Cities and Imperialism

Written By: sthompson
Date: 2004-07-30 15:58:00
<a href="/article/155806234-cities-and-imperialism">Article Link</a>

To be sure, cities have played a vital -- economic, cultural and political -- role in every colonial enterprise. But the need to conquer, control and segregate urban space assumes an unprecedented significance for contemporary U.S.-led imperialism, as the new empire embarks on a direct re-colonization of exploited peripheries. Urban planning is now an intense focal point for U.S. military strategy. As Mike Davis reported recently: "The battle of Fallujah, together with the conflict unfolding in Shia cities and Baghdad slums, are high-stakes tests, not just of U.S. policy in Iraq, but of Washington's ability to dominate what Pentagon planners consider the "key battlespace of the future" -- the Third World city." Current strategies to colonize urban space are not entirely new, however. Attempts by British-American and Israeli forces to tame the "impenetrable," "chaotic" and "wild" "Arab city" eerily resemble similarly racist urban counterinsurgency policies of the French during the bloody war of independence in Algeria in the 1950s. Indeed, having learned a lesson in Mogadishu, high-ranking American officers in Iraq have viewed with keen interest Gillo Pontecorvo's great film, Battle of Algiers. In June 2002 both the Army Times and the Marine Corps Times reported how "US military officials were in Israel seeing what they could learn from that urban fight" in the West Bank. The Debate on a New Deal for Canadian Cities Misses the Link With Imperialism Nothing could be further removed from these realities of colonial urbicide than the seemingly innocent Canadian "debate" on a "new deal for cities." Not just neo-liberal proponents but also social democratic advocates for a new deal for cities are mute on the link between cities and imperialism. Yet Canada, through its role in NORAD and NATO, helps sustain the U.S.-led war efforts indirectly (in Iraq) and directly (in Afghanistan). It has also been an ardent supporter of the so-called Washington Consensus of global economic policy, which since the late 1970s has rolled back Third World aspirations for genuine independence with financial austerity, enforced debt payments and ruthless privatization -- all of which have undermined rural life and exacerbated urban poverty. Closer to home, Canada's major cities are now firmly integrated into the transnational networks of corporate power and finance that form the basis of U.S.-led imperialism. Canada's corporate and financial centres are not merely "engines of growth," as virtually every proponent of the "new deal for cities" argues. Hardly free-standing sources of innovation, productivity and growth, the ruling classes of these cities also parasitically draw on all manners of "resources" from other parts of the country and the rest of the world. Consequently, the gas-guzzling, sprawling and environmentally destructive ways in which our cities have developed leave an "ecological footprint" that makes us -- as consumers of (increasingly non-renewable) resources and leading producers of waste -- responsible for the mounting "ecological debt" that Canada along with other centres of imperialism owe to the global South, as Ecuador's Accíon Ecológica has pointed out. Given the selectively economistic emphasis on cities as "engines of growth" in the "new deal for cities," it does not surprise that the few who have openly linked imperialism to the new city agenda have enlisted cities for the defense of empire. Less than six months after September 11, Marcus Gee, Globe and Mail columnist and Bush supporter, opined that we should respond to Osama bin Laden and other anti-urban barbarians by expressing our love for cities -- supposedly the greatest achievements of "Western" values of freedom, diversity, democracy, secularism and capitalism. The Silences of Richard Florida/Jane Jacobs There are, of course, more and less hawkish renditions of the same Orientalist refrain. Daniel Libeskind, the celebrated architect hired to redesign the World Trade Center and no fan of America's theocratic fundamentalists, sees his project as a tribute to "freedom, democracy, and heroism," the American values he sees embodied in New York City. Richard Florida, the avowedly anti-Bush urban planning consultant who has made a small fortune by convincing gullible municipalities (including Toronto) that cultural, sexual and architectural "diversity" is the key to compete successfully against other similar municipalities, thinks that fostering social cohesion in our cities is the best way to build unity against the threat of terrorism. Jane Jacobs, the guru of urban gurus in North America and a major influence on Florida, has emerged as an intellectual conductor of this liberal chorus of urban voices for imperial restoration. In her latest book, Dark Age Ahead, she warns that a disintegration of what she conservatively sees as the pillars of urban life -- the nuclear family, education, science and technology, fiscal accountability and professional self-regulation -- may bring about a new dark age: without urban revitalization, greater municipal autonomy and a boost to innovation and diversity, "our culture" (sic) risks "sliding into a dead-end." While agreeably critical about American xenophobia, Jacobs too remains silent about urbicide in the new colonies -- one of the most ominous barbarisms committed by "our culture." Instead, she gives an urban twist to the imperial angst that has surfaced periodically in the heartlands of imperialism since Oswald Spengler's early 20th century thesis on the "decline of the Occident." According to Jacobs, reviving cosmopolitan city life in our cities (but not theirs?) is the recipe to save "the West" (sic) from sharing the fate of imperial Rome and China. Calling for an Urban Anti-imperialism The Left in Canada clearly needs an urban antidote to these imperial voices -- hard and soft. Instead of seeing cities uncritically as embodiments of (Western) civilization and "engines of growth," and thus the opposite of (non-Western?) "barbarism," we could use an urban vision sensitive to the contradictions of the modern urban experience. This vision would be critical of actually existing urban regions as centres of exploitation and imperial profiteering, but also capable of embracing urban life as the ground for radical politics and solidarity both local and global. Calling for an urban anti-imperialism might appear counter-intuitive. In the 20th century, much anti-imperialism was strongly anti-urban in tone and orientation. In Canada, too, left-national populist forces have often mobilized the resentment against Toronto and Montreal by treating these cities simply and only as places where the country's natural wealth is appropriated and sold off to imperial agents. Today, there is no way out of our urban world. In many parts of the world, and certainly in Canada, radicals have literally nowhere else to go. In the South, moreover, urban social struggles have already assumed an explicitly anti-imperial dimension. In the North too, sources for an urban resistance to imperialism are evident. Canada's cities played their part in the massive anti-war demonstrations in 2003 -- an "urban moment" Tariq Ali described as the "first truly global mobilization." More recently and modestly, campaigns against the deportation of immigrants in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto have taken issue--under the increasingly global banner "No One Is Illegal"--with the domestic impacts of imperialism compounded by the "war on terrorism": racial profiling, intensified spatial segregation, and authoritarian policing of dissent (see Govind Rao's and Grace-Edward Galabuzi's articles in <a href="http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/">Canadian Dimension</a> vol. 38 no.1). It is from such struggles -- and a recognition that empire cannot be civilized -- that an urban anti-imperialism may emerge. ---- Stefan Kipfer teaches in Environmental Studies at York University. Kanishka Goonewardena teaches geography at the University of Toronto. This article originally appeared in <a href="http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/">Canadian Dimension</a>, July/August 2004, vol. 38 #4. Reprinted with permission.

Oddly enough, much of the article is as applicable to Mesopotamian city states of some 3000 years past as it is today. It would appear human nature hasn't changed much.

If the 'left' doesn't learn how to get the point across without endless references to 'imperialism', 'racism', etc., it will never have a broad audience for what may be important comments and ideas because most North Americans will stop reading at the first 'leftist' buzzword.

Viewing the CD counter of the 'radicals' who've visted the site for millenium, you'd think they'd have caught onto this by now.

---
Withhold power from those seek it.

Historically, revolutions have always been fomented in the cities. Cities concentrate and make dependent it's occupants. The French Revolution was a revolution of the cities, as was the Bolshevik Revolution. The American revolution was a revolution fomented in the cities. Cities have the manpower, and this manpower can be controlled through the simple expedient of controlling the food supply.

Cities are NOT natural things, and unless there is radical change in our societal infrastructure, they WILL collapse. They are not sustainable. Cities such as we propagate them today, are the "logical" extension of man in service of the machine. Cities served no purpose before the "invention" of agriculture. There was a need then to have large populations concentrated in order to be "more efficient" (and that Catch-22 reasoning is used even today) But machines are no longer the Brobdingnagian constructs that epitomise the Industrial Revolution; machines are coming (finally) into the service of man, rather than the reverse. Nano- and Micro- are are the prefixes in favour today.

In Canada, 98% of the population lives in cities. Cities are feeling the emmense strain of this condition. And the people therein are also begining to be affected by this unnatural closeness. And like the avian flu that hit poultry living in over-crowded conditons in British Columbia recently, so too are "afflictions" becoming more commonplace among city dwellers. SARS comes to mind. These are "battles" we are told we can win. But these are battles that shouldn't have to be "fought" in the first place. It's time we started thinking of Diaspora.

---
RickW

No doubt, city vs. hinterland, 1st world vs. 3rd world. I also see the propping up of importance of some cities at the expense of others. For instance, in the 70`s and 80`s, Toronto was emerging as Canada`s 'world city.' But Mulroney`s pro imperial America style of governing literally took the wind out of Toronto`s sails. New York is now 'North America`s world city.' Toronto is now merely America`s Canadian financial outpost. And improvements in communications was supposed to help enhance other cities by 'shrinking the world' But the opposite has happened. Cities like London, England actually saw more concentration of firms and services. Governments have to display the backbone to get back to being involved in a mixed economy of a social democratic nature. Only this will disperse economic activity and people. But now, of course, in the so called 'knowledge based economy,' most of the wealth generated in hinterlands does not stay in the hinterland, which depresses the local economy. People then naturally flock to a city in search of the promise of the good life.

---
Dave Ruston

Definitely a feedback mechanism at work here. But ultimately, the federal government is loathe to give more autonomy to the cities, because it perceives the act as a weakening of its own powers. It's all about who controls the marbles, and as long as people are "forced" to go to the cities, the easier they are to control. Stalin starved some 20,000,000 peasants to death by the simple expedient of sending the Red Army out from the cities to take away all the food. He did not have to do this, but the peasants were proving an obstacle to his collectivization plans, because they could not be controlled en masse. He feared a counter revolution if he left the peasants to grow the food the nation needed on their own (which they could have easily done).

Cities have been with us for about 8,000 years now, and thier "naturalness" has become ingrained. But they are totally artificial constructs, designed by their very lack of design to interfere with the human psyche, to keep people "off balance" as it were, and so make it easy to exert control (however subtle it may be).

And the cities DO need the countryside for their very existence. They, far from being wealth producers, are rapists of the country, bent not on a co-operative relationship, but on a dominant one.

---
RickW

Yeah, absolutely, cities even seem to instill a certain 'conformist' mentality into its residents. Little wonder urban sprawl and decay is allowed to fester. The country automatically raises within oneself immense feelings of freedom.

---
Dave Ruston

What are you people talking about?

First of all, it's 80% who live in cities, which is still a lot, but I don't get what the point is. Canada depends on its cities, much more than the United States does. Right now, we are food dependent on the rest of the world. If we allow American style sprawl to contineue to destroy our best famland, and don't turn thing saround, our goose could be cooked.

As for the country, let's not be silly. People in cities live much longer on average. Conditions such as asthma may be greater, but this is not proof that cities can't be made cleaner and safer. Cities are MUCH more controlled in Canada than the country. The provinces don't help the country much, but they ignore the cities to a much greater extent.

If everyone lived in the coutnry, it would no longer be country. We are even seeing the death of dozens of old, downtown sections of towns such as Woodstock, Fenelon Falls etc., and replaced by cracker boxes and cars, cars, cars. This is no way for Canada to grow or live. Without cities, Canada would be long gone. The best ideas for social and technological improvement have mostly come from cities. I feel much more controlled in the country. I'm dependent on cars--oil.

Build a wall around your city and you would soon see how "independent" you are after a week. With no water, electricity, sewage dispoal, and only (on average) 5 days food supply, what, if you were a city-stsate for instance, would you have to "trade" with the countryside all around you, that the countryside absolutely needs? "Even though Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of land area, it ranks 33rd in terms of population. Almost all of Canada’s population is concentrated in a narrow band along the country’s southern edge. Nearly 80% of the total population lives within the 25 major metropolitan areas, which represent only 0.79% of the total area of the country." The other 18% live in towns, or "minor" metropolitan areas. http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/population/distribution/1

DOn't get me wrong, anon. I KNOW we have a big problem. During last summer's huge blackout in Toronto, people would've died had it gone on longer, assuming none did. The city was chaos compared to before almost instantly. Of course, the Jerk Ernie Eves gave power to the suburbs while making Toronto's subway stay halted for 3 DAYS during smog season.

I mean, if 80% live in cities clustered next to the U.S. border, and we are food dependent on the rest of the world due to sprawl, then its the Soviet Union all over again if a worldwide food crisis hits and/or our imports are cut off and we haven't preserved enough farmland and/or built anough greenhouses.

For the record, I don't favour city states, just more power federally and municipally at the expense of the provinces.

"...the Jerk Ernie Eves..." Isn't that an insult to Steve Martin? I wonder how many good citizens would riot if they were faced with the prospect of turning their lawns into vegetable gardens? I believe Winnipeg did some experimenting with boulevards turned into vegetable gardens, instead of grass. But I do not know what became of it.

I don't get it. As for Winnipeg doing that, there could be many heavy metals in city soil, but oh well I guess.

Cities are compromized of many, many individuals. This whole argument is sounding like a debate about urban vs. rural/suburban morals. As for cities being isolationist, you are clearly missing most of the facts. Cities are so big because they attract more people. The bigger the population, the greater the diversity. I'm sorry, you can have the country. It is beautiful I love to visit and there is nothing better than a cabin in the winter and a warm fire. But cities are vibrant. They radiate all that is the best about Canada. Diversity, tolerance, and damn fine transit. I love the city because I can ride my bike to work, the gym, home, and to the market in the same day. I love the buskers and the street festivals. I love the water fountains in the summer. I love the Martin Goodman Trail. There are so many different restaurants and clubs. The city is a wonderful place to live. I will stick happily to being in the middle of such diversity and culture. I am not dependent on may car, my children will grow up knowing there are many different people in this world and have healthy open minds, there is much to be said about the city.

FYI, I was brought up early in the country, lived for the first three quarters of my life in the suburbs. Now I live downtown. This is where I am most happy. The city kicks ass. Truly.