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).
Historians have maintained that in the last decade of the nineteenth century white-supremacist racial ideologies such as Anglo-Saxonism, social Darwinism, benevolent assimilation, and the concept of the "white man's burden" drove American imperialist ventures in the non-white world. In Race over Empire however, Eric Love contests this view and persuasively argues that racism had nearly the opposite effect for anti-imperialists. He extends this argument by highlighting, no pragmatic American politician of the time wanted to place nonwhites at the centre of an already controversial project by invoking responsibility as to 'look after' arguably savage races.
ReplyDeleteI feel that race was more a factor against American imperialism. While race was used as a justification for taking control of land such as the Philippines, to ‘protect and civilize them,’ I think the racial arguments against annexing these lands was stronger. With the popularity of eugenics, many Americans (and especially white supremacists) did not want to weaken the American stock. It was also argued that America had enough ‘race problems’ between African Americans, American Indians and immigrants from Europe and Asia, many people didn’t want another race problem to deal with.
ReplyDeleteWhile the racial 'question' has merit for both imperialists and anti-imperialists, I believe that it is a more credible argument against imperialism. The desire for a strong, genetically superior America overrode their expansionist aspirations to spread the American seed. Similarly, anti-imperialists maintained that America had enough unsolved race problems in it's own territory (Cherokees, Mexicans, African Americans for example) and it would just be ultimately foolish to inherit weaker, more savage races abroad.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAmerican Imperialism at the turn of the 19th century appears to have been driven by a number of factors and not racism exclusively. While imperialists in 1898 may have felt ‘the American character’ of Hawaii was being threatened by Japan and China and certainly the destruction of the Maine contributed to the race ‘national conversation’ it seems other factors such as the economic and territorial gains offered by Hawaii were key motivators rather than race. Accordingly the argument put forward by Love appears very persuasive. It appears American imperialism in 1898 was (mostly) a case of opportunity rather than ideology.
Eric love's argument that racism is far more important as an argument against Imperialism is the more persuasive of both positions presented. Though America had it's aspirations to expand and become the dominant force and race of the world, it did not want it's seed spoilt by the 'savage races'. America wanted to maintain it's strong,genetic superiority at home. especially with the ideal of racial Eugenics spreading with such popularity across the country. Many Americans already felt they had enough to deal with at home without adding the Philippines to their plight. With many unsolved 'race issues' with the 'savage' native Indians,African Americans, Mexicans and immigrants from Europe and Asia, the idea of having the Filipinos join this group was just another added dynamic that would make things worse in the minds of many white supremacists.
ReplyDeleteAmerican Imperialism in the late 19th century was largely based on the argument that because of their inferior race, the people of places such as Mexico, Cuba, and the Philippines needed help in order to “civilise”. However, the argument against annexing places like Mexico and the Philippines because of race is more convincing than the argument that it was their duty to “help” them. Indeed, the argument that America already had enough problems from racial conflict and human rights seems to, alone, outweigh any desire they should have had to “help” the people of distant lands. Combining this with their fears of degrading the structures of the archetypal American society and “good breeding” with infiltrating races of mixed backgrounds, the issue of race seems an eminently more convincing argument against Imperialism.
ReplyDeleteAnti-Imperialists were inclined to argue against American expansion into the Pacific or toward the Caribbean on grounds that their inhabitants of were not racially equal to Anglo-Americans. However the racial concerns of anti-imperialists did not outweigh the pro-expansionist view of exerting white American influence abroad. Anti-imperialists were also concerned with the embarrassment America would suffer should expansionism fail. Mark Twain, who did not see Filipinos as racially inferior, opposed the exercise of imperialism into the Philippines because no real measures to establish a democracy had been attempted. Instead of arguing against Imperialism on a racial platform Twain opposed American self-interest taking precedence over the freedom of Filipinos.
ReplyDeleteAmerican imperialism in the late 19th century was of a complex nature. America was initially founded on beliefs bound by equality and opportunity with aims to distance themselves from European oppression. The ideology of Manifest Destiny however certainly asserted an Anglo-Saxon-centric worldview in which races and cultures that weren't inherently 'American' (or at least what America believed itself to be at that point) were inferior from the outset. This applies equally to the Mexican and Filipino population. Any attempts by the United States to assimilate or gentrify foreign cultures can be see as both racist and bigoted on the United State's part.
ReplyDeleteI definitely lean more towards American imperialism being driven by economic and strategic reasons and therefore racism would only be an argument for isolationism. As we studied the Philippine-American war, Americans were driven by economic and strategic reasons. Those that were very racist wanted a pure America and imperialism would only increase immigration and mixing of races. Imperialists were at times racist but that was not their main reason for invading other countries. The average American at that time would have had more concern over maintaining and protecting their race.
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.
ReplyDelete