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).
While many imperialists did espouse racial superiority over countries such as Cuba and the Philippines, their primary motivator for expansion was economic. Anti-imperialists on the other hand were sceptical of the ability to integrate these ‘inferior’ races into the American Republic. They also stressed the fact that should they be granted statehood in the future, the American Anglo-Saxons would be outbred. There was also the argument from African-American anti-imperialists who believed that the United States should focus on facilitating progress of racial minorities in America before they attempt to do so abroad.
ReplyDeleteWhile the concept of racial superiority was widespread throughout American society, it wasn’t necessarily a motivating factor behind imperialist endeavours. The concept that race is a stronger argument against imperialism is certainly more valid. To anti-imperialist, the idea of having to mix with and come into prolonged contacted with individuals, who were deemed savage and under developed, was a strong motivation to leave such colonies be. Anti-imperialist believed to take on such colonies, would be of further burden to the US, and that any benefits that could be obtained were not worth the hassle.
ReplyDeleteNeither these two views is more persuasive, personally, in respect that the relationship between racism and America imperialism was not simply "one-way push" or "one-way against". Under the development of monopoly capitalism, If Americans hold the view that they should take the land which those "barbarians" don't deserve, like what Andrew Jackson said in Cherokee Removal, then racism would go for imperialism. On the other hand, under the fear of side effects brought by mass immigration, if Americans hold the view that they should avoid absorbing those "barbarians" into American citizens, like what George Custer believed that savages cannot be civilized and absorbed into civilized society, then racism would go against imperialism.
ReplyDeleteHongyi Guo 22336974
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.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late reply. Er...
DeleteI'm actually on Hongyi's side here; I feel that both sides used racist angles quite effectively in the debate - however, it was the wave of the times to have an empire, sort of how nukes are popular with burgeoning states in modern times. I think that the U.S.A was experiencing a kind of 'puberty' at this point, in the same manner that the Germans were - both being relatively young but extremely powerful states, they needed a direction upon which to channel that power; in this case, empire was a very viable option, and hence why the idea was so incredibly popular. In other words, both countries mentioned had a very patriotic 'me-too-ism' running through the public imagination at this time, and hence, even though both sides were equally persuasive, the imperialists won out.