A BLOG ABOUT HISTORY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE PROBLEMS OF HUMAN DOMINION
Friday, January 21, 2011
HIST300F: Post-Adas Lecture Comments
Hey guys--if you have any comments or questions regarding this past week's material and would like to share them with me and the rest of the class, please feel free.
Following class today, I was just curious if you would associate the 1848 William Walker filibuster to Nicaragua with the sort of imperialistic nationalistic approach that was overtaking the United States following the acquisition of California and Texas, or was Walker just being a rebel? He used no guise in taking the area and shared no goal besides making himself "President". >> >> I used to work for an NGO in Nicaragua for 4 years and basically I learned from the locals all about how awful the US was to Nicaragua over the course of the 20th century, but they don't necessarily blame the US for Walker's crusade, which I found interesting. They just blame North Americans.
Walker is kind of a peculiar individual (in terms of personality), although he was no fluke in that he did represent a growing American interest to perhaps formally colonize parts of Latin America. Nicaragua was always in the cross hairs of American imperialists, really starting in the 1840s when numerous American interests became fixated on the country:
- for starters, as well talk about later in class, Nicaragua was seen by engineers, merchants, and naval advocates as an ideal building site for an isthmian canal
- Some Republican free soilers in the 1850s thought it may be, along with other Central American countries, an ideal place to colonize free slaves out of the U.S.
- Democratic slave advocates wanted it as new territory for slave labor systems
- A variety of capitalists hoped to establish a corporate colonialism to extract its natural resources
By the time Walker came around in the 1850s, the U.S. Navy had already shelled the Nicaraguan coast over a diplomatic dispute. Walker was essentially an idealistic mercenary with republican dreams of spreading democracy to the country, which he nearly did with a small private army. When Walker attempted to allow American business interests to exploit the country, the locals objected and he interfered to the dismay of American business leaders.While the U.S. government was ready to recognize the Walker nation (along the lines of what happened in TX), American business leaders with the aide of the British were able to take down Walker's government. He eventually fled, but was captured and killed by Honduran troops in 1860.
As we will see throughout the 20th century, this episode in the 1850s was just the beginning of Nicaraguan fears of American imperialism. So the locals you've encountered probably do have painful memories and legitimate reasons to grip.
It was mentioned briefly when talking about the displacement of the Indians other groups around the world that had similar situations, particularly Australia. I'd highly recommend watching "The Rabbit-Proof Fence" if you haven't seen it already. It's about the forced removal of aboriginal children and follows 3 of the kids as they attempt a 1,500 mile trek home.
Hi Professor,
ReplyDeleteFollowing class today, I was just curious if you would associate the 1848 William Walker filibuster to Nicaragua with the sort of imperialistic nationalistic approach that was overtaking the United States following the acquisition of California and Texas, or was Walker just being a rebel? He used no guise in taking the area and shared no goal besides making himself "President".
>>
>> I used to work for an NGO in Nicaragua for 4 years and basically I learned from the locals all about how awful the US was to Nicaragua over the course of the 20th century, but they don't necessarily blame the US for Walker's crusade, which I found interesting. They just blame North Americans.
Walker is kind of a peculiar individual (in terms of personality), although he was no fluke in that he did represent a growing American
ReplyDeleteinterest to perhaps formally colonize parts of Latin America. Nicaragua was always in the cross hairs of American imperialists, really starting in the 1840s when numerous American interests became fixated on the country:
- for starters, as well talk about later in class, Nicaragua was seen by engineers, merchants, and naval advocates as an
ideal building site for an isthmian canal
- Some Republican free soilers in the 1850s thought it may be, along with other Central American countries, an ideal place to
colonize free slaves out of the U.S.
- Democratic slave advocates wanted it as new territory for slave labor systems
- A variety of capitalists hoped to establish a corporate colonialism to extract its natural resources
By the time Walker came around in the 1850s, the U.S. Navy had already shelled the Nicaraguan coast over a diplomatic dispute. Walker was essentially an idealistic mercenary with republican dreams of spreading democracy to the country, which he nearly did with a small
private army. When Walker attempted to allow American business interests to exploit the country, the locals objected and he
interfered to the dismay of American business leaders.While the U.S. government was ready to recognize the Walker nation (along the lines
of what happened in TX), American business leaders with the aide of the British were able to take down Walker's government. He eventually
fled, but was captured and killed by Honduran troops in 1860.
As we will see throughout the 20th century, this episode in the 1850s was just the beginning of Nicaraguan fears of American imperialism. So the locals you've encountered probably do have painful memories and
legitimate reasons to grip.
It was mentioned briefly when talking about the displacement of the Indians other groups around the world that had similar situations, particularly Australia. I'd highly recommend watching "The Rabbit-Proof Fence" if you haven't seen it already. It's about the forced removal of aboriginal children and follows 3 of the kids as they attempt a 1,500 mile trek home.
ReplyDelete