Many scholars argue that American imperialism at the turn of
the century was driven by racism. In contrast, in his book “Race over Empire”,
Eric Love argues that race was much more important as an argument against imperialism. Which view do you
find more persuasive? Why? (80-100
words, by 5pm Friday August 31).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that racism was more an element of anti-imperialist rhetoric than imperialist, whilst interesting, cannot be substantiated. This argument is interesting for its seemingly paradoxical nature: how could a belief in racial superiority be used to deny the subjugation of perceived inferior nations? Nonetheless there are examples of its employment. Some anti-imperialist commentators like Samuel Gompers feared that interaction with foreign nations would result in an “inundation of Mongolians,” whilst Ben Tilman similarly opposed annexation as it would result in greater immigration of Asian migrants. Whilst men like Godkin opposed anti-imeprialist not for humanitarian motivations, but for a fear of polluting the sanctity ‘Americanness.’ The hypocrisy of denying consensual government to others, would undermine the principle at home and thus corrode the very core of the United States. Despite this anti-racism sits far more comfortably with the anti-imperialist project in its belief in the equality of all men, and thus their right to liberty as Mark Twain assert “the hearts of men are about alike, all over the world, no matter what their skin complexion may be.”
ReplyDeleteIt is disappointing that one of the biggest voices against anti-imperialism during this period was built on a foundation of racist sentiment. However, the main arguments used for the annexation of the Philippines were, as we so witnessed in our class debate, entirely dominated by racist ideals (with the pretense of economic and trading benefits). The Filipinos are inferior, savage, can't govern themselves, we must teach them, play a parenting role, civilise, assimilate and so on... These are the arguments that were so often repeated and they were indeed not new arguments. Precedents had already been set with the Cherokee, other Native Americans and the Mexican war. Racism played a role on both sides of the argument, but the anti-imperialism movement was made up of many other groups that did not utilise racist sentiment, whereas pro-imperialism groups always did.
ReplyDeleteIt can indeed be argued that racist beliefs informed arguments both for and against American expansionism at the turn of the century. Advocates of annexing the Philippines (including President McKinley) used the argument that the native Filipinos were incapable of self-government. Similarly, while not the primary argument of those against annexation, claims were made that sustained contact with other races would negatively affect the Anglo-Saxon race. Ultimately, that race was such a key issue in debates over further US expansion demonstrates the degree to which racial superiority theories dominated political thought in the US at the turn of the century.
ReplyDeleteEric Love’s argument that race was an important argument against imperialism (contrary to the popular view) is not entirely convincing. On the one hand, the conflicts with the Cherokee and the Mexicans were all driven by racist ideals and the idea of Anglo-Saxon superiority. With regard to the annexation of the Philippines, it was asserted that the Filipinos were incapable of self-government. Indeed, a common argument in favour of American imperialism was that the superior Anglo-Saxons were claiming territory that was rightfully theirs; territory that was held by racially inferior peoples. However, it has also been argued that the Philippines were critical for expanding trade with China and other countries, which support’s Love’s point of view. Also, the exclusion of Chinese from migrating to America also indicates the United States did not want to deal with perceived ‘inferior’ races, thus supporting the sentiment that racism promoted anti-imperialism.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that race could play a part in arguing for and against imperialism. On the one hand, the notion that other races were inferior allowed Americans to expand into their territories (or gave them the idea of a moral obligation to do so) as they felt they were more advanced in every aspect pertaining to a society; politically, intellectually, and morally. This imperialistic takeover of other cultures was obtrusive and forceful, no matter the intentions. However, as Eric Love argued, the inferiority of other races was also a motivating cause to not interfere with other societies, on the basis that doing so and taking political control of other nations would result in having to allow these populations into America as citizens, thus 'diluting' the pure American race. Each defence has its own legitimate supporting arguments, and it would seem that using race to support or argue against imperialism would depend entirely on the cause you were justifying.
ReplyDeleteEric Love takes his thesis too far. Whilst race was a powerful argument against imperialism, not all anti-imperialists employed racialised arguments. Furthermore, the expansionist view was clearly grounded in notions of Anglo-Saxon superiority. It might be more accurate to see the two sides engaged in a contest over who could wield racialised arguments more effectively. In this contest, the imperialist side clearly won.
ReplyDelete