> [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.
Cause and effect go the other way. Actively pursuing a dominating international position was caused by the shift to more federal power. That came about mostly due to:
1. the Civil War, establishing a new level of federal supremacy
2. the 16th amendment, establishing a federal income tax
3. the 17th amendment, which stopped states from choosing senators who would rein in federal power
Other factors may be:
4. abuse of the commerce clause, with West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish and the end of the Lochner era.
5. ease of movement and communication (rail, cars, radio, TV) reducing feelings of identification with individual states
6. the speed and complexity of modern war making it necessary to continuously maintain an active-duty military with an active weapons supply industry
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) , "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/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:
> 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.
First, if you mention that America has an overseas empire, you probably need to let us know exactly what the empire contains. Maps of European imperialism exist and help us understand what an "overseas empire" actually looks like. In the article, aside from the Philippines, there is no mention of any other largely populated countries. We have no idea of the scale of the "American Overseas Empire" at all.
Second, if you're trying to say that the American Empire is larger than it's colonization, it's be nice to let us know, again with a map, the sphere of influence under American rule. Telling us that America has many military bases is a poor substitute.
Finally, the author is picking through straw with his examples of Jefferson and FDR.
America is an empire. It's influence has been global since the turn of last century. The extent of American influence is seen everywhere. There are many books and articles on America's influence on the world that fairly cover both sides of history.
The reason why colonization is not often talked about is because it's an outdated and inefficient practice that America just didn't care much about. It's why the Europeans deprecated it - ruling a country in order to benefit from it's resources is inefficient because you actually have to govern it and govern it pretty well for you to have any long term benefits. There's much easier and more direct ways for you to gain benefits from others, and believe it or not, most of them are mutually beneficial to both parties.
Deprecation is a good way of putting it. I've always said that modern colonialism is in tech.
If a top telco or a power plant relies on Google, then they are effectively colonized by Google. If some human traffickers rely on PayPal and Salesforce, they delegate control and data to those companies. This is also the main appeal of crypto, block chain, and open source; decentralization gives back control.
The US plays this game well, but again, it looks inside. Countries like China and Germany are doing best at extending their influence outside the country.
I heard something related to this recently. The development of synthetic rubber meant we did not need to control regions with rubber plantation. This was mentioned in association with World War II. Another interesting point discussed was that in order to send secure communication by wire you had to control the land the wire traversed to prevent disruption of the communication. The invention of wireless communication meant that you only had to control the terminals of the communication.
"At first, “Pearl Harbor” was not the way most people referred to the bombings. “Japs bomb Manila, Hawaii” was the headline in one New Mexico paper; “Japanese Planes Bomb Honolulu, Island of Guam” in another in South Carolina. Sumner Welles, FDR’s undersecretary of state, described the event as “an attack upon Hawaii and upon the Philippines”. Eleanor Roosevelt used a similar formulation in her radio address on the night of 7 December, when she spoke of Japan “bombing our citizens in Hawaii and the Philippines”.
That was how the first draft of FDR’s speech went, too: it presented the event as a “bombing in Hawaii and the Philippines”. Yet Roosevelt toyed with that draft all day, adding things in pencil, crossing other bits out. At some point he deleted the prominent references to the Philippines."
Also in Commonwealth, it is remembered as the day when Japanese attacked Hong Kong. They took and occupied Honk Kong for the entire duration of the war.
This is how I expect media to describe the US External Politics
If President is Democrat:
* If President Raises Military Expenditure: "he is helping protect the people of the world from tyrant governments"
* If President Lowers Military Expenditure: "we cant afford this many wars, we must instead focus on our own problems, we must focus on (insert recent catastrophe, that's inevitable in the US like a wild fire in the West Coast or a tornado in the East Coast)"
If President is Republican:
* If President Raises Military Expenditure: "he is being imperialist, we don't want this blood in our hands"
* If President Lowers Military Expenditure: "he is letting the tyrants like him do their bidding, remember the little kids in Africa, if we don't step in, who will?"
One thing that obviates the need for colonies is international trade. You used to need to actually hold countries to make sure you had minerals, rubber, spices, etc. With the formalization of trade it's not as necessary.
As commentor mentioned at the original site, I think the article would have benefitted from discussion how Texas and Louisiana ended with the USA. Also of the territories taken from Mexico in the early to mid nineteenth century.
There is a Hardcore History episode about Roosevelt that included a horrifying section on the Philippines. Its a fantastic episode but its unsettling too
[+] [-] wahern|7 years ago|reply
...
> 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.
[+] [-] burfog|7 years ago|reply
1. the Civil War, establishing a new level of federal supremacy
2. the 16th amendment, establishing a federal income tax
3. the 17th amendment, which stopped states from choosing senators who would rein in federal power
Other factors may be:
4. abuse of the commerce clause, with West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish and the end of the Lochner era.
5. ease of movement and communication (rail, cars, radio, TV) reducing feelings of identification with individual states
6. the speed and complexity of modern war making it necessary to continuously maintain an active-duty military with an active weapons supply industry
[+] [-] darepublic|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eesmith|7 years ago|reply
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) , "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/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
"“Racism” and Colonialism: Meanings of Difference and Ruling Practices in America’s Pacific Empire" - 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.
[+] [-] spyckie2|7 years ago|reply
First, if you mention that America has an overseas empire, you probably need to let us know exactly what the empire contains. Maps of European imperialism exist and help us understand what an "overseas empire" actually looks like. In the article, aside from the Philippines, there is no mention of any other largely populated countries. We have no idea of the scale of the "American Overseas Empire" at all.
Second, if you're trying to say that the American Empire is larger than it's colonization, it's be nice to let us know, again with a map, the sphere of influence under American rule. Telling us that America has many military bases is a poor substitute.
Finally, the author is picking through straw with his examples of Jefferson and FDR.
America is an empire. It's influence has been global since the turn of last century. The extent of American influence is seen everywhere. There are many books and articles on America's influence on the world that fairly cover both sides of history.
The reason why colonization is not often talked about is because it's an outdated and inefficient practice that America just didn't care much about. It's why the Europeans deprecated it - ruling a country in order to benefit from it's resources is inefficient because you actually have to govern it and govern it pretty well for you to have any long term benefits. There's much easier and more direct ways for you to gain benefits from others, and believe it or not, most of them are mutually beneficial to both parties.
[+] [-] muzani|7 years ago|reply
If a top telco or a power plant relies on Google, then they are effectively colonized by Google. If some human traffickers rely on PayPal and Salesforce, they delegate control and data to those companies. This is also the main appeal of crypto, block chain, and open source; decentralization gives back control.
The US plays this game well, but again, it looks inside. Countries like China and Germany are doing best at extending their influence outside the country.
[+] [-] hhs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erkose|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitwit005|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burlesona|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youeseh|7 years ago|reply
"At first, “Pearl Harbor” was not the way most people referred to the bombings. “Japs bomb Manila, Hawaii” was the headline in one New Mexico paper; “Japanese Planes Bomb Honolulu, Island of Guam” in another in South Carolina. Sumner Welles, FDR’s undersecretary of state, described the event as “an attack upon Hawaii and upon the Philippines”. Eleanor Roosevelt used a similar formulation in her radio address on the night of 7 December, when she spoke of Japan “bombing our citizens in Hawaii and the Philippines”.
That was how the first draft of FDR’s speech went, too: it presented the event as a “bombing in Hawaii and the Philippines”. Yet Roosevelt toyed with that draft all day, adding things in pencil, crossing other bits out. At some point he deleted the prominent references to the Philippines."
[+] [-] billfruit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bunnycorn|7 years ago|reply
This is how I expect media to describe the US External Politics
If President is Democrat:
* If President Raises Military Expenditure: "he is helping protect the people of the world from tyrant governments"
* If President Lowers Military Expenditure: "we cant afford this many wars, we must instead focus on our own problems, we must focus on (insert recent catastrophe, that's inevitable in the US like a wild fire in the West Coast or a tornado in the East Coast)"
If President is Republican:
* If President Raises Military Expenditure: "he is being imperialist, we don't want this blood in our hands"
* If President Lowers Military Expenditure: "he is letting the tyrants like him do their bidding, remember the little kids in Africa, if we don't step in, who will?"
Beautiful!
[+] [-] thomasmarriott|7 years ago|reply
Full context of "empire": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty
[+] [-] anbop|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billfruit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jammygit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teslaberry|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JohnClark1337|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]