|
|
|
Review
| Race Over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism, 1865–1900, by Eric T.L. Love. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004. 272 pages. $19.95, paper.
|
| Race over Empire is an impressive reconsideration of U.S. imperialism and territorial expansion in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Just as Krisin Hoganson's splendidly provocative Fighting for American Manhood compels historians to see gender issues—especially late nineteenth-century concerns for American manhood—as the central motivating ideology behind the McKinley administration's diplomacy with Spain, so Eric T.L. Love presents a thought-provoking reexamination of the role of race as the central motivating ideology behind U.S. imperial ventures after 1865. Contrary to historical consensus, which concludes that racial ideology rooted in white supremacy gave expansionists their compelling rational for empire, Love finds that racism (known then as "prejudice of color") and racial ideologies were antagonistic to U.S. imperial projects in the late nineteenth century. In an era permeated by racial fears, by violent and brutal means of maintaining white supremacy, the so-called benign aspects of the new Manifest Destiny—benevolent assimilation, social uplift, the white man's burden—proved to be an inadequate source of support for imperialists' efforts to acquire territories inhabited by nonwhites. Worries about the impact of tropical climates on whites added a further obstacle to concerns that imperial expansion might lead to U.S. citizenship for nonwhites. |
1
|
|
Love finds ample evidence for this contention in memoirs, autobiographies, speeches, lectures, diaries, newspapers, magazines, government documents, diplomatic correspondence, and private letters, that race motivated imperialists only in one way: The aspect of "race" he sees is a concern to save or benefit the white race. Expansionists believed the United States had been founded by whites for whites, and accepted that in an era replete with racial and ethnic misunderstandings and hatreds that government policies, whether foreign or domestic, should be pursued for the exclusive benefit of white citizens. In the cases of Santo Domingo, Hawaii, and the Philippines, racial ideas about African Americans (the "Negro Problem") and Asians (the "Yellow Peril"), about immigration restriction (especially Chinese exclusion), and a belief in the innate backwardness of natives in tropical climates were on congressional minds. Peoples from annexed territories might try to enter the United States. Consequently, President Grant fought for the annexation of Santo Domingo not for the benefit of natives but for the benefits to whites in the United States, observing that after annexation it might be possible for African-Americans to move there, resulting in a reduced source of racial anxiety at home. Later, Presidents Cleveland and McKinley considered, above other arguments, that Hawaii and the Philippines should be annexed, not for the sake of redeeming the native populations, but as a means of saving whites living there from the perceived horrors accompanying a growing Asian infiltration and the corruption and vulgarism of native peoples. There was also a fear, however, that annexation might make it possible for dark-skinned natives and Asians to come to the United States and that they were inassimilable and undeserving of American citizenship rights. |
2
|
|
After 1900, imperialists abandoned annexation rather abruptly. Muscular, aggressive, expansionism was less in evidence even when President Theodore Roosevelt took the Panama Canal. The reasons for the decline in popular support for government activism in foreign affairs included disillusionment with the alleged "glories" of empire after the horrific experiences of the Philippine-American war and persistent notions that whites and white civilization could not prevail in tropical climates without suffering moral calamity. Policy makers sought hegemony without the daunting and hazardous responsibilities of dealing with the "savages" who inhabited tropical climates. Race over Empire is immensely readable and superbly researched. It explores an old subject from a novel perspective. Teachers and students alike will not be able to read this book without reconsidering the conventional wisdom about race and late nineteenth-century U.S. expansion and, perhaps, the true meaning of Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden." |
3
|
| | |
| The University of Texas at Arlington |
Joyce S. Goldberg |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|