Thank you Paulina, Andrew, Andrea, Charlie, Adam, Margaux, Brittany, Sarah, Neha, Rebecca, Yoonkee, Amanda, Jack for sharing your heart felt thoughts on the work of Tom Stone. Thank you Sarah for posting Gabriel’s poem – it was incredibly intense for me. His need to express that he existed seems especially painful knowing that he took his own life. I can only imagine the isolation he must have felt.
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. I especially appreciate that you are able to bring an exhibit like this back to what we are studying and then simultaneously bring it to your every day lives. I think this shows incredible maturity and depth and I am humbled by it.
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)
33 comments:
The last article is pretty obnoxious. You can't say that imperialism is just "nation building" and that we have never been imperialists. Its pretty sad how this guy has such insular views. He definitely did not talk philosophically from 8 -8:45 am every morning.
I think that we take control and are imperialistic but its it very subtle and discrete. No on is going around saying "how do you feel about our imperialism in ____." Although I thought it was RIDUKULUS when the author of the last article said imperilism was the I word, its it is true that no one actually says the I word. If, like in the Vietnamese WAr, the public was completely aware of what was going on when the country is imperialistic, they would step up with their morals and stop injustice. That is pretty idealistic though.
The idea of imperiliasm and assimilation go hand it hand. For some reason Americas think they are the best and that everyone should be like us, but no one like America's anyways. Even if countries thrive to be as industrialized or advanced as us, the people still condone us for our haughtiness.
Paulina
I believe that imperialism is a very good thing for a country (well not so good for the natives but o well) imperialism is completely justified by social Darwinism, which is how society works then and now. the society that is stronger is the one that survives, and in society the more money you have the more strength you have. and by taking over nearby countries or republics, like Hawaii, more money will come into the economy. but i think that the Spanish American war was also caused by the fact that Spain had so many colonies near the US. no one can tell the future but when a country has colonies surrounding another nation, Cuba in the east and Philippines in the west. so while taking out plausible threats why not make them our "allies" by force to give the US a little boost in economy and a bit more safety.
Paulina and I (woo good grammar) had a convo about this a little while ago and im going to say the same thing i think i said to her. that Americans don't want everyone to be like us because we think we are the best but to be like us because we fear what isn't familiar. of course there are the lame woo go america people but its pretty normal for humans to fear what they do not know or understand so why not take them over and make them like us while getting some money too?
Just as I responded to the "Do you think imperialism is a good thing?" question, I'm going to stick with the answer that it depends. In most cases of imperialism, the empirical power is doing what they thing is best for THEIR country, althought it is usually sugar coated with the idea that they're doing what's best for the country that they are imperializing.
In the first three sources (the letter and two videos), imperialism was clearly looked upon in a negative way. I myself hold a little grudge against imperialists because they were the cause of so much strife in India and took away so much from us... but that's probably cause i'm indian haha.
Going back to my original statement -- It depends. If a country is taking over another just to improve their power status, it's wrong. If they are taking over another country to legitimately try and improve conditions for the people there (aka countries with genocide), then it's good. But what is worse above all is when a country claims to be taking over to "help the people" when they are actually just making money and trying to up their status.
Personally I think US is imperialistic and I unlike Charlie think it isn't a good thing. I mean has any one of these countries ever asked us to take over? If it was in that sort of case then I believe that it is the right decision but I feel that US has many situations in the past where we take over when no one asked us to. We force the natives to do what they don't want and try to force our culture when they have their own. We almost tried to take away their individualism so all in all I don't believe that American imperialism is good.
-Sayumi
ALSOOOOOO, on the contrary to Paulina's opinion, i don't think the article was being obnoxios. I think that guy was trying to get the U.S. to own up to the fact that what the US is really trying to do in Irag is completely imperialistic even though we claim to hate the thought or term because it has such negative connotations.
What Charlie said is completely dead on: it is natural for the human race to fear what is unknown. Whether it is right or wrong for us to act on this fear is what determines the "righteousness" of imperialism.
ps did anyone catch the Requiem for a Dream music playing on that one video??
.... i'm cool
I think Charlie is going to should start his own country and see how that goes.
Before viewing these pieces, I had believed in the idea; “if you can’t beat them, join them” I realize now that imperialism can be an incredibly ground shaking and chaotic process, removing years of heritage and culture. I do not think it’s right for any country to flex their powers over sea through expansion. Because this process of imperialism imposes the mother country’s culture and completely disregards rich tradition and culture. I’m glad I had the opportunity to see these pieces, I think it definitely changed my outlook on the U.S. today.
I think it is impossible for any country to take over another territory without imposing its own culture.
From a moral standpoint, i believe imperialism is extremely unjust. In a country like America, which was Imperialized itself by the British, i believe it is very hypocritical to expand our "empire" and impose our will on unwilling natives just as what was done to us. They say a benefit to being educated in history is to not make the same errors or cruelties as in the past, yet here we are repeating history. That being said, I believe imperialism is inevitable, because there is no such solution that every country would agree on such as equal distribution of land, etc. the pursuit of a larger empire has occured all through history and is simply human nature, the ultimate display of power. We must accept that imperialism will continue, however we can always take measures to lessen the consequences or harm it does such as in violent takeovers, etc.
Charlie, although other cultures may indeed fear the unknown, whos to say that our country/culture is better than theirs? Although we may indeed provide better shelter, whos to say they want to pay the price of their culture and their "freedom" for our protection? its too much of a moral argument to generalize i believe.
After reading those articles and viewing the two videos, I am still going to say that I do not think imperialism is a good thing. I feel that after fighting the war against Britain to gain independence, the US should not try to overtake anyone else. Not only is it extremely hypocritical but they should know how important their independence must mean to them. It is also morally wrong. They are robbing people of their culture and the things that mean the most to them. In the second video (documentary) we see how hurt the Hawaiians were when their country was being annexed by the US and when their Queen, a women whom everyone looked up to, had to step down. It was heart breaking to see the gentleman at the end of the documentary begin to get emotional when he spoke about their flag being torn up and given as a token to the americans to remember their victory. Even to this day, the Hawaiians are still hurt! This unnecessary take over of Hawaii had a longterm negative impact on the Hawaiians. Was it worth it?
I will agree with Adam. I feel that imperialism in some shape or form is inevitable. There will always be people who will take advantage of their power or who will want more power. Not everyone has the same morals and that has been and will continue be a major issue in our world.
Although imperialism brings a lot of money, land power and natural resources to the US, it's hard to take into account all the steps that takes. The government spends so much time and money into imperializing which could have gone elsewhere but thats a little to tangential (look at that stunnna vocab)
I completely agree with Andrew's proposal that Charie should start his own country. Jon should be your VP- that will be a great country.
The author of the first article was a really good writer. In the end he got a little too sensationalistic and was just hypotherically saying we will never mess with the Indians again. It would be nice if he made it a little more concrete about what he was going to and not going to do. Imperialism can get out of hand.
I think the concept of Imperialism is totally absurd. There is absolutely no justification for going to a country and taking it over. The last article actually disgusted me with its elitist views and its incredibly narrow minded view of Iraq. The US seems to feel the need to not only control the countries they conquer, but to completely smother them. One of that article's arguments for imposing ourselves on the Iraqis is that Iran and other neighboring countries do it. This shows how Imperialism is just another form of competition for the US. We feel the constant need to prove we are the best. I'm not saying that nationalism is not important and that pride in one's own country is not important, but when someone suggests that the US should spent up to one hundred billion dollars to "rebuild" Iraq, which we destroyed, they are taking it overboard. This is exactly what the article suggests we should do, mostly because Iraq's oil revenues won't be able to support us. It's interesting how we claim we're trying to rebuild Iraq yet we still think that WE should get the revenue that they rightly deserve. However, we feel that we deserve it because we're doing so much good for them. It seems to me that the US will not be able to gain respect from the rest of world until it comes to the realization that it is not perfect.
I totally agree with Paulina about how hard it is to know what Imperialism will bring with it. It almost never happens that we are able to imperialize nations without a hitch. Just look at what happened to us in the Philippines. Even if imperialism seems like the right move, its unpredictability makes it very hard to truly know.
The article and the videos definitely made me more confident in my opinion that the U.S. is an imperialistic nation. In every case that we have seen, imperialism has only benefitted the United States, never the other country. It seems almost impossible for imperialism to benefit both sides, because the U.S. never takes over for a truly good cause. Instead, it is only to gain more power, wealth and status, and consequently destroys the culture and traditions of the colonized country. Even though social darwinism does play a factor in these situations, I believe there are better ways to advance as a nation. The U.S. should not resort to immoral and often violent actions, even if it seems justified by nature.
Candace
I completely agree with Paulina's opinion about the last article. The author is giving a very biased view of the United States' role in foreign affairs. First, I dont think you can consider what we are doing in Iraq "nation building." And second, I dont think that imperialsm stopped the Nazis, communism or the Taliban. In fact, the U.S. helped the Nazi cause by restricting the number of immigrants allowed to come to the U.S. during WWII. So what the author is saying is completely false. He is giving a one-sided answer and is not considering the effect imperialism had on other countries.
Candace
today the US is more imperialistic than I think it has ever been especially now that many americans are in denial that we are in fact an imperialistic country still. Looking at Iraq its clear to see that if we were not an imperialistic country we would have no business there. I feel like as a country we are extremely self-righteous and yes I do think that we are a very advanced and civilized counrty at times butttttt there is no need for us to barge into other people's territories and try to fix them especially at the expense of many Americans and iraqians. In the last article the author mentioned the cost of the war and the whole thing abuot the estimation of how long the troops will be in Iraq. SERIOSULY how can Bush just be oblivious to the fact that hes totally repeating history. I understnad the feeling of wanting to get revenge after Sept 11th but does that mean we should take over a whole country. I dk
I completely agree with jack. How can we claim to be a total do-gooder when HELLOOO we destroyed Iraq and now we are just trying to clean up the mess we made. We aren't doing this to help the people in Iraq we are doing this for ourselves. I agree with charlie in that i think imperialism is a natural thing tho and will happen no matter what and agree with his point about us being scared of a different type of society but i also believe our high status of ourselves def plays into our motivation for being imperialistic too.
Imperialism is practical to certain degrees, but it's not enough justification to destroy a certain culture and conquer over a certain body without mutual consent. Of course, the concept itself is rather inevitable because a country may need some things and may even act out of good intention--to aid and support a falling third-world country. But even so, to conquer without consent, to go against another country's wish, is immoral--at least in my eyes.
I feel like there's a particular reason a certain country may not necessarily desire a rich nation to take over its land (even though the latter nation may be eager to help out). And for this particular reason, the powerful nation should respect the poorer, less competent nation. Just because WE think democracy is right, just because WE think laissezfaire is beneficial, just because WE think gay marriage is right or wrong (however we are swayed), just because WE think one way that another independent nation does not agree with absolutely does not mean that WE are necessarily right and that THEY are necessarily wrong. There is a fine line in between everything and it is up to us, as citizens of this world, to realize such differences and respect these discrepancies.
There perhaps are so many exceptions that I cannot begin to list, but let's take an overall look at imperialism. What are the motivations? Why do we think we are always right? If we know for a fact that a country like North Korea is a threat to international safety, figure it out through the UN instead of trying to instigate a war or perhaps even colonizing it. There's a reason for nations with common interests to come together to better society of the world in a cumulative effort.
I dont know, it's such a controversial topic and it's hard to point fingers in any given direction. And I feel like, taking a look especially at Hawaii, such act was rather unjustified. It just seems to have come from selfishness, a desire for more land or base, at the dire expense of a valuable culture and unique traditions. Do these things still exist in this sunny island? Ish, but not too much more than ish. It's actually saddening the extent to which we will destroy the preserved culture of another country when we would be unwilling to give up ours had Great Britain been stronger.
Responding to Charlie's comment... I feel that theories don't ever justify actions that occur in the world. I mean, they are simply theories--unproved thoughts. Conjectures. Just speculation. An opinion, perse.
Having said that, the society in which we live in today, "survival of the fittest" seems to be rather befitting--I mean, seriously, the richest are up there enjoying what they have, while the poorer countries (the "unfit") suffer and are always susceptible to being colonized.
Does the truth always JUSTIFY what we do? Hell no--it's just a certain viewpoint that we can learn and respect and accept as a whole. It is virtually a guide to tell us what is going on in this world and to live with it. Of course if things could change, great. But will things? Probably not.
I have very mixed feelings about imperialism. While it has benefits for the United States, it definitely does not have cultural benefits for countries like Hawaii, Philippines, etc. However, I do agree with the third article that we have a right to spread our democratic views and in some ways I do believe it for the better. However, morally, I hate imperialism. The United States, as a power hungry nation, really had no right to get in the middle of Spain's colonies and tear everything up just because we assumed that our ship was blown up by Spain. The tragedy in Philippines is horrific and I am very disappointed that the US would even do something like that. The white oligarchy in Hawaii also had no right to call the US and takeover just because they were looking for a profit. Like Neha said, I wish the United States had chosen to take over Hawaii and the Philippines because they truly wanted to make them a better place, not just to make more money or gain more power. I also agree that whether or not imperialism is good or bad depends on the circumstances. I guess I am just very confused on whether i agree with it or not. I also agree with Charlie when he said that imperialism is a very good thing for a country like the United States, it helps us survive (social darwinism). All in all, I can not say that I have a definite view on imperialism.
I also disagree with Paulina's comment on the third article because the article never stated that we weren't imperialistic, on the contrary, it wanted people to openly accept that the US is and has been imperialistic for a long time. I liked the third article because i kind of agreed with some of the things he said. While showing his opinion, he wasn't completely ignorant to all sides of the issue. I loved his argument and while I don't necessarily agree with all of them, I do believe he backed them up with good evidence or whatever.
Okay I just want to start off by saying that as I was driving home the other day I was behind a car that had a bumper sticker that said 'FREE HAWAII' and docroc, i totally thought of your experience in the elevator hahah.
but anyways i guess i have mixed feelings about imperialism. i know in class i said that it depends on the circumstances but now that i've thought about it that doesn't make too much sense. i think that there is imperialism going on in israel today, with the people living in israel who are muslim of palestinian (sp?) trying to take control. if the united states tried to take over israel to help save it from it's current state then it's still not really helping them so i guess it doesn't really depend on the circumstances, no country really wants to be taken over even if they need help or stability. i'm not sure if that makes sense to anyone but i get it so ... basically i guess i think imperialism is wrong, yes it has helped the united states in the long run i think but there's a ton of animosity that has been created (ex. Hawaii) and i guess a lot of other countries wouldn't be too happy with it.
-- Rebecca
i agree with margaux's question of 'was it worth it?' because it's true, people from hawaii to this day still have hostility about the takeover even though have been now been a part of the united states for so long. i also agree with jack and paulina in saying that it's really impossible to predict what will happen after imperialism or even a takeover. i would have never guessed that even though it's been so long there's still all of this hostility from the hawaiians so i guess it's really to hard to tell.
-- Rebecca
The Youtube video about Queen Lil was really interesting. To see how Americans just went in to Hawaii and threw away their ruler, putting her in exile and allowing nationalism of the Hawaiians to deteriorate.
I thought the two written documents were the most interesting. After reading the article about the "I word," it really seems like the U.S. really can't avoid the label of "imperialistic." Even today with Iraq, we are taking the roll of an imperialistic nation trying to take over another weaker one. The author of the article seems to state that if we surrender our troops in Iraq, we fail as a powerful country (such as in Somalia and Haiti). That is not true! We can still be a powerful country without taking control of others...I think? I guess it depends on our definition of power. To the author of this article, power comes hand in hand with taking over countries and forcing them to assimilate to us. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says that the U.S. has "never" been an empire or imperialistic, I don't know what he's thinking! I think he's afraid of the U.S. recieving the title of "imperialistic." Or it could really be that some of us are in denial about imperialism occurring, just like denial is still going on about the holocaust.
I would like to applaud the author of the letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He recognizes the demoralization and destruction the bureau did to Indians by using words like "tragedy, brutalizing, misdeeds,and profound sorrow." I think this is why we have history classes. To learn from our past mistakes and try to do better in the future. This letter in no way takes away what the bureau did to Indians, but as long as they recognize their actions, I honestly feel better about this world. There is potential for uniting, trust, and appreciation in this country.
I hate to say it, but I kind of see where Charlie is coming from. And I am one of those people who fear the label of the "i word." I'm very torn about imperialism. I wish I knew more about it, because what I see going on in America is working. But I don't know much about what's going on outside of the country. I think I'd see more of the negative aspects of imperialism.
I agree with Andrew that no matter what if any country takes over another country it can't be helped that we impose on their culture because of culture clashing and not being comfortable in other people's cultures. I also agree with Margaux and Adam that imperialism seems to be inevidable. But I still believe that it is immoral and US shouldn't keep on continuing it.
-Sayumi
http://eatliver.com/img/2007/2470.jpg
I don't think the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War are extensions of the Indian Policy etc. They do have similarities, but the Trail of Tears was much more violent than Hawaiian annexation. Queen Lil did call for non-violence, and if the Hawaiians had not abided by this policy, I'm sure that the US would have instituted a more bloody revolution. The US became overzealous, we saw an opportunity for wealth and power and took it mercilessly. I don't understand how the provisional government had absolutely no regard for the Hawaiian community. I guess if a country is capable of carving out the Trail of Tears, then taking the Hawaiian identity out of Hawaii does not seem that out of character. The new imperialism policies were similar to eachother, that is obvious. The Spanish-American war and the Philippine Insurrection were bloody and violent, much like the clearing out of the native-Americans for the sake of expansion. I agree with the last article to a certain extent, I think the US is still imperialistic, but I think over the years we've learned to disguise it while still pursuing an expansion of our "influence". If our imperialism prevents further loss of life and warfare, so be it, as long as we do not eliminate the culture of the nations we send troops to / "protect". We should never repeat what we did to Hawaii, they were a non-violent people, they were not a militaristic threat, yet we took away their cultural identity and overtook their homeland.
After reading what others have said,I have been thinking about the annexation of Hawaii, and realizing how frivolous it was. The US was the most powerful industrial nation. The government was filthy rich. The people; however, were not. The tariff would have affected the poorer classes, they needed cheaper sugar. I just don't understand why we couldn't have worked with the Hawaiian monarchy or changed the tariff. It would think that sending marines to Hawaii was a financial burden, so why did we spend all that money when we could have found another way to gain the upper hand in the sugar and pineapple markets of Hawaii.
I also am starting to realize that current US imperialism does a lot of good, whereas during the McKinley era etc. it was just frivolous and unnecessary.
I appreciate what Yoonkee wrote. On one hand Imperialism is immoral and selfish, but America would not be what it is today without. Monopolies and plantations thrive at the expense of cheap and mistreated laborers. Although it is unjust and I am not endorsing it, progress would not be made without it. America's economy thrived with Dole's pinapples even if the Hawaiins were dominated. All countries make treaties or decisions based on what will bring in the most revenue. Not to steal Jon's shine, but I sadly agree with him that we can't change the way countries work. To quote Tom Stone, "And we climb out ladder. We step away from those who don't belong and help those who do." If America just made righteous decisions, backs would not be broken but badges would not be earned. Out beautiful Harvard-Westlake Middle School is being built and out Upper School is being manicured by the men who pick up our trash as we litter the ground.
Post a Comment