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 believe racism was present in both the imperialist and anti-imperialist camps.
ReplyDeleteThe imperialists’ belief in expansion was strongly driven by racism (amongst other things). They believed Americans were the greatest race, and it was not only their Christian duty, but also their destiny to civilise the inferior races surrounding them.
However, Eric Love is also correct in asserting that anti-imperialists were quite often driven by racism. Anti-imperialists were never unified in their reasons, but certain sections, such as Southerners, argued that they knew only too well the difficulties involved in having two races in such close proximity and warned against impending “deterioration.” Similarly, AFL founder Samuel Gompers fretted over the “inundation of Mongolians” that expansion would bring.
While not all anti-imperialists were driven by racist motives, many clearly were. Therefore, I find neither view on the link between racism and imperialism or anti-imperialism more persuasive. Rather, it is clear that both sides were guilty of racism.
Racism was present amongst both Imperialists and Anti-Imperialists. While both parties held the belief that American’s were a superior race, they implemented this in different ways. Many Anti-Imperialists argued that as Americans were a superior race, they should not mix with the “lesser” races as they weren’t capable or worthy of the American achievements. However, the argument most commonly used amongst Imperialists was that of civilising these lesser races and introducing them to Christianity and American values. The interest in introducing these free institutions in areas such as the Philippines was based on America’s desire to trade with Asia. Thus race for Imperialists was more a justification rather than a core motivator.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Malone
ReplyDeleteBoth imperialist and anti-imperialist strains of thought displayed racist tendencies. While Eric Love's argument, that racism was more important to anti-imperialists is accurate, I do not find it as compelling as the argument that it was more central to that of the pro-imperialist supporters. Both American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny are ideas that were prominent right throughout the nineteenth century, and the result of the combination of these is an entrenched doctrinal mandate to enforce the Anglo-American values over other, perceived 'lesser' peoples. Such attitudes were internally focused more-so than externally, with American thinking centred on them being the apex race. Thus, although anti-imperialists used racist tactics to argue their contention, it was not as central to the cause as for the pro-imperialist supporters.
It is clear that in many senses both sides of the imperialism debate were underpinned by the inherently racist ideas of the time. This was a given in that these ideas were commonly accepted and incorporated not only into foreign policy, but played in integral role in late 19th century domestic policy as well. While the pro-imperialists argued that Cubans, Hawaiians and Filipinos were child-like in their naivety and barbarity, a similar level of racism can be seen clearly in anti-imperialist arguments (particularly coming from southern elements of this disparate alliance). However, despite Eric Loves assertion, I think that racism can be seen as being more institutionalised within the pro-imperialist camp as this side of the debate presented a more unified and solidified approach to America’s interaction a world filled with lesser ‘child-like’ peoples. In comparison to this the anti-imperialist movement was a motley assembly of disparate opposing groups (many of whom opposed imperialism for reasons unrelated to racism).
ReplyDeleteArguments both for and against American imperialism were influenced by racism. However, I believe racism is more of a convincing argument for opposing imperialism. While imperialists belittled the races America annexed, deeming them savage and incapable of self-governance, they still accepted them as colonies of the US. The annexation of nations such as Porto Rico and the Philippines were not only justified by the American responsibility to civilize but also for economic reasons. For example, according to Alfred Thayer Mahan, it was important to have Ports all over the world in order to have a strong economy and naval force. So although racism influenced American imperialism, power played an even greater role.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the use of racism as a justification for anti-imperialism appears to be a more persuasive argument. The most convincing example is that the Democrats supported the Spanish-American war but were against imperialism. Although the Democrats supported the freedom of the Philippines, they did not want to add the savage nation to their republic for fear of race mixing. Anti-imperial arguments, although often masked by Republican values, were riddled with racist arguments that aimed to keep America a purely Anglo-Saxon nation.
Though race was a significant factor in motivating imperialism and expansionism, Love’s argument is perhaps more accurate because the race argument was maybe stronger for the anti-imperialists, particularly due to the diverse groups including African-Americans and White Supremacists who supported anti-imperialism.
ReplyDeleteSome of them argued that imperialism caused more racial questions due to the problem of citizenship and how, if these foreigners became citizens, they could eventually influence the US government and laws, which would be dangerous for the Americans. They also argued that there were enough racial problems in the US as it was and the focus should be on helping those at home rather than giving supposed aid to those abroad.
For the imperialists, race was a factor, for instance in the Philippine debate, as they did not consider the Filipinos capable of self-government, and hence believed the US must step in, but it was a much less significant reason compared with the economy and honour.
Both imperialists and anti-imperialists employed race as justification for their cause. Love’s argument concerning anti-imperialists is highly persuasive for sections of the movement. It is necessary to note that anti-imperialists were diverse and segregated in their justifications. For anti-imperialists like William Jennings Bryan race was a large motivating factor, in contrast Mark Twain’s movement was not particularly categorized by racism. However Love’s argument is more appealing as imperialists used racism as a justification rather than a motivation, whereas sections of the anti-imperialist movement were driven by race.
ReplyDeleteIt is clearly evident that race was a factor employed by both American imperialists and anti-imperialists. A largely inherent imperialist view was the idea that Anglo-Saxon Americans, were of supreme eugenic status and as such had an obligation to act as overseers to the minnow nations they intended to occupy. The imperialists saw these races as being incapable of self-governance, and only the annexation by the American nation, being the way in which advancements could be achieved these nations of ‘savages’. The anti-imperialism movement on the other hand, was a mixture of factions that held a variety of views. While not wholly based on racial grounds, to the south, there were certain groups with anti-imperialist views, opposed to imperialism on the grounds that racial mingling was not beneficial to American society. However, it is clear to see that racism was far more established in the imperialist ethos as compared to the scattered factions of the anti-imperialist movement.
ReplyDeleteRace, as stated by Eric Love, was a motivating factor for many anti-imperialists, regarding the fear of assimilation, and was even utilised in imperialist justifications, such as those by Albert Beveridge. Race arguments extended once more into the idea of American Anglo-Saxon superiority, regarding proper use of the land, and religious right. American exceptionalism was still prevalent, and though justifications were largely economic, race was never a forgotten factor. Anti-Imperialist arguments did not share the same focus on race, such as the anti-assimilation justifications of William Jennings Bryan compared to Mark Twain’s case about the right to self-govern.
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.
ReplyDeleteEric Love present a contrasting and valid perspective that racism was more instrumental as an argument against imperialism, rather than the common opinion of for imperialism. Although Love’s perspective is persuasive in the suggestion that at the turn of the twentieth century, the annexation of the Philippines was just another stepping stone for America to reach China’s illustrious markets. I believe that the imperialist movement is a more persuasive argument of justifying their means through the drive of racism. For the imperialist party, the notion of the ‘white man’s burden’ to civilize and christianize any inferior races is the core foundation or concept of imperialism. Therefore, through whatever means possible, which is seen in both the Philippines American War or the violence against Native Americans, imperialism is driven more by racism than the anti imperialist movement.
ReplyDeleteLove's idea that racism and white supremacy were used to decrease imperialistic goals does have some merits, and by raising the problem of American conquest of Mexico he does find one example which seemingly proves his argument, but the persistent westward march through Native American lands, as well as the largely unprovoked Spanish-American War - significantly the war in the Philippines, seems to suggest that racism was at least not an inhibitor when it came to imperialism. The colonisation of the Philippines, although more economically driven (as a way to secure shipping lanes to the orient) than racially, was justified to the American people as a paternalistic act of benevolence, based on the assumption that as Asians, the Filipino people were incapable of self-governance. This use of racism as justification shows that whether or not the true cause of imperialism was racism, economics or both, it was at the very least widely accepted in the polity of the United States at the time.
ReplyDeleteEric Love’s argument dictates that race was the overwhelming motivational factor of the Anti-Imperialists and to some extent I agree. Those against expansion and imperialism genuinely feared intermixing of race and the issues of citizenship newly acquired peoples. However, when placed against the Imperialist argument, it is evident to see those in favour of expansion do so for stronger racist reasoning. Anglo-Saxonism and white superiority dominate imperialist reasoning. In addition the notion of expansionism is based on superseding an inferior race. Imperialists such as Alfred Beveridge shaped this argument as a duty and obligation bestowed upon the Americans. They were to spread civilisation, prosperity and self-governance amongst those who have the inability to attain it. It is American exceptionalism employed by the Imperialists that has stronger racial underpinnings then those against imperialism employ.
ReplyDeleteWhile the racial aspect of arguments for American imperialism, based around a perceived racial hierarchy that legitimised the oppression of 'lower' races by Anglo-Saxons, is without a doubt significant, one can certainly see the persuasiveness of Love's contention. The idea that race was more significant for anti-imperialists seems a strong one when we consider the diversity of anti-imperialist arguments that are steeped in race, from Southern fears of the detrimental effect of miscegenation, to the view that Filipinos were so 'savage' that they could never be 'uplifted', to African-American concerns about the need to first address domestic racial issues, to fears of racial 'inferiors' polluting the US political system, Love's argument becomes very persuasive indeed.
ReplyDelete