlight the fact that imperialism is now more about finance imperialism than
about finding sources of raw materials. Multi-national corporations are central to their analysis.
They write of the multi-nationals: 85
"What they want is monopolistic control over foreign sources of supply and foreign markets,
enabling them to buy and sell on specially privileged terms, to shift orders from one subsidiary to
another. to favor this country or that depending on which has the most advantageous tax, labor,
and other policies- in a word they want to do business on their terms and with whoever they
please..."(Baran and Sweezy) 90
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 3 of 19

Thus, like Lenin they highlight the fact that capital is now invested in the countries under colonial
domination. The reason for this is that a bigger surplus value can be gained from capital invested
in such countries and as a result so too a bigger profit. 95

How Imperialism is Kept in Place

The state plays a significant role with regard to this new imperialism, quite an important role. If
we accept that the state acts on behalf of the capitalist class then we must also accept that the state
will act on behalf of its own national bourgeoisie, or, the capitalists that locate and invest in their 100
country. The state can further the interests of the capitalist class with regard to the poorer and less
powerful countries of the world in a number of ways. There are, however, two main ways to ensure
that foreign governments and states act in the interests of the national bourgeoisie. One is economic
the other military.
105
The Military Way
Chile provides an example of the military way. In the early 1970s, the people of Chile
democratically elected a Left-Wing government led by President Allende. When they came to
power they began a moderate program of reform. One of these reforms was to nationalize certain
industries, without giving generous compensation to those who owned them. Allende argued that 110
they had already made billions from exploiting the people of Chile. Some of these industries were
controlled by American companies. These companies had also (allegedly) given money to help the
American president win the election. As a result, the democratically elected government of Allende
was overthrown by a military coup with help from the CIA. The American state had protected the
interests of American big business in the most brutal manner possible. This is the military way of 115
ensuring the interests of the national bourgeoisie. There are plenty of other examples of the military
option when it comes to maintaining imperialism.

The Economic Way

Another way to ensure the imperialist domination of nations is through economic means. The 120
governments of the Third World are usually in a situation of financial dependency. During the
1970s many of them borrowed money from commercial Western banks in order to pursue
development policies. Unfortunately, interest rates soared, along with a world recession, and as a
result, the debts spiraled out of control. As a result, the IMF (International Monetary Fund) had to
step in, many would argue in order to bail out the reckless Western banks who had lent money 125
without any assessment of the risk involved. The banks reasoned that a government could not go
bust, but it could, and it did. This is where the IMF stepped in and continues to play a role.
The IMF is, more or less, an instrument of American policy. The votes cast in the institution go on
the contribution made to the collective fund. The USA makes, naturally enough, the largest
contribution and therefore can dictate policy. When a foreign government applies to borrow money 130
from the IMF they are not just simply given the money no questions asked. In order to qualify for
such a loan the government has to agree to implement a program of "structural reform". This
program of structural reform inevitably involves the opening up of their markets to foreign
capitalists, the free flow of capital, a more export-oriented economy, the privatization of state-
controlled industries, and lastly drastic reduction in social spending, that is, spending on health, 135
education, and welfare. When a country accepts these terms and implements them it inevitably
leads to a decline in living standards but it helps to open up the country to foreign investment, that
is, finance imperialism. Those countries that refuse to implement such terms will not be given a
loan, and as a result, will have little other means of raising revenue.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 4 of 19

The IMF, therefore, acts as an instrument of the imperialist powers, in particular America. This is 140
not the only lever that the imperialist powers possess over the Third World. The governments of
the Third World also owe large sums of money directly to the more rich Western governments.
Those countries that are owed the most money are called the Paris Club because of the fact that
they meet in Paris. This group of nations includes countries such as Britain, France, and other
European nations. The governments of these countries can negotiate special deals but in order to 145
do this successfully they must obviously do something in return. Sometimes this "something" will
involve helping foreign states in their wars or perhaps even fighting a war with a neighbor. For
doing such things these countries may have their debts reduced or they might get export credits.
Lastly, another way of ensuring that financial imperialism prevails in poorer countries is through
aid. Unlike loans, aid would appear to come with no strings attached. Aid, however, is not usually 150
given without something in return. Quite often a country such as Britain might give aid to a specific
country but only if it agrees to buy certain British products. There are examples of countries that
have been lent money only to have to spend most of it on useless military equipment. Aid can also
be something akin to a bribe. America during the 1980s gave large sums of money to various
regimes, usually because of their anti-Communist stance, but the result was that much of the money
went straight into the pockets of various political leaders. Sometimes the multinationals involved
will directly bribe politicians in order that their interests are protected.

http://www.marxismmadesimple.esmartweb.com/imperialism.htm (retrieved on August 15th, 2011)

What is Imperialism? https://youtu.be/_s1oW5e4eYA

19thC Imperialism Imperialism: Crash Course World History #35

Rationales for imperialism: Rationales for IMPERIALISM [AP World History] Unit 6 Topic 1 (6.1)

Concepts of imperialism

In Answer.com

1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of

economic and political hegemony over other nations.

2. Merriam Webster dictionary

Imperialism: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation
especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic
life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.

3. John Atkinson Hobson (1858-1940) studied at Oxford. After graduation, he started out
lecturing in English literature before his interests shifted to economics. Interestingly, because his ideas
were considered radical, he lost his position as a lecturer at London University. Even though he was
excluded from academic life, Hobson was extremely active as a writer and wrote thirty-seven books.
He wrote his most famous book Imperialism: A Study (1902) written in opposition to the Boer War
after being sent by the editor of the Manchester Guardian to South Africa on a study.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 5 of 19

The way Hobson saw it, imperialism was an outcome of many social forces including nationalism,
patriotism, militarism, religious fervor, especially “Christianity and uplifting,” and an incessant quest for
profit. Imperialism was necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of capitalism to increasingly
accumulate capital and invest profits. As domestic markets matured and became saturated, new outlets
for investment had to be identified and exploited. Insufficient domestic markets resulted largely because
of an imbalance between productive and consumptive spheres due to huge inequalities in income
distribution. Wage earners were limited by the magnitude of their income. Furthermore, the rentier (a
person who lives on income from property or investments) or wealthy class was limited in their
consumption activities by time, physical capacity to enjoy expenditures, and by their desire and
compulsion to invest surplus so as to get more and more profit.
According to Hobson, the chief promoters and controllers of imperialism and foreign investment were
financiers and banks. The primary benefactors were those large firms that engaged in building warships
and specialized in the manufacture of goods for export and trade.

http://www.economictheories.org/2008/06/john-hobson-imperialism-1858-1940.html

Prof. Richard Toye and Dr. Marc-William Palen discuss J.A. Hobson's book "Imperialism"
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 6 of 19

Noam Chomsky (born in 1928) is a leading linguistic scientist and a longtime professor at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). His 1957 book Syntactic Structures outlined his theories
of transformational generative grammar and made him a prominent and controversial figure in the field.
Chomsky is also known as a political activist suspicious of big media, big business, and big government.
His books include Manufacturing Consent (1988) and Propaganda and the Public Mind (2001). He has
been a leading voice for peace and social justice for more than four decades. He is in such demand as a
public speaker that he is often booked years in advance. And wherever he appears, he draws huge
audiences. The Guardian calls him, “One of the radical heroes of our age.”

Chomsky contends that the United States, as the world's remaining superpower, acts in the same offensive
ways as all superpowers. One of the key things superpowers do, Chomsky argues, is trying to organize
the world according to the interests of their establishment, using military and economic means. Chomsky
has repeatedly emphasized that the overall framework of US foreign policy can be explained by the
domestic dominance of US business interests and a drive to secure the state capitalist system. Those
interests set the political agenda and the economic goals that aim primarily at US economic dominance.

(about imperialism)
I’ve been asked to talk about modern-day American imperialism. That’s a rather challenging task.
In fact, talking about American imperialism is rather like talking about triangular triangles. The
United States is the one country that exists, as far as I know, and ever has, that was founded as
an empire explicitly. According to the founding fathers, when the country was founded it was an
“infant empire.” That’s George Washington. Modern-day American imperialism is just a later phase
of a process that has continued from the very first moment without a break, going in a very steady
line. So, we are looking at one phase in a process that was initiated when the country was founded
and has never changed.

The model for the founding fathers that they borrowed from Britain was the Roman Empire. They
wanted to emulate it. I’ll talk about that a little. Even before the Revolution, these notions were
very much alive. Benjamin Franklin, 25 years before the Revolution, complained that the British
were imposing limits on the expansion of the colonies. He objected to this, borrowing from
Machiavelli. He admonished the British (I’m quoting him), “A prince that acquires new territories
and removes the natives to give his people room will be remembered as the father of the nation.”
And George Washington agreed. He wanted to be the father of the nation. His view was that “the
gradual extension of our settlement will as certainly cause the savage as the wolf to retire, both
being beasts of prey, though they differ in shape.” I’ll skip some contemporary analogs that you
can think of. Thomas Jefferson, the most forthcoming of the founding fathers, said, “We shall drive
them [the savages] -- We shall drive them with the beasts of the forests into the stony mountains,”
and the country will ultimately be “free of blot or mixture”—meaning red or black. It wasn’t quite
achieved, but that was the goal. Furthermore, Jefferson went on, “Our new nation will be the nest
from which America, north and south, is to be peopled,” displacing not only the red men here but
the Latin-speaking population to the south and anyone else who happened to be around.
There was a deterrent to those glorious aims, mainly Britain. Britain was the most powerful military
force in the world at the time, and it did prevent the steps that the founding fathers attempted to
take. In particular, it blocked the invasion of Canada. The first attempted invasion of Canada was
before the Revolution, and there were several others later, but it was always blocked by British
forces, which is why Canada exists. The United States did not actually recognize Canada’s existence
until after the First World War. Another goal that was blocked by British forces was Cuba. Again,
the founding fathers regarded the taking over of Cuba as essential to the survival of the infant
empire. But the British fleet was in the way, and they were too powerful, just as the Russians
blocked John F. Kennedy’s invasion. However, they understood that sooner or later it would come.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 7 of 19

The great grand strategist John Quincy Adams, the sort-of intellectual father of Manifest Destiny,
pointed out in the 1820s that we just have to wait. He said that Cuba will sooner or later fall into
our hands by the laws of political gravitation, just as an apple falls from a tree. What he meant is
that over time the United States would become more powerful, Britain would become weaker, and
the deterrent would be overcome, which in fact finally happened.
And we should not ignore these early events. They are very much related to current history. That’s
made very clear by scholarship on current affairs. A major scholarly work on the Bush Doctrine
(George W. Bush doctrine), the preemptive war doctrine, is by John Lewis Gaddis, the most
respected historian of the Cold War period. It’s at the roots of the Bush Doctrine. And he traces it
right back to John Quincy Adams, who is his hero—the great grand strategist. In particular, to
Andrew Jackson’s invasion of Florida, which conquered Florida from the Spanish. That was strongly
approved by then Secretary of State Adams in a famous state paper in which he advocated the
principle of preemptive war on the basis of the thesis that expansion is the path to security, as
Gaddis puts it. So if we want to be secure (after all, we want to defend ourselves), we have to
expand--at that time expand into Florida. We were being threatened by what was called runaway
slaves and lawless Indians, who were in the way. They were threatening us by their existence, by
barring our expansion. And as Gaddis points out, there’s a straight line from that to George Bush.
And now “expansion is the path to security” means we take over the world, we take over space and
take over the galaxy. There’s no limit to how much you have to expand to guarantee security, and
that’s been the principle from the beginning.
Well, it’s commonly argued that American imperialism began in 1898. That’s when the US
did finally succeed in conquering Cuba, what’s called in the history books “liberating” Cuba—namely
intervening in order to prevent Cuba from liberating itself from Spain, and turning it into a virtual
colony as it remained until 1959, setting off hysteria in the United States which hasn’t ended yet.
Also, conquering and taking over Hawaii, which was stolen by force and guile from its population.
Puerto Rico, another colony. Soon moving to the Philippines and liberating the Philippines. Also
liberating a couple of hundred thousand souls to heaven in the process. And again, the
reverberations of that extend right to the present: ample state terror, and the one corner of Asia
that hasn’t undergone high development—something we’re not supposed to notice.
But the belief that the imperial thrust started in 1898 is an example of what historians of
empire call “the salt water fallacy,” the belief that you have an empire if you cross salt
water. In fact, if the Mississippi River were as wide as the Irish Sea, the imperial thrust would have
started much earlier. But that’s an irrelevance. Expanding over settled territory is no different from
expanding over the waters. So, what happened in 1898 was just an extension of the process that
began when the infant empire, as it saw itself, was first formed, in its first moments. The extension
to beyond was… Again, a lot of this starts in New England, with New England merchants who were
very eager to take over the Pacific trade, and the fabulous markets of China, which were always in
their minds, which meant conquering the northwest so you can control the ports and so on, meant
kicking the British out and others out, and so on. It went on from right here. The goal, as William
Seward, who was Secretary of State in the 1860s, pointed out (a central figure in American
imperialism) was that we have to gain command of the empire of the seas. We conquer the
continent. We’re going to take it over. The Monroe Doctrine was a declaration that we’ll take it
over—everybody else keep out. And the process of doing so continued through the nineteenth
century and beyond until today. But now we have to have command of the seas. And that meant
when the time was ripe, 70 years later, when the apple started to fall from the tree, given relative
power, proceeding overseas to the overseas empire. But it’s basically no different than the earlier
steps. The leading philosophical imperialist, Brooks Adams, pointed out (this is 1885; we were just
on the verge of moving overseas extensively) that “all Asia must be reduced to our economic
system, the Pacific must be turned into an inland sea” (just like the Caribbean had been). And
“there’s no reason,” he said, “why the United States should not become a greater seat of wealth
and power than ever was England, Rome, or Constantinople.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 8 of 19

Well, again there was a deterrent. The European powers wanted a piece of the action in East Asia,
and Japan by then was becoming a formidable force. So it was necessary to explore more complex
modes of gaining command of turning the Pacific into an inland sea and going on. And that was
lucidly explained by Woodrow Wilson, who is one of the most brutal and vicious interventionists in
American history. The probable permanent destruction of Haiti is one of his many accomplishments.
Those of you who study international relations theory or read about it know that there is a notion
of Wilsonian idealism. The fact that that notion can exist is a very interesting commentary on our
intellectual culture and scholarly culture if you look at his actual actions. Fine words are easy
enough. But these are some of his fine words which he was smart enough not to put into print. He
just wrote them for himself. He said, “Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer
insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the
nations which are closed must be battered down … Concessions obtained by financiers must be
safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the
process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be
overlooked or left unused.”
http://current.com/1ne8a4c

Noam Chomsky - Having an Empire

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 9 of 19

Syed Hussein Alatas (September 1928 – January 2007) was a Malaysian academician, sociologist,
founder of social science organizations, and former politician. He was once Vice-Chancellor of the
University of Malaya in the 1980s. He wrote several books on corruption, multi-racialism, imperialism,
and intellectual captivity as part of the colonial, and post colonial, project, the most famous being The
Myth of the Lazy Native.

Imperialism is not confined to the political or economic aspects of the historical process. Rather, it is to
be considered as a cluster. A phenomenon such as imperialism is a cluster of different aspects of human
undertakings.
Imperialism in the political and historical sense of the word is the subjugation of one people by another
for the advantage of the dominant one. The traits of imperialism are the following: (1) Exploitation:
There is exploitation and control by the subjugating power over the people dominated. (2) There is a
form of tutelage. The people dominated are considered a kind of ward within a tutelage system. They are
taught certain things, they are asked to do certain things, and they are organized toward certain ends and
purposes laid out by the subjugating power. (3) Conformity: The subjugating dominant power expects
the dominated people to conform to certain aspects of their life, its organization, and its rules. (4) The
dominated people will play a secondary role in the setup. (5) The existence of intellectual rationalization,
which is an attempt to explain imperialism as a necessary stage in human progress and that the business
of the imperialist power is to civilize the people under subjugation. (6) Imperialist rulers: The subjugated
country is very often run by inferior talents. If we consider Malaysia and Singapore we will discover that
the British personnel who came here in the past were inferior talents, compared to what was available in
Britain. Even British sources have voiced this complaint. I remember a former civil servant, Thomson,
remarking that many of those who came from England were not the cream of British society. Those who
went to serve in the colonies were people who could not get jobs and people who could not make good
In England.
These are the six main traits of imperialism. In addition to political, social, and economic imperialism,
we are also subjected to intellectual imperialism. Intellectual imperialism is the domination of one people
by another in their world of thinking. Intellectual imperialism is usually an effect of actual direct
imperialism or is an effect of indirect domination arising from imperialism. The sociology of knowledge
studies the forms of knowing which appear at different periods in different societies. What I am
suggesting is that the political and economic structure of imperialism generated a parallel structure in the
way of thinking of the subjugated people. This then is the product of intellectual imperialism.
Let us discuss the first trait, exploitation. What is the form of exploitation in intellectual imperialism? In
political and economic imperialism, the mother country exploited the raw materials of the colonies. They
brought the raw materials back to the mother country, manufactured the product in the mother country,
and then distributed the products in the colonies. The colonies were regarded as sources of raw materials
as well as markets for the industrial products of ·the mother country. A clear example for us is rubber.
Rubber was grown in Malaya, latex was taken to England, tires were made in England, and then were
sold in Malaya. Intellectual imperialism also takes this form. Data is from this region, raw data on certain
topics are collected in this region, processed and manufactured in England in the form of books or
articles, and then sold here. On the whole, people of this region including their scholars were used mainly
as informants. We are continuously bombarded by foreign publications. I am not using the term “foreign”
in a judgmental way, but I am merely referring to the origin of things. Most of our own history was
written by scholars from abroad. They came here, gathered the raw intellectual materials, went back,
published their books, and exported the finished product back to the country of fieldwork.
On one of my trips to Kelantan, I met a leading traditional healer who used to supply some British writers
with information. He was not able to make the finished product, as he had not been taught to write, he
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 10 of 19

did not know how to use footnotes, and was not able to write essays. The colonial scholars took the data
and just published them without any acknowledgment or further analysis. This was then distributed.
There is a parallel here between economic exploitation and the exploitation of knowledge.

Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits, and Problems by Syed Hussein Alatas

Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, Volume 28 Number 1 (2000): 23-45
Institute of the Malay World and Civilization, National University of Malaysia
http://eprints.usm.my/8247/1/Intellectual_Imperialism.pdf
___________________________________________________________________________________
To learn more open the link below
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 11 of 19

11931797.pdf

Concepts of linguistic imperialism

Robert Phillipson (born in 1942, in England) is a graduate of Cambridge and Leeds Universities, UK,
and has a doctorate from the University of Amsterdam. He worked in Spain, Algeria, Yugoslavia, and
London before settling in Denmark. He is a Professor at Copenhagen Business School. His publications
include Learner language and language learning (1984), Linguistic imperialism (Oxford University
Press, 1992), Linguistic human rights: overcoming linguistic discrimination (1994); Language: a right
and a resource (1999); Rights to language: equity, power and education (2000); and English-only
Europe? Challenging language policy (2003).

Linguistic imperialism
http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/Linguistic-Imperialism.htm
The term linguistic imperialism originated in the 1930s as part of a critique of Basic English and was
reintroduced by linguist Robert Phillipson in his monograph Linguistic Imperialism (OUP, 1992). In that
study, Phillipson offered this definition of English linguistic imperialism:
“Linguistic imperialism assumes the active promotion of the language by the dominant class as an active
expression of power of the powerful over the powerless. Linguistic imperialism is a sub-type of Cultural
Imperialism. Linguistic Imperialism permeates all the other types of imperialism, since language is the
means used to mediate and express them.”
“The study of linguistic imperialism can help to clarify whether the winning of political independence
led to a linguistic liberation of Third World countries, and if not, why not. Are the former colonial
languages a useful bond with the international community and necessary for state formation and national
unity internally? Or are they a bridgehead for Western interests, permitting the continuation of a global
system of marginalization and exploitation? What is the relationship between linguistic dependence
(continued use of a European language in a former non-European colony) and economic dependence (the
export of raw materials and import of technology and know-how)?”
(Robert Phillipson, “Linguistic Imperialism.” Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by
Margie Berns. Elsevier, 2010)

Prof. Robert Phillipson talks about linguistic imperialism and ELT

---------
David Crystal was born in 1941, in Northern Ireland. He studied English at University College London
between 1959 and 1962. He lectured at Bangor University and the University of Reading. His many
academic interests include English language learning and teaching, clinical linguistics, forensic
linguistics, language death, “ludic linguistics” (Crystal's neologism for the study of language play),
English style, Shakespeare, indexing, and lexicography. He is the Patron of the International Association
of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL) and honorary vice-president of the Society for
Editors and Proofreaders (SfEP). He has also served as an important editor for Cambridge University
Press. Retired from full-time academia, he works as a writer, editor and consultant.

‘English is the global language.’ A headline of this kind must have appeared in a thousand newspapers
and magazines in recent years. ‘English Rules’ is an actual example, presenting to the world an
uncomplicated scenario suggesting the universality of the language’s spread and the likelihood of its
continuation.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 12 of 19

Of course English is a global language, they would say. You hear it on television spoken by politicians
from all over the world. Wherever you travel, you see English signs and advertisements. Whenever you
enter a hotel or restaurant in a foreign city, they will understand English, and there will be an English
menu. Indeed, if there is anything to wonder about at all, they might add, it is why such headlines should
still be newsworthy.
But English is news. The language continues to make news daily in many countries. And the headline
(English is the global language) isn’t stating the obvious. For what does it mean, exactly? Is it saying
that everyone in the world speaks English? This is certainly not true, as we shall see. Is it saying, then,
that every country in the world recognizes English as an official language? This is not true either. So
what does it mean to say that a language is a global language? Why is English the language which is
usually cited in this connection? How did the situation arise? And could it change? Or is it the case that,
once a language becomes a global language, it is there for ever?
These are fascinating questions to explore, whether your first language is English or not. If English is
your mother tongue, you may have mixed feelings about the way English is spreading around the world.
You may feel pride, that your language is the one which has been so successful; but your pride may be
tinged with concern when you realize that people in other countries may not want to use the language in
the same way that you do, and are changing it to suit themselves. We are all sensitive to the way other
people use (it is often said, abuse) ‘our’ language. Deeply held feelings of ownership begin to be
questioned. Indeed, if there is one predictable consequence of a language becoming a global language, it
is that nobody owns it anymore. Or rather, everyone who has learned it now owns it – ‘has a share in it’
might be more accurate – and has the right to use it in the way they want. This fact alone makes many
people feel uncomfortable, even vaguely resentful. ‘Look what the Americans have done to English’ is
a not uncommon comment found in the letter columns of the British press. But similar comments can be
heard in the USA when people encounter the sometimes striking variations in English which are
emerging all over the world.
And if English is not your mother tongue, you may still have mixed feelings about it. You may be strongly
motivated to learn it, because you know it will put you in touch with more people than any other language;
but at the same time you know it will take a great deal of effort to master it, and you may begrudge that
effort. Having made progress, you will feel pride in your achievement, and savor the communicative
power you have at your disposal, but may nonetheless feel that mother-tongue speakers of English have
an unfair advantage over you. And if you live in a country where the survival of your own language is
threatened by the success of English, you may feel envious, resentful, or angry. You may strongly object
to the naivety of the populist account, with its simplistic and often suggestively triumphalist tone.

What makes a global language?

Why a language becomes a global language has little to do with the number of people who speak it. It is
much more to do with who those speakers are. Latin became an international language throughout the
Roman Empire, but this was not because the Romans were more numerous than the peoples they
subjugated. They were simply more powerful. And later, when Roman military power declined, Latin
remained for a millennium as the international language of education, thanks to a different sort of power
– the ecclesiastical power of Roman Catholicism.
There is the closest links between language dominance and economic, technological, and cultural power,
too, and this relationship will become increasingly clear as the history of English is told. Without a strong
power-base, of whatever kind, no language can make progress as an international medium of
communication. Language has no independent existence, living in some sort of mystical space apart from
the people who speak it. Language exists only in the brains and mouths and ears and hands and eyes of
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 13 of 19

its users. When they succeed, on the international stage, their language succeeds. When they fail, their
language fails.
This point may seem obvious, but it needs to be made at the outset because over the years many popular
and misleading beliefs have grown up about why a language should become internationally successful.
It is quite common to hear people claim that a language is a paragon (a model of excellence or perfection
of a kind), on account of its perceived aesthetic qualities, clarity of expression, literary power, or religious
standing. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, and French are among those which at various times have been
lauded in such terms, and English is no exception. It is often suggested, for example, that there must be
something inherently beautiful or logical about the structure of English, in order to explain why it is now
so widely used. ‘It has less grammar than other languages, some have suggested. ‘English doesn’t have
a lot of endings on its words, nor do we have to remember the difference between masculine, feminine,
and neuter gender, so it must be easier to learn’. In 1848, a reviewer in the British periodical The
Athenaeum wrote: “In its easiness of grammatical construction, in its paucity of inflection, in its almost
total disregard of the distinctions of gender excepting those of
nature, in the simplicity and precision of its terminations and auxiliary verbs, not less than in the majesty,
vigor, and copiousness of its expression, our mother-tongue seems well adapted by organization to
become the language of the world.
Such arguments are misconceived. Latin was once a major international language, despite its many
inflectional endings and gender differences. French, too, has been such a language, despite its nouns
being masculine or feminine; and so – at different times and places – have the heavily inflected Greek,
Arabic, Spanish, and Russian. Ease of learning has nothing to do with it. Children of all cultures learn to
talk over more or less the same period of time, regardless of the differences in the grammar of their
languages. And as for the notion that English has ‘no grammar’ – a claim that is risible to anyone who
has ever had to learn it as a foreign language – the point can be dismissed by a glance at any of the large
twentieth-century reference grammars. The Comprehensive grammar of the English language, for
example, contains 1,800 pages and some 3,500 points requiring grammatical exposition.
This is not to deny that a language may have certain properties which make it internationally appealing.
For example, learners sometimes comment on the ‘familiarity’ of English vocabulary, deriving from the
way English has over the centuries borrowed thousands of new words from the languages with which it
has been in contact. The ‘welcome’ given to foreign vocabulary places English in contrast to some
languages (notably, French) which have tried to keep it out, and gives it a cosmopolitan character which
many see as an advantage for a global language. From a lexical point of view, English is in fact far more
a Romance than a Germanic language. And there have been comments made about other structural
aspects, too, such as the absence in English grammar of a system of coding social class differences, which
can make the language appear more ‘democratic’ to those who speak a language (e.g. Javanese) that does
express an intricate system of class relationships. But these supposed traits of appeal are incidental and
need to be weighed against linguistic features which would seem to be internationally much less desirable
– notably, in the case of English, the accumulated irregularities of its spelling system.
A language does not become a global language because of its intrinsic structural properties, because of
the size of its vocabulary, because it has been a vehicle of great literature in the past, or because it was
once associated with a great culture or religion. These are all factors that can motivate someone to learn
a language, of course, but none of them alone, or in combination, can ensure a language’s world spread.
Indeed, such factors cannot even guarantee survival as a living language – as is clear from the case of
Latin, learned today as a classical language by only a scholarly and religious few. Correspondingly,
inconvenient structural properties (such as awkward spelling) do not stop a language from achieving
international status either.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 14 of 19

A language has traditionally become an international language for one chief reason: the power of
its people – especially their political and military power. The explanation is the same throughout
history. Why did Greek become a language of international communication in the Middle East
over 2,000 years ago? Not because of the intellects of Plato and Aristotle: the answer lies in the
swords and spears wielded by the armies of Alexander the Great. Why did Latin become known
throughout Europe? Ask the legions of the Roman Empire. Why did Arabic come to be spoken so
widely across northern Africa and the Middle East? Follow the spread of Islam, carried along by
the force of the Moorish armies from the eighth century. Why did Spanish, Portuguese, and French
find their way into the Americas, Africa, and the Far East? Study the colonial policies of the
Renaissance kings and queens and the way these policies were ruthlessly implemented by armies
and navies all over the known world. The history of a global language can be traced through the
successful expeditions of its soldier/sailor speakers. And English has been no exception.
But international language dominance is not solely the result of military might. It may take a
militarily powerful nation to establish a language, but it takes an economically powerful one to
maintain and expand it. This has always been the case, but it became a particularly critical factor
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with economic developments beginning to operate on a
global scale, supported by the new communication technologies – telegraph, telephone, radio – and
fostering the emergence of massive multinational organizations. The growth of competitive industry
and business brought an explosion of international marketing and advertising. The power of the press
reached unprecedented levels, soon to be surpassed by the broadcasting media, with their ability to cross
national boundaries with electromagnetic ease. Technology, chiefly in the form of movies and records,
fuelled new mass entertainment industries which had a worldwide impact. The drive to make progress in
science and technology fostered an international intellectual and research environment which gave
scholarship and further education a high profile. Any language at the center of such an explosion of
international activity would suddenly have found itself with a global status. And English was apparently
‘in the right place at the right time’. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, Britain had become the
world’s leading industrial and trading country. By the end of the century, the population of the USA (then
approaching 100 million) was larger than that of any of the countries of western Europe, and its economy
was the most productive and the fastest growing in the world. British political imperialism had sent
English around the globe, during the nineteenth century, so that it was a language ‘on which the sun
never sets’. During the twentieth century, this world presence was maintained and promoted almost
single-handedly through the economic supremacy of the new American superpower. Economics replaced
politics as the chief driving force. And the language behind the US dollar was English.

(David Crystal, English as a Global Language, 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003)
http://www.wissenschaft-online.ch/sixcms/media.php/811/English_as_a_grobal_lang_excerpt.pdf

Statistics given by David Crystal (2003, English as a global language)

English is the language of international air control.
●
¾ of academic journals are first published in English.
●
85% of global international organizations use English as an official language

●
http://www.slideshare.net/Sleepin/linguistic-imperialism-5379494

David Crystal - Will English Always Be the Global Language?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 15 of 19

Cultural Imperialism: An American Tradition

by Julia Galeota

Travel almost anywhere in the world today and, whether you suffer from habitual Big Mac
cravings or cringe at the thought of missing the newest episode of MTV’s The Real World, your
American tastes can be satisfied practically everywhere. This proliferation of American products
across the globe is more than a mere accident. As a byproduct of globalization, it is part of a larger
trend in the conscious dissemination of American attitudes and values that is often referred to as 5
cultural imperialism. In his 1976 work Communication and Cultural Domination, Herbert Schiller
defines cultural imperialism as

the sum of the processes by which a society is brought into the modern world system, and
how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into 10
shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even to promote, the values and structures
of the dominant center of the system.

Thus, cultural imperialism involves much more than simple consumer goods; it involves the
dissemination of ostensibly American principles, such as freedom and democracy. Though this 15
process might sound appealing on the surface, it masks a frightening truth: many cultures around
the world are gradually disappearing due to the overwhelming influence of corporate and cultural
America.
The motivations behind American cultural imperialism parallel the justifications for U.S.
imperialism throughout history: the desire for access to foreign markets and the belief in the 20
superiority of American culture. Though the United States does boast the world’s largest, most
powerful economy, no business is completely satisfied with controlling only the American market;
American corporations want to control the other 95 percent of the world’s consumers as well. Many
industries are incredibly successful in that venture. According to the Guardian, American films
accounted for approximately 80 percent of global box office revenue in January 2003. And who 25
can forget good old Micky D’s? With over 30,000 restaurants in over one hundred countries, the
ubiquitous golden arches of McDonald’s are now, according to Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation,
“more widely recognized than the Christian cross.” Such American domination inevitably hurts
local markets, as the majority of foreign industries are unable to compete with the economic
strength of the U.S. industry. Because it serves American economic interests, corporations 30
conveniently ignore the detrimental impact of American control of foreign markets.
Corporations don’t harbor qualms about the detrimental effects of “Americanization” of foreign
cultures, as most corporations have ostensibly convinced themselves that American culture is
superior and therefore its influence is beneficial to other, “lesser” cultures. Unfortunately, this
American belief in the superiority of U.S. culture is anything but new; it is as old as the culture 35
itself. This attitude was manifest in the actions of settlers when they first arrived on this continent
and massacred or assimilated essentially the entire “savage” Native American population. This
attitude also reflects that of the late nineteenth-century age of imperialism, during which the
jingoists attempted to fulfill what they believed to be the divinely ordained “manifest destiny” of
American expansion. Jingoists strongly believe in the concept of social Darwinism: the stronger, 40
“superior” cultures will overtake the weaker, “inferior” cultures in a “survival of the fittest.” It is
this arrogant belief in the incomparability of American culture that characterizes many of our
economic and political strategies today.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 16 of 19

It is easy enough to convince Americans of the superiority of their culture, but how does one
convince the rest of the world of the superiority of American culture? The answer is simple: 45
marketing. Whether attempting to sell an item, a brand, or an entire culture, marketers have always
been able to successfully associate American products with modernity in the minds of consumers
worldwide. While corporations seem to simply sell Nike shoes or Gap jeans (both, ironically,
manufactured outside of the United States), they are also selling the image of America as the land
of “cool.” This indissoluble association causes consumers all over the globe to clamor ceaselessly 50
for the same American products.
Twenty years ago, in his essay “The Globalization of Markets,” Harvard business professor
Theodore Levitt declared, “The world’s needs and desires have been irrevocably homogenized.”
Levitt held that corporations that were willing to bend to local tastes and habits were inevitably
doomed to failure. He drew a distinction between weak multinational corporations that operate 55
differently in each country and strong global corporations that handle an entire world of business
with the same agenda.
In recent years, American corporations have developed an even more successful global strategy:
instead of advertising American conformity with blonde-haired, blue-eyed,
stereotypical Americans, they pitch diversity. These campaigns— such as McDonald’s new 60
international “I’m lovin’ it” campaign—work by drawing on the United State’s history as an
ethnically integrated nation composed of essentially every culture in the world. An early example
of this global marketing tactic was found in a Coca-Cola commercial from 1971 featuring children
from many different countries innocently singing, “I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect
harmony/I’d like to buy the world a Coke to keep it company.” This commercial illustrates an 65
attempt to portray U.S. goods as a product capable of transcending political, ethnic, religious,
social, and economic differences to unite the world (according to the Coca-Cola Company, we can
achieve world peace through consumerism).
More recently, Viacom’s MTV has successfully adapted this strategy by integrating many different
Americanized cultures into one unbelievably influential American network (with over 280 million 70
subscribers worldwide). According to a 1996 “New World Teen Study” conducted by DMB&B’s
BrainWaves division, of the 26,700 middle-class teens in forty-five countries surveyed, 85 percent
watch MTV every day. These teens absorb what MTV intends to show as a diverse mix of cultural
influences but it is really nothing more than manufactured stars singing in English to appeal to
American popular taste. 75
If the strength of these diverse “American” images is not powerful enough to move products,
American corporations also appropriate local cultures into their advertising abroad. Unlike Levitt’s
weak multinationals, these corporations don’t bend to local tastes; they merely insert indigenous
celebrities or trends to present the facade of a customized advertisement. MTV has spawned over
twenty networks specific to certain geographical areas such as Brazil and Japan. These specialized 80
networks further spread the association between America and modernity under the pretense of
catering to local tastes. Similarly, commercials in India in 2000 featured Bollywood stars Hrithik
Roshan promoting Coke and Shahrukh Khan promoting Pepsi (Sanjeev Srivastava, “Cola Row in
India.” BBC News Online). By using popular local icons in their advertisements, U.S. corporations
successfully associate what is fashionable in local cultures with what is fashionable in America. 85
America essentially samples the world’s cultures, repackages them with the American trademark
of materialism, and resells them to the world.
Critics of the theory of American cultural imperialism argue that foreign consumers don’t passively
absorb the images America bombards upon them. In fact, foreign consumers do play an active role
in the reciprocal relationship between buyer and seller. For example, according to Naomi Klein’s 90
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 17 of 19

No Logo, American cultural imperialism has inspired a “slow food movement” in Italy and a
demonstration involving the burning of chickens outside of the first Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet
in India. Though there have been countless other conspicuous and inconspicuous acts of resistance,
the intense, unrelenting barrage of American cultural influence continues ceaselessly.
Compounding the influence of commercial images are the media and information industries, which 95
present both explicit and implicit messages about the very real military and economic hegemony
of the United States. Ironically, the industry that claims to be the source for “fair and balanced”
information plays a large role in the propagation of American influence around the world. The
concentration of media ownership during the 1990s enabled both American and British media
organizations to gain control of the majority of the world’s news services. Satellites allow over 100
150 million households in approximately 212 countries and territories worldwide to subscribe to
CNN, a member of Time Warner, the world’s largest media conglomerate. In the words of British
sociologist Jeremy Tunstall, “When a government allows news importation, it is in effect importing
a piece of another country’s politics—which is true of no other import.” In addition to politics and
commercials, networks like CNN also present foreign countries with unabashed accounts of the 105
military and economic superiority of the United States.
The Internet acts as another vehicle for the worldwide propagation of American influence.
Interestingly, some commentators cite the new “information economy” as proof that American
cultural imperialism is in decline. They argue that the global accessibility of this decentralized
medium has decreased the relevance of the “core and periphery” theory of global influence. This 110
theory describes an inherent imbalance in the primarily outward flow of information and influence
from the stronger, more powerful “core” nations such as the United States. Additionally, such
critics argue, unlike consumers of other types of media, Internet users must actively seek out
information; users can consciously choose to avoid all messages of American culture. While these
arguments are valid, they ignore their converse: if one so desires, anyone can access a wealth of 115
information about American culture possibly unavailable through previous channels. Thus, the
Internet can dramatically increase exposure to American culture for those who desire it.
Fear of the cultural upheaval that could result from this exposure to new information has driven
governments in communist China and Cuba to strictly monitor and regulate their citizens’ access
to websites (these protectionist policies aren’t totally effective, however, because they are difficult 120
to implement and maintain). Paradoxically, limiting access to the Internet nearly ensures that
countries will remain largely the recipients, rather than the contributors, of information on the
Internet.
Not all social critics see the Americanization of the world as a negative phenomenon. Proponents
of cultural imperialism, such as David Rothkopf, a former senior official in Clinton’s Department 125
of Commerce, argue that American cultural imperialism is in the interest not only of the United
States but also of the world at large. Rothkopf cites Samuel Huntington’s theory from The Clash
of Civilizations and the Beginning of the World Order that, the greater the cultural disparities in
the world, the more likely it is that conflict will occur. Rothkopf argues that the removal of cultural
barriers through U.S. cultural imperialism will promote a more stable world, one in which 130
American culture reigns supreme as “the most just, the most tolerant, the most willing to constantly
reassess and improve itself, and the best model for the future.” Rothkopf is correct in one sense:
Americans are on the way to establishing a global society with minimal cultural barriers. However,
one must question whether this projected society is truly beneficial for all involved. Is it worth
sacrificing countless indigenous cultures for the unlikely promise of a world without conflict? 135
Around the world, the answer is an overwhelming “No!” Disregarding the fact that a world of
homogenized culture would not necessarily guarantee a world without conflict, the complex fabric
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 18 of 19

of diverse cultures around the world is a fundamental and indispensable basis of humanity.
Throughout the course of human existence, millions have died to preserve their indigenous culture.
It is a fundamental right of humanity to be allowed to preserve the mental, physical, intellectual, 140
and creative aspects of one’s society. A single “global culture” would be nothing more than a
shallow, artificial “culture” of materialism reliant on technology. Thankfully, it would be nearly
impossible to create one bland culture in a world of over six billion people. And nor should we
want to. Contrary to Rothkopf’s (and George W. Bush’s) belief that “Good and evil, better and
worse coexist in this world,” there are no such absolutes in this world. The United States should 145
not be able to relentlessly force other nations to accept its definition of what is “good” “just” or
even “modern.”
Fortunately, many victims of American cultural imperialism aren’t blind to the subversion of their
cultures. Unfortunately, these nations are often too weak to fight the strength of the United States
and subsequently to preserve their native cultures. Some countries—such as France, China, Cuba, 150
Canada, and Iran—have attempted to quell America’s cultural influence by limiting or prohibiting
access to American cultural programming through satellites and the Internet. However, according
to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is a basic right of all people to “seek, receive,
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Governments
shouldn’t have to restrict their citizens’ access to information in order to preserve their native 155
cultures. We as a world must find ways to defend local cultures in a manner that does not
compromise the rights of indigenous people.
The prevalent proposed solutions to the problem of American cultural imperialism are a mix of
defense and compromise measures on behalf of the endangered cultures. In The Lexus and the
Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman advocates the use of protective legislation such as zoning laws and 160
protected area laws, as well as the appointment of politicians with cultural integrity, such as those
in agricultural, culturally pure Southern France. However, many other nations have no voice in the
nomination of their leadership, so those countries need a middle-class elite committed to social
activism. If it is utterly impossible to maintain the cultural purity of a country through legislation,
Friedman suggests the country attempt to “glocalize,” that is: 165

to absorb influences that naturally fit into and can enrich [a] culture, to resist those
things that are truly alien and to compartmentalize those things that, while different,
can nevertheless be enjoyed and celebrated as different.
170
These types of protective filters should help to maintain the integrity of a culture in the face of
cultural imperialism. In Jihad vs. McWorld, Benjamin Barber calls for the resuscitation of
nongovernmental, noncapitalist spaces— to the “civic spaces”—such as village greens, places of
religious worship, or community schools. It is also equally important to focus on the education of
youth in their native values and traditions. Teens especially need a counterbalance image of 175
American consumerism they absorb from the media. Even if individuals or countries consciously
choose to become “Americanized” or “modernized,” their choice should be made freely and
independently of the coercion and influence of American cultural imperialism.
The responsibility for preserving cultures shouldn’t fall entirely on those at risk. The United States
must also recognize that what is good for its economy isn’t necessarily good for the world at large.
We must learn to put people before profits. The corporate and political leaders of the United States
would be well advised to heed these words of Gandhi:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Imperialism
Reading # 1
CTT 1 - Page 19 of 19

I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I

want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I
refuse to be blown off my feet by any.

The United States must acknowledge that no one culture can or should reign supreme, for the death
of diverse cultures can only further harm future generations.
Julia Galeota of McLean, Virginia, is seventeen years old. This essay placed first in the thirteen-to-seventeen-year-old
age category of the 2004 Humanist Essay Contest for Young Women and Men of North America.

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/essay3mayjune04.pdf