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).
After Tuesday’s debate, it became evident that racism was a driving force behind both Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism campaigns. However, I am defiantly persuaded by Love’s argument. Justifications of US exceptionalism, the racial inferiority and inadequacy of the inhabitants of the land and thus, the ‘white mans burden’, were the key themes in both Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism arguments. In my opinion, these justifications would be more likely to persuade a nation against the hassle of annexing a difficult and inferior group of peoples into what they thought to be an already exceptional nation. (Jessica Hird)
ReplyDeleteAs Jacobson remarked, America’s mutual disdain for the ‘inferior’ races was utilised by both sides of the debate to satisfy both imperialist and anti-imperialist agendas. While the imperialists justified expansion on the paternalistic basis of the ‘white man’s burden’ to spread their superior Anglo-Saxon values to races deemed to be inferior and uncivilized, Love’s claim appears to be strongly supported particularly amongst those in the legislature. Senator William Jennings Bryan, Senator Tillman and Senator John Daniel utilised race as an argument against imperialism, with Bryan arguing that the acquisition of the Philippines would only bring another race to the racial problems they were already grappling with domestically. To Senator Daniel, this ‘marriage of nations’ would have a detrimental effect to the racial homogeneity and therefore the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon people. In the context of the mass migration of the 1780s and the racism that ensued against these new immigrants, Love’s claim that racism was a driving force against imperialism appears to be substantiated.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that both pro and anti-imperialists movements invoked racist elements into their arguments; however I find Love’s argument more persuasive. Anti-imperialist ideologies were grounded upon racist notions such as the fear of dealing with another inferior race domestically. While Imperialist movements were largely centred on racist ideas such as Anglo-Saxon superiority, they also concerned other motivations such as economic opportunities, this is displayed clearly in the case of the Philippines. Therefore, I believe that Eric Love was correct in his view that race played a more important role in anti-imperialist movements.
ReplyDeleteHey Nick, I defiantly posted on this around 2pm today, and now I can't see my comment?
ReplyDeleteWhen I sent it today it showed up as published, so I don't know what's happened there. I didn't have my response saved anywhere (will know better for next time), but as far as I can remember:
ReplyDeleteBoth imperialist and anti-imperialist groups used race as a powerful mechanism of persuasion. Love's argument is persuasive, however it cannot diminish the extent to which imperialist factions also used race as a justification to enable American expansion. American belief in their own exceptionalism, and the gradual entrenchment of racial hierarchies within American society (against African American, Indian and Chinese populations) allowed the issue of race to be manipulated against the general public.
In cases such as the annexation of the Philippines, McKinley was certainly motivated by the political, military and economic benefits of taking control, yet he justified his actions in the racial terms of the Filipino population being "unfit for self-government". Similarly, Bryan in his opposition described the "danger" the native population would be to America, while his actual argument was based in the possible economic ramifications for America. Race was not a motivator for American anti-imperialism (or imperialism), it was merely the means through which these stances could be justified.
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.
ReplyDelete