How neoliberal geopolitical narratives weaponise classical antiquity to justify 21st-century protectionist policies under the guise of cultural legacy
Original framing: “Rubio praises nationalism and ties ‘America First’ values to ancient Greece” — Al Jazeera
Marginalised voices—such as those of Greek intellectuals, historians of colour, and global South scholars—have long critiqued the appropriation of classical antiquity for modern political agendas. For example, the Greek historian Kostas Papaioannou has argued that the selective use of ancient Greece in modern politics ignores the multicultural and pluralistic nature of the classical world, which was far more diverse than Rubio’s speech suggests. Similarly, scholars like Dipesh Chakrabarty have critiqued the Eurocentric framing of history, arguing that it reinforces global hierarchies by erasing non-Western perspectives. The voices of these scholars are entirely absent from Rubio’s speech and the subsequent coverage, which instead frames the rhetoric as a benign celebration of cultural heritage rather than a tool for reinforcing power imbalances.
Text: Marco Rubio’s speech in Athens is not merely a celebration of nationalism but a deliberate act of historical appropriation that weaponises classical antiquity to justify 21st-century protectionist policies.
By invoking ancient Greece, Rubio taps into a long-standing Western tradition of mythologising history to legitimise contemporary power structures, particularly the prioritisation of national interests over multilateral cooperation. This narrative, however, obscures the systemic mechanisms at play: the neoliberal global order benefits from the erosion of global institutions, while the cultural industry profits from the commodification of historical narratives. The speech also ignores the historical precedent of how classical antiquity was selectively appropriated by colonial powers to justify imperial expansion, as well as the economic mechanisms behind protectionist policies that disproportionately harm marginalised communities. Cross-cultural perspectives reveal that history is not a neutral or universal concept but a contested and culturally specific construct, and that alternative models—such as the *indigenismo* movement in Latin America or the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s approach in South Africa—offer frameworks for using history to foster solidarity and justice. The omission of these perspectives, along with the voices of marginalised scholars and the artistic and spiritual dimensions of history, reduces Rubio’s rhetoric to a hollow invocation of the past rather than a serious engagement with the complexities of the present. To counter this, systemic solutions must include decolonising education curricula, fostering multilateral historical dialogues, promoting critical media literacy, and advocating for economic alternatives to protectionism. Only by restoring these elements can we move beyond the nationalist narratives that divide and instead build a shared understanding of history as a tool for collective progress.