Well, absolutely something.
Joel Waldfogel's recent piece in Slate suggests that Christopher Columbus is indeed not the villain he's made it out to be, pointing to the results of a Dartmouth College study on the economic benefits of European rule in a handful of Pacific islands. Waldfogel concludes with the cute observation that
There is no disputing that thousands died in the wake of European explorers' discovery of the New World. That's bad. But we can still give a small cheer for Columbus, because European colonization brought riches in its wake."
One of the major historical debates of our times remains the struggle over the legacy of European imperialism. It retains important implications for most surviving schools of political thought, from neoconservative and neoliberal to unreconstructed socialist.
In recent years, empire has been salvaged from the maws of its foes, dusted off and strutted about in a nice shiny suit. Witness the success and approval afforded to the work of Harvard historian / imperial apologist Niall Ferguson, or to the writings of Newsweek superman (and secretary of state aspirant) Fareed Zakaria.
Debate on empire is certainly worthwhile, and, for that matter, a deep breath of fresh air from the repetitive righteousness of some of its third world nationalist and "post-colonial" critics. Yet the benign view of empire is increasingly strident in its rejection of empire's nay-sayers, often effacing the lived experience of millions with the mechanics and figures of economics.
Is it possible to have any sincere discussion about empire without accepting at first that European imperialism did far more harm than good?
