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).
To my mind, Love’s argument that racial ideas worked more as an argument against imperialist expansion than as a key motivating force for imperialism is useful in explaining the inconsistency that exists in the mainstream argument. The inconsistency being that despite racial thinking emphasizing the danger of intermixing of races and the benefits of the separation of racial superiors and inferiors, the US still sought to annex and control nations considered racially inferior, thus brining them into closer contact with ‘white America’. It seems clear that racism associated with white supremacy could be “mobilized equally well both for and against imperialism” and racial rhetoric was shaped to suit and justify imperialist expansion by American elites to obscure the reality of their often non-racial, economic motivations.
ReplyDeleteI find the argument of Eric Love the more persuasive. Racism of course played a major part in the rhetoric of government and in the media as well as the minds of decision-makers. Both pro and anti-imperialist factions in the US had racist theories as part of their own arguments; both considered (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) American culture and civilisation superior. Anti-imperialist factions considered such factors as the fears of racial mixing while even pro Imperialists were deeply divided on how to integrate inferior peoples. Therefore, with both factions harbouring fears and concerns it is acceptable to believe that race was more important as an argument against imperialism.
ReplyDeleteBoth pro-imperialism and anti-imperialism movements contained race based arguments. The pro-imperialist arguments were based upon the duty of the superior Anglo-Saxon race to uplift and anglicanize the inferior races they encountered. The anti-imperialist arguments were based on a fear of race mixing and degradation of the Anglo-Saxon race if they were forced to live too closely with the same inferior races. Considering the great extent of expansion that occurred, despite the fears of anti-imperialists, I believe the argument that racism drove imperialism is more persuasive. If racist sentiments were in greater support of anti-imperialism, then the United States would not have acquired the great amount of territory and large number of racially diverse people that it did. Racist feeling drove imperialists to go further and strive harder to prove that the Anglo-Saxon American was the most superior race in the Western hemisphere. While there were anti-imperialist fears about what would happen to the Anglo-Saxon race if they allowed inferior races to join their society, these fears were not strong enough to prevent the large expansion that did occur.
ReplyDeleteRacist sentiment drove both the imperialist and non-imperialist sides in America. But ultimately as the imperialist path was taken racism has to be viewed as much stronger on the imperialist than the non-imperialist side. The basic argument for American imperialism and expansion was that of a racially superior Anglo-Saxon people claiming what was rightfully theirs from racially inferior peoples. Further the Anglo-Saxon race was the only race that should or could rightfully hold land. While the anti-imperialist side did contain arguments of preventing racial mixing, it also equally put forward other arguments that any race was able to self-govern, an argument based in race but not inherently racist. As such the argument that American imperialism at the turn of the century was driven by racism is the more convincing one.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear without a doubt that race was a key motivating factor for factions arguing either for or against imperialism. Anti-imperialists saw Imperialism as a gate way for 'inferior peoples' to become a part of U.S society which they believed would lead to the degeneration of the 'Anglo-Saxon' people. Pro-Imperialists however saw themselves as trying to teach these peoples how to govern themselves and civilize their culture as well as increase the U.S's ability to trade on a larger scale, focusing on the idea that it was their pre-ordained role to undertake this task. However Anti-imperialists centred majority of their argument around Race where as pro imperialists focused on a number of different arguments such as trade. Therefore I agree with Love's argument in that Race played a far more central and pivotal role in arguments against imperialism as it did for arguments for imperialism.
ReplyDeleteCertainly race played a major role in American imperialism at this time; however the role that it played is questionable. If we consider the annexation of the Philippines for instance, we see that the desire for trade and for the bounty that the land provided was considered by many to be the main force behind this policy rather than being driven by race (as arguably the displacement of native Americans had been). Race was an excuse used to increase the appeal of annexation, not the primary of American imperialism. Therefore Love’s theory does have more merit because certainly anti-Imperialists such as Jennings Bryan argued that the Philippines should not be annexed because the amalgamation of the two races as equals was never possible, because of the racial inferiority of the Filipino people in comparison to the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ Americans. Difference of race was indeed the central argument used by Anti-Imperialists.
ReplyDeleteThe prevailing argument of 'Race' as a driving force behind U.S. Imperialism, is built around the idea that Americans truly believed that they were indeed the superior people. Key historical events such as Cherokee Removal, Westward Expansion, and the mass migration of the late 1800's, all serve to showcase this 'Racial' argument, as negative American attitudes were exhibited. However, Eric Love's contention that Race was an argument against Imperialism, seems more plausible. Love makes note of the general underlying tones of disdain toward different races, shared amongst the American people. So much so, that both anti and pro-imperialist factions shared common ground on their stance against racial mixing and integration of different races into society. This shaped American attitudes toward domestic and foreign policy and without a doubt, is the greater argument against imperialism.
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.
ReplyDeleteRacism undoubtedly informed both anti-imperialist and pro-imperialist sentiment in the USA in the 1890s. Anti-imperialists presented American expansion into foreign territory as the disintegration of American society, by forcing true Americans to assimilate with less civilised, inferior foreigners. Once foreign nations were annexed, they argued, the nationals would have to become American citizens. However, the imperialists were far more successful in adopting racist arguments in their favour. For instance, by emphasising on the savagery of the Filipinos, imperialists justified not granting them citizenship; the Constitution only applied to people capable of being self-governed. Furthermore, another driving force of imperialism in America was the belief in the divine duty of the Anglo-Saxons to bring enlightenment to inferior nations. Underlining this benevolence was a strong current of racism, placing emphasis on the inability of foreign nationals to properly develop their country, and thus portraying America, with its industrialised cities and Republican govt, as the saviour who would directly influence these nations by annexing them. Annexation was framed in terms of superior Anglo-Saxons merely cultivating land that inferior races were incapable of appreciating. This was a very compelling argument for many Americans, who strongly believed in god and in their country’s exceptionality.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion imperialism has and will always be driven by economic concerns. Ideas of morality, such as the white mans burden; ideology, such as democracy; and racism, such as the idea of an inferior race, are used as a means to justify imperialism in the eyes of the public, however, when you look behind the rhetoric it is clear that the real reason is economic gain. The Philippines provided a gateway to china and even today the invasion into Iraq was justified on the basis of spreading democracy but arguably the real motivation was to gain control over the oil reserves. In addition, as love argues, given the concerns about slavery, Chinese migration and the problems with integrating the inferior race it seems more likely that arguments of race would have provided a stronger basis for the anti-imperialists than for imperialists.
ReplyDeleteContrary to Love’s opinion, I do not believe that racism was an argument against imperialism. Although racism was not necessarily the predominant incentive for imperialist action, it certainly served as a justification, especially in the case of the Philippines. The American ideal of being a superior Anglo-Saxon race forged the pretext to expand into nations such as the Philippines which were viewed as inherently inferior due to their race. However, American imperialism was based more upon economic motivations than anything. Ideas of racial superiority served to both obscure and justify America’s economic motives to expand.
ReplyDelete