Thank you Shawn, Coco, Charlie, Lauren, Nora, Allie, Caroline and Billy for sharing your heart felt thoughts on the work of Tom Stone. I’m so taken by the depth of your analysis and more importantly the ways in which you express yourselves. I find your words very moving – all of them. Thank you.
For this next blog, I’d like us to consider American imperialism. What do you think of the Spanish-American War and the Annexation of Hawaii? Are these events an extension of US policy against Native Americans and Mexicans? Or are they different?
I’m attaching a few different files to look at (all are small and worth completing). One is a letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, two are You Tube videos about the annexation of Hawaii and the last one is a small op-ed piece that thinks US imperialism is a good thing.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
http://lists.ccil.org/pipermail/firstnations/2000-November/000011.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS35CnwYEOk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE4DM3e8l_w
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-05-boot_x.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
i think that the usa annexation of hawaii was unjustifiable. all the usa did was exploit its power for evil not good. i commend queen lil for trying to maintain the hawaiian culture. imperialism is an evil concept because, eventually, any country will exploit its power for negative use and positive good. the article talking about how imperialism is a good thing is completely ridiculous. imperialism is an immoral concept and should be widely disregarded. Imperialism leads to the classification of race social class, gender, etc. It only makes things worse.
I think US imperialism is bad in pretty much every aspect. I understand creating colonies for things like natural resources, but the United States already had plenty of materials and jobs at home. Taking over Hawaii without any really good reason except for its monetary value was just selfish. I'd think that the US, as a country that was founded upon rebellion against imperialism, would uphold the belief that imperialism is a terrible, unjust thing, but apparently not. Also, the clearing off of Indians from the West was wrong as well. If they had been attacking our citizens, which I guess some of them were doing, defense against them would be one thing. Although, a lot of them were attacking us because in defense of their own lands and lifestyle. A lot of tribes were just minding their business, and we got rid of them because they were in the way of our expansion.
That article that supports imperialism is really annoying. I suppose it has some good points about stopping Hitler and stuff like that, but even that is the arrogance of the United States. Not to say that I support some of the things that are going on and have been going on in the world, but I fail to see when the US was given the position to judge what is right and what is wrong. We say we're making places better, but who decided that democracy is the best way of doing things? I find that it's a bit pig-headed to believe that our system is the best out there and other places in the world need to be "fixed" so that they fit the standard of what we think is good and right. Unless the US is directly affected, I think we need to step back and mind our own business.
I think that imperialism has its goods and bads, but for the most part it is good for the country imperializing, but bad for the people getting imperialized (if that can be used as a verb). Just like in Star Wars, I'm sure that the "Dark Side" (AKA the Empire) thought that what they were doing was right. There will always be those that oppose the Empire, like the Rebel Army, and it all depends on from what perspective you look at it from. We can relate the US to the Dark Side/the Empire and Hawaii and Queen Lil to the Rebels and Princess Leia, although in the Hawaiin instance Queen Lil did not win... I'm not saying that US Imperialism is a bad thing (because basically I would be a stormtrooper in this metaphor), but the morality of it is based on your position. The Spanish-American War and the annexation of Hawaii are clearly examples of American Imperialism, but who are we to say if it was right or wrong? From my perspective (the US's side), what we did was justifiable because we were doing what we thought was right. While it may not be in the best interest of those we imperialized, from the US's point of view they are trying to help those they think need it (as in the War in Iraq). While motives may be tainted by greed and wealth (which is bad) there are still certain reasons to imperialize and impose our views on other cultures. Had we not removed Saddam from power, many more innocent Iraqis would still be slaughtered. Our intervention may have been strongly motivated by economics, but it did have some positive effects.
i agree with charlie that imperialism has its ups and downs and it depends which side you are on. At the same time though, overall, mostly i see imperialism as a bad thing. the united states is without a doubt an imperialist country. you cant blame other countries for disliking the usa because we seem like a country just taking devouring anything in site. However there are exceptions when imeperialsim is accetpable but for the most part, it never really is. Imperialism can go in two directions but mostly what it comes down to is, is imperialism justifiable and in some cases it is and in some cases it isnt. but who is to decide when that is?
my bad noor is my brothers google account and he had it on here or something i dont even know
------shawn fateh
I really think that imperialism should not be defined as the conquest of territories, but rather the destruction of culture. It seems that America has, for the past two centuries, been attempting to create a monoculture wherever they set foot. Whether welcome or not, Americans have continued to impose their beliefs upon other societies. It began with the destruction of the Indians, with the heartless atrocities we inflicted upon them. At least Grover was brave and humble enough to state them plainly and admit to their unforgivable natures.
Then there was Hawaii. We usurped the Hawaiian kingdom with no defensible justification. We completely disrespected their queen and their culture (for example: flying the US flag over the Hawaiian one the day we took control). Apparently, Americans believe that the American way is the only way. It's like the progressives that we're reading about. They were frustrated and frightened by the new immigrants refusal to assimilate to American culture. Is diversity a bad thing? Is one culture worse than another simply because it is different?
The argument in the last article is really narrow-minded. Is there a universal standard on which we rate governments? Or is that just in his head? WHO SAYS DEMOCRACY IS THE BEST SYSTEM OF GOVERNING? Just because that is what we believe in and that is what works for our country does NOT MEAN we should destroy the cultures and traditions of other worlds in order to implement our "correct" policies.
After reading the articles and watching the videos, I definitely consider myself anti-imperialist. All I could focus on when trying to learn about the imperialists' point-of-view was the ridiculous irony in their thoughts.
The first thing I noticed was in the apology speech: "In March of 1824, President James Monroe established the Office of Indian Affairs in the Department of War." The fact that the Indian Affairs Department was part of the Department of War is quite telling. It seems as though peace with Native Americans was never truly a goal of our government, and we simply wanted to annihilate them with warfare.
Also, as we mentioned in class, our country was founded out of resentment towards the imperialistic policies of England. How could we be so hypocritical as to impose the same thing that we fought so hard to destroy on others just because we believe we are superior or more "advanced"?
It is also evident that our government is aware of the negative opinion towards imperialism when Donald Rumsfeld said, "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been." The fact that he felt the need to vehemently deny imperialism demonstrates that he, as well as the government, knows that imperialism is ultimately damaging to cultures, religions, and peoples and is looked down upon by much of the public.
In the pro-imperialism op/ed, the author wrote of the situation in Iraq, "It means imposing the rule of law, property rights, free speech and other guarantees, at gunpoint if need be...Iran and other neighboring states won't hesitate to impose their despotic views on Iraq; we shouldn't hesitate to impose our democratic views." The dichotomy of this statement is actually humorous to me. Isn't the definition of democracy a government supported by the people? Why would we IMPOSE something at GUNPOINT that need be supported by popular opinion in order to function in the first place?
Another thing I found ironic was the title of Max Boot, the imperialistic author's, book-- The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. Peace cannot be attained through savagery. All I can say is that I truly think Max Boots is an idiot.
I guess the question this comes down to is: do the ends justify the means? We have posed this question in class and applied it to various situations. Could the end (the spread of democracy) even be achieved at all by the means that many imperialists support (threats/violence)? If democracy is eventually achieved this way, is it justified in the long-term?
I completely agree with jacqui: Why does the United States believe that democracy is the best way of government? Why do we have the right to impose what we think is the best method on other countries that disagree? Why can't we let them govern in their own ways?
Although I do think that Charlie's Star Wars analogy is a good one and peoples' views on imperialism are greatly affected by which side of the equation they are on (those being imperialistic or those under the imperialistic rule of others), I disagree that "there are still certain reasons to imperialize and impose our views on other cultures." I truly do not think that there is ever any reason to impose our culture on others. If we have that right, then soon the entire globe will become completely homogenous.
I also thought that Nora's connection between America's belief that democracy is the only acceptable form of government and the progressives fear of immigrants' refusal to assimilate was really interesting. Our fear of people that are different from us in any way, whether it be culture, religion, race, or background, is detrimental to all.
Imperialism is defined as the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence. Jumping to the last article that was in favor of US expansion, the author stated that the US does not consider itself to be an imperialistic power. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even tries to deny that US is imperialistic. But if occupying and seeking to overtake a territory that doesn’t belong to you is not imperialistic, then I don’t know what is. Occupation implies possession. Throughout the history of the United States, our country has acted as an empire that has attempted to possess new territories for our own personal gain. I am against imperialism and the occupation of new territory because of the destruction it causes to the liberties of the given claims. Why does our country feel the need to pose as an aristocracy, the aggregate of those believed to be superior? What gives one cultural group the right to act with superiority to people in a different country of a specific ethnic background? The occupation of the Hawaiian territory in which the US government overthrew and dismantled the monarchy was completely corrupt and immoral. Our government deceitfully gained control by claiming to be protecting the lives and properties of the Hawaiian people though it actually interfered with the wellbeing of Hawaiians. Our government fraudulently led the queen to believe we were being helpful and that US presence was only temporary. This was clearly wrong and shameful. Hawaii was already an established country that did not deserve interference in their peaceful culture and way of living. The US had no right to destroy and dismantle a functioning government. We destroyed a culture for our own immoral purposes. When the US decided to replace the Hawaiian flag with the United States one, we shred their flag as remembrance not of their lost culture or the kingdom that once was, but to remember the end of a monarchy and the victory over the Hawaiian territory. It is apparent that US expansion was driven by the motivation for our own personal gain and it didn’t matter what cultures were being destroyed in order to achieve this goal. Can the idea of manifest destiny really be used to justify our territorial acquisitions or is it just an excuse for the United State’s excessive GREED?
The United States’ contest for control of Iraq once again demonstrates our country’s greed. I agree with Allie in that the US should not be trying to impose its culture and views on other cultures in other countries. It is shocking that the author of the last article thinks that it is in our right to “handle” cultures different from our own when really we should be accepting them. I have trouble understanding why the US feels the need to “cleanse” other ethnicities as if they need to be corrected. The feeling of superiority, similar to that of the white man’s burden, which the US has, is completely demeaning to other cultures and governments in other countries. Why does our nation feel the need to purify another nation by imposing our democratic views when we have no right to interfere?
I do appreciate Jacquelines point and Allie's analysis of that point, that democracy may not be the correct point of view, but do any of us Americans really feel that democracy is bad? Sure it has its down sides (corruption?), but what doesn't? I do think that there are better forms of government, but looking at history and the different types of governments throughout history I have come to see that, in practice, democracy seems to work best. Communism, in theory, seems to be good doesn't it? But there are fatal flaws in communism that we, as Americans, seem to want to combat to help the citizens of those communist dictatorial countries. While our imperialism may be partially driven by "excessive greed," as Nisha said, I still do not believe it is the only reason and I do think that there are good motivations for imperializing. Everything good always comes with a bad, and I remember a friends episode in which Joey challenges Phoebe to find a truly selfless good deed. She is unable to do so in the end, as even doing a thing without thinking about herself made her feel good inside. So nothing good comes without some selfishness, but as long as we are trying to help, shouldn't we keep doing it?
allie, you're right, as always, Max Boots is an idiot and completely made a fool out of himself in that article. Way to pick up on the book title, I didn't even notice that. There are actually so many subtle oxymorons in his article, most of which Allie pointed out. Charlie, I think it's obviously valid to say that there are two sides to this matter...there are two sides to any argument. I think the question of imperialism is more about morals than it is about anything else. Just because we can doesn't mean we should :)
Nisha, I agree with you when you say that occupation is a form of imperialism. There is no denying that we are and almost always have been an imperialistic nation.
I like Charlie's Star Wars metaphor, but I don't really feel like the United States is actually doing what we think is moral. If I try to think about it in elementary playground terms, it seems like the world is playing a big game of tag, somewhat. There are rules to the game, but everyone in different plays tag differently. I feel like the United States is the gigantic, looming bully of the playground. We'll play tag with other countries, but because we have the power, if we don't agree with the rules, we'll just ignore them and decided to play however we want to play. The other countries are just victims of our desire to win, and they get pushed around while we go in and take over, using "morality" as an excuse, when really we just want to do whatever we feel like doing to other countries. Sorry for answering a metaphor with another one.
I truly feel that imperialism solely for the benefit of the United States is purely tyrannical. These documentaries just remind us how single-minded the US government can be. Their only desire seems to be to acquire more territory to therefore gain more power; however, it's not simply power, but rather power over all the other countries in the world. America tries to justify their annexations by saying it is for the protection of the country, such as Hawaii being used to help to get to Japan, which ultimately might be true, since it helped us in World War II, but additionally it's what causes the conflicts in the first place. We had an entire Civil War over slavery and ending white superiority, but this white superiority is still discernible in our every day society. America is power hungry, and seems to want to prove its superiority by conquering other nations. This simply is not fair.
America's push for imperialism through the years makes it evident that the true motive behind expanding territory is to gain total control. As Alexis de Tocqueville said in the youtube video, "the surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through." The government tries to sugar coat their annexations and make it seem like its all about peace and fairness. But when I imagine being one of the indigenous people being subjugated by an outside force who really has no right to take control over me, it just makes everything seem so much more corrupt than it really needs to be. Everything and everyone would be in such better terms if their wasn't one force trying to overtake everything else.
I see where Charlie is coming from, and although my original comment strongly supported anti-imperialism, it really does depend on one's position. I should be biased since I'm part of the US, but morally I just don't find it fair nor right to take over something that isn't ours. Watching that second Hawaii video and seeing how hard it was for the man to just talk about his nation being overtaken was sad enough. I can't imagine when your country, your pride and joy, gets taken away and its like you no longer have anything to defend, no longer have a home base. It's like your old house being torn down and built into a new apartment building, or your favorite family restaurant being bought and made into a commercial olive garden. The more frustrating part is how helpless people like the Hawaiians were in the entire situation.
I don't think imperialism is justifiable when it is used for the benefit of one country/nation at the expense of another. In the case of Hawaii, it was completely unjustifiable, because Hawaii was annexed just for the sake of Dole and making money. The actual Hawaiians did not need to be a part of the US; all they wanted was to have was the preservation of their culture and their independence. I don't really think it was a matter of racism, because the Hawaiians' opinion really had no power in the decision of annexation. But it definitely relates to what the US did to the Mexicans and Indians, because the US exploited the people for profit. In the Spanish-American War, the US in an under-handed way encouraged the Spanish colonies to rebel, and then the US attacked them and took over. that's pretty imperialistic. While the US was created against an imperialistic force, the US is also built on imperialism.
I liked that Max Boot recognized in his USA Today editorial that the US is imperialistic. He didn't shy away from the term at all. But I still don't agree that imperialism is justifiable in the US, or anywhere else. While the article was written in 2003 and records aren't current, it's pretty strange that Boot would see the Iraq War as something beneficial to both sides. It's outrightly imperialistic that the US imposes its democratic form of gov't on Iraq, especially when the Iraqi culture is such a polar opposite and despises all things American. It just seems unneccessary to impose our beliefs on other nations when we praise ourselves for being the biggest advocates of freedom. I totally agree with Nora that the American "policy" of culture destruction is counterproductive and simply a way to show the world how right we are.
Post a Comment