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).
Eric Love's argument is more compelling. Anti-Imperialists argued that there was no need for their superior race to become entangled within the "mess" (Twain) of lesser races. Many of those against the idea of an American Empire vehemently argued that lesser races were not worthy of their ideas and institutions. Moreover, if they denied inclusion of the Indians at home, "how dare (they) grant it to the Malay abroad" (Beveridge). Americans had had a distaste for other races at home for many decades, and following racial issues with those such as the Chinese they saw no need to expand and encounter 'primitivism' abroad.
ReplyDeleteEric Love’s argument that race was much more important as an argument against imperialism is more persuasive. Imperialism at the turn of the century was driven more by the ‘perceived’ economic gains of trade with Asia and an outlet for produce into new markets. Further, the God given right of the American people to spread their free institutions of government, commerce and religion. The argument of race was used as a means of justification of ruling others not the driving cause of creating an Empire.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the most propagated Imperial argument is racism and America's Manifest Destiny, while the anti-Imperialists mainly employ the noble argument that annexing foreign territory and peoples is disavowing American Republic integrity and that foreign races should be given the opportunity to self-govern. However the underlying ulterior motives of these two sides are completely different. The anti-Imperialists are motivated by fear of decline in racial quality and labour competition at home if inferior races of new territories are to be included. The fact that the Anti-Imperial League neglected their potential biggest supporters in their petition- African-Americans and immigrants - demonstrates their unresolved racial prejudice. Meanwhile, the Imperialists only truly desire political and economic power from conquering new territories whilst using the extension of American civilisation as a humanitarian façade. Basically both sides are racist, but Eric Love's analysis gives light to the genuine racist insecurities within the anti-Imperial argument.
ReplyDeleteAmerican society using racism to justify imperialism is the more persuasive argument, than racism as an argument against imperialism. The supposed racial superiority of the American people was used to override the argument that government is derived from the democratic will of the people, because these people were not able to govern themselves. LaFeber writes that the victory of McKinley, who was in favour of expansion, over Bryan who was against imperialism, shows that society was willing to employ the idea that it was the “Manifest Destiny” of America to educate the less civilised races. Racism was seen as a less selfish way to justify other motivations for imperialism.
ReplyDeleteEric Love’s argument is more persuasive, because it is logical. The 1880s exclusion of the Chinese from migrating to the USA, followed by similar exclusion of Japanese and Koreans, was driven by racism. White free Americans were deeply racist, especially in regard to blacks and Asians. Following the 1893 coup against Queen Liliukalani in Hawai’i there was reluctance in Washington to formally annex the islands, as the inhabitants were seen as close to savages and incapable of self-government. The imperialists only succeeded in the 1890s because the US had won a traditional war against a comparable, civilized power, Spain, and the Philippines practically fell into US hands following the decisive naval victory at Manila Bay. Manifest Destiny – God had somehow given the US the Philippines – overcame scruples about having to deal with Filipinos.
ReplyDeleteRacism as an argument against imperialism is more persuasive than racism as a driver of American imperialism. The anti-imperialist argument that annexing nations such as the Philippines and Hawaii would compromise the racial homogeneity of American citizens is more logical and apparent than suggestions that the inhabitants of these nations were too uncivilised and savage to govern themselves. The fear of other races entering into American society can be seen prior to the imperial issue through dealings with the Indians, the exclusion of Chinese from migrating to America and the interest around the ‘science’ of defining classes even within the European races.
ReplyDeleteAlthough race played a significant role in motivating imperialism, the argument presented by Eric Love, that race was important as an argument against imperialism, is also convincing. Imperialism was very much driven by economic interests. For instance, the annexation of nations such as the Philippines presented strategic possibilities for the US, such as proximity to China’s economic sources. It was the economic reasons, more than racial, that influenced the power hungry America at the turn of the 20th century to expand. While the US apparently ‘assisted’ the Cherokees from their ‘savage’ lifestyle, their true agenda was to expand to further their economic interests. Thus racism as an argument against imperialism is more persuasive.
ReplyDeleteEric Love presents a strong argument, his beliefs that race was more instrumental as an argument against imperialism, instead of for, has a solid base and is well supported. Love's argument is more convincing because of his perception, that annexing nations such as the Philippines would cause the traditional racial constructs to become compromised. Rather than argue that the native people of these lands would without annexation, descend further into barbarism and thus required the leadership of a "civilised" established government
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLove’s argument that racism was more significant in anti-imperialist movements at the turn of the century fails to fully recognise the use of racism as a justification for American imperialist actions over the decades preceding 1898. Racism has been used throughout American history as a justifying and legitimising force for the acquisition of Native American lands and the land of neighbouring countries. These territorial gains were undertaken through the premise that Anglo-Saxon America had been equipped with a superior intellect, an aptitude for hard work, and the ability to lead or rule over lesser races.
ReplyDeleteBoth imperialists and anti-imperialists used racism to justify their positions, which shows how prevalent pseudo-scientific racial theory was at the turn of the century. However, if I had to pick a side for whom racism was more important, I would say it was the imperialists. American imperialism rested on the theory that the United States had a duty to "lift up" and "civilise" the "lesser" races of the world. After all - and someone correct me if I'm wrong on this - but as far as I'm aware, the US never considered annexing a nation of Anglo-Saxons. By contrast, the arguments against imperialism were quite diverse, and while some of these were racist, not all were. For example, in the case of the Philippines, Bryan - who opposed annexation - actually rejected racism, by maintaining that the Filipinos were not so racially inferior as to be incapable of self-government.
ReplyDeleteEric love’s argument that racism played an more important role in the anti- imperialism movement is more persuasive .Anti-imperialist argued USA was not ready to annex Philippines, especially with the existing racial conflict such as black and Indians at home. Moreover, anti-imperialist argued Americans were more superior and civilized than Filipinos, and there were no reason to accept a racial inferior group into the America. Especially if America annexes Philippines as a state, Filipinos will have the right to become the US senators or even run for the President. This was not acceptable in anti-imperialist’s view, because USA should not be governed by any inferior race. At the turn of the century, America was not ready to become the United States of America and Asia.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many used the notion of racial superiority as a justification of imperialism, racist sentiments against imperialist expansion were stronger. The Republicans thought the Filipinos were ‘unfit for self-government’ (William McKinley) however the deeply rooted notion of racial superiority however was a justification for more economically driven reasons to expand. Love’s argument is more convincing, because many opposed imperialism solely for racial reasons. This was indicated by William Jennings Bryan claiming ‘we cannot afford another race question’.
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