I think that Love makes a really interesting and valid argument that race was actually an obstacle to U.S. "expansionist" efforts. This argument was completely new to me since I was taught under the conventional ideology that white supremacists wanted to conquer and assimilate "inferior" races. However, Love uses compelling evidence to suggest that congressmen were actually repulsed at the idea acquiring a whole territory full of savage "colored people." Love's chapter on Santo Domingo illustrated his point especially convincingly. Schurtz and Sumner clearly thought the people of the tropics were too savage to understand or work within the confines of a democratic system.
Also, the people of the tropics were clearly thriving and if annexed, would become active citizens. However, it seems as though U.S. foreign policy in regards to expansion depended on the combination of a declining native population and that the people's "affinity" for democracy. The problem with Santo Domingo was that the U.S. would be ADDING mixed races to its population as well as a group of people who politicians did not think could work in a democracy. In contrast, Hawaii's population was steadily declining and their people seemed to be prime candidates for citizens of a democracy. This would allow U.S. citizens to pour into Hawaii and dominate that territory, in the same way they had taken over the West and Amerindians. Therefore, Love makes a compelling argument that the U.S. was not interested in assimilating other people, only in acquiring their territory.
Jessica makes a good point, that this argument will be new to a lot of people that race was an obstacle to the government in its expansionist efforts. Love puts aside the tradition that it was the "white mans burden" to assimilate other races that were different.
Love also raises the argument of "white racial limitations" (p.24) in talking about what regions the U.S would try and occupy. The theory that there are boundries divided by climate and that every race had it's own habitat. These factors determined that if the white race tried to colonize these areas it would come at a great cost and not worth the risk.
This seemed to be one consideration in the failed Santo Domingo annexation. According to Love race was more of a road block to many policies, and not something that gets much attention. I think the point that Schurz makes (p.67) is a major argument by Love that race was far more important than we are sometimes taught. Schurz askes if we annex all these places in the West Indies what do we do with all the millions of people that would now want a voice. Again it's only about the land and how much we can control.
Racism is defined in the book as “exclusionary relations of power based on race”. It goes on to continue that racism upheld social hierarchies and a system of privilege and oppression, which was founded in the belief that whites were superior to any other race. Love continues by stating that Anglo-Saxonism, social Darwinism, benevolent assimilation, and the “white mans burden” justified annexation of certain territories. Used in this context, I believe that Love does have persuasive argument that racism did have an effect on annexation of certain territory. I believe the two examples used in the book highlight this. From the Santo Domingo chapter, there was mixed feelings on annexation of this territory. The president justified the annexation based on racial sentiments that were felt in the country. However Sumner and Schurz both opposed it because they felt that the Natives were “worthless, and wasteful” and unsuitable for “Germanic blood”. However, this was not the cause with Hawaii. The ideology changed. Instead of seeing it was a “burden” and taking the islands because of “manifest destiny”, they took it because it was a white nation. Both examples support Loves argument that power was based on race.
Love states in the introduction that his book is “not about how the imperialists manipulated racism to secure their empire … Instead, it presents racism as a problem of power.” This argument is very compelling and is fairly well-argued. As Jessica already said, this certainly reframes the role racism has played in the United States’ imperial efforts from the time period, and offers an alternative interpretation to the “white man’s burden” narrative. My main problem with the book, particularly with the “Santo Domingo” chapter, was that it read to me as relatively redundant and repetitive, in such a way that watered his argument down rather than hammering it home. He offers plenty of evidence of race serving as dissuading factor to imperialists, coming from a number of sources and implied in a number of policy decisions, and I’ll probably finish reading the book at some point, but I did feel that at times it almost diminished the racism implicit in the actions of the imperialists. Of course, this could just be my familiarity with the narrative we’re taught since high school.
I am of kind of buying into Love's argument because he had brought valid points that race played a big factor on Imperialism. He supports his argument about race in the Santo Domingo chapter. One thing that I read was that the issue of race played a major role of Grant's long decision making of the Annexation of Santo Domingo. Grant said that racism was "both the root cause of sectional discord and the main obstacle to sectional reconcilation." (pg.46). I believe that Grant supported this treaty because he believes that annexing Santo Domingo would give blacks more opportunities in life. The two major players that went against the treaty of annexing Santo Domingo were Charles Sumner and Carl Schurz. The issue of race played a huge role of why these two men opposed this treaty. The main reason why Sumner and Schurz opposed the treaty because they believed that the settlement is bad for the German blood and they believe that the Dominicans were savages. The issue of race between the three men has made annexing Santo Domingo a lot of more difficult. As a result, the treaty of the annexing of Santo Domingo had failed.
I think that race was a big deciding factor for the expansionist and that was primarily because of coming out of the civil war and with reconstruction. People still had the race issue in their minds. Economically, the south was financially distraught and the idea of expanding the empire, according to Love's portrayal to some seemed outright like a bad move on the US. Grant was hesistant to talk about race because it was such an issue so of course it would have effected politics and their refusal for the US to take on more. From reading this selection, it was evident that no matter how dark skinned these people were, White, Male, and American saw themselves as a surpreme being. It was interesting that thought of another power over Hawaii (such as China) made US think more about annexation or some form of control. It makes one think it was more about power than it was race.
I think that Love made a strong argument that race seemed to work against the efforts of U.S. imperialists. In the case of Santo Domingo, many Americans were against the idea of annexation. The dominant reason behind their opposition was that “acquisition and possession of such tropical countries with indigestible, inassimilable population would be highly obnoxious to the nature of our republic system of government.” Many also argued that annexation would eventually make the republic a state of the Union and the Dominicans citizens of the United States. This would mean that Dominicans would have the same political and social powers as white males which was seen as a threat. Besides the fact that a majority of Americans were against the idea, President Grant still fought for annexation because he observed that it might be possible for African Americans to move to Santo Domingo after annexation. He thought that Santo Domingo could serve as a safe haven for them and at the same time, racial anxiety at home could be reduced. Grant was more worried about benefiting the whites in the U.S. than trying to benefit the natives. Grant eventually lost the fight for the annexation of Santo Domingo.
In the case of Hawaii, many American held onto the same fears about annexation. They believed that Hawaii was a tropical zone that “comprised a dangerous and inassimilable mass.” The possibility that citizenship would eventually be granted to a variety of inferior peoples was also a scary thought to many Americans. Racism and its place in the politics of annexation eventually changed though as imperialists began to develop a strategy that “finally enabled them to exploit race to their advantage.” They placed the white minority at the center of policy and “diminished the role of the inassimilable mass living on the islands.” Many imperialists argued that it was important to “maintain white civilization in Hawaii” and “rescue white civilization from both the immoralities that accompanied the Asian infiltration and the barbarism of the native peoples”. Annexation became an absolute necessity to many imperialists in order to protect the whites.
This was an intresting argument made by Love. His idea that race held back the U.S. at first in the path towards expansion was a new concept to me. As I read I saw examples that really gave some backing to his argument. For example, on page 21 Love cites Senator John C. Calhoun and his thoughts on the expansionist efforts in Texas and Mexico.Calhoun did not wish to incorporate any Mexican territory . As Love puts it, "The discontinuity was clear in Calhoun's mind: it invloved not the territory , not the land, but the Mexican people." Calhoun also stated concerning the Mexican people, "Their inclusion would be akin to embracing corruption or introducing some awful infection into the United States." These words clearly represent a solid view that race was very important and could push the thought of territorial expansion from politicians minds. I see Love's argument, and from the sources he pulls from, agree at the moment with him.
I agree with others in the class who have said that race was seen as an obstacle to expansionist efforts and Love makes a strong case for this. However, I think one of the problems is that his examples of Santo Domingo and Hawaii are both islands, which are not easily accessible to the everyday person. In other words, they can’t just head west to settle the land. Therefore, how much influence they could have in developing republican virtues and controlling the populations, or removing them as with the Indians, would be more difficult. As a result, I think highlighting the idea of “inferior races” did have to be used as an argument for expansionist ideas because it is the only strong element that conflicted with white supremacists ideology and could pose a threat to people’s feelings of safety.
Carl Schurz noted that if we were to take one Caribbean Island “our manifest destiny [would] compel us to go until we acquire the whole (60).” I think this is an important point because it prevents the U.S. from overextending its empire building. Manifest destiny was seen as an inherent, god-given right to expand from coast to coast, but how far north and south and into the oceans was another issue. We talked about in the Adas book how the expansionists were looking for space, not control over people. This is emphasized again in Love’s account when he quotes Calhoun about the U.S. taking land and conquering tribes of Indians but never holding them in subjection or incorporating them into the Union (21). In class we also discussed how the federal government obtained the land in the west but then stepped back to give settlement and control over to the people. Throughout empire building there never seemed a desire to control the “inferior” races, simply to obtain land that could be built up to further the republican ideals.
Between President Grant's plan to acquire the Dominican Republic in 1870, to the annexations of Hawaii and the attainment of the Philippines in 1898, Love acknowledges that the imperialist relationship in comparison with racist ideologies of the time was antagonistic, and certainly not friendly. It was an interesting take on the situation for me, because this was a time when racial tensions were boiling over with Jim Crow laws being in effect. I agree with Love’s take on Grant’s decision to expand the imperialistic view because it would no doubt be tense due to the times.
“It is the thesis of this book that in the last decades of the nineteenth century, the weight and inertia of all this history placed a range of formidable racial obstacles in the way of imperialists” (25). Expansion was a crucial part of the country’s mythology “Movement across space, the peopling of open and supposedly occupied lands, was its manifest destiny. For citizens it signified progress, it was essential to their democracy” (30). Yet, racism, too, was a core part of this nation, from the very founding of the country. Love created a compelling argument that exhibited the ways in which race played a key role in expansionism and imperialism.
Throughout the text, the reader is able to see through multiple examples that although expansion was integral to the “American” way of life, race created a barrier, a veil, that expansionists were not willing to pass through in order to acquire new lands. “Even manifest destiny abided by the limits imposed by race and racism” (24). Love presents several reasons that were associated with the unwillingness of Americans to take control over certain places. “The reasons for this are complex, but they began with three basic assumptions: first that the United States was a white nation and, second, that great nations were homogeneous” (18). In addition, it was often said that it was divine will for the Americas to remain a white population. “It either directly sustains or proposes to establish a racial order, a permanent group hierarchy that is believed to reflect the laws and decrees of God” (15). Ideology inherited from the Greeks also gave birth to the notion that geography was involved with racism. Only white people should inhabit the temperate zones, while darker races belonged only in the torrid zones. “The darker races, lackadaisical and uncivilized by nature, were, to the scientist, created specifically for the torrid zone” (31).
In the annexation of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Midway Islands, we see prime examples of lands that were easily acquired by the Americans and fit into the American mold. In the case of Hawaii, their population had been rapidly declining and it would be simple for Americans to dominate the territory and keep their empire homogeneous. In the case of the Midway Islands, there was no population whatsoever, so Americans could effortlessly annex this land and inhabit it without mixing with any other races of people. In Alaska, it was simply said that “it would allow for settlement by our race” (32).
Conflicts arose, however in establishing lands such as Mexico, Santo Domingo, the Philippines, etc. “The United States, Calhoun observed, had never incorporated into the Union any but the Caucasian race. Absorbing Mexico would overthrow history, tradition, and assumptions of white nationalism” (21-22). Calhoun went further to add that “Such a relationship, he predicted, would bring calamity to the nation, disasters that would be “fatal to our institutions”” (22).
Before reading this text, I had not envisioned race as a barrier to expansion or imperialism. I had the idea that expansionists were willing to drive out the native populations in order to acquire new lands to assimilate to their empire. Love’s argument, however, shows us once again that racism truly is at the core of this nation.
I agree with many of the comments made above. I think that Love's argument for race being a barrier to expansion is an interesting and new idea.
Love also uses some compelling evidence to prove his claims that racism and race concerns were really a problem for annexation. Not only did they not want incorporate "other" races into the United States, but they also wanted to find a place to "relocate" the newly freed African-Americans. The United States' fear of Empire also prevent just expansion. Even if they wanted a territory the U.S. refused to set-up colonies, so they would have to allow the newly acquired people to be U.S. citizens. The idea of making "inferior races" U.S. citizens is what stopped the U.S. for expanding more than it already did.
Love’s “Race Over Empire” supports the concept that expansionist/imperialist mentality really wasn’t about taking over the “less civilized” and reforming them. In Love’s mind, this sense of Social Darwinism over the “noble savages” was irrelevant; it was more so about preserving and extending the nation. On the other hand, race was simply a tool used by those against expansion to show the negatives of it. Love uses examples of Senator Carl Schurz’ speech to the Senate against the annexation of Santo Domingo by describing the Dominicans as strange and foreign “alien peoples” who would never be able to be assimilated into American culture and would go so far as to complicate the social hierarchical system all together (LOVE p 59). According to Love, “…Schurz knew that racism…was his best weapon… the other ‘element of trouble’ that the nation did not need, particularly when “the problem of what to do with the same race in the South under much more favorable circumstances has taxed the best intellects of our country for years.” (59) At the same time, in the case of annexing Hawaii, Love writes how Hawaii would have been an extremely strategic position for the United States to hold, yet the main argument made for annexation was to preserve white civilization. On one side, Hawaii could become a Chinese “stepping stone” in the “eventual crusade against Western Civilization” (108), but the fear of outsiders/alien races taking over a white culture was horrifying to many Americans.
Really interesting way of interpreting American imperialism in regards to race. Love's argument that race actually inhibited American expansion doesn't make a whole lot of sense without support, as many people are taught that we set out to conquer a PEOPLE and not necessarily a land. However, Love argues this very well, particularly in his analysis of the annexation of Texas. Imperialists at the time, in particular John C. Calhoun were not interested in adding to the unskilled labor force by flooding it with immigrants, and in fact was staunchly opposed to the expansion into Texas. Love vicariously describes this would-be flood of new Mexicans into the population as "akin to embracing corruption or introducing some awful infection into the United States."(22) This backs up Love's argument quite well, especially considering that parts of Tejas were not annexed until white Americans had already moved into eastern parts of the territory. We managed to come out on top of that conflict, with all the land we wanted, and only a few Mexicans. (We actually came out even better, that California's constitution took away many of the rights promised to Mexicans in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.)
I believe that Love makes a valid argument that the concept of race and racial ideologies played a major role in the American imperialistic policies. As we discussed in class on Tuesday, the predominant federal policy towards the Amerindians was forced removal following Jackson’s policy implemented in the 1830’s. The federal government felt as if there were only three ways of handling the natives: the forced removal, limited destruction of Indian populations or the option of assimilation. In this case, the federal government continuously pushed the natives further and further west, therefore limiting the lands in which natives were allowed to inhabit. Although many of the settlers claimed religious reasons, stating that the Amerindians were not cultivating the land as the Creator intended, race played a pivotal role in this as well. Just as the Amerindians, the natives of Santo Domingo were viewed as savage as well. As evidence of Love’s argument, on page 39 regarding the acquisition of St. Thomas, Hamilton Fish (who three months later became secretary of state) is quoted at stating “The island contains about fifteen thousand inhabitants and the great majority of them are filthy looking negroes”. Despite the fact that the U.S. would have been acquiring a new territory, Fish was extreme in his white supremacist racial ideology. As Jessica stated, in regards to the annexation of Santo Domingo, not only would the U.S. be adding mixed races to its population, but the people of Santo Domingo could eventually be regarded as citizens of the U.S. as well. Granting citizenship to these inhabitants would mean viewing them as being considered “equal” to that of white males. I found it interesting that in President Grant’s private memoir “Reason’s Why Santo Domingo Should be Annexed into the United States” that not only did race play a role, but there was an ulterior motive to his reasoning; he felt that by acquiring the territory, it would provide a “safety valve for the country and a safe haven for African American’s”. (pg 45) I’m not sure if I feel as if Grant was looking out for the black population or if he harbored the popular racist tendencies of the time as well. If the latter of the two, his proposal would have made sense being as that he was trying to establish a new land for them to emigrate to, therefore ridding the continental U.S. of the “negro population”. However, he may have been taking a more humanistic approach on the matter and trying to find a land that would have been suitable for the black population to inhabit and therefore allow them to have more opportunities in life. With either of these approaches, he would have been solving two problems with one solution. On the one hand, he would have been solving the “Negro Question” for the white supremacists in the U.S. ; on the other, he would have been allowing them the freedom to live in a place where they might feel more welcome. Because Grant was a politician, and politicians generally harbor the same ideals and thoughts as the people they represent, it is more plausible to deduce from the information given that Grant was pushing for the annexation because he wanted to calm the racial anxiety that existed at the time.
Love's theory of the United State's own racist tendencies actually working as a deteriment to its westward expansion is so freshly original and, more importantly, well evidenced that I am enthralled to have had the chance to read up on it.
I won't retread much of the ground that has been stated above, but Love's analysis of the various political machinations leading to congress refusing to annex any lands in the tropics and why many Americans didn't want to experince the hassle of dealing with newly annexed non-whites was highly interesting. It isn't very often you find such a convincing argument that goes against popular the popular belief that the U.S. wanted to conqure the ENTIRE west immediately after the Civil War.
Whenever I read American History, I am struck with the far from tolerant history of the nation. While the United States is a proud nation that defends the liberties and investments of it's citizens, Love asserts that the concept of race and racial ideologies are rooted in one thing. Power. American's want power, therefore they remove.
But there are a few conflicts in the theory that "America wants, so America takes. When speaking about the proposed annexion of St. Thomas, Fish mentions that there are several " filthy looking negros [on the island]" and argued that perhaps the US should not peruse this route. Lindsey is correct is saying that Fish would rather loose land than have to fare against the "filthy negros." My assertion would be that Fish was a coward instead, after all, over the centuries, the Slave trade has proven that African and Caribbean Slaves were stronger and taller than the average "Anglo-Saxon Male."
Because Jessica posted first, it is hard to ignore her argument that adding citizens is something not to be taken lightly. It seemed to me that if Grant considered the indigenous population conquerable, then he would go after them. If they were not, then... America would wait until the threat weakened. While Love does not argue this point, he mentions the issue of the "Negros" (Lindsey S. alludes to this). Africans could be moved to their own spot in the United States. Because I am sure Grant was not thinking politically when thinking about all of this, I do not believe he was thinking of the African American's best interests. Instead, he was mirroring assertion I made earlier. The African american population was a treat to the White Males way of life (Love seems to say this), therefore, they needed to be controlled.
The evidence laid out for the racial expansion of the united states is quite convincing. Expanding on the spread of civilization and the principles of republican idealism was the underlying language of white supremacy which removed Indians from their lands and stripped them of their humanity. The frontier life style was tough and while on the plains with zero protection form the fed the white settler took to preemptive measures in what they viewed as a race/ civilization struggle. The extermination practice implemented on the plains was a total war the natives and sought the complete eradication of both native and native culture. The spread of the US empire west was fueled by the spread of white euro civilization across the empty wilderness. It was inevitable that a the belief of a superior culture which was attributed to the white race would become mixed and compared against the tribal and "savage" customs of people of color.
Love's argument that racism was actually an obstacle to imperialism is interesting, but overall it failed to convince me. There is just no denying the force of manifest destiny that drove white settlers continually westward. The U.S. was continually expanded by white settlers moving west. These same white settlers played a major role in the obliteration of American Indians as a people and a culture. There is just no way to argue that racism was not a powerful force behind American imperialism. There may have been some exceptions to the rule, such as the politicians Love cites in his work. Also, I believe Love's argument that racism hindered imperialism only really can be applied to lands outside of the continental U.S., Hawaii and other Pacific lands. I believe the only reason these lands were not fully assimilated into the U.S. was due to the fact that it would have been extremely difficult for white American settlers to reach, and populate these lands they way they did in the Western lands of the continental U.S.
Although nearly every one of the comments above supports Love's thesis and find his argument compelling, I disagree. In particular, Love's use of the Texas annexation and the opposition to it dissuaded me from believing him. As Will Devlin described, eastern parts of the territory were not annexed until white settlers moved in. The US government has never shown any hesitance towards treating native peoples as animals, or somehow lesser beings than an American, so I find it hard to believe it was not fully annexed simply because they didn't like the locals. Many of the examples Love uses to defend the idea that race inhibited expansion actually do end up coming under the control of the US. Hawaii and Texas were made states, and Santo Domingo was occupied for decades. While perhaps US politicians and policy makers momentarily hesitated before imperialist decisions and expansion efforts, race was never enough of an issue to completely deter them. There were dozens of other factors in every instance Love uses, and from our discussions in class on the treatment of Native Americans as sub-human, I am certain of the US tendency to move onward and upward no matter what the stakes.
“It is the thesis of this book that in the last decades of the nineteenth century, the weight and inertia of all this history placed a range of formidable racial obstacles in the way of imperialists.” -25
I, as Jessica, would have to agree that Love indeed made an compelling argument that, to a large degree, substantiates his thesis statement. However, I still would have to disagree with his thesis on the grounds that he inverted the real racial inhibitors in the way of imperialist, themselves. For instance, on the subject of the Chinese Exclusion Act, he seems to circumvent the obvious issue at stake in this national interaction. As with most of the examples he provides in his book, the root of the Chinese Exclusion Act is economic and the only economic obstacles in the way of the white imperialist are themselves. In the instance of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the root of the problem is that the American "empire," if you will, is a national body attempting to sustain its growing capitalist, free-market economy. Therefore, the new American nation needed to maintain a highly inexpensive and expendable workforce which would compensate for the loss of the free slave labor lost during the Civil War. However, the white supremacists/imperialist (for I do not make much differentiation as does Love) only desired to reap the fruits of such labor and did not wish to be unfairly subjected to its labor needs. Therefore, the vast majority of the public needed to create the necessary fictitious racial stereotypes of the Asian immigrants stealing their jobs and corrupting the new white nation that they had worked so hard to build. However, unlike Love, I do not see that racism at the face of American imperialism. Instead I see, clear as day I might add, the economic necessities which perpetuated the racial conditions during the peak of US imperialist conquests. I, unlike love believe that is what lay at its heart, and I believe that is where his argument falls apart, though he does make some good points.
I think that Love makes a really interesting and valid argument that race was actually an obstacle to U.S. "expansionist" efforts. This argument was completely new to me since I was taught under the conventional ideology that white supremacists wanted to conquer and assimilate "inferior" races. However, Love uses compelling evidence to suggest that congressmen were actually repulsed at the idea acquiring a whole territory full of savage "colored people." Love's chapter on Santo Domingo illustrated his point especially convincingly. Schurtz and Sumner clearly thought the people of the tropics were too savage to understand or work within the confines of a democratic system.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the people of the tropics were clearly thriving and if annexed, would become active citizens. However, it seems as though U.S. foreign policy in regards to expansion depended on the combination of a declining native population and that the people's "affinity" for democracy. The problem with Santo Domingo was that the U.S. would be ADDING mixed races to its population as well as a group of people who politicians did not think could work in a democracy. In contrast, Hawaii's population was steadily declining and their people seemed to be prime candidates for citizens of a democracy. This would allow U.S. citizens to pour into Hawaii and dominate that territory, in the same way they had taken over the West and Amerindians. Therefore, Love makes a compelling argument that the U.S. was not interested in assimilating other people, only in acquiring their territory.
Jessica makes a good point, that this argument will be new to a lot of people that race was an obstacle to the government in its expansionist efforts. Love puts aside the tradition that it was the "white mans burden" to assimilate other races that were different.
ReplyDeleteLove also raises the argument of "white racial limitations" (p.24) in talking about what regions the U.S would try and occupy. The theory that there are boundries divided by climate and that every race had it's own habitat. These factors determined that if the white race tried to colonize these areas it would come at a great cost and not worth the risk.
This seemed to be one consideration in the failed Santo Domingo annexation. According to Love race was more of a road block to many policies, and not something that gets much attention. I think the point that Schurz makes (p.67) is a major argument by Love that race was far more important than we are sometimes taught. Schurz askes if we annex all these places in the West Indies what do we do with all the millions of people that would now want a voice. Again it's only about the land and how much we can control.
Racism is defined in the book as “exclusionary relations of power based on race”. It goes on to continue that racism upheld social hierarchies and a system of privilege and oppression, which was founded in the belief that whites were superior to any other race. Love continues by stating that Anglo-Saxonism, social Darwinism, benevolent assimilation, and the “white mans burden” justified annexation of certain territories. Used in this context, I believe that Love does have persuasive argument that racism did have an effect on annexation of certain territory. I believe the two examples used in the book highlight this. From the Santo Domingo chapter, there was mixed feelings on annexation of this territory. The president justified the annexation based on racial sentiments that were felt in the country. However Sumner and Schurz both opposed it because they felt that the Natives were “worthless, and wasteful” and unsuitable for “Germanic blood”. However, this was not the cause with Hawaii. The ideology changed. Instead of seeing it was a “burden” and taking the islands because of “manifest destiny”, they took it because it was a white nation. Both examples support Loves argument that power was based on race.
ReplyDeleteLove states in the introduction that his book is “not about how the imperialists manipulated racism to secure their empire … Instead, it presents racism as a problem of power.” This argument is very compelling and is fairly well-argued. As Jessica already said, this certainly reframes the role racism has played in the United States’ imperial efforts from the time period, and offers an alternative interpretation to the “white man’s burden” narrative. My main problem with the book, particularly with the “Santo Domingo” chapter, was that it read to me as relatively redundant and repetitive, in such a way that watered his argument down rather than hammering it home.
ReplyDeleteHe offers plenty of evidence of race serving as dissuading factor to imperialists, coming from a number of sources and implied in a number of policy decisions, and I’ll probably finish reading the book at some point, but I did feel that at times it almost diminished the racism implicit in the actions of the imperialists. Of course, this could just be my familiarity with the narrative we’re taught since high school.
I am of kind of buying into Love's argument because he had brought valid points that race played a big factor on Imperialism. He supports his argument about race in the Santo Domingo chapter. One thing that I read was that the issue of race played a major role of Grant's long decision making of the Annexation of Santo Domingo. Grant said that racism was "both the root cause of sectional discord and the main obstacle to sectional reconcilation." (pg.46). I believe that Grant supported this treaty because he believes that annexing Santo Domingo would give blacks more opportunities in life. The two major players that went against the treaty of annexing Santo Domingo were Charles Sumner and Carl Schurz. The issue of race played a huge role of why these two men opposed this treaty. The main reason why Sumner and Schurz opposed the treaty because they believed that the settlement is bad for the German blood and they believe that the Dominicans were savages. The issue of race between the three men has made annexing Santo Domingo a lot of more difficult. As a result, the treaty of the annexing of Santo Domingo had failed.
ReplyDeleteI think that race was a big deciding factor for the expansionist and that was primarily because of coming out of the civil war and with reconstruction. People still had the race issue in their minds. Economically, the south was financially distraught and the idea of expanding the empire, according to Love's portrayal to some seemed outright like a bad move on the US. Grant was hesistant to talk about race because it was such an issue so of course it would have effected politics and their refusal for the US to take on more. From reading this selection, it was evident that no matter how dark skinned these people were, White, Male, and American saw themselves as a surpreme being. It was interesting that thought of another power over Hawaii (such as China) made US think more about annexation or some form of control. It makes one think it was more about power than it was race.
ReplyDeleteI think that Love made a strong argument that race seemed to work against the efforts of U.S. imperialists. In the case of Santo Domingo, many Americans were against the idea of annexation. The dominant reason behind their opposition was that “acquisition and possession of such tropical countries with indigestible, inassimilable population would be highly obnoxious to the nature of our republic system of government.” Many also argued that annexation would eventually make the republic a state of the Union and the Dominicans citizens of the United States. This would mean that Dominicans would have the same political and social powers as white males which was seen as a threat. Besides the fact that a majority of Americans were against the idea, President Grant still fought for annexation because he observed that it might be possible for African Americans to move to Santo Domingo after annexation. He thought that Santo Domingo could serve as a safe haven for them and at the same time, racial anxiety at home could be reduced. Grant was more worried about benefiting the whites in the U.S. than trying to benefit the natives. Grant eventually lost the fight for the annexation of Santo Domingo.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Hawaii, many American held onto the same fears about annexation. They believed that Hawaii was a tropical zone that “comprised a dangerous and inassimilable mass.” The possibility that citizenship would eventually be granted to a variety of inferior peoples was also a scary thought to many Americans. Racism and its place in the politics of annexation eventually changed though as imperialists began to develop a strategy that “finally enabled them to exploit race to their advantage.” They placed the white minority at the center of policy and “diminished the role of the inassimilable mass living on the islands.” Many imperialists argued that it was important to “maintain white civilization in Hawaii” and “rescue white civilization from both the immoralities that accompanied the Asian infiltration and the barbarism of the native peoples”. Annexation became an absolute necessity to many imperialists in order to protect the whites.
This was an intresting argument made by Love. His idea that race held back the U.S. at first in the path towards expansion was a new concept to me. As I read I saw examples that really gave some backing to his argument. For example, on page 21 Love cites Senator John C. Calhoun and his thoughts on the expansionist efforts in Texas and Mexico.Calhoun did not wish to incorporate any Mexican territory . As Love puts it, "The discontinuity was clear in Calhoun's mind: it invloved not the territory , not the land, but the Mexican people." Calhoun also stated concerning the Mexican people, "Their inclusion would be akin to embracing corruption or introducing some awful infection into the United States." These words clearly represent a solid view that race was very important and could push the thought of territorial expansion from politicians minds. I see Love's argument, and from the sources he pulls from, agree at the moment with him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with others in the class who have said that race was seen as an obstacle to expansionist efforts and Love makes a strong case for this. However, I think one of the problems is that his examples of Santo Domingo and Hawaii are both islands, which are not easily accessible to the everyday person. In other words, they can’t just head west to settle the land. Therefore, how much influence they could have in developing republican virtues and controlling the populations, or removing them as with the Indians, would be more difficult. As a result, I think highlighting the idea of “inferior races” did have to be used as an argument for expansionist ideas because it is the only strong element that conflicted with white supremacists ideology and could pose a threat to people’s feelings of safety.
ReplyDeleteCarl Schurz noted that if we were to take one Caribbean Island “our manifest destiny [would] compel us to go until we acquire the whole (60).” I think this is an important point because it prevents the U.S. from overextending its empire building. Manifest destiny was seen as an inherent, god-given right to expand from coast to coast, but how far north and south and into the oceans was another issue. We talked about in the Adas book how the expansionists were looking for space, not control over people. This is emphasized again in Love’s account when he quotes Calhoun about the U.S. taking land and conquering tribes of Indians but never holding them in subjection or incorporating them into the Union (21). In class we also discussed how the federal government obtained the land in the west but then stepped back to give settlement and control over to the people. Throughout empire building there never seemed a desire to control the “inferior” races, simply to obtain land that could be built up to further the republican ideals.
Between President Grant's plan to acquire the Dominican Republic in 1870, to the annexations of Hawaii and the attainment of the Philippines in 1898, Love acknowledges that the imperialist relationship in comparison with racist ideologies of the time was antagonistic, and certainly not friendly. It was an interesting take on the situation for me, because this was a time when racial tensions were boiling over with Jim Crow laws being in effect. I agree with Love’s take on Grant’s decision to expand the imperialistic view because it would no doubt be tense due to the times.
ReplyDelete“It is the thesis of this book that in the last decades of the nineteenth century, the weight and inertia of all this history placed a range of formidable racial obstacles in the way of imperialists” (25). Expansion was a crucial part of the country’s mythology “Movement across space, the peopling of open and supposedly occupied lands, was its manifest destiny. For citizens it signified progress, it was essential to their democracy” (30). Yet, racism, too, was a core part of this nation, from the very founding of the country. Love created a compelling argument that exhibited the ways in which race played a key role in expansionism and imperialism.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the text, the reader is able to see through multiple examples that although expansion was integral to the “American” way of life, race created a barrier, a veil, that expansionists were not willing to pass through in order to acquire new lands. “Even manifest destiny abided by the limits imposed by race and racism” (24). Love presents several reasons that were associated with the unwillingness of Americans to take control over certain places. “The reasons for this are complex, but they began with three basic assumptions: first that the United States was a white nation and, second, that great nations were homogeneous” (18). In addition, it was often said that it was divine will for the Americas to remain a white population. “It either directly sustains or proposes to establish a racial order, a permanent group hierarchy that is believed to reflect the laws and decrees of God” (15). Ideology inherited from the Greeks also gave birth to the notion that geography was involved with racism. Only white people should inhabit the temperate zones, while darker races belonged only in the torrid zones. “The darker races, lackadaisical and uncivilized by nature, were, to the scientist, created specifically for the torrid zone” (31).
In the annexation of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Midway Islands, we see prime examples of lands that were easily acquired by the Americans and fit into the American mold. In the case of Hawaii, their population had been rapidly declining and it would be simple for Americans to dominate the territory and keep their empire homogeneous. In the case of the Midway Islands, there was no population whatsoever, so Americans could effortlessly annex this land and inhabit it without mixing with any other races of people. In Alaska, it was simply said that “it would allow for settlement by our race” (32).
Conflicts arose, however in establishing lands such as Mexico, Santo Domingo, the Philippines, etc. “The United States, Calhoun observed, had never incorporated into the Union any but the Caucasian race. Absorbing Mexico would overthrow history, tradition, and assumptions of white nationalism” (21-22). Calhoun went further to add that “Such a relationship, he predicted, would bring calamity to the nation, disasters that would be “fatal to our institutions”” (22).
Before reading this text, I had not envisioned race as a barrier to expansion or imperialism. I had the idea that expansionists were willing to drive out the native populations in order to acquire new lands to assimilate to their empire. Love’s argument, however, shows us once again that racism truly is at the core of this nation.
I agree with many of the comments made above. I think that Love's argument for race being a barrier to expansion is an interesting and new idea.
ReplyDeleteLove also uses some compelling evidence to prove his claims that racism and race concerns were really a problem for annexation. Not only did they not want incorporate "other" races into the United States, but they also wanted to find a place to "relocate" the newly freed African-Americans. The United States' fear of Empire also prevent just expansion. Even if they wanted a territory the U.S. refused to set-up colonies, so they would have to allow the newly acquired people to be U.S. citizens. The idea of making "inferior races" U.S. citizens is what stopped the U.S. for expanding more than it already did.
Love’s “Race Over Empire” supports the concept that expansionist/imperialist mentality really wasn’t about taking over the “less civilized” and reforming them. In Love’s mind, this sense of Social Darwinism over the “noble savages” was irrelevant; it was more so about preserving and extending the nation. On the other hand, race was simply a tool used by those against expansion to show the negatives of it. Love uses examples of Senator Carl Schurz’ speech to the Senate against the annexation of Santo Domingo by describing the Dominicans as strange and foreign “alien peoples” who would never be able to be assimilated into American culture and would go so far as to complicate the social hierarchical system all together (LOVE p 59). According to Love, “…Schurz knew that racism…was his best weapon… the other ‘element of trouble’ that the nation did not need, particularly when “the problem of what to do with the same race in the South under much more favorable circumstances has taxed the best intellects of our country for years.” (59)
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, in the case of annexing Hawaii, Love writes how Hawaii would have been an extremely strategic position for the United States to hold, yet the main argument made for annexation was to preserve white civilization. On one side, Hawaii could become a Chinese “stepping stone” in the “eventual crusade against Western Civilization” (108), but the fear of outsiders/alien races taking over a white culture was horrifying to many Americans.
Really interesting way of interpreting American imperialism in regards to race. Love's argument that race actually inhibited American expansion doesn't make a whole lot of sense without support, as many people are taught that we set out to conquer a PEOPLE and not necessarily a land. However, Love argues this very well, particularly in his analysis of the annexation of Texas. Imperialists at the time, in particular John C. Calhoun were not interested in adding to the unskilled labor force by flooding it with immigrants, and in fact was staunchly opposed to the expansion into Texas. Love vicariously describes this would-be flood of new Mexicans into the population as "akin to embracing corruption or introducing some awful infection into the United States."(22) This backs up Love's argument quite well, especially considering that parts of Tejas were not annexed until white Americans had already moved into eastern parts of the territory. We managed to come out on top of that conflict, with all the land we wanted, and only a few Mexicans. (We actually came out even better, that California's constitution took away many of the rights promised to Mexicans in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.)
ReplyDeleteI believe that Love makes a valid argument that the concept of race and racial ideologies played a major role in the American imperialistic policies. As we discussed in class on Tuesday, the predominant federal policy towards the Amerindians was forced removal following Jackson’s policy implemented in the 1830’s. The federal government felt as if there were only three ways of handling the natives: the forced removal, limited destruction of Indian populations or the option of assimilation. In this case, the federal government continuously pushed the natives further and further west, therefore limiting the lands in which natives were allowed to inhabit. Although many of the settlers claimed religious reasons, stating that the Amerindians were not cultivating the land as the Creator intended, race played a pivotal role in this as well.
ReplyDeleteJust as the Amerindians, the natives of Santo Domingo were viewed as savage as well. As evidence of Love’s argument, on page 39 regarding the acquisition of St. Thomas, Hamilton Fish (who three months later became secretary of state) is quoted at stating “The island contains about fifteen thousand inhabitants and the great majority of them are filthy looking negroes”. Despite the fact that the U.S. would have been acquiring a new territory, Fish was extreme in his white supremacist racial ideology.
As Jessica stated, in regards to the annexation of Santo Domingo, not only would the U.S. be adding mixed races to its population, but the people of Santo Domingo could eventually be regarded as citizens of the U.S. as well. Granting citizenship to these inhabitants would mean viewing them as being considered “equal” to that of white males. I found it interesting that in President Grant’s private memoir “Reason’s Why Santo Domingo Should be Annexed into the United States” that not only did race play a role, but there was an ulterior motive to his reasoning; he felt that by acquiring the territory, it would provide a “safety valve for the country and a safe haven for African American’s”. (pg 45) I’m not sure if I feel as if Grant was looking out for the black population or if he harbored the popular racist tendencies of the time as well. If the latter of the two, his proposal would have made sense being as that he was trying to establish a new land for them to emigrate to, therefore ridding the continental U.S. of the “negro population”. However, he may have been taking a more humanistic approach on the matter and trying to find a land that would have been suitable for the black population to inhabit and therefore allow them to have more opportunities in life. With either of these approaches, he would have been solving two problems with one solution. On the one hand, he would have been solving the “Negro Question” for the white supremacists in the U.S. ; on the other, he would have been allowing them the freedom to live in a place where they might feel more welcome. Because Grant was a politician, and politicians generally harbor the same ideals and thoughts as the people they represent, it is more plausible to deduce from the information given that Grant was pushing for the annexation because he wanted to calm the racial anxiety that existed at the time.
Love's theory of the United State's own racist tendencies actually working as a deteriment to its westward expansion is so freshly original and, more importantly, well evidenced that I am enthralled to have had the chance to read up on it.
ReplyDeleteI won't retread much of the ground that has been stated above, but Love's analysis of the various political machinations leading to congress refusing to annex any lands in the tropics and why many Americans didn't want to experince the hassle of dealing with newly annexed non-whites was highly interesting. It isn't very often you find such a convincing argument that goes against popular the popular belief that the U.S. wanted to conqure the ENTIRE west immediately after the Civil War.
Whenever I read American History, I am struck with the far from tolerant history of the nation. While the United States is a proud nation that defends the liberties and investments of it's citizens, Love asserts that the concept of race and racial ideologies are rooted in one thing. Power. American's want power, therefore they remove.
ReplyDeleteBut there are a few conflicts in the theory that "America wants, so America takes. When speaking about the proposed annexion of St. Thomas, Fish mentions that there are several " filthy looking negros [on the island]" and argued that perhaps the US should not peruse this route. Lindsey is correct is saying that Fish would rather loose land than have to fare against the "filthy negros." My assertion would be that Fish was a coward instead, after all, over the centuries, the Slave trade has proven that African and Caribbean Slaves were stronger and taller than the average "Anglo-Saxon Male."
Because Jessica posted first, it is hard to ignore her argument that adding citizens is something not to be taken lightly. It seemed to me that if Grant considered the indigenous population conquerable, then he would go after them. If they were not, then... America would wait until the threat weakened. While Love does not argue this point, he mentions the issue of the "Negros" (Lindsey S. alludes to this). Africans could be moved to their own spot in the United States. Because I am sure Grant was not thinking politically when thinking about all of this, I do not believe he was thinking of the African American's best interests. Instead, he was mirroring assertion I made earlier. The African american population was a treat to the White Males way of life (Love seems to say this), therefore, they needed to be controlled.
And that's what they tried to do.
Sad story.
The evidence laid out for the racial expansion of the united states is quite convincing. Expanding on the spread of civilization and the principles of republican idealism was the underlying language of white supremacy which removed Indians from their lands and stripped them of their humanity. The frontier life style was tough and while on the plains with zero protection form the fed the white settler took to preemptive measures in what they viewed as a race/ civilization struggle. The extermination practice implemented on the plains was a total war the natives and sought the complete eradication of both native and native culture. The spread of the US empire west was fueled by the spread of white euro civilization across the empty wilderness. It was inevitable that a the belief of a superior culture which was attributed to the white race would become mixed and compared against the tribal and "savage" customs of people of color.
ReplyDeleteLove's argument that racism was actually an obstacle to imperialism is interesting, but overall it failed to convince me. There is just no denying the force of manifest destiny that drove white settlers continually westward. The U.S. was continually expanded by white settlers moving west. These same white settlers played a major role in the obliteration of American Indians as a people and a culture. There is just no way to argue that racism was not a powerful force behind American imperialism. There may have been some exceptions to the rule, such as the politicians Love cites in his work. Also, I believe Love's argument that racism hindered imperialism only really can be applied to lands outside of the continental U.S., Hawaii and other Pacific lands. I believe the only reason these lands were not fully assimilated into the U.S. was due to the fact that it would have been extremely difficult for white American settlers to reach, and populate these lands they way they did in the Western lands of the continental U.S.
ReplyDeleteAlthough nearly every one of the comments above supports Love's thesis and find his argument compelling, I disagree. In particular, Love's use of the Texas annexation and the opposition to it dissuaded me from believing him. As Will Devlin described, eastern parts of the territory were not annexed until white settlers moved in. The US government has never shown any hesitance towards treating native peoples as animals, or somehow lesser beings than an American, so I find it hard to believe it was not fully annexed simply because they didn't like the locals. Many of the examples Love uses to defend the idea that race inhibited expansion actually do end up coming under the control of the US. Hawaii and Texas were made states, and Santo Domingo was occupied for decades. While perhaps US politicians and policy makers momentarily hesitated before imperialist decisions and expansion efforts, race was never enough of an issue to completely deter them. There were dozens of other factors in every instance Love uses, and from our discussions in class on the treatment of Native Americans as sub-human, I am certain of the US tendency to move onward and upward no matter what the stakes.
ReplyDelete“It is the thesis of this book that in the last decades of the nineteenth century, the weight and inertia of all this history placed a range of formidable racial obstacles in the way of imperialists.” -25
ReplyDeleteI, as Jessica, would have to agree that Love indeed made an compelling argument that, to a large degree, substantiates his thesis statement. However, I still would have to disagree with his thesis on the grounds that he inverted the real racial inhibitors in the way of imperialist, themselves.
For instance, on the subject of the Chinese Exclusion Act, he seems to circumvent the obvious issue at stake in this national interaction. As with most of the examples he provides in his book, the root of the Chinese Exclusion Act is economic and the only economic obstacles in the way of the white imperialist are themselves. In the instance of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the root of the problem is that the American "empire," if you will, is a national body attempting to sustain its growing capitalist, free-market economy. Therefore, the new American nation needed to maintain a highly inexpensive and expendable workforce which would compensate for the loss of the free slave labor lost during the Civil War. However, the white supremacists/imperialist (for I do not make much differentiation as does Love) only desired to reap the fruits of such labor and did not wish to be unfairly subjected to its labor needs. Therefore, the vast majority of the public needed to create the necessary fictitious racial stereotypes of the Asian immigrants stealing their jobs and corrupting the new white nation that they had worked so hard to build. However, unlike Love, I do not see that racism at the face of American imperialism. Instead I see, clear as day I might add, the economic necessities which perpetuated the racial conditions during the peak of US imperialist conquests. I, unlike love believe that is what lay at its heart, and I believe that is where his argument falls apart, though he does make some good points.