The Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript

Dinesh D'Souza's Defense of Colonialism

Thursday, May 9, at 1 p.m. U.S. Eastern time

Is colonialism's bad reputation undeserved? Did colonialism help the nations that were colonies?

In an essay in the new issue of The Chronicle Review, Dinesh D'Souza argues that colonialism has unfairly gotten a bad name in recent decades. Much of the modern analysis of colonialism comes from scholars in anticolonial or postcolonial studies, and Mr. D'Souza takes issue with much of their analysis and their "irrational prejudice" against colonialism. Specifically, he argues that there is nothing uniquely Western about colonialism, that the West did not become wealthy because of colonialism, and that the descendants of colonialism "are better off than they would be if colonialism had never happened" -- even if the colonial powers were not seeking such betterment. Citing himself, as a native of India, as an example, he writes: "Virtually everything that I am ... [is] the product of a worldview that was brought to India by colonialism. I am a writer, and I write in English. ... My understanding of technology, which allows me, like so many Indians, to function successfully in the modern world, was largely the product of a Western education that came to India as a result of the British. So also my beliefs in freedom of expression, in self-government, in equality of rights under the law, and in the universal principle of human dignity -- they are all products of Western civilization."

» Two Cheers for Colonialism (5/10/2002)

Dinesh D'Souza is a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author, most recently, of What's So Great About America. He is also the author of Illiberal Education, The End of Racism, and The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno Affluence. From 1987 to 1988, Mr. D'Souza was senior domestic policy analyst for President Ronald Reagan. He will respond to questions and comments about his essay on Thursday, May 9, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time. Advance questions are encouraged and may be posted now.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Scott Jaschik (Moderator):
Good afternoon. I'm Scott Jaschik, the editor of The Chronicle, and our guest today is Dinesh D'Souza, whose piece in this week's issue has generated many questions from our readers. Thanks for joining us today, Dinesh.

Dinesh D'Souza:
I am pleased to be part of this discussion. Colonialism, like slavery, is a topic on which there is too little rational discussion. The basic assumption is that since colonialism and slavery were forms of oppression -- which I don�t deny -- therefore they have left the descendants of those institutions worse off. This assumption provides the main support for the idea of reparations. But it is a false assumption. Jesse Jackson�s ancestors were worse off as a result of slavery, but Jesse Jackson is vastly better off living in America than he would be if he were living in, say, Ghana or Ethiopia. Similarly my ancestors were worse off as a result of colonialism, but I am better off. Whether India, as a country, is better off is a more debatable proposition. Still, on balance, I am prepared to argue that India is in a stronger, healthier position for being Westernized through colonial influence than she would have been had colonialism never occurred.

Question from Peter Chibs, University of Cincinnati:
You never lived under colonialism in India. While researching your topic, did you try to speak to people with first-hand knowledge of the experience of colonialism or did you rely completely upon written reports? Also, how much of your thesis is based on the Indian experience, as opposed to the rest of the formerly colonized world?

Dinesh D'Souza:
Over the years I have spoken to lots of Indians who lived under colonialism. I have also discussed the issue with many Third World intellectuals who have thought and written about the subject. A few years ago, for instance, I debated the African Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka at the World Economic Forum on �What�s So Great About Western Civilization?� Since all four of my grandparents grew up under colonialism I have also had many conversations with them about what it was like. So my argument is based both on the written literature as well as on people�s actual experience. To answer the second question, I focus on India (which I know the most about) but believe that my thesis holds for other countries as well. Of course there may be individual exceptions, but by and large I think the regions of the world that were colonized by the West are much better off than those that were not.

Question from Deborah Bochner Kennel, UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies:
Why don't historians refer to the Ottoman Empire's possessions as being colonies? Why isn't it recognized that Arabs, as well as Europeans were colonized for centuries by Turks?

Dinesh D'Souza:
You make an excellent point. There is nothing distinctively Western about colonialism, and yet we never hear about the colonies of the Islamic empire. I suspect this is due to the ideological prejudice of the people who dominate this field of study. They have devised a nomenclature that gives the impression that only the West indulged in colonialism. Notice how rarely these scholars remind us that America, too, was a colony. The reason this is not stressed is that the ideological thrust of contemporary scholarship is to make America the perpetrator, not the victim, of colonial (or neo-colonial) oppression.

Question from Richard DeLaurell:
Thank you for your interesting and provocative article. Your analysis of colonialism as a monolithic concept is arguable--for example, the differences in how Indians were treated in Britain's colonies in North America vs that treatment which Indians like your grandfather received seems to indicate that some hostility to some of the forms of colonialism is at least understandable. Putting that aside for the moment however, I would like to ask if it is a part of your argument that not only did colonialism benefit the colonized by Westernizing them, but that, as an unavoidable consequence, it made the colonized better than their colonizers?

Dinesh D'Souza:
You are right that colonialism wasn�t monolithic. The Portuguese, the English, the French, and the Spanish each had their own way of ruling other countries. In India, for example, the Portuguese controlled only a small territory but they converted the natives to Catholicism and intermarried with them. The English, by contrast, had very little interest in conversion: they allowed native religions and native customs to persist. And yes, the people who lived under colonialism, like my grandfather, had legitimate grievances. Like many educated Indians, my grandfather was only allowed to rise to a certain level after which no further promotions were possible, no matter what his qualifications, solely because of his skin color. Yet while his antagonism to the British is understandable, it doesn�t make sense for me to pretend that colonialism has harmed me in a similar way. To answer your second question, I do think that colonialism, like slavery, harmed both the rulers and the ruled. Booker T. Washington has very insightful things to say about how slavery harmed the masters. Fortunately the West developed a bad conscience about slavery and colonialism and brought those things to an end -- a happy outcome, since the slaves and the colonized peoples were not in a position to secure their freedom entirely by themselves. From none of this does it follow, however, that �colonialism . . . made the colonized better than their colonizers.�

Scott Jaschik (Moderator):
A reader from the University of Iowa has posed a question that isn't really for Mr. D'Souza: "Does The Chronicle of Higher Education have any idea how destructive to its credibility it is to give a forum to the kind of junior-high level of thinking produced by Dinesh D'Souza?" Several other readers have submitted similar comments, criticizing our decision to run his opinion piece, and to hold this online discussion with Mr. D'Souza. I'd like to just note that in our opinion articles and online discussions, The Chronicle doesn't try to endorse views, but to provide a forum where many strong opinions can be shared, explored, and criticized. Mr. D'Souza's piece criticized postcolonial thinkers, and that's one point of view, but we've also published the work of many leading postcolonial thinkers, such as Homi Bhabha, and of many, many people who disagree with Mr. D'Souza. Our Colloquy Live guests have included scholars such as Richard Wolin, Martha Nussbaum, David Noble, Manning Marable, and Vincent Leitch. I'd invite those who disagree with Mr. D'Souza to ask him tough questions, and those who would like to see different voices in our opinion pieces to submit their ideas or suggestions. Send them to: opinion@chronicle.com

Question from Claudia Springer, Rhode Island College:
You write that "the British brought the rubber tree to Malaya from South America. They brought tea to India from China. And they taught the Africans to grow cocoa..." Would you argue that the Belgians brought ivory and rubber to the Congo? If they did (an absurd notion), would that justify their destruction of 10 million Congolese who were forced into slavery in order to harvest ivory and rubber for the Belgian king? Aren't you guilty of engaging in the same kinds of generalizations you attribute to those who criticize colonialism when you use carefully selected examples to characterize the entire colonial endeavor?

Dinesh D'Souza:
You are missing my broader point, which is that the West did not grow rich by plundering the resources of its colonies. True, those resource contributed to the wealth of the West, but the real reason for Western affluence is the Western development of the institutions of science, democracy, and capitalism. This is not tojustify the hardships imposed on non-Western people, but some colonial powers, like Spain and Portugal, imposed tremendous hardships and yet never grew rich. Other European countries that never had colonies grew affluent. The assumption that explotation is the sole or even the primary cause of Western affluence remains unproven.

Question from Hazem Ziada, Georgia Tech:
Your article completely (and conveniently) ignores the issue of colonial subjects as labor, especially slave labor. If European colonialsim did not found its wealth and riches on its colonies as you claim, how do you account for the massive transfer over centuries of African population to the New World, the almost total dependency of the economy of the West Indies and the Southern United States in the 18th & 19th centuries on slave labor? And can you argue successfully that such slaves learned the meaning of freedom through their masters or rather through their prolonged suffering?

Dinesh D'Souza:
I think we should not confuse slavery with colonialism. I do not believe that slavery was a "school of civilization," because it was school from which the slaves were never permitted to graduate. My argument is that slavery made the slaves worse off, but paradoxically it left their decendents better off. Jesse Jackson is vastly better off for living in America than he would be if he were living in Ghana or Somalia.

Question from Scott Jaschik, The Chronicle:
Of the leading scholars in postcolonial studies, are there any whose work you admire?

Dinesh D'Souza:
I certainly admire Edward Said's Orientalism, although I interpret it in a way that Said would probably not condone. For example, I think that much of contemporary multiculturalism is a form of left-wing orientalism: instead of confronting non-Western cultures as they really are, it imposes Western ideological preconceptions on them, and distorts them to serve Western ends. I also admire the forthrightness of Franz Fanon's work. Fanon says that the secret desire of victimized groups is to exchange places with their oppressor. This seems to be the unspoken logic of racial preferences -- whites did it to us, so we must do it to them. The only difference is that few advocates of affirmative action are willing to be as candid as Fanon.

Question from Rachel Tronstein, University of Michigan:
The argument that sub-Saharan Africa is currently a "cocktail of disasters," but not on account of colonialism, seems faulty. Could current problems be the result of colonialism diverting the region from the natural progression towards which it was headed?

Dinesh D'Souza:
The natural progression toward which sub-Saharan Africa was headed was nowhere. The very concept of a "progression," of progress, is a Western notion. Right now, the parts of the world that have been completely untouched by Western civilization face the direst misery and wretchedness. The problem is not colonialism, is it that African dictators have used, and are using, anti-colonialism as a justification for the worst forms of tyranny. Another major problem faced by sub-Saharan Africa is AIDS. Can colonialism possibly be responsible for this? On the contrary, the solution lies in modern Western medicine, which unfortunately, even the South African leaders seem reluctant to admit.

Question from Juliana Gaipo-Mrabet, Academic Bridge Program, Doha, Qatar:
What makes you know whether or not a particular nation was "better off" being colonized? What exactly is your definition of "better off?"

Dinesh D'Souza:
My concept of "better" relies here on the expressed preferences of the people in those cultures. Immigration, for example, is a refutation of cultural relativism, because the immigrant is voting with his feet in favor of one culture and against another culture. And why would he do that, if he did not think that the other culture was, on balance, better than his native culture? If you come to India today, you will see countless Indian men going to work in suits, and sweating. You will also see a parliamentry system of government, and if you enter the Indian law courts, you will see dark-skinned men in white wigs issuing verdicts. Now you may say this is the legacy of colonialism, but the British left India in 1947. The Indians could easily have decided then to take off their hot suits, stop speaking English, and return to their traditional system of governence and adjudication. Instead, they voluntarily decided to continue doing many things that were previously imposed on them by their captors. This, to me, is evidence that the Indians, through their actions if not their words, testify to the benefits brought to India by colonialism.

Question from Scott Jaschik, The Chronicle:
We've received a number of questions from readers who find your arguments offensive, with variations on questions like: "If you follow your argument on colonialism, would you say that the Jews were better off because of the Nazi period -- after all, it helped lead to the creation of the State of Israel." Some of the questioners also suggest that you are trying to stir up controversy (and sell books) as much as to make a meaningful argument. How do you respond to such questions and charges?

Dinesh D'Souza:
The reason I like to stir up controversy on campus is because I object to the attempts of many professors to impose an intellectual orthodoxy on students. There is so much talk about diversity on campus, and so little genuine intellectual diversity. So, my provocations are aimed at widening the parameters of debate so that we can have more candid argument and less political correctness, especially on questions of race, ethnicity, and gender. With respect to Israel, I think it is undeniable that one of the beneficial effects of the Holocaust was to create a moral climate more favorable to the founding of the State of Israel. This is not to justify the Holocaust anymore than I would justify slavery; both were terrible, but it is a great irony of history that bad things sometimes produce beneficial outcomes. Obviously, the Jews who endured the Holocaust were worse off, but the Jews who were not part of the Holocaust and have subsequently moved to Israel, are in this respect, better off. So there is no inconsistency in my argument.

Question from Paul A. Schroeder, University of Hawaii:
Have you considered the possibilility that the values that you call "uniquely Western" -- "freedom of expression, in self-government, in equality of rights under the law, and in the universal principle of human dignity" -- are not so uniquely Western? After all, these are ideas that can be found in many non-Western cultures, even before contact with Westerners. Perhaps the only thing "uniquely Western" about these ideas and about your argument that colonialism was a positive experience for colonized cultures is the utter lack of perspective that informs such an argument, or put another way, the complete inability to step outside one's own privileged position and see the world from the position of the majority who are not so privileged.

Dinesh D'Souza:
I am in the process of compiling readings from the great works of non-Western cultures, and it is pure ignorance to say that Western principles, such as science, democracy, freedom of speech, equal rights under the law, universal human dignity, and capitalism are articulated or advocated in the works of non-Western cultures. Even if there are hints of these ideas, they were never implemented. The rest of your question is pure postering in that it presumes without foundation that you are in closer contact with the authentic aspirations of the world's underprivledged than I am.

Comment from Mickael Simon, independent scholar:
The issue of colonialism is matter of degree: Colonialism did more harm to the colonized than benefited them. Dinesh D'Souza can say anything he wants, but can't change the fact that colonialism remains an evil system that strips human dignity. Some indigenous collaborators, in India or for that matter in any society, may have gained more than the average colonized but that does not make colonialism an acceptable route to civilization if any. I would rather remain 'uncivilized' for eternity with my dignity intact than be colonized even for a second. If Mr D'Souza wants to be an apologist for colonialism let history be the judge.

Question from Gary Jones, farmer:
The partition of India into several antagonistic countries is also a result of British rule. Countries in the Middle East also were dominated, conquered, and divided along the Suez route to India. We now have several large powder kegs in the region -- in some cases partly because of the borders set by colonial powers. How do you explain these troubles and still maintain that colonialism was somehow a benefit to the colonized?

Dinesh D'Souza:
The Europeans might have made a mess in drawing national lines, but it is important to realize that they were faced with an extremely tough situation. In India, for example, the British had no intention of partioning India, but the Hindus and Muslims began to fight over who would rule after independence and extremely blood thirsty race riots broke out that killed hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Muslims. In desperation, the British tried to establish the terms for a lasting peace by creating a separate state for the Muslims, namely Pakistan. This was in accordance with the wishes of Jinnah, the Muslim leader, and it was agreed to by Nehru and the other Hindu leaders as well. So, it seems wrong and irresponsible to condemn the British unless one can offer reasonable alternatives, available at the time, that the British could have and should have pursued. The same point applies to the foundation of the State of Israel and the ongoing land dispute with the Palestinians. The West created the problem, but the critics should withhold high-minded condemnations until they can show how the problem could have been averted.

Question from Barbara Simerka, Columbia University:
You assert that forcible democracy was necessary because the kings of Africa and other places would not voluntarily relinquish power. How many European kings gave up power voluntarily or because of being presented with enlightened views about democracy? Does not your statement imply a highly distorted view of the supposed superiority of European political events of the past few centuries?

Dinesh D'Souza:
No. I agree that very rarely do people in power give it up either to establish a democracy or for any other reason. I also agree that it is best when democracy comes voluntarily, as it did with the American founders who sat around a table in Philadelphia and decided that they wanted to have a self-governing society. But it is also true that in some cases, democracy can, and should, be established by force. For instance, the West established democracy at the point of a bayonet in Germany and Japan after WW II. The results have been excellent. The question of whether democracy should be imposed by force is a prudential one: how much force is, it likely to work, and so on. But the problem with liberal intellectuals is that they are not willing to give bayonets a chance.

Question from David Fitzsimons:
What is your view of the British colonization of much of North America? From your view, was the American Revolution a Good Thing, or should the Americans have continued to reap what you claim to be the advantages of colonialism?

Dinesh D'Souza:
The Americans did reap the advantages of colonialism, indeed the whole premise of the revolution was that the king was depriving citizens of the British empire of rights to which they, as citizens, were fully entitled! True, the Americans did not need to learn (as non-Western peoples did) from the British about the legacy of Athens and Jerusalem, because they already shared a common intellectual and spiritual heritage with their rulers. Even so, it is not insignificant that the principles of the American founding were primarily derived from the English philosopher John Locke, and the good relations between America and England today testify that colonialism has left very few hard feelings between the nations. Or are you suggesting that Americans should receive reparations from England for the degradations of colonial rule?

Question from Roger Geertz Gonzalez, graduate fellow, Pennsylvania State University:
You justify colonialism on the basis that it modernized non-modernized nations when it comes to technology and liberal political thought such as freedom, equality, and universal human rights. But how do you justify the ironic subjugation of a nation under the repressive hand of colonial powers, which destroyed national and cultural identities and basically enslaved people under a foreign regime? The logic of your essay suggests that if America was subdued by a more powerful nation/culture/society, you would be extremely joyful since our new subjugation and repressive control would bring about potentially positive developments. So, would you suggest that the West today embark on a new wave of colonialism and imperialism, or continue its subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) form of repression like it has in Puerto Rico and the other "associated" American territories?

Dinesh D'Souza:
Gee, I feel a bit like the mosquito at the nudist colony: I don't know where to begin. Nowhere do I suggest that subjugation by itself is defensible, or that every form of imposed rule produces beneficial results. The Mongols, for example, left sheer terror and ruin in their wake. Similarly, I see very few benefits that were brought by the invading Huns, Visigoths, and Lombards, who overran Europe and destroyed the Roman empire. Colonialism is only beneficial when the ruling power brings certain valuable benefits to the ruled that they would not have plausibly enjoyed otherwise. Now, it is perfectly possible to deny that science, self-government, human rights, free speech, and democracy are valuable things, but if we can agree that they are, then it seems logical to conclude that the former colonies are better off to have them than not to have them.

Comment from Jos�, Small Pennsylvania College:
Certainly colonialism helped a certain class of natives, namely those who benefited by working for the colonial powers. That they acquired in the process certain habits of thought, manners and other cultural imports had probably less to do with their need to establish their own "sense of worth" as much as their desire for self-advancement [particularly economic]. That the peoples of the colonized world benefited in certain aspects [from medicine to the computer and the cell-telephone, if the latter really constitute great progress]is not something we need Mr. D'Souza to point out since that is evident. He might do well to read or re-read books such as E. Galeano's The Open Veins of Latin America, for example, to realize that, although the metropolitan powers may have helped the colonized in certain ways, they were in the business of colonizers, i. e. helping themselves as much as was possible to enrich themselves at the expense of the so-called "backward nations."

Question from Dave Young, Cerritos College:
Isn't there a kind of intellectual dishonesty in judging 18th and 19th century institutions with 21st century values and standards? Would the third world have ended slavery as the English and Americans did?

Dinesh D'Souza:
No, the reason is that the impotence of the anti-slavery movement came primarily from the Christian notion that we are all equal in the eyes of God. This notion was initially held to imply only to the next world, but starting in the 16th and 17th century, it was interpreted by some Christian groups to apply to this world as well. Because we are created equal, these Christians held, no man should rule another man without his consent. Thus the argument against slavery and the argument for democracy arises from the same premise. No wonder that emancipation like representative democracy is a Western idea.

Comment from Roger Barnes, master's in African History:
More of a comment. D'Souza's premise is foolish. Say for example, I find 20 people and I make them give me 95 percent of their salary for 10 years. They will be thrown into poverty and I can buy a big house and a nice car. I can then invest in DNA research or whatever and come back an tell those people my exploiting them was good because the DNA research has benefitted their life. During the age of colonialism Europe was totally dependent on the wealth it stole from the colonized world. Without colonialism there would be no Western technology because there would be no funding for it. What we now call the Third World financed the advancement of the West.

Question from Shauna McRanor, University of Victoria:
You virtually ignore the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia. For them, the colonizers have never left. How would you justify their condition, which, in these places at least, can hardly be described as "better off"?

Dinesh D'Souza:
It was Tocqueville that observed that the tragedy of the black man is that he wanted to be part of Western civiliaztion but was denied membership in it'. The tragedy of the Indian is that he never wanted Western civilization, but it was forced down his throat. I agree that the indigenous people in America and Australia have suffered a terrible dislocation. I cannot call it "genocide," as many textbooks do, because the destruction of the Indians was primarily caused by diseases to which they had no immunities. (The term "genocide" implies an intention to exterminate a people or race.) Granted the tragedy of history, the question is what can be done to improve the situation of indigenous peoples today. In India, there is affirmative action for indigenous peoples who are classified as "scheduled castes and tribes." These people are disadvantaged, not because they have been oppressed by the West, but becasue they have been untouched by it. In other words, they live in huts without electricity, they don't have basic sanitation, and they are utterly unfamiliar with the techniques that are necessary to survive in modern civilization. Therefore, the solution is not to merely bemoan the past, or to try to recover some long lost state, but to work to integrate these groups into the orbit of modern, technological, capitalist society.

Question from Carmen E. Hernandez, Northeast Iowa Community College:
Would you describe how the Western ideals that may have inadvertently benefitted India's population have done so in Central or South America, in such a nation as Guatemala or Peru?

Dinesh D'Souza:
The history of Latin America is a history of the bloody imposition of conquest and rule. This did not begin with the Spanish. The Spanish were proceeded by the Aztec and Inca empires, which covered the soil with blood, as well as numerous other smaller marauding groups and tribes. In the absence of Western civilization, this might still be going on! Now, the Spanish were harsh and cruel and bequeathed to the native peoples a harmful tradition of strong man dictatorships, which have dominated Latin America for more than a century. It is only since the 1980's, i.e., since the Reagan adminstration, that a democratic tide has swept across Latin America, so that most of the continent today is self-governing. That is a tremendous gain even though much of the continent remains poor. Once again, my view is that this poverty is not the result of capitalism, but often the absence of capitalism. More Western investment, more free trade, more human rights, and more democracy are precisely the Western remedies for what currently ails Latin America. If we apply those remedies, Guatemala and Peru will be much better off.

Question from Michele Landis Dauber, Stanford Law School:
What do you see as the political implications of your argument? Should, for example, the West give less aid to former colonies and developing countries on the theory that it has already aided them through the process of colonization? You have advanced an argument with clear political implications -- such as diminishing the responsibility of the West for former colonies -- without any empirical evidence -- only your own andecdotal and personal family experience. While your family stories are perhaps of interest to you, they are of course no substitute for evidence as to whether colonization has left a bad or good legacy or one requiring or meriting remediation or relief.

Dinesh D'Souza:
Empirical evidence cannot settle this issue, because we would have to compare the situation of the colonies with the situation that would have faced them if colonialism had never occured. Despite your undoubtedly impressive research capacities, how would you collect data to settle this issue? I draw on my own experience as do other writers such as Fanon, Ghandi, and others, or do you dismiss their works too as "anecdotal"? It seems that the reason you are willing to believe the dubious notion that the West grew rich through oppression is so that you can justify liberal political remedies, such as redistribution, foreign aid, and so on. I have never argued against aid, but I do think that such aid is a form of genorousity, not the debt owed by Western nations for enriching themselves at other nations' expense.

Question from Omar Sayed:
Japan was never "colonized" yet it learned "science" and "capitalism" from the West, and eventually it accepted democracy. Japan was certainly "non-Western". How does it fit into your paradigm that non-Western nations could not learn Western principles on their own?

Dinesh D'Souza:
First of all, in the 19th century, Japan suffered a terrible humiliation when it was bombarded the ships of Commodore Perry, and it was this awareness of Japanese military inferiority, vis a vis the West, that provoked a campaign of Western civilization on the part of the Japanese rulers. The Meji Restoration is inconceivable without the force of Western arms exerted on Japan. Moreover, it was MacArthur's troops who forced Japan to adopt a democratic system of government, a capitalist economy, and relatively pacifist foreign policy in the aftermath of World War II. So, while Japan was never officially colonized, it is not quite accurate to say that Japan voluntarily embraced Western principles. They were, to a considerable degree, imposed on Japan, but the Japanese today seem greatful for the outcome.

Comment from Ab Han, Simon's Rock College:
Since it seems so hard for some people to know a colonial situation, I will imagine this scenario:

Imagine the USA invaded by the Soviets. By that same act of invasion, the Soviets were to be considered "racially" superior and their culture is to be imposed as the only rational, valuable, and in short the only one that deserve the name of civilization (as opposed to the barbarism of the USA). Imagine then that all "the so great things" about the USA" will be not only considered so great, but they will be changed,transformed, and replaced by "what is so great about the Soviets" which is basically everything. What is "so great about the USA" will be henceforth considered if not barabric and archaic. Imagine then that English will be replaced as the language of "greatness'" by Russian, the only great language because it is spoken by the masters. Imagine also that all over the USA English schools will be closed and few Soviet schools will be created, but only for the Soviet settlers and the local elite supporting them.

Then, of course people don't like it and they fight. They will be crashed, killed, tortured, starved, expelled, reduced to the most abject situation of humiliation.

They will persist resisting and the Soviets will persist killing for decades and decades. Then they will be told "you are independant" And here they are in a post-colonial condition in which nothing has changed except that the government is controled by "Soviet made American elite". Not only that, before the Soviets withdrew they also divided the USA into small and large entities that are not only dependant on the Soviets, but they are also in conflict between each other. Only Russian will still be considerd the language of civilization and only Soviet thinkers and scientists will be considerd worthy of studying. Politics, economics, culture, will all be dependant on the Soviets. Some people will complain.

Then someone, like our friend, will come and tell you all of this is not bad. It is good. This is what is so "great about the Soviets" He who laments the transformation and the subjugation of the "so called great things about the USA" are mistaken. For the so great things are indeed Soviet. He who says that of course is himself a product of colonialism.

Question from David M. Hallowell, Drexel University:
Mr. D'Souza: As usual, I am amused by the overall direction of your article, and I am certain that it will provoke much heated commentary. I might agree with your thesis -- sans the cheers. What do you see at the center of this irrationalism? What can we do to encourage a truly liberal system of education that graduates engaged citizens capable of rational debate?

Dinesh D'Souza:
I think that like our Stanford correspondent, many Western intellectuals are reluctant to believe the truth about colonialism, because they believe it may lead to undesirable policy outcomes. So, too, third world intellectuals are embittered against America because they are humiliated by American greatness. I am confident, however, that making these arguments in a persistent but rational way will ultimately prevail over the ideological irrationalism that is all too prevalent in the academy.

Scott Jaschik (Moderator):
I want to thank Mr. D'Souza, our guest today, and also all of the readers who submitted questions. I am sorry that we did not have more time, so that we could get to more questions, but I hope you enjoyed the discussion.