You are here:   Civilisation >  Books > Mazower's New World Order

Mark Mazower: His book is laced with meanness 

Mark Mazower is a British historian who teaches in America. He is the Ira D. Wallach Professor of World Order Studies, as well as a professor of history, at Columbia University. That first title is almost startling. He is a specialist in Greece and Balkan states farther north. His current book is Governing the World: The History of an Idea. Here is a history of internationalism, in short (though the book is long).

Mazower is a man of immense erudition, a real scholar. He has read a vast amount, including science fiction. "You can learn a lot from Lydia," sang Groucho Marx. You can learn a lot from Mazower too. His book is stuffed with facts and quotations. I was interested to know that David Dudley Field, the American jurist, was the brother of Cyrus Field, who laid telegraph cable across the Atlantic. I was also interested to know what a Frenchman said in Andrei Gromyko's suite at the Park Lane Hotel, when they were discussing the location of the new United Nations: "If the seat is in the New World, it is the end of Europe."

Furthermore, Mazower can write engagingly, as when he sets a scene: "On January 16, 1920, as the midmorning sun shone off the Seine into the Clock Room of the Quai d'Orsay, the new League of Nations held its first council meeting."

If you're going to read Mazower, though, you will have to put up with his biases. I suppose that is true of most books and their authors. Governing the World, at heart, is a history of the United States on the world scene, and an indictment of the United States. In Mazower's eyes, the US is almost always ill motivated, without a speck of idealism or goodwill. To give a mild example, he says that Elihu Root, secretary of state under Theodore Roosevelt and, like Roosevelt, a Nobel peace laureate, "believed in arbitration as a means of developing the Great Power status of the United States". Perhaps, but Root, a man of considerable humanity, also believed in preventing war.

In this book, Truman, Eisenhower, and other US presidents come in for worse treatment than Stalin. Che Guevara is treated neutrally or approvingly; John Bolton, hostilely. Is that because the author takes for granted the superiority of democrats over Communists? I would like to think so, but am afraid not. For Mazower, the opposite of Communism is never "democracy" or "freedom," but "capitalism". With no detectable irony, he speaks of "the interests of progress rather than reaction". His language can turn nasty, as when he labels an Indian delegate a "British-appointed stooge". His language can be snotty, as when he says that Teddy Roosevelt was known for "his gung-ho foreign policy toward lesser breeds".

When it comes to political designations, his language can be utterly bewildering. For example, W.E.B. Du Bois is to be counted among the "most liberal and progressive thinkers of his era". In truth, Du Bois loved Stalin as much as anyone ever did, very much including Mrs Stalin. Mazower also says that "27 of the original 51 members of the UN had once been colonies, and others were East European People's Democracies with no liking for empire". I detect no irony in "People's Democracies" — and they were certainly part of an empire, and a supremely brutal one at that.

View Full Article
October 22nd, 2014
7:10 PM
As a Greek let me say that although Mark Mazower tries to portray himself as a champion of human rights, in practice he is an incredibly patronizing bigot. He prejudices are just of a group that is different than the normal targets... in the case Greeks 20 years ago Greeks warned against recognition of the former Yugoslavians as ethnic Macedonians. At the time, both the former Yugoslavians and their apologists claimed the former Yugoslavians were not claiming to be descendents of ancient Macedonians. Greece's concerns were ridiculed as that of "nationalists" by self-anointed experts like Mazower (who constantly attempts to narrate Greeks out of their very identity with "imagined community" philosophical approach to identity-- but seems to have no interest in doing the same to his own). Today the former Yugoslavians claim the exact opposite. The claim to be direct descendents of the founders of the Hellenistic period and self-identifying Greeks -- ancient Macedonians (while simultaniously opposing anything Greek). They also manipulate the name to encourage irredentism against Greece -- as Greece warned would happen in good faith. Meanwhile holier-than-thou bigots like Mazower, rather than apologize to Greeks and condemn their behavior, have crawled into their caves and unethically pretend not to notice. With Greeks, living in the Macedonia, it was "nationalism" to see ancient Macedonian as our cultural patrimony but with obvious slavs completely unrelated to Macedonians its now apparently fine? You won't here it from media that references the ancient Kingdom of Paeonioa as "Macedonia" but it is precisely this bigotry towards Greeks that has lead to the rise of xenophobia in Greece. The supporters of the former Yugoslavians are effectively subtlety attempting to ethnic cleanse Greeks by attempting to delete our very identity. It is it unlikely British citizen like Mazower would have been as quick to bizarrely recognize western France as "England", their language as "English", as they attempted to usurp England;s history and use that to encourage their citizens to see it as "modern British occupied England". No nation on earth would tolerate this behavior. One no longer needs historical narratives to observe prejudice in the here and now. The very fact most that called them "Macedonians" have put on blinders to the behavior of the former Yugoslavians is clear cut evidence of their bigotry towards Greeks.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.