Reply To: 18th vs 20th Century Colonialism


I saw the movie. I thought it was well-made, but sort of missing the greater point. It presents something of a personal attack (via character study) of Obama specifically, rather than a detailed refutation of why his actual positions are terrible. The unstated implication throughout the movie seems to be something like: “Obama takes the positions he does because of his odd background with a non-present African father and Communist-sympathizing mother and grandparents.” Which of course, begs the question, “Why are Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton also extreme leftists?”

Anyway, it seems to me that when neocons refer to “anti-colonialism” they mean people who are vehemetly against the traditional colonial powers (of which America is included as one). An anti-colonialist, for example, would side against America, France, or England in a dispute against any African or Asian nation, regardless of what the facts are or what the dispute actually involves. The underlying belief is that essentially all “developing” nations are only developing because they were exploited and taken advantage of by “the west.” That evil on the part of the colonial powers is the only reason that world peace and prosperity have not been achieved.

In any case, if you watch the movie hoping for a detailed discussion of colonialism, you will be quite disappointed. The movie is about two thirds a biography of Obama (mostly retelling of his book “Dreams from my Father” with a negative spin), and one third a brief rundown of some of the current political issues with a neocon spin. If you’ve read Obama’s book, and if you ever listen to conservative talk radio, you’ve already experienced pretty much everything this movie has to offer.