The Archbishop of Canterbury is the most recent public figure to decry American “imperialism” around the world. The London Times reports (“US is‘worst’ imperialist: archbishop”) on his interview on the topic. Interestingly he compares American foreign policy with British imperial policy and makes the claim that the United States is far “worse” than Britain was during its imperial heyday.

Leaving aside the politics or the political implications it seems really problematic to use a historical comparison to make a qualitative judgment. It’s one thing to argue that United States policies are or are not imperialist based upon similarities to historical precedents (like British policies that were at their time uncompromisingly imperialist), but it’s quite another to say that that makes one country “better” or “worse.”

Particularly strange (I think) is his comparison between current United States activities (Iraq, Afghanistan although he never mentions them specifically) and British rule in India.

Williams suggested American leadership had broken down: “We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working.”

He contrasted it unfavourably with how the British Empire governed India. “It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that’s what the British Empire did — in India, for example.

I’m not a specialist in the history of British India but it strikes me that there are several huge problems with his shorthand assessment of its history. For one thing I find it hard to believe that the net input of “energy and resources” the British put into India for its benefit over several centuries would be more than the wealth and resources that they extracted from it (not to mention “energy,” labor, and lives). I also cringe at the word “normalising” because it suggests that the British / European way of governing or of economic development is the only correct path for a nation. Related to this is the fact that the British imperial administration of India was hardly democratic at the time.

Finally, on the general point of American and British imperialisms, the Archbishop’s comparison fails to take into account the continuity between the British Empire and the American “empire” (if there is such a thing). In some senses the United States shares common culture and history with Britain. It might be that “imperial” activities of the United States are continuations of some British policies and the former global role of Britain rather than something radically new and different.