3 ms·

No, it's not imperialism. I don't know if there's a word for it. Colonialism and imperialism imply much more cohesive political, economic, cultural, and militar

by wahern 8y ago

No, it's not imperialism. I don't know if there's a word for it. Colonialism and imperialism imply much more cohesive political, economic, cultural, and military strategies. They're meaningful terms because they help to neatly describe both the shared motivations of powers (mostly European in recent history) and the shared experience of those who suffered under those powers. Using those labels in the context of American occupation of and atrocities in the Philippines and elsewhere doesn't add any clarity or explanatory power to American motivations or the experience of the victims. Some things are just things unto themselves, or require drawing much less convenient parallels--say, to modern China or ancient Persia. That's why I saw it's lazy and pernicious. Lazy because I think it's a framework that permits privileged American academics to criticize opponents (e.g. in the debate over the Iraq war, or in the debate over the legacy of slavery) without having to come to terms with their own culpability and inheritance; because colonialism and imperialism are so truly foreign to the American experience that one can easily see other Americans (now or historically) as imperialist but not one oneself. Fabricated narratives are more malleable that way. Pernicious because it only adds obfuscation and confusion, which is anathema to the truth and to the task of preventing future harms.

eesmith 8y ago
There are several types of imperialism. US imperialism of the 18- and 1900s is grouped into "New Imperialism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism ), subcategory "American imperialism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism ). The US goals were based on the desire for economic and political influence, and by the racist view that it was the "White Man's Burden" to educate and civilize non-Westerners. These twin goals are characteristic of the New Imperialism era. "imply much more cohesive ... strategies" Like the long use of US military to support US business interests through gunboat diplomacy, going all the way back to Fillmore's mission that Perry, with his Paixhans shell guns, open up Japanese ports for US trade? BTW, how do you explain that in your viewpoint of America's lazy imperial exceptionalism? Similarly, explain the large number of US military interventions in the Americas under the 'Roosevelt Corollary' upending of the Monroe doctrine. The members of the American Anti-Imperialist League would also have disagreed with you. As do the many historians to who refer to American imperialism so often. Eg, see a Google Scholar search for "American imperialism" at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22american+imperialism%22&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22american+imperialism... . (To be fair, a small minority disagree with that characterization.) Since so many people with much more experience on the topic disagree with you, I think you understand why the onus is on you to be more persuasive, especially as your given explanation seems to be it "just happened". Contrary to your assertion, it does give clarity or explanatory power to American motivations in the Philippines. One factor leading to those atrocities was the use of military troops which existed, and expanded, primarily to fight the wars against the native peoples of North America. That is, American continental expansion drove the desire to expand internationally, and provided the cultural and organizational framework by which to control (and destroy) other populations. It also can and does get people to understand their "culpability and inheritance". How do you view the California Genocide if "colonialism and imperialism are so truly foreign to the American experience"? While I see the history of US westward expansion as a story of colonialism, in need of public "Truth and Reconciliation" commissions to help align general US cultural views of our history with the actual history. In hopes, I'll add, of preventing future harms. A point of this New York magazine article, after all, was to highlight that the current narrative is fabricated, and thus (to use your words) more malleable and pernicious. I quote from the article: > Only an American such as myself could be so totally oblivious to their own country’s imperial past. “One of the truly distinctive features of the United States’ empire is how persistently ignored it has been,” the historian Daniel Immerwahr writes in his introduction to How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States, his new book on the United States’ overseas empire. Triumphalist accounts of the U.S.’s rise to superpower status usually begin with World War II: Pearl Harbor roused the sleeping giant to save the world from fascism. But if the United States had been sleeping, it was only a brief nap after a vigorous workout. From the early 19th century through the 20th, the U.S. assembled a sprawling overseas empire, which grew to include the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, the Panama Canal Zone, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, comprising millions of colonial subjects. This story resists a happy moral arc.
- eesmith 8y ago
  I pulled out high school history textbook, "The American Nation - A History of the United States" by John A. Garraty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Garraty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Garraty ) to see what it says on the topic. It's from 1979, and is an older edition of the textbook I used in high school. Chapter 22, which we never reached when I was in HS, is titled "From Isolation to Empire". The last section is titled "Non-colonial Imperial Expansion", and it's relevant to this topic: > If one defines imperialism narrowly as a policy of occupying and governing foreign lands, American imperialism lasted for an extremely short time. With trivial exceptions, all the American colonies - Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Guantanamo base, and the Canal Zone - were obtained between 1898 and 1903. In retrospect it seems clear that the urge to own colonies with only fleeting; the legitimate questions raised by the anti-imperialists and the headaches connected with the practical management of overseas possessions eventually produced a change of policy. > ... the Roosevelt Corrollary and dollar diplomacy signalled the consolidation of a new policy. ... > Yet imperialism can be given a broader definition. The historian William Appleman Williams, a sharp critic, has described 20th-century American foreign policy as one of "non-colonial imperial expansion." Its object was to obtain profitable American economic penetration of underdeveloped areas without the trouble of owning and controlling them. Its subsidiary aim was to encourage these countries to "modernize," that is, to remake themselves in the image of the United States. ... > Examined from this perspective, the Open Door policy, the Roosevelt Corollary, and dollar diplomacy make a single pattern of exploitation, "tragic" rather than evil, according to Williams, because its creators were not evil but only of limited vision. They did not recognize the contradictions in their ideas and values. So there too you see that the US had an empire, in practical terms, and depending on the definition, that imperial policy existed for more than a few years.

by wahern 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

There are several types of imperialism. US imperialism of the 18- and 1900s is grouped into "New Imperialism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism ), subcategory "American imperialism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism ). The US goals were based on the desire for economic and political influence, and by the racist view that it was the "White Man's Burden" to educate and civilize non-Westerners. These twin goals are characteristic of the New Imperialism era. "imply much more cohesive ... strategies" Like the long use of US military to support US business interests through gunboat diplomacy, going all the way back to Fillmore's mission that Perry, with his Paixhans shell guns, open up Japanese ports for US trade? BTW, how do you explain that in your viewpoint of America's lazy imperial exceptionalism? Similarly, explain the large number of US military interventions in the Americas under the 'Roosevelt Corollary' upending of the Monroe doctrine. The members of the American Anti-Imperialist League would also have disagreed with you. As do the many historians to who refer to American imperialism so often. Eg, see a Google Scholar search for "American imperialism" at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22american+imperialism%22&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22american+imperialism... . (To be fair, a small minority disagree with that characterization.) Since so many people with much more experience on the topic disagree with you, I think you understand why the onus is on you to be more persuasive, especially as your given explanation seems to be it "just happened". Contrary to your assertion, it does give clarity or explanatory power to American motivations in the Philippines. One factor leading to those atrocities was the use of military troops which existed, and expanded, primarily to fight the wars against the native peoples of North America. That is, American continental expansion drove the desire to expand internationally, and provided the cultural and organizational framework by which to control (and destroy) other populations. It also can and does get people to understand their "culpability and inheritance". How do you view the California Genocide if "colonialism and imperialism are so truly foreign to the American experience"? While I see the history of US westward expansion as a story of colonialism, in need of public "Truth and Reconciliation" commissions to help align general US cultural views of our history with the actual history. In hopes, I'll add, of preventing future harms. A point of this New York magazine article, after all, was to highlight that the current narrative is fabricated, and thus (to use your words) more malleable and pernicious. I quote from the article: > Only an American such as myself could be so totally oblivious to their own country’s imperial past. “One of the truly distinctive features of the United States’ empire is how persistently ignored it has been,” the historian Daniel Immerwahr writes in his introduction to How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States, his new book on the United States’ overseas empire. Triumphalist accounts of the U.S.’s rise to superpower status usually begin with World War II: Pearl Harbor roused the sleeping giant to save the world from fascism. But if the United States had been sleeping, it was only a brief nap after a vigorous workout. From the early 19th century through the 20th, the U.S. assembled a sprawling overseas empire, which grew to include the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, the Panama Canal Zone, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, comprising millions of colonial subjects. This story resists a happy moral arc.

eesmith 8y ago
I pulled out high school history textbook, "The American Nation - A History of the United States" by John A. Garraty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Garraty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Garraty ) to see what it says on the topic. It's from 1979, and is an older edition of the textbook I used in high school. Chapter 22, which we never reached when I was in HS, is titled "From Isolation to Empire". The last section is titled "Non-colonial Imperial Expansion", and it's relevant to this topic: > If one defines imperialism narrowly as a policy of occupying and governing foreign lands, American imperialism lasted for an extremely short time. With trivial exceptions, all the American colonies - Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Guantanamo base, and the Canal Zone - were obtained between 1898 and 1903. In retrospect it seems clear that the urge to own colonies with only fleeting; the legitimate questions raised by the anti-imperialists and the headaches connected with the practical management of overseas possessions eventually produced a change of policy. > ... the Roosevelt Corrollary and dollar diplomacy signalled the consolidation of a new policy. ... > Yet imperialism can be given a broader definition. The historian William Appleman Williams, a sharp critic, has described 20th-century American foreign policy as one of "non-colonial imperial expansion." Its object was to obtain profitable American economic penetration of underdeveloped areas without the trouble of owning and controlling them. Its subsidiary aim was to encourage these countries to "modernize," that is, to remake themselves in the image of the United States. ... > Examined from this perspective, the Open Door policy, the Roosevelt Corollary, and dollar diplomacy make a single pattern of exploitation, "tragic" rather than evil, according to Williams, because its creators were not evil but only of limited vision. They did not recognize the contradictions in their ideas and values. So there too you see that the US had an empire, in practical terms, and depending on the definition, that imperial policy existed for more than a few years.