Yanqui Imperialistas, Wot?
Archbishop of Canterbury thinks we’re worse than the Brits.
Rowan Williams claimed that America’s attempt to intervene overseas by “clearing the decks” with a “quick burst of violent action” had led to “the worst of all worlds”.
In a wide-ranging interview with a British Muslim magazine, the Anglican leader linked criticism of the United States to one of his most pessimistic declarations about the state of western civilisation.
He said the crisis was caused not just by America’s actions but also by its misguided sense of its own mission. He poured scorn on the “chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity”.
Sounds like the A of C doesn’t know his history, or his American or imperial British nation myths for that matter. I have two words for him. Afghanistan and Iraq. OK, three. India. Make that four. Partition. No, five. South Africa. Oh yeah, and America. Don’t forget Britain’s disastrous imperialistic mishandling of its American colonies. I’ll give him one point, though. The suppression of the Indian Mutiny of 1857 sure got the job done. For a while. May want to throw in World Wars I and II. Who let those Krauts get out of hand, anyway?
In the interview in Emel, a Muslim lifestyle magazine, Williams makes only mild criticisms of the Islamic world. He said the Muslim world must acknowledge that its “political solutions were not the most impressive”.
Positively medieval, I’d say.
The Church of Henry’s Convenience* has come a long way since it was the moral foundation of empire and efforts to civilize the heathen.
* Disclosure: Non-practicing Anglican. The One True Church was founded because it was determined by our monarch at the time, Henry VIII, that no one man can claim to speak for God; that Englishmen should not be subject to the whim of foreign potentates; that they should be able to worship in English, just as Jesus did, and talk to God directly, without intermediaries, just as they might respectfully address the local lord should he deign to buy the commoners a round at the pub on holidays or while hunting; that the Roman church had more English real estate and assorted goods than it could possibly have any use for; and also, that he needed a new wife. At least, that’s how I understand it. How we got from that sensible program of principles that became part of the basis for the American Revolution, to this Kumbayah chorus, I don’t know.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:40 am on Sunday, November 25, 2007
20 Responses to “Yanqui Imperialistas, Wot?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Feh. The Archbishop of Dingleberries* is practicing his “bend over and spread ‘em” position. I’m sure that his Third World “betters” really appreciate his flexibility.
============
*: Snark shamelessly stolen from Hot AIr!
November 25th, 2007 at 9:51 am
A high position within the hierarchy of a church doesn’t necessarily lend credibility and substance to an individual’s political and geopolitical observations.
(While the Pope is intent on demonstrating that the Catholic Church is the only true (Christian) church and other Christian faiths poor substitutes, interlopers and (possibly) even frauds.)
The A of C and others high (and low) in the Catholic hierarchy would be better off sticking to their area of expertise, the soul thing.
Take away the ego and individual human beings’ defensive posturing of being “better” or “righter” than their fellow human beings, and the “war thing” might follow suit.
(only I won’t hold my breath)
(this Sunday sermon brought to you by Best Buy)
November 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Colin Powell pretty much rebutted — nay, refuted — this contention when confronted by the previous Archbishop of Canterbury.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am
“Our modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul.”
The “something” is called Islamism., Mr. Bean.
Wait, that’s Rowan Atkinson
November 25th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I’m pretty pessimistic about the state of western civilization, too. Mainly because blind pacifism seems to be the order of the day, and people like Rowan Williams have taken over formerly great institutions like the Church of England.
November 25th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
‘Rowan Williams claimed that America’s attempt to intervene overseas by “clearing the decks” with a “quick burst of violent action” had led to “the worst of all worlds”.’
Worse than the mess you Euros created in 1914-18, & 1939-45?
Doubt it.
Anyway, we didn’t create this problem (unlike the two European wars in the 20th century, which were 100% the creation of the self-righteous Euros), we’re just dealing with it. We didn’t invade Kuwait in 1990, the Iraqis did that, and we didn’t start sending terrorists into other countries to murder innocent people, which both the Iraqis and Afghanis WERE doing. It was those two things that have created the current situation, not some imaginary American Imperialism.
Got news for you padre, your Muslim pals don’t get to murder Americans EVER, and if they do, we’re going to kick their asses. And when we kick their asses it isn’t imperialism, it’s self-defense. Learn to deal with it, dickhead.
BTW, I thought Jules’ brief history of the C of E was hilarious. Nice work, Jules. Gotta be the only religious sect in history that was created so a king could dump his wife.
November 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Self-righteous prick.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I concur with salty dog.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
VDH on Rowan
Link
November 25th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Hey, Archy of Canterbury! Get your face back into the bowl of shit your feeding from and mind your manners before your muslim overlords decide to use you for the next Youtube throat cutting video.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
You tell him, Grimmy my friend.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:19 am
Limpwristed, beardy weirdy. He is not my Archbishop!!!
November 26th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Succinct, honest, to the point…
well done salty!
Of course I’m also partial to Dave S’s comment for its unrestrained, yet historically accurate and measured tone.
A tie!
November 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Unfortunately, for every standup Brit like Theo, there’s two worthless, leftoid, America-hating clowns like the Archbishop.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
You know, leftists like to argue that great nations only became successful because of their vices and not their virtues. This is a great line because when someone like our Mad Monk tells us the US is the “cancer of the human race” he gets two lots of people agreeing with him. The first lot are the western nihilists who hate any western success. The second lot are the western chauvinists, who by virtue of the fact that their bit of the west isn’t in the frame are happy to agree. Even the ones who are in the frame get in on the nihilist act by pointing out that the calculation is flawed - another part of the west really is more cancerous than their bit.
The beauty of this argument is thus apparent. The left don’t need to argue that they think vice created empires and success, they can always quote some right thinking person and say even the right wing agrees.
I’m of the position outlined in Ben Hur. “Where there is great power there will be great misdeeds”.
Faced with a mad monk we can go down one of two routes.
1. That US virtue outweighs its failures. We can point out that whilst in Darfur he felt more need to criticise Guantanamo than the 200,000+ dead in Sudan. That the oppression of Christians in that country didn’t warrant any comment. That whilst he proselytizes, the US acts.
2. That US is built on vice but others are worse. ie we agree with his central thesis but disagree on who has the most vice.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
We seem to have lost my last lines.
Only the first argument will defeat will defeat the left in the long term. The second will empower the nihilists.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Yeah, well, I’ll keep that in mind if ever I start caring what the ArchDruid thinks.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Long term hard drug use does this to people.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
There are things about contemporary Western culture i do not like. However, these would not be improved by kowtowing to a bunch of Medieval savages. Our Archdruid needs to consider what the alternative is to trying to midwife the reform of the dysfunctional Arab political culture in order to suppress the jihadist terrorism over the long term. To be blunt it is whacking the Muslims every time some of them go on a rampage. The Al Qaeda types and their developmentally retarded supporters are gleeful about “asymmetric warfare” waged against us. We could get really asymmetric on their asses, and that’s before we used the nukes. They murder thousands to terrorize the rest. How many do they think we could kill if we wanted to follow their strategy of killing in order to terrify the rest? We could out terrorize them withour even trying. One reason I have supported the Bush strategy is to avoid such mass retaliation to the jihadists. But that is the likely alternative if we fail in Iraq. The Archdruid should realize we could get a LOT more violent. If the jihadists push us hard enough we will. You ain’t seen nuttin yet; ask the Japanese.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
[...] point of PC thought laws. My only question is whether Rowan should be prosecuted. Because I found this really thoughtless … and [...]