The American evolutionary failure rests on the fact that The United States had an entire Continent to the South, and……………………………………………………………
This is an expansion of the first half of the original post: “Panama Canal; U.S. Evolutionary; China’s Hyena Strategy“, namely: “U.S. Evolutionary Failure” firstly in the Americas. Something which, perhaps, was a necessity in the beginning due to old ties and bounds to the Old World. BUT something which, even when US became sovereign and independent, they simply chose to perpetuate too. Of course the original post implicitly connotes the Monroe Doctrine (without explicitly taking it into account, but only addressing an evolutionary concept); which in this one forms the core element of the text (until the policy level), as the intellectual framework, coming from USA themselves, against which the said failure is measured / judged / stated, etc. And which provides the concrete proof (not only a concept) that transforms it into a Historical Failure (from Evolutionary to Historical).
1. U.S.A Evolutionary Failure
The American evolutionary failure rests on the fact that The United States had an entire Continent to the South, and instead of forging cooperative structures and a relatively fair development with their immediate surrounding (environment), as evolutionarily species do so when they are inserted in a new system / ecosystem / environment, they simply continued the Old World’s colonial practices and policies of human & racial degradation, cultural humiliation and impoverishment upon the Global South. And the Monroe Doctrine.
The United States: the European immigrants in the new world were never part of a new world. The entire enterprise and activities of Western nations in the “New World”, from the Spaniards to the British, were nothing new, but plainly the continuation of the old world’s practices, on a new land (scenario); not a New World. The “white man” (as it became known from this period) did not find a “new land” for starting a new life or creating a diverse or new way of living according to the local environment & circumstances. For this would have implied an adaptation to the means and a relative balance between the local environment (including peoples) and themselves. Balance, of course, does not mean an “Eden” sort of common imagination (more a justification).
It would certainly be stupid to conceive a primeval perfect harmony of idyllic happiness and mutual cooperation (the Europeans of the colonial era did not arrive in the Americas in the same way as any other previous immigrants). But most certainly an original clash, which does not necessarily entail the extermination of one or the other (or them or us); but which naturally leads to a relative balance between the natives and the groups of immigrants; balance & equilibrium which would guarantee the survival and development of all, for there were enough resources in the region for the various peoples. And conceivably, in the long run (shorter than in our current state, for sure), a gradual integration and cooperation among the various groups; as how systems and ecosystems tend to seek an equilibrium (which, in our present state, is suppressed, because of the accumulation of material wealth / power). To conceive a ridiculous ideal first encounter between two different worlds would be very much the same as how the historical facts developed (and developing still); for such nonexistent an ideal is often a mental craft which coherently articulates a matched justification for the deeds (in a binary mind): “or a nonexistent ideal or destruction”, argument which usually tends to increase any previous minor internal conflict or clash; while at the same time provides a psychological tool for taming any “consciousness” problem. Ofttimes blended with that a-posteriori dogmatic appropriation of “human nature”: their deeds were/are simply “human nature”. As if nature itself, after some few millions or years, had chosen one particular sort of people to reveal “human nature”.
- Possible impossibility
But somehow, conceivably, it was impossible to have a real New World by then, for Europe FUNDAMENTALLY has always been poor in resources and such natural and inherent poverty creates certain needs and most of all deeds. And so European enterprises, from government-funded ones as the Portuguese and the Spaniard, to semi-private and private ones as the Dutch and the British, were originally tied to the old world. And under such values which become principles and which ultimately impel the will and create tendencies and actions (until policy levels) was impossible to even conceive a natural approach to any “new land” or new world” or Utopian myth they could have encountered.
Perhaps that modern, binary, widely spread idea and argument which deposits all sorts of evil in poverty (disregarding the destruction of lifestyles; way of living and all the intangible), originates from the projection of the European roots of the Modern World; something Mark Davis remarkably states it as: “The Creation of the Third World”. Poverty in our modern world is, indeed, engineered / fabricated.
BUT……MONROE
3 BUTS a triad of Dialectical trail
1. BUT Already by 1823, both the United States as well as Latin American newly independent Nations feared the looming threat of a reactionary movement in Europe emerging from that “Concept of Europe”; the many European interventions in the Americas; Russia’s claim of Alaska and the Pacific, and the always suspicious British “helping offer” against any European intervention. What appears to have inspired a “beautiful speech” about some “American Continent” vision, with a good load of solidarity, good will and harmonious “intentions” in the American continent:
- The American Continent, by the free and independence condition which until today has assumed and attained are hence not to be considered as subject for future colonisation by any European power ………………
(U.S. President James Monroe)
It went as far as to highlight things that nowadays, after two centuries , not only touches the risible; but they has only incriminated their entire history by their own words and deeds:
- Any attempt to oppress their [Latin American Countries] independence will be seen as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States ………………………(James Monroe)
(At this initial stage, some call it already the Monroe Doctrine; some others even consider it foreign policy; and some see it as a speech which would indeed develop into a doctrine. For the USA did not have at this stage an army or a navy which could deter any European power)
Speech which later became a Doctrine; a Doctrine which would deform and ultimately became exactly the monster it was supposed to fight; and a worse one too, for as time passes the degenerative germ keeps evolving into subsequent worse manifestations: just as nature and logic ordain. And without any power to correct any impulse, intention or direction, as it is simply slave of its own foundational impulse. Somehow as if the “free world” was inevitably bound to simply fall into the same vicious cycle as any other old, degenerated entities (but at a younger time). As if there had been a choice; no self-determination or perhaps is that belief in “human nature” ………….
How so fascinating that all these natural, evolutionary things are simply an unstoppable and inevitable force impelled by (sometimes chosen) principles, which would determine tendencies, and which by sheer natural force of becoming, they would simply materialise inescapable results, products (ultimately policies) regardless of any rationalisation, narratives, values or conceptual constructs aimed at embellishing it and making it ideal. Evolutionary concatenations happen and become because they must obey a previous natural order of things.
2. BUT nevertheless, the Monroe’s Speech had, indeed, some concrete actions of good will and harmony with the immediate environment where life was taking place and evolving at that time, for Mr Quincy Adams instructed US diplomats in Latin America to promote “good political and commercial relationships” with the newly independent Latin American Nations. It was received with a great deal of support by the South American nations, in their virile struggle against Spanish claims.
And so it appears that despite some ironies and backdrops such as the Falkland Islands, where USA did not oppose Britain (neither did they even mention any of Monroe’s word); the annexation of Texas in 1845, etc., the South American countries of the first half of the 19th century did not perceive the US as a hostile force, but somehow as a force that could provide them some protection. Mexico was aided against the French Intervention in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine. A bit late of a help but nevertheless some help: providing them with some arms and as many believe, the strong statement of the Secretary of State William Seward against “a French sponsored monarchy in its southern border” gave the final push to the French troops back to France. And so, the Dominican Republic against the Spanish attempt of annexation in 1861, and even Venezuela received some late support from the USA in their territorial disputes with England
3. BUT things evolve gradually, and as Aristotle said: once you put something on the thing, from there a series of derivations follow …………… Principles, axioms and foundational forces are rarely contradicted. And in the realms of ideas, conceptions and values, it is not for all to be able to build his/her own values, concepts; and to live according to them. It requires independence
- Today the USA is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines …………. (Richard Olmey, 1895)
(What was known as the Olmey’s Corollary to the Monroe doctrine)
And so it transpires that, by the implicit intentions in the concatenation of events between 1846 (when some thought that the Monroe Doctrine was first publicly announced as a Doctrine in conjunction with the “Destine Manifest”) and the Olney Corollary, the dominant tendency of the US in the Americas, as a country, was growing: acquiring its dominant features; showing the development of those internal values and principles which were leading it, by default, to a gradual distancing from its original good will and solidarity with the continent. The adolescent, so to say, of the one we know nowadays, who by the time of the Roosevelt Corollary between 1901 -1904 would reach its adulthood . And it would show that distinctive career-long talent, by which we know it today, around the time of Woodrow Wilson and its “Collective Security” system.
It must be said at this point that The Carranza Doctrine (a reaction to U.S. early interventions), is indeed a much more genuine call for freedom, based upon sovereignty and not intervention in the others. But perhaps “human nature” has only been revealed to and by the white man: “if we did not do it someone else would have done it to us; history………”, as if all living humans in this planet wanted and want to be like them. The consolation of the fool and the imbecile, who is insecure about his/her own deeds in this world, and so, a consoling egocentric wishful thought tells him/her self that anyone in his/her position would do the same, because he/she foolishly thinks to be ahead of the rest, at the top, (by virtue of murder and degradation). Such existential delusion of greatness consumes that miserable soul, becoming then an existential need in this life: the need to believe and assert that he/she is superior. Unconsciously and in reality, an affirmation of murder, crime and degradation as superior values; something which the individual cannot consciously reach or grasp; but by implication, affirming and supporting the origin and cause of those values.
At this juncture of time & development, it could be rightfully said that the inversion of values and intentions from the original Monroe speech is completed. A complete inversion; a full transformation into the danger and the monster against which they were supposedly fighting. A complete violation of their own doctrine.
Whatever came thereafter, whether it would be the “Good Neighbor policy” or the “Office of the Inter-American Affairs (only to counter German and Italian influences): they were only specimens and not meant to survive, overwhelmed by an already formed and crystalised Being; for, and only as to take it a landmark, the United States attendance to the Berlin Conference in 1884, combined with the U.S tendencies of the late 19th century, reveal the intention and wish of becoming a Power in the Old World’s archetype of power, which historically make the US only a projection of Europe and the Old World, never a “New Nation” with a “New Global projection”; only a variety of the the Old Model. But as any other copy and projection, consciously trying to acquire all the accoutrements which must form part of the model. In a similar, although not the same, manner, modern Japan following the “modern” nations thought that to be part of a modern nation they had to “colonise” (as part of the manual), and so they embarked on a mission to colonise their fellow Asian co-religionaries. But even though many Asian nations looked up to Japan after the Japanese victory over Russia in 1904, they realised that the Japanese as masters were worse than the original European colonial powers. The Japanese even came to think that that was the reason why Europeans had to be cruel with Asia, for Asians were inferior, unmodernised, uncivilised peoples. And so, we see all those recently independent, recently modernising powers (although supposedly ancient cultures) in their bitter struggles trying to catch up with the “modern West”: trying to acquire such features of Western-model-superpower. The post-war US is only the vivid historical example of that: of course, if there is only one human nature, there must only be one way of becoming a world power, for there is only one “world history”……….. EXACTLY, the United States entire intellectual formation was founded and nourished on the European Enlightenment apparatus of knowledge: fabricated under colonial assumptions of the entire world. The United States of America education, world knowledge and even educational institutions were based on those providential narrow European Colonial principles. The reason why, the US could have never, ever, had been a “New World”. It was intellectually and mentally dependent on and tied to the Old world’s mental scheme. As I stated above:
.”……… in the realm of ideas, conceptions and values is not for all to be able to build his/hers own values, concepts; and to live according to them. It requires independence………..”
And
……………………an unstoppable and inevitable force impelled by (sometimes chosen) principles, which would determine tendencies, and which by sheer natural force of becoming they would simply materialise inescapable results, products (ultimately policies)……………………
The American evolutionary failure is verified in the fact that even after the Treaty of Paris 1898, when the United States had an entire Continent to the South at their disposal, instead of forging cooperative structures and a relatively fair development with a culture closer to theirs (so as to create a strong block which they could have led); they simply, and perhaps without free choice, continued the same Old World’s Colonial practices of human and racial degradation; impoverishing the South through wars, political interference and unfavorable trading policies.
So, now that the USA stares at the south of their border, which they in reality (without that ridiculous veil of free values) see nothing but the failures of their own historical immaturity; the failure of their own practices and policies on their own continent:
- the fault of having impoverished and having kept the rest of its own continent and neighbors underdeveloped (where there is no infrastructure for U.S.A interests now), divided; bi-polarised; weary of US treatment; left at the expenses of any bribing policy and propaganda from whom might want to exploit such internal conflicts and division, and ultimately turning them against the U.S.A As the ultimate aim of China has always been The U.S.A
- And the fault of having entered into an economic dependency with a culture so alien to them; which they still barely understand, but merely sees it through the projection of their own cultural stereotypes and ideological ghosts; believing in Orientalised theories and business profit figures.
From evolutionary failure they have become a historical one too. The problem lies not only with the short historical and intellectual tradition, but also with the narrow vision that an aristocracy of money and a business-driven “culture” provides. And all of it reaches a boiling point when fueled by a blinding stupor of “superiority”.
“Superstition” has it that the last president of The United States was going to be an Afro-American person. And if memory serves, it seems that an Afro-American president once declared that:
“the era of the Monroe Doctrine is finished”.
(He was referring, of course, at the second phase of the Monroe doctrine; in its inverted form, from the original)
Perhaps, if superstition had it well, what we are witnessing is the opening of a new cycle, but erroneously driven under the very, very, same old rancid principles. Nothing has changed, as perhaps nothing could change; and the time seems to be up. There was no time to dwell on the past. The opportunity of change was given and it was there, but it was not even looked upon; not contemplated, neither considered, as power and superiority are rigid and blinding characteristics, much akin to death: rigid and with eyes shut. But there is no time now. There is no time. The opportunity seems to have already gone. Only time for verdicts and consequences.
Well, talking about Evolutiony topics, perhaps the words of Mao (who Kissinger publicly praised so high) bring some light to the matter:
“America is changing from monkey to man, not quite man yet, the tail is still there… but it’s no longer a chimpanzee and its tail is not very long…………. America should start changing……………….”
(Mao’s comment to his top diplomats after the very first U.S. visit to China in 1971; the famous “secret visit” of Kissinger, before Nixon’s first official visit to China. The opening of Sino-U.S relations. Kissinger met with Zhou Enlai, July 1971.). (Foreign Ministry 1990off, vol 2, p 41)
The American Evolutionary failure, by virtue of their own policies and intentions, can certainly be verified stated and declared as an Historical failure, for
There has never been a New World. FAILED
Hado 
Leave a comment