As read in Roosevelt's address to the Methodist Episcopal Church, "control" is the "prerequisite condition" for the "moral and material advancement of the peoples who dwell in the darker corners of the earth." (p.56) Given the result of European and American expansion into foreign nations, (take for example, the nation of Sudan that Roosevelt mentions; its recent succession of South from North Sudan, combined initially by the British out of either lack of understanding the region or because it was easier to lump them together and control them as a whole) is this a valid statement by Roosevelt, or were the expansions morally and materially deteriorating to the natives of those lands? In short, who was the primary benefactor of imperialism: the natives or the "intruders," as Roosevelt refers to them?
Is the term "expansionism" merely a euphemism for "imperialism"?
What role did the social and antiwar movements, as well as the "movements of people of color working both outside and inside the academy," (Streeby p.53) play in the emergence of "revisionist scholarly work" that took a critical, rather than compliant, look at the expansion of the United States around the world?
(Last question):
ReplyDeleteIn the 1960s-1970s, various social movements such as the antiwar movement and movements of people of color merged their goals. Their fight for justice soon focused upon the United States and its foreign policy concerning Vietnam. Many historians believed that the U.S. was involved in Vietnam in order to prevent communist expansion. However, revisionist theorists, reinforcing the position of the social movements, supported the idea that the U.S. was an imperialistic nation that was suppressing people of color in Vietnam.
I definitely believe Roosevelt, as well as those prior and following his reign, did so to expand their personal interests and not for the greater good. Civilization i.e. Christianity was imposed on uninterested, non-wanting lands. As Professor Davis advocated, quite devilishly, in class, Americans might have just wanted to help. They did not need to be asked. They did it out of the kindness of their hearts. They helped a society which they never bothered to understand. Instead of learning a bit beforehand, they decided, as Twain describes, to play a game of hide and seek; anyone hiding in the dark, needed to be found. Period.
ReplyDeleteThey excuse any unsavory actions away; first came manifest destiny, then, upping the ante came “National Destiny” (Roosevelt, 263). First they made up their minds “To put down violence—to establish peace and order” (Roosevelt, 263). Just seconds later in his speech he states “The first and vitally important feat was the establishment of the supremacy of the American flag” (Roosevelt, 263). I would think, if the goal was to better the “Gang of semi-barbarians” that would take the first and vital importance.
And while I agree control is central to any domination, it is unnecessary when the aim is to help. People who want help, will take it. If they do not know what is good for them, show them, if they still resist, let them be. Of course, that was no option, for that was the excuse, not the goal.
While people did not like the term "Empire", I wonder if the Americans would have been into the truth. Exclude the word empire and just say "We want to be the best, the richest, the tops." Would they have went for it? Would they now? I'm sure some would. I wonder how far Social Darwinism has come.