Tuesday, March 20, 2012
UMW HIST300F: Corporate Colonialisms
How do both Adams and Hotchkiss see American corporations as developers of the underdeveloped world? Do they argue that these corporations act in service of the United States? How do they consider the problem of labor on banana and rubber plantations? Other thoughts or questions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hotchkiss argues that The American Rubber company acts in service to the United States by providing rubber on a level that never could be grown within the continental United States. Adams, makes a similar argument about The United Fruit Company. He writes that coffee, chocolate, coconuts and bananas which were once a luxury to consumers in The United States, have become a necessity. Hotchkiss discusses Americans corporations as developers of the underdeveloped country from the stand point of having an ‘Asiatic’ hospital with Europeans doctors. He also discusses how infrastructure is being used to help the people working on the plantations. He writes, “Foodstuffs and supplies are distributed by these systems of communication and sick coolies are brought in by ambulances.” (Hotchkiss 159) Hotchkiss’s discussion The American Rubber Company is mutual beneficial to all, and is quick to defend The American Rubber Companies labor practices. In contrast Adams plays on the emotions of the reader making the argument , “We have paid no attention to the welfare of our tropical neighbors for the purely selfish and ignorant reason that we did not consider the matter worth our while.” (Adams 9) This plays on the idea the United States as obligation to intervene in the affairs of the Latin American countries.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite lines from Adams is when he discusses the origins of The United Fruit Company as a story of peaceful and honorable conquest. (Adams 13) the ideas of peace and conquest are generally opposing forces. I suppose one can argue that The United Fruit Company had a peaceful conquest of the tropics form the standpoint they did not create a full out war and yet peaceful and conquest are two words I usually do not associate with each other. What I really do not understand though is how Adams is able to justify The United Fruit Company’s conquest of Latin America as honorable. It seems like The United Company took advantage of the Latin American countries in desperate need of income.
I appreciated some of the assertions both writers made. They were thought out and diplomatic in most cases. Hotchkiss provides reasonable evidence that corporate colonialism does in fact help develop under developed nations. Both individuals seem to be very welcoming to the idea that production is a positive thing regardless of almost any means. They come off in the writings as if they view American colonialism in a different light than most. I tried to see many of the assertions they made in the same understanding way and found ideas were harder than others. Either way I thought it was an interesting read and both take interesting standpoints on the issues.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the American Rubber Company, Hotchkiss talked about two levels of labor issues worth noting. One level involved the problem with managers whose jobs were vital to holding together the "homogeneous machine" that is running a rubber company on the opposite side of the globe(155). These men who volunteer/are chosen to travel into Sumatra are considered frontiersman who possess an unusual individuality that make them difficult to reign in at times. These men also carry the responsibility to select apt laborers to work the land, which is the second issue they faced. They quickly began importing labor from Java, because the vast distance allowed for the workers to be forced into indentured servitude contracts typically lasting three years. These contracts bound the workers to the land, and rarely yielded uprisings. However, if they wanted to use local labor, the necessity to "establish a good reputation for health and congenial conditions of employments" exists because otherwise "labor will refuse to come or rapidly disperse(159)."
ReplyDeleteAnd it does appear the companies see themselves as developers of the underdeveloped world because they set up amusement options such as athletics, field days, and moving pictures. They also set up vast hospital systems to heal the sick.
Regarding the United States, these companies feel they are providing a vast service because rubber trees and banana's cannot be grown at anywhere near the efficiency they can be grown at in the tropical countries, so they are providing a service otherwise unattainable.
Adams also points out on page 194 that the "lazy" Costa Rican lagoon was awoken by the "inspiration of American enterprise," implying that the area was less advanced and needed to be developed by American corporations.
Both of the authors from the two articles expounded upon the importance regarding Rubber distribution, and the United Fruit Company. For example, Adams quoted in his book that the banana is akin to the machine, and that this particular fruit would be beneficial in America. Establishing a fruit plantation in Latin America, and a rubber company in the tropics would bring profit in America, and the plantations would provide development in the impoverished areas. I appreciated reading Hotchkiss' reading more because it provided more suggestions about how the rubber company in the tropics can develop and succor the ailing workers (159). After reading Adams' text, it was certain that the United States was taking an advantage of the people in Latin America to make profit, but Adams considered it worthy of American officials manipulating the disadvantaged latinos that were in dire straits for money. I truly think that both authors are stating that American corporations are needed to aid and support impoverished nations.
ReplyDeleteAs Ashley stated above, Hotchkiss argued that because rubber could not be cultivated anywhere near or within the United States, American interests needed to search elsewhere for a place to produce rubber. Hotchkiss also seemed to elevate the intentions of American economic interests by adding the element of aid to the less fortunate races. However, the presence of racism continues to penetrate all reasoning-- the idea of a European hospital for Europeans and a separate one for the "Asiatic races" is an example of Jim Crow colonialism. Some of Hotchkiss' statements seemed to echo arguments formed by Southern slave owners prior to the Civil War, mainly those regarding the happiness and contentment of the coolie labor. The emphasis on the availability and fixed pricing of rice for the laborers also appeared racially-tinged in the sense that yes, while rice is a main food source, it is not the only type of food eaten by people in the area. Yet, Hotchkiss continued to explain how the coolies (in itself a somewhat distasteful term) emerged well-fed and healthy while working. Hotchkiss also delves into the benefits of infrastructure, which would help to industrialize and advance the islands. I did like how he stated that the Philippines would prove a beneficial asset to the United States, but only until the political situation had been settled.
ReplyDeleteAs for Adams' argument, he did indeed play on the reader's emotions. His proposal of a more neutral, peaceful solution to prevent uprising by paying the laborers higher wages appeared like it would really help, but no company would honestly want to pay its employees eleven times the going rate. Adams almost seemed to support alternative routes to employing labor, but his intentions also came across as jumbled. One one end, he supported more equal treatment of laborers but on the other, he encouraged business in other countries.
I must ask, was I the only one extremely amused by his link between indigenous groups in South American and the Japanese?
It almost seems that the more we discuss American imperialism, the more often nearly identical situations appear...
I was also amused by the South America/Japan connection...I think I reread that paragraph several times and choked on what I was trying to eat.
DeleteI think we can understand Adam's imperial mentality through this quote: "We have paid no attention to the welfare of our tropical neighbors for the purely selfish and ignorant reason that we did not consider the matter worth our while" (Adams 9). In the next line he refers to the tropics as a "great but unused asset." This almost paradoxical understanding of imperialism praises the very European powers that the founders were fearful of. He also uses interesting rhetoric when he discusses Guatemala; he uses terms like "awakening" and "potential wealth." Both authors discuss constructing stable governments that benefit the people, but where is the line between building a stable government for the people and making one that is conducive to promoting open markets for American corporations? With all this talk of "neglected land," it seems obvious that this stability only serves American interests.
ReplyDeleteThe Hotchkiss reading gave a great amount of insight into the lives of these laborers. I found this read particularly interesting because currently I’m taking another class about modern Indonesia history and I have read a little about these types of western run plantations in Sumatra but nothing as informative as this. Hotchkiss sees these rubber plantations as a benefit for the Javanese laborers who are shipped in. He says they have clean barracks and good food and that it’s better than the ‘Kampongs’ (ghettos) that they would other wise live in. He makes a point of saying that the majority of these workers renew their contracts even though they are basically indentured servants working far from their homes. Even though he is saying that the ‘coolie’ work force benefits for all types of reason it seems he still sees this a just a business and profit for the US is the main goal regardless of workers. He writes that the workers cost for recruitment and transportation to Sumatra will be amortized over the life of the contract of the worker, this is clearly unfair and not in the best interest of the workers.
ReplyDeleteAdams makes a point to say that really the welfare of the people of the tropics does not matter. What does matter is having the US come in to this region and make a profit. He describes how by the US giving aid and helping set up some of the governments that it will benefit these countries greatly by letting the US take advantage and make it worth while for all involved, but clearly is more advantageous for the US.
Both Adams and Hotchkiss frequently talk about the opportunities in the tropics that have either been missed, not yet realized, or prevented because of preexisting conditions. Adams refers to corporate development as “this obvious and patriotic duty” (12) and both Adams and Hotchkiss think that bringing corporations into the tropics will bring the land to its full economic potential. Besides economic development, they talk about the benefits in store for the natives, particularly Adams, who in several places talks about uplift and civilization that will be brought to the natives. Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised (but I was anyways) at just how much every aspect of the tropics was talked about in terms of economics: the lands as grounds for development, the natives/citizens as the manual labor needed, the land again as affecting transportation of goods, even the governments as a possible hindrance (or on the other hand a vehicle) to success. It seems to me like these corporations were trying to act in service of themselves, but did so under the guise of helping underdeveloped countries (not as servicing the United States).
ReplyDeleteLabor doesn’t seem to be a huge question for the corporations—they are confident that there are plenty of people they can enlist to work for them, under controlling systems like indentured labor, while at the same time crafting an “appealing” system to try and keep the workers (“good wages”, better sanitation and housing, “civilizing influences”).
I found the Adams piece particularly interesting because the way that he talked about the UFC in Guatemala and the tropics, he made the endeavours seem so noble and charitable that reading it was almost comical for me. It’s a glorified exploitation of the environment and the people, but all he can talk about is how great everything will be afterwards. On page 198 I found it even more ironic that in the midst of discussing the exploitation of Guatemalan lands, Adams starts talking about the natural beauty of the tropical environment—such an ironic juxtaposition of subjects. Then when Adams quotes Mr. Sands talking about the ruins and makes his own guess at the history of the area (I can’t judge the accuracy but I don’t trust it either) seemed to romanticize the past as well as UFC’s contemporary efforts, the same irony comes up again: “It is not supposed that either this place or Copan was an isolated group of temples. It is more likely that they were centres, and that similar remains will be uncovered in the near future in the course of deforestation preliminary to banana planting.” (209) Rich history, ruins, discovery… deforestation for bananas…what?
It seems safe to say that both authors are quite proud of the respective companies’ endeavors in tropical regions beyond the United States’ borders. Adams makes a convincing economic argument concerning the wages United Fruit pays its workers and how this can spur development in Central America. He explains how the higher wages will contribute to a more contented population, generating a greater sentiment of national identity. Such sentiment works to minimize revolutionary and anarchic activity, improving a state’s stability and attractiveness for foreign investment. Adams does not limit United Fruit’s actions as serving the United States alone, but he hints at the broader effects on the global economy, as “each civilized nation shares in the prosperity or distress of all other nations” (Adams 9). While Adams made these interesting point in regards to Central American economies and UF’s affect on them, his exaggerated romanticism of the tropical regions and complete neglect of any discussion of UF’s oppressive labor practices- like the Jim Crowe colonialism we learned about in class- make his book unbalanced and his argument less convincing.
ReplyDeleteI preferred the style of the article by Hotchkiss, especially as it broke down the labor practices in Sumatra and Malaya. The high degree of attention paid to medical services is commendable, but again there is a lack of discussion about any negative factors involved in the labor on rubber plantations. It simply is not realistic to expect any improper or less-than-ideal labor conditions to exist, and leaving them out of a discussion of rubber labor lost a bit of my respect for the article. I did find Hotchkiss’ break down of the rubber labor management as “almost analogous to handling an army” an interesting point to make (Hotchkiss 161), and I agreed with his general statement that US companies working under Dutch and British territorial administration was efficient and good for the United States who hardly had any of its own natural rubber reserves.
I thought both readings made similar points but I thought Hotchkiss’s article did a better job of laying out what was being done and exactly how it was going to be beneficial for everyone. Hotchkiss argues that by having a third party involved in the contract negotiations both sides will know what they are getting into and there won’t be the problem of illiterate laborers being taken advantage of. He also stressed the importance of making sure that workers were kept healthy and well fed and how these improvements, such as with the hospitals would improve the surrounding area. Adam’s argument was similar, and basically said that the extremely high wages that the laborers were paid would increase the standard of living. Again, they both had similar views and felt that having these American companies in these areas would only help with their development.
ReplyDeleteI found the two articles interesting because while Adams is talking about Latin America, Hotchkiss is describing how American investors/companies are to prosper in areas dominated by the English and Dutch, where as Latin America is primarily subjected to the United States. Although Hotchkiss likes to speak about better wages and working conditions for the "coolies", he further states " the difficulty of maintaining discipline is ... due to the rigidness of governmental control which is all in favor of the coolie" (Hotchkiss, 5). Hotchkiss had previously stated that "success depends upon favorable governmental conditions, such as stability and the equity of laws under which the company must operate" (Hotchkiss, 2). Thus in the south pacific, if Americans were to succeed they needed a government which was far more suitable to previous American Colonial Administrations, where the indigenous peoples were subjects of foreign colonial administrations.
ReplyDeleteAs several others mentioned, Adams' quote "We have paid no attention to the welfare of our tropical neighbors for the purely selfish and ignorant reason that we did not consider the matter worth our while" (Adams 9) followed by discussing America's dependency on the tropics for certain products like bananas and rubber, shows that material interests are driving US plantations in the tropics. Adams talks about the fair wages, "sanitary surroundings and civilizing influences" that the plantations provide for the countries, giving them a chance at "national advancement." He even says that Central America needs the corporations to exploit the natives for capital. I also saw exceptionalism and imperialistic thinking when Adams wrote that the ruins of great cities, such as Quirigua, "warn us that we too shall pass away" (Adams 211).
ReplyDeleteHotchkiss talks more about the labor conditions of the coolies, in particular the medical care and housing they are provided with, but phrases it to express that the Americans need to invest in their laborers to maximize efficiency. He says that the laborers are always better off physically at the end of their contract, showing that US capital is beneficial to the host countries. He also hints at racial unfitness in several ways. He says that the Javanese they import are ridden with hookworm and other diseases, and notes that they prefer slapstick motion pictures, implying they are mentally inferior.
I think both writers try to appeal to US interests through showing the benefits of contract labor to both parties.
Adams declares that The United States has all the resources it needs but that not everything can be created that is necessary to “modern civilization.” His strong statement, which follows it, described how the United States has neglected to pay attention to the welfare of our neighboring countries because of selfishness. He does believe that American corporations are the main developers for these countries. He claims the U.S. should continue trade with the tropics so that the Unites States can stay the chief market for agricultural products. He then mentions how The United Fruit Company voluntarily pays wages of $1 a day which is eleven times as much as Guatemala’s laws say they should be paid. “…the great corporation [United Fruit Company] has done more for Central America then all other agencies combined.” What I take from Adams is that the United States is the “savior” of the tropics by providing all these jobs and high wages. In reality, it doesn’t seem to add up. Corporations seem to be doing these things in these countries to save money, not to spend it all. Although health care in these places does cost money, it’s to their benefit that these workers stay somewhat happy so that their work is efficient.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Hotchkiss, he believes that industry really does benefit the underdeveloped countries. The development of hospital organizations, amusements, and by having clean dwellings for workers, shows they are being provided with nourishment and medical attendance. This is something that they would not necessarily have without the United States. Hotchkiss believes that the Unites States will probably never be able to grow its own rubber requirements within its own territory and consumption is ever increasing. Pricing rubber high enough is necessary to making a profit and it prevails, money will automatically flow into every tropical country that is economically able to compete thus leading to all the rubber the world needs. Once again, without the United States coming into these countries, they (the countries) would remain poor. For labor, the Holland American Plantation Company provides food and supplies. He does believe that that indentured labor is much better off on an estate than in their own unsanitary camps.
Overall, both of these men seem to believe that industry in these tropical countries benefits both the U.S. and the underdeveloped countries. In reality, working conditions seemed poor and unfair, but for the workers, it was better than what they had before. I think that to say it was better than what they had before is a bit drastic. I mean in some ways it was, but was I bet if you asked a worker from that time, they would beg to differ.
Hotchkiss and Adams, both paint sort of the same picture concerning how they see American corporations as developers of the underdeveloped world. That these corporations are going into these places and providing things such as infrastructure, health care, amusement, and jobs to the people who live in these countries. I think both argue that these American corporations are giving the people of these underdeveloped countries much more then they had before, even if the labor is exploitative. However in Hotchkiss’s paper he seemed much more genuine about the rubber companies intentions to help the Malayan people, while Adams made it a point to say that American Corporations have been their to make profits and all interests have been pushed towards the side. Adams states in his analysis that the tropics is a huge unused asset that America possesses. Adams says that instead of neglecting our tropical neighbors we should be supplying them with much needed resources so we can help spur on their development. Both these authors I believed tried to place emphasis more towards the good that these companies were saying they were doing in these countries however I believe that both these accounts were exaggerated in terms of how well of these indigenous people were actually doing from the “assistance” given by these American corporate powers.
ReplyDeleteAdams and Hotchkiss see corporations as helping the underdeveloped world. For instance Adams states “We of the United States of America have great resources, we possess wonderfully varied products of the soil, but despite the boastings of the uniformed we cannot create from the necessities which belong to modern civilization and which are at the easy command of commerce (Adams 5). When Adams states that it can be interpreted as the corporations are sufficient and can do much on their own but they also need the underdeveloped world to a point. Then Hotchkiss states, “The industry is still young, but already much has been learned so that it is now possible to avoid any mistakes made in earlier days” (Hotchkiss 155), With Hotchkiss stating that, it shows he has confidence in the corporations development in the underdeveloped world. With the confidence that Hotchkiss has he sees the corporations as helping the underdeveloped world especially when it comes to the economy there. When looking at those statements one could assume that they both argue that the corporations act in service of the United States, because the United States needs the products they produce and they help them become more developed. When it comes to the labor with the banana and rubber plantations, Adams does not really stress the part that the plantations were first worked by slaves in Guatemala. Adams talks about how the Guatemalans who worked for the United Fruit Company paid those who worked in banana fields and on the neglected railroads a typical Guatemalan Indians months pay for one day of work with the United Fruit Company (Adams 201-202). Then Hotchkiss talks about how the work was outsourced and the coolies worked under contracts (Hotchkiss 156-157). Adams and Hotchkiss take the topic of corporations and their influence on underdeveloped worlds into great depth which make both of the readings interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteHotchkiss’ point of view represents the way of thinking of numerous American: their interventions in other countries were useful and helped a lot the undeveloped country. On the opposite, the beginning of Adam’s text highlights how the American should limit their interventions and show more interest in the culture and habits of other countries.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, their ideas became more and more similar, bringing to light the fact that US intervention is useful for the development of infrastructure and the increase in job opportunities. They do not really qualify these corporations in favor of the US, even if we all know that the US Corporation benefit a lot from this delocalization. I think Hotchkiss emphasizes more the fact that these corporations benefit to everyone: ‘an act to regulate is in my opinion, as much in the interest of the manufacturer as of the planter’ [which is, from my point of view, true].
Adams thinks about different way of labor organization, change in wages... in order to improve the conditions of the plantations.
After reading from both authors it is easy to see that they have similar opinions. They both view these American companies as almost being a win win situation. It not only profits Americans but it also helps countries that need to be developed. I thought the readings to be almost one sided. It felt like they were written with the intention of the American companies coming off as a savior. It is described that the companies didn't mind paying their laborers more money because it has such a wonderful benefit. The thought behind paying workers more does make sense as the way it is described by Adams, saying that it would just go make the standard of living higher and would just go back into the countries economy.
ReplyDeleteBoth Hotchkiss and Adams both made convincing arguments about corporate colonialism. Adams portrayed the United Fruit Company as a corporate force of good because it progressed the development of the underdeveloped. The UFC helped the poor in Latin America progress by expanding their will and power into the area. Adams relates the banana to machinery in an attempt to justify the US's intervention in Latin America. The machine works as the foundation for the progression and expansion of corporate America. The banana similarly to the machine acts as the foundation for the development of underdeveloped. I believe Adams was blinded by his justification of corporate good from the transparent agenda of the corporations. The goal was to make a profit regardless if Latinos are helped or harmed during the process. Hotchkiss provides a similar argument stating corporations are beneficial to the progression of the underdeveloped. Corporations help build up infrastructure and give natives an income. Both arguments seem similar in the respect they both believe corporations develop the underdeveloped.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Hotchkiss makes some encouraging arguments about the benefits of the American Rubber Company, the corporation took advantage of an unstable nation to create capitalist benefits and profits for the United States. Yes, Hotchkiss and Adams both show the developments of these underdeveloped nations as a benefit of the corporations. Hotchkiss has more of a case for helping natives with an income than Adams does given our class lecture so far. Both authors never really state the benefits to the United States. Katharine's point and quote about from Hotchkiss discussing the working conditions as similar to an army are spot on and a great point to show the labor in the rubber plantations. It is also interesting that Adams discusses the fair wages and cultural benefits to having the Americans around. Those types of benefits must also play into keeping the labor happy.
ReplyDeleteI think it was interesting that both sides gave positive sides of the companies in these underdeveloped nations. They both felt that these companies were giving a positive influence to these countries and helping them out by paying laborers more and having Americans there was only a good thing to these countries. Whether or not that's the truth or not is a different story but to both Adams and Hocthkiss, they both saw the American influence in these countries as a primarily positive thing.
ReplyDeleteWithin the first couple pages of the Adams' excerpt, Adams laments the lack railroads built by American statesmanship south of the Rio Grande, where "uninhabited empires of rich soil are arleady provided with water and with the climate which must have existed in the Garden of Eden" (196). He elaborates by describing Mr. Keith as "generous" for developing sections of the "uninhabited eastern lowland" (197). In this way Adams reinforces a common theme of U.S intervention in Latin America; the theme of putting "wasted space" to use. Adams praises United Fruit's generous wages for their laborers through their contract labor system. Through this system, Adams seems to believe the issue of controlling labor on banana plantations that span miles in every direction is satisfactorily handled. By declaring United Fruit to have done "more for Central America than all other agencies combined" (203), and Adams surely knows that improvement in Central America is improvement for the U.S, by extension, Adams asserts United Fruit as a a civilizing, beneficial force acting for the U.S by expanding economical borders.
ReplyDeleteHotchkiss refers to Americans in Sumatra as "men of unusual individuality," doing "pioneer work" (3). The word "pioneer" here, especially when Hotchkiss mentions "being so far from home" (3) brings to mind colonialism, and specifically American-minded efforts for America's gain, such as a colony and a mother country grow from mutual exchange. This idea is reinforced when Hotchkiss describes the labor as primarily "contract Javanese coolies" (4), while the technical men and administrators are Americans from home. One of the problems faced by labor is discipline, and maintaining production output while avoiding abuse of the laborers who would surely cease migration to the plantations if conditions were too rigid. "As a matter of fact," Hotchkiss states, "the indentured labor is much better off on an estate than in their own unsanitary kampongs" (5). This sentence simultaneously asserts American Rubber as a modernizing and sanitizing influence in Sumatra. As far as imported rubber is concerned in the U.S, Hotchkiss believes that demand for rubber must increase in time, and because there is limited space to produce it in the U.S, the American industry will likely depend on foreign countries. In this way Hotchkiss attributes a good deal of American rubber investment to foreign rubber, which we know is produced by American Rubber through modernizing Sumatra with infrastructure and technology.
The main thing that i got from the reading was that he felt the United States' corporations should be proud of the way they handled themselves in Latin American. Adams sees the United Fruit company as an entity of good rather than evil in the tropics. He points to the use "wasted space" by the railroads as beneficial to the region. Plantations and other signs of an American presence are argued to have provided the necessary infrastructure for the tropics to prosper.
ReplyDeleteAs for labor, there was a large percent of the population from outside Sumatra. There were Javanese "coolies" as the manual laborers with white supervisors. Conditions were poor and it became difficult to maintain production in a time of labor unrest, but with the growing need of rubber in the industrializing world Sumatra soon became a major player in the rubber trade.