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).
I maintain that the key motivator behind American Imperialism was racism, as opposed to the views held by Eric Love. At the turn of the 20th century, America was a booming economy, built upon the ideals of industrialization, with almost endless ambition. As such, America looked upon its neighbouring countries and considered them inferior, with an inability to properly maximise their lands potential in an economic and industrial sense. This sense of superiority led to the idea of ‘white man’s burden’, whereby American’s believed they were helping surrounding nations, by bringing them into the ‘new world’, and allowing them to benefit from new innovations. This argument explains why America had imperialistic motivations, as it highlights America’s perception of its neighbours, and how America had to expand their own countries borders in order to maximise profit from surrounding lands. I maintain that the view held by Eric Love appears inadequate in this discussion, as clearly racism was not enough of a consideration to actually prevent American Imperialism in the long run.
ReplyDeleteLove’s argument certainly finds solid grounding amongst Southern anti-imperialists and white supremacists who opposed imperialism explicitly on racial grounds. These groups at least recognised that bringing other nations under the Republican fold of the United States meant granting citizenship to apparently inferior and savage foreign peoples. It was from this understanding that fears such as being governed by non-Anglo-Saxon people and the possibility of another civil war arose. However, it is difficult to say that race was ‘much more important’ in anti-imperialism than imperialism given the diversity and lack of unity amongst the movement. One generalisation that could be made is that a large majority of anti-imperialists were much more concerned that the shining light of Republicanism was being tarnished by the transformation into an empire. After all, without the issue of race being an explicit factor in play, it is difficult to understand how Americans could digress from the venerated Republican values and virtues that were, at least once upon a time, for ‘all men’ and readily embrace the idea of empire. On the outset, it is blatant hypocrisy considering America’s roots as a British colony and its denunciation of European powers. Once manifest destiny, the industrial prowess of the United States and the superiority and mission of the Anglo-Saxon race became engrained American values, it becomes easier to understand why imperialists argued that constitutional rights should not extend outside of the continent and why they saw expansion abroad not only in physical terms but also in terms of the 'white man's burden' (On a side note, it’d be interesting to study what happened to African-Americans after Reconstruction broke down). It was not merely a question of vassalage but of making other peoples like them. This is why I think that racism is more pervasive in American imperialism then anti-imperialism.
ReplyDeleteIt would be difficult to refute racism as a major proponent driving Imperialism, as Eric Love might argue. The American democracy had been based on the important tenants of liberty and religiosity intrinsic in what many deem a predominantly Anglo-Saxon racial fabric. Perceived American exceptionalism justified the belief that the nation possessed an obligation and duty to govern inferior races and mould their customs towards the democratic tradition. Nevertheless, many other factors drove Imperialism, as Love might contend, such as economic expansion and territorial gain. The strategic importance of certain territorial acquisitions, such as the annexation of Cuba and the Philippines, further consolidate the view that Imperialism was far more complex than being primarily racial in motivation. The Philippines and Hawaii were important as midpoints between the East and America, and many at the time saw the potential of the East as a future economic beacon. Apart from the Anglo-Saxon roots of democracy, its glorification as a just and model form of popular rule also compounded the idea that it was an American duty to civilise inferior races. By this, I contend that it was not so much racial in terms of skin colour and physical superiority, but driven by the perceived eminence of democracy as a just and fair system of political rule. Nevertheless, contrary to Love's contention, racism played a seminal role in driving American expansion, as it was America's Anglo-Saxon roots that led the nation to believe it their god-given obligation to liberate "savage" races from their slumbers of racial, social and cultural inferiority.
ReplyDeleteCertainly race was a driving factor for both imperialists and anti-imperialists. Race used as an argument against imperialism would have been persuasive to a number of groups such as white supremacists, as it maintained that these foreign races were inferior and would be incapable of amalgamating to whites in America, thus bringing a danger to the nation and another race question to those existing in nineteenth century America. While this would have been consistent with the prevailing fear of foreigners and thoughts of white, especially white American, superiority, and therefore persuasive, it may have been too much of a contrast with America’s traditional free immigration policies, and past annexations in which commercial gain is likely to have outweighed the ‘danger’ of new ‘races’ being introduced to the country. Race as against imperialism would also have been somewhat inconsistent with notions of manifest destiny and America’s self confidence in bringing civilization to other races to combat their inferiority. This is probably more persuasive as it allowed imperialism and therefore commercial gain, while still boosting Anglo-Saxon superiority.
ReplyDeleteAnglo-Saxon racial superiority was inherent in mostly all cases of imperialism and anti-imperialism. The decided view predominantly felt among the white Americans were that they were clearly more advanced and civilised than the indigenous people of Hawaii, Philippines, and the Caribbean. The only point of debate was what they should do with the people. For the imperialists, it was evident that the Hawaiians, Filipinos, and Cubans were incapable of self-rule and thus needed to be annexed to the United States. For the anti-imperialists, the only issue was that coercion and force should not be used, instead the civilising mission must be done with trade and peaceful expansion. Then there is the strain of white supremacists who favoured anti-imperialism as a way to separate the pure white race from the detriment of mixing with other lesser races, thus falling in line with Eric Love's arguments. But while it may have been convincing in the context of that time period, it was not strong enough to halt the waves of annexation. This is because the anti-imperialist camp was divided among expansionists and separatists. It is further evident that expansion was desired by the majority and the "civilising mission" of the lower races inherent in imperialism, therefore race in expansion makes a stronger argument.
ReplyDeleteWhile racism was not the sole driving factor in American imperialism at the turn of the century, it is difficult to see how it was more important as an argument against imperialism. It was used by some such as William Jennings Bryan to persuade against such imperialist conquests as the annexation of the Philippines. Anti-imperialists like Bryan believed that introducing other races into the population of the United States would only further complicate already difficult racial issues. However, the American belief in their exceptionalism and superiority over other races was stronger than this fear. Anglo-Saxons were seen to be the most dominant and evolved race and this was often given as a justification for American expansion. The nation believed expansion was their destiny and the commercial benefits of expanding outweighed other concerns. For these reasons Love’s argument would appear to be the less persuasive view.
ReplyDeleteFor some anti-imperialists, such as White Supremacists, race was used as an argument against imperialism. They contended that American annexation of nations, such as the Philippines, would simply add to the racial problems America was already facing, because, as inferior races, they could not assimilate into American society. However, it is clear that racism was more influential in driving American imperialism, rather than used as an argument against it. American’s perceived notions of exceptionalism, claimed that it was the nation’s duty to spread their democratic institutions and liberal ideas. This justified the act of America governing inferior races, as it would enable them to assist their adoption of these practices. Furthermore, it is important to note that race was not the sole reason driving imperialism. It was also considered strategic for the United States to annex nations, such Cuba and the Philippines, as it was economically and also militarily beneficial to them. Thus it can be concluded that, although race was used as an argument against American imperialism, it was predominantly used in favour of the annexation of other nations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRacism provided a pretext for imperialism, and it enabled imperialism through the notion that some peoples were naturally inferior and savage and could be disregarded as having legitimate claims on land. However, I think that the core motivations for imperialism were bound up in the desire for security, land, resources and power. That race was more of a pretext than a central driver is shown in the often ad hoc and inconsistent way subjugated populations were treated once their territory had been annexed by the United States, and how this problem was often postponed for the future to deal with. Annexing of land was the core intention, and the concomitant annexing of peoples a necessary but often contentious part of this. Therefore, though ideas of Anglo-Saxon superiority facilitated imperialism, these same ideas also provided compelling reasons against imperialism. Anti-imperialists could appeal directly to past experience: the legacy of expansion, the failure of assimilation policies and what they saw as inevitable racial conflict. At a time of immigration restriction, anti-Chinese riots and segregation in the South, these arguments would have carried popular weight. As such, I think Love’s argument that race was a more important argument against imperialism is a plausible one.
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.
ReplyDeleteI posted this ages ago but it wasn't here...
ReplyDeleteThe race arguments against American imperialism were more varied and important in forming anti-imperialist views than those used to support imperialism. The most commonly used argument for imperialism focused on the theory that the inhabitants of countries that were the focus of American imperialism would benefit from the influence of American governance. Proponents of this idea believed the indigenous people would see benefits in the growth of democracy, Christianity and American laws and ideals. In contrast those who opposed American imperialism believed it created too many issues to be worthwhile. These included; the belief that the indigenous populations of countries such as the Philippines were racially inferior, unsuitable to join the Republic, there were already enough racial problems at home, primarily the issue of dealing with African-Americans and that the indigenous populations could be civilised without the need to annex their countries.
I found that racism was often a key element or argument for imperialism. "Savagery" of "uncivilised" races was often cited as a reason for American intervention, particularly in Latin America and island nations like the Philippines. It was thought that these nations would benefit from American christianisation, education and civilisation, due to to their own lack of control and ability to govern themselves without anarchy. Love's idea of racism as an anti-imperialist sentiment goes against the ideas of Manifest Destiny and the American idea that they were appointed by god to provide a masculine figure to feminine countries 'in need'.
ReplyDelete