6 ms·

> [T]he events that happened in the colonies are not remembered today because they were not deemed important at the time by the people who told memorable storie

by wahern 8y ago

> [T]he events that happened in the colonies are not remembered today because they were not deemed important at the time by the people who told memorable stories. ... > For Immerwahr, this transformation poses the puzzling question of why, at the height of its power, the U.S. decided to divest itself of all but a scattering of its territorial holdings. He argues [insert bunch of convoluted explanations] The answer is clear and was unwittingly already admitted: nobody cared. With the exception of Manifest Destiny, the U.S. had always been inward looking. We ended up with far flung colonies because we kept stumbling into the role of major power. Prior to WWII, the only time we wrestled with the inevitability of our place was with the Monroe Doctrine, which is less an exception and more an affirmation that the United States had little interest in imperial power for its own sake. Many political and industrial leaders wished otherwise and attempted to force the U.S. into the position, but it could never be sustained because of the domestic disinterest. It's no coincidence that the balance of political power shifted from the states to the Federal government at the same time the U.S. actively pursued a dominating international position--abortively prior to WWII but completely subsequent to WWII. And it's becoming increasingly clear that the end of the Cold War may have heralded a retreat to our old ways. Again, no coincidence that our national identity is as fractured as it ever has been in the modern era. A national identity that was defined in contradistinction to foreign identities, and an economy so dominated by foreign trade that economic interests in overseas, non-European markets could wag the dog--these are things the U.S. never experienced (at least not prior to WWII), but characteristics shared by every actual colonial and imperial power. As for the pervasive racist beliefs, they had nothing to do with colonialism. Conflating these things simply obscures the underlying dynamics. It's actually counterproductive because it permits people to deny the real racism by denying its imperialist past--which is easily denied because of facts. Similarly, it minimizes the continuously antagonistic, if not continuously genocidal, attitude toward Native Americans. By trying to shoehorn American history into the narrative of European and Japanese imperialism one is implicitly equivocating our treatment of Filipinos and Cubans the same way we treated the Native American nations. That's facially and tragically false. It's a lazy, pernicious attempt to import moral arguments from the anti-colonial movement into the American debate. It neither sheds light on historical tragedies (domestically or internationally) nor helps us grapple with our contemporary prejudices.

eesmith 8y ago
"insert bunch of convoluted explanations" I disagree with that description. The explanation seems quite clear, and consistent with my understanding of the history. "With the exception of Manifest Destiny, the U.S. had always been inward looking ... We ended up with far flung colonies because we kept stumbling into the role of major power. Prior to WWII, the only time we wrestled with the inevitability of our place was with the Monroe Doctrine" Manifest Destiny is a huge exception - enough to make 'always been inward looking' be meaningless. It helped justify America's own imperialism. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1898) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1898) , "The U.S. appealed to the principles of Manifest Destiny and expansionism to justify its participation in the war, proclaiming that it was America's fate and its duty to take charge in these overseas nations." That Wikipedia article cites https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/spanish-american-war/pdf/teacher_guide.pdf https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourc... : "Victory in the Spanish-American War transformed the United States, a former colony, to an imperial power. Many Americans saw this development as a natural part of the nation’s “Manifest Destiny”--the belief that expansion of the United States was both right and inevitable." We did not "stumble" into paying Spain $20 million for The Philippines. We need only look at the name 'American Anti-Imperialist League' to know that it was a considered decision. Finally, "As for the pervasive racist beliefs, they had nothing to do with colonialism". I find it hard to accept that statement without substantial evidence to show that works like: "Race-Making and Colonial Violence in the U.S. Empire: The Philippine-American War as Race War" - https://apjjf.org/-Paul_A_-Kramer/1745/article.pdf https://apjjf.org/-Paul_A_-Kramer/1745/article.pdf "“Racism” and Colonialism: Meanings of Difference and Ruling Practices in America’s Pacific Empire" - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian_Go/publication/225264448_Racism_and_Colonialism_Meanings_of_Difference_and_Ruling_Practices_in_America%27s_Pacific_Empire/links/57481fa808aef66a78b1e116/Racism-and-Colonialism-Meanings-of-Difference-and-Ruling-Practices-in-Americas-Pacific-Empire.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian_Go/publication/2... . Quoting from it: > It would seem indisputable that modern colonialism in the early twentieth century involved racism. ... The historian Partha Chatterjee refers to this as “the rule of colonial difference”—the colonized, by virtue of their biology, were represented “as incorrigibly inferior” (1993, pp. 19, 33). Traditional scholarship has thus treated racism as “a built-in and natural product [of colonialism], essential to the social construction of an otherwise illegitimate and privileged access to property and power” (Stoler 1992, p. 322). More recent scholarship in the humanities has added that the very purpose of colonial discourse was “to construe the colonized as a population of degenerate types on the basis of racial origin; in order to justify conquest” (Bhabha 1994, p. 70). Almost by definition, then, modern colonialism entailed “racism”: .. That last quote shows that your viewpoint that 'pervasive racist beliefs ... had nothing to do with colonialism' is far from being the majority held position among scholars. Or as the article says, President William McKinley said that God told him to "educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them". How is that not racist? As another counter-example, why did the US acquire Hawaii? It was not part of the continentalism "Manifest Destiny", nor was it part of the Americas under the Monroe Doctrine.

by wahern 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

"insert bunch of convoluted explanations" I disagree with that description. The explanation seems quite clear, and consistent with my understanding of the history. "With the exception of Manifest Destiny, the U.S. had always been inward looking ... We ended up with far flung colonies because we kept stumbling into the role of major power. Prior to WWII, the only time we wrestled with the inevitability of our place was with the Monroe Doctrine" Manifest Destiny is a huge exception - enough to make 'always been inward looking' be meaningless. It helped justify America's own imperialism. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1898) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1898) , "The U.S. appealed to the principles of Manifest Destiny and expansionism to justify its participation in the war, proclaiming that it was America's fate and its duty to take charge in these overseas nations." That Wikipedia article cites https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/spanish-american-war/pdf/teacher_guide.pdf https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourc... : "Victory in the Spanish-American War transformed the United States, a former colony, to an imperial power. Many Americans saw this development as a natural part of the nation’s “Manifest Destiny”--the belief that expansion of the United States was both right and inevitable." We did not "stumble" into paying Spain $20 million for The Philippines. We need only look at the name 'American Anti-Imperialist League' to know that it was a considered decision. Finally, "As for the pervasive racist beliefs, they had nothing to do with colonialism". I find it hard to accept that statement without substantial evidence to show that works like: "Race-Making and Colonial Violence in the U.S. Empire: The Philippine-American War as Race War" - https://apjjf.org/-Paul_A_-Kramer/1745/article.pdf https://apjjf.org/-Paul_A_-Kramer/1745/article.pdf "“Racism” and Colonialism: Meanings of Difference and Ruling Practices in America’s Pacific Empire" - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian_Go/publication/225264448_Racism_and_Colonialism_Meanings_of_Difference_and_Ruling_Practices_in_America%27s_Pacific_Empire/links/57481fa808aef66a78b1e116/Racism-and-Colonialism-Meanings-of-Difference-and-Ruling-Practices-in-Americas-Pacific-Empire.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian_Go/publication/2... . Quoting from it: > It would seem indisputable that modern colonialism in the early twentieth century involved racism. ... The historian Partha Chatterjee refers to this as “the rule of colonial difference”—the colonized, by virtue of their biology, were represented “as incorrigibly inferior” (1993, pp. 19, 33). Traditional scholarship has thus treated racism as “a built-in and natural product [of colonialism], essential to the social construction of an otherwise illegitimate and privileged access to property and power” (Stoler 1992, p. 322). More recent scholarship in the humanities has added that the very purpose of colonial discourse was “to construe the colonized as a population of degenerate types on the basis of racial origin; in order to justify conquest” (Bhabha 1994, p. 70). Almost by definition, then, modern colonialism entailed “racism”: .. That last quote shows that your viewpoint that 'pervasive racist beliefs ... had nothing to do with colonialism' is far from being the majority held position among scholars. Or as the article says, President William McKinley said that God told him to "educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them". How is that not racist? As another counter-example, why did the US acquire Hawaii? It was not part of the continentalism "Manifest Destiny", nor was it part of the Americas under the Monroe Doctrine.