Defending colonialism and oligarchy?

Dinesh D’Souza is free to peddle his drivel anywhere. Why the Washington Post’s editors thought their op-ed page was a good place for it is beyond my comprehension. The bulk of the article is about how Barack Obama Sr.’s views shaped those of his son, President Obama. I have no idea whether this is true and why the Post published such a speculative piece is difficult to understand. In any event this is beside the point of this post. Rather, I want to focus on D’Souza’s weird views about colonialism and the bizarre political implications of them.

D’Souza explains anti-colonialism as:

…the idea that the rich countries got rich by looting the poor countries, and that within the rich countries, plutocratic and corporate elites continue to exploit ordinary citizens.

Ummm…OK. This isn’t quite how I would explain anti-colonialism. I think anti-colonialism is more about being opposed to imposed foreign rule. At least it was in sub-Saharan Africa. Anti-colonialism in colonial Kenya, where Obama Sr. lived, was about getting the British out, not imposing socialism, as D’Souza argues. To call Kenya under Jomo Kenyatta socialist is not quite accurate. It was more like crony capitalism. In fact, “plutocratic and corporate elites continue to exploit ordinary citizens” is a pretty good analysis of Kenya’s contemporary political-economy.

After the confusing discussion about the definition of anti-colonialism, D’Souza elucidates Obama Sr.’s views of it:

‘The question,’ [Obama Sr.] wrote, ‘is how are we going to remove the disparities in our country, such as the concentration of economic power in Asian and European hands . . .?’

Obama Sr.’s solutions are clear. ‘We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.’

D’Souza contextualizes Obama Sr.’s views as:

…based on the anti-colonial assumption that the rich have become rich by exploiting and plundering the poor; therefore, whatever the rich have is undeserved and may be legitimately seized.

OK…What is D’Souza trying to tell us here? Why is he criticizing these views? Is he making an argument in favor of oligarchy? In favor of colonialism? Is he saying that Obama Sr. did not understand the nature of colonialism in Kenya? Does he think that’s its just fine if foreigners invade a country and expropriate its wealth? Its not clear because D’Souza doesn’t follow his argument to its logical conclusion.

To me, what D’Souza is saying is that resistance to colonialism in Kenya was subversive because it attacked the racist coercive oligarchic order the colonists imposed. It’s fine if D’Souza wants to embrace racist coercive oligarchic colonialism. I just wish he were more clear about it. I wonder if the post would still print the op-ed if he were.