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).
If racism were a more important drive than imperialism in America's 19th century expansion, the history of the nation would have played out significantly differently. During the Mexican-American War, when US Generals captured Mexico City and enforced the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, why did they not push the settlement south of the Rio Grande? As we know from the numerous first-hand accounts that white Americans' attitudes toward Latin Americans were characterised by racism, why then did America not annex Mexico as a whole? The answer is purely economic: The US did not possess business interests any further south into the Mexican desert. Likewise, empire was only driven by imperialism; specifically, the expansion of the American market.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRace represented a significant outlet with which Americans utilised to distinguish their superiority and establish their justifications for, as well as against imperialism. As Carl Schurz lamented, if America were to admit any of the Caribbean or Pacific islands to the union, its citizens “will not only be permitted to govern themselves as to their home concerns, but will take part in governing the whole republic”, an alarming prospect for the demise of the American republic at the time.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Southern history taught that racial diversity was an issue not to be taken lightly in a self-governing Republic, and that racial homogeneity represented a virtue in itself, pertaining to early vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman’s qualms regarding the “ultimate destruction” of the American race if Imperialism permitted the mingling and mix-breeding of native populations with Americans, which appears as the stronger argument within the narrow perspectives American opinion at the time.
Andrea Lau
The American view of their own superior 'Anglo-Saxon' race, combined with their perceived divine mission to spread the ideal way of life, resulted in imperial action that seems to be driven by racism. Senator Beveridge exclaims: "God has made us skillful in government so that we may administer it among savage peoples". This would indicate that the desire to 'help the savages' was part of their racial duty, and a key factor in driving imperialism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, many Americans, such as Ben 'Pitchfork' Tillman, despite being a white supremacist, was an anti-imperialist and he did not want the Unite States to be tainted by those not of Anglo-Saxon stock. The mingling of white Americans and those populations native to annexed lands was considered to be a degradation of white America.
Ultimately, although racism might not have been a motivating factor for imperialism, once countries were annexed, it was a driving force in attempting to civilise the indigenous populations.
American imperialism at the turn of the century was driven mostly by economic and strategic reasons, more so than racism. The acquisition of land by the US was primarily economically driven, to expand their resources and economy, as well as, to a lesser degree, strategically in the case of a base in Hawaii and the Philippines. The inclusion of racial arguments, either for or against, came secondary. In this sense, those arguing for imperialism were primarily interested in the economic benefits new territory would bring, concerned secondarily with racial issues. On the other hand, arguments against imperialism tended to include racism as a reason against imperialism, which backs up Eric Love’s argument.
ReplyDeleteThe American imperialism at the turn of the century was highly motivated by race. The case of the Philippines where the American government justified their annexation based on the idea of civilising the child like Filipinos. The case of the Philippines also had economic significance as it allowed a base for easy access to Asian markets. However, the justification used was not one of economics; it was one of racial superiority. Economic concerns may have been a driving factor but they were couched in racial rhetoric. Moreover, Eric Love’s contention that race was important as an argument against imperialism is also problematic. For example one of the leading groups of anti-imperialists were white supremacists who were opposed to imperialism as it would bring other ‘inferior races’ into American culture. Thus, even some arguments that utilised race in an anti-imperialist way were racist in themselves and in a way that established American dominance.
ReplyDeleteEric Love's assessment that race was more important as an argument against imperialism is convincing in that the anti-imperialists of the United States were outraged at the thought of the annexation of the Philippines due to what they saw as their ability to taint the white, Anglo-Saxon stock of their country. This thinking is epitomized in Ben 'Pitchfork' Tillman. His racist logic proves that the reasons for imperialism went much farther than skin-colour or attitudes to other races; instead it is clear that they desired the further spread of the States' control for future monetary and economical benefits (control of the Philippines opens up the ports for contact with Asian markets). Despite this, racial superiority was still an underlying issue supporting imperialism and the annexation of countries like the Philippines because of the desire of some (such as President McKinley) to spread what they saw as their highly superior government and democracy, in order to 'help' the 'child-like' Filippinos.
ReplyDeleteThe inherent fear of many Americans that once other races had been admitted into the United States as a result of imperialism, they would not only govern themselves but also govern Anglo-Saxon Americans highlights one of the key ways in which race could be used as an argument against America’s imperialistic ventures. Furthermore, for white supremacists such as Ben Tillman, who argued that due to his experiences as a southerner he understood the discord of different races living in close proximity, allowing new races into America would sow further discord into the fabric of Anglo-Saxon society, therefore making imperialism a highly contentious exploit. Consequently, whilst American imperialism at the turn of the century would have indeed been driven, in some cases, by racism and a desire to civilize “savage” nations, Eric Love’s argument that race was more important as an argument against imperialism is more persuasive due to the inherent fear of the “other” overrunning and controlling the American way of life.
ReplyDeleteJessica Cutter
Both theories have a standing in the American Imperialism debate depending on the view of the beholder. The narrow perspective of the people in the late 18th century would have made the comments of two more extreme representatives of their view possibly quite relevant to them. Ben Tillman and his idea of white supremacy was a perfect example against Imperialism. His argument that different races should not mix because it would lead to a disintegration of the superior race is fairly convincing for these group of people. On the other hand Rudyard Kipling outlines with his poem “the white men’s burden” the racial duty to civilize and educate the Philippine people and enhances the process to a noble cause. Both are racially driven and can be convincing depending what side you are on.
ReplyDeleteRace was an important reason for American imperialism, but it was not its driving force. Rather, much of turn of the century imperialism was driven by national prestige and economic interest. For example, the war on Cuba was mainly pushed by a desire to expand America's sphere of influence and to take revenge on the Spanish for the sinking of the Maine.
ReplyDeleteRace cannot be the most influential motive for imperialism because it was used in both the pro and anti imperialist camps. The pro imperialist view was that imperialism would increase the 'white man's burden' of colony for the sake of development. Some anti imperialists argued that by expanding the U.S' zone of control, there was the chance of having to include (what they saw as) lesser races into their government. Eric Love's argument is still important however, because it establishes that in both the imperialist and anti-imperialist camps there was widespread debate because of the question of race.
Campbell Bews
American Imperialism at the turn of the century was near its peek with the Phillipines coming under their control, however many wrongly label racial issues as the key reason for this imperialistic move. The economic benefits of acquiring the Philippines from the Spanish far outweighed the initial cost and it was this reason that the Americans sought after it. Often imperialism was cloaked under the ideal of spreading democracy to other nations and people. It was argued that the Filipino people were incapable of taking care of themselves and thus the American’s were needed to step in. This was obviously a racial notion that lends weight that racism supported imperialism rather than hindered it. Some people in America argued that adopting the Filipino people would ruin the homogeneity of the American race, however this was a minority and the racist views in America at the time leant more weight to imperialism than against it. Overall though, it was not spreading democracy or helping a lesser people but a desire for a stronger American market that lead to colonising the Philippines under American power.
ReplyDeleteTo say that American imperial expansion was driven by racism is to simplify the issue. Race was certainly an issue connected to imperial expansion, with many Americans believing it was their right to expand due to their racial superiority. However race was certainly used in arguments against expansion also, the contention being that the absorption of other cultures and races would dilute the American stock. The more persuasive view, in my opinion, is that of race being a driving force behind expansion, rather than a hindrance, due to the overwhelming atmosphere of racial superiority at the turn of the century.
ReplyDeleteRacial Ideology was important to America's white supremacy but it did not rule the reason for American Imperialism. The American Imperialism drive of the early eighteenth century was driven by economic and strategic reasons rather than racial especially in the Philippines because it opens up new trade routes.So therefore Eric Love does have valid points in his view that racism is important for the argument against American Imperialism.
ReplyDeleteWhile 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.
ReplyDelete