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).
It is not necessary to determine if race was more important as an argument for or against imperialism. The fact is, race was a prominent issue for most Americans during this period and both imperialists and non-imperialists used the issue of race to support their cases.
ReplyDeleteThose arguing against imperialism asserted that the strange foreign people are too inferior and, therefore, unworthy of annexation. The United States' nobility, stability and integrity would be compromised.
In reserve, those for imperialism argued that the foreign and inferior races cannot self-govern and leaving them by themselves will result in anarchy. If America did not do the right thing by following its divine destiny to help these people, other countries from Europe will conquer these people and this is absolutely non ideal.
As a final point, there was a small group of anti-imperialists, represented by Mark Twain who actually argued that everyone are all equal people despite the colour of their skin. Therefore, the foreigners should be allowed to govern themselves. However, such opinions were not common and were the least persuasive and least appealing to their contemporaries.
Both views have very valid arguments and points to make. However, I think that the most valid points are in favour of the argument that American imperialism was driven in part by racism. America's imperialism at the turn of the century was merely an extension of what was already happening and had already taken place with expansion in the West. It was basically American expanding their influence and control. This was made easier by the ay they viewed their counterparts. originally, it was the Indians, then the Filipinos. The American's felt that many of their counterparts around the world were innately inferior and not capable of becoming civilised on their own. This inherent racism drove American's to expansion as they held the belief that it was their 'duty' to help these nations become civilised.
ReplyDeleteIt is imprudent to state that race was more important as an argument against imperialism; racial arrogance in the first place was the driving force for expansion and it was seen less as a victory for the principles of democracy than as evidence of the innate superiority of Anglo-Saxons and their destiny to enlighten and guide other inferior nations by the help of God. Moreover, American imperial ambitions and plans were based on the concept of race from the very beginning, on what grounds they could eventually conquer other lands, establish new markets, and force immigrants to work only as cheap labour for their own benefits (e.g, railroad construction in the sixties in California). Scientific theories were also responsible to prove nations (e.g., Indians, Blacks) to be biologically inferior; the future of the American nation and Empire heavily relied on racism.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the specific question whether or not Philippines should be retained by the United States demonstrated how parties could apply beloved racial ideology to argue against imperialism; anti-imperialists argued that it is impossible to have two nations side by side without deterioration and injury to both. Moreover, Filipinos wouldn’t be able to assimilate in the American society, but then wasn’t it America’s duty as a superior race to guide culturally and politically inferior nation, the Filipinos, incapable of self-government?
Race is the mother of imperialism in America and how Americans themselves (e.g., anti-imperialists) have credibility to argue against their own child? Not much…
Maria S. (22504079).
Despite fuelling certain anti-imperialist arguments, I find the view that racism drove American imperialism more convincing. American imperialism was driven by the concept of manifest destiny, proclaiming that America would inevitably spread civilization across the continent and abroad. The assumption that only America could spread civilization automatically implies racist attitudes towards other cultures, as they were deemed incapable of developing without American intervention. In particular, racist attitudes were active in influencing the decision to annex the Philippines following the defeat of the Spanish in the Spanish-American War. Arguments that the Philippines were incapable of self-governing reasserts the belief that American superiority was necessary to guide and establish society in weaker nations.
ReplyDeleteI think that issues of race were equally important to many proponents on either sides of the spectrum: to those that advocated American imperial expansion and those who condemned it and it is easy to see how within the context of late nineteenth century America both arguments could be equally effective.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, supporters of imperialism argued that other peoples were culturally and scientifically inferior to Anglo Saxons. For instance, there was a concern that as the Philippines was incapable of self governance, without American intervention it would either fall into anarchy, or under the hand of another world power.
However, many of the principle arguments used by opponents to imperialism were equally racist. For instance, many argued that migrants from the Philippines would create additional 'colour problems', and that they were unworthy of annexation.
One argument really appealed to a sense of racial superiority and it's inherent duty in maintaing order , while the other appealed to a sense of cultural protectionism against that which was seen as foreign, inferior and culturally threatening.
Racial prejudices have been presented as a popular factor in American politics in 1898. In an attempt to justify American imperialism, Alfred Mahan explained that overseas expansion was no different to the continental expansion of the 19th century. The United States were justified in taking lands away from primitive tribes as they were “[contravening] the purposes of human life” both domestically and abroad. The United States, by claiming these lands and civilising its peoples, were adhering to their manifest destiny.
ReplyDeleteEric Love argues for a revision of the standard historical narrative that racial ideologies drove imperialist ventures. Love argues that politicians avoided the concept of “white man’s burden” because racial concerns would have drawn negative support for projects. His argument is more convincing because Americans, in 1898, who condoned Chinese exclusion and segregation of nonwhites, would have preferred to avoid primitive races than embrace them with annexation.
Racial prejudice in the United States at the turn of the century can help to explain both imperialism and anti-imperialism of the time. Many Americans viewed populations that were not of Anglo-Saxon descent as inferior, and believed that it was their duty to govern and guide these people towards a new and better way of life. Such populations were also viewed as inferior by many individuals that argued against imperialism, as they believed that close association with inferior populations would put the United States in jeopardy, and be ultimately detrimental to all those involved.
ReplyDeleteRacism was a very important argument for both sides of the imperialist debate, however I believe that its usage was more effective for the pro-imperialist movement simply by fact that the imperialist side won. As an argument it was effective in helping the US get their way, even though the argument was also a particularly effective fear argument for the other side. It simply exposed the nature which is more dominant in US culture, while fear of other races may be strong, there is an overwhelming desire to control and spread their christianity which outweighs this, as it can be couched in their moral superiority and divine providence, something more reconcilable than pure fear and racism within the US psyche.
ReplyDelete(I had posted this once yesterday but it didn't upload properly so I'm uploading it again, hopefully it works this time...)
While there is substantial merit to Love’s idea that race was important to those who opposed imperialism, I still find the opposing argument more persuasive. At its heart, the process of imperialism rests on a racist notion that certain groups of people are inferior to others, and therefore can be made subservient to the metropolitan power. This consideration was clearly evident in the American decision to accept the Philippines as a formal colony. It was not just the rhetoric of imperialists regarding the inferiority of the Filipinos that justified action, but the economic argument was also driven by racial ideas. The desire to turn hundreds of millions of Chinese people into American-style consumers can be seen as an economic kind of Manifest Destiny, with all of the racial underpinnings associated with it.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides are persuasive and it is clear that race was an important factor in American society at the turn on the century. It fuelled both sides of the imperial argument. Anti-imperialists argued that the purity of the Caucasian race would be diluted by allowing inferior races into America. A small minority argued that all human beings are equal and that they should have the ability to govern themselves. For the pro-imperialists the argument of manifest destiny and American exceptionalism lent to a duty to colonising states.
ReplyDeleteWhile both views can be seen in some form throughout America’s expansion, racism was certainly all the more present and persuasive. Throughout their policies of expansion the racist tendencies of America and its political parties are evident whether it be the Cherokee removal, Mexican- American war or the annexation of the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteThe race argument was embraced by both sides, with the pro- imperialists party believing that race showed the ‘other’ to be inferior, barbaric and backward, justifying their divine mission to spread democracy and liberties through whatever means possible. Anti-imperialists parties also used race in their argument, with a belief in equality for all and the foreigners’ ability to self-govern, all of which was supported by America’s Declaration of Independence. While both views were present at the time of America’s expansion race as an argument for imperialism was definitely more persuasive and more commonly held.
Racism is convincingly used to argue in support of imperialism and also against imperialism.
ReplyDeleteRace was used by imperialists to contend that the annexation of areas outside continental America was a dutiful, humanitarian act. Justifications for this view were derived from beliefs that the Americans, as Anglo-Saxons, were the superior race with their exceptional intelligence, culture, principles and government. These feelings of superiority then led to the belief that Americans had a responsibility to spread their ideals and civilisation to inferior races, such as the Filipinos.
These feelings of race superiority were also applied to arguments against imperialism. Such arguments revolved around the view that annexation would lower American standards by allowing inferior races into American society, and that it would ruin racial homogeneity in America. These feelings had driven government policy before, as seen by efforts to restrict the movement of certain races into America.
Both arguments reflect popular views of race at the time and have the same degree of importance and prominence, and therefore the same level of persuasiveness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete