talking history | syllabi | students | teachers | puzzle | about us
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:58:24 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear Participants,
Welcome to the History Matters forum on teaching U.S. imperialism. I=92ll
pose some questions below to get things started; I hope you will introduce
additional ones.
Historians have often focused on the "causes" of U.S. empire-seeking before
1898, but I would encourage us to focus on the aftermath as well. Why, just=
when the United States became a major imperial power (acquiring Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam) did it stop accumulating formal
colonies? Certainly there was no lack of opportunity. Was benevolence
involved? Was racism? Was resistance? What was the role of economic
interest? Did the United States change the form but not the substance of
imperial dominance as it moved from the nineteenth century to the twentieth?=
How, after 1900, did the United States seek other forms of influence =96
through protectorates in Cuba and Panama; through financial receiverships in=
the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia; and through other
kinds of informal economic, cultural, or military connections =96 and which =
of
these should be considered examples of "imperialism"?
How did imperial policies interact with domestic political, economic, and
cultural history? What arguments and techniques were mobilized in favor of
empire and which were mobilized against it? What were the dynamics and the
impact of the political and cultural contests =96- both in the United States=
and in the territories it influenced -- over the United States=92s role in t=
he
world?
As we consider these questions, it becomes illuminating to think about how
the word "imperialism" was =96 and is =96 used by different people. How migh=
t
its various meanings and discursive contexts shape different answers to the
questions above and frame very different narratives of "American
imperialism"?
Our goal in this forum is not to settle on answers to these questions but to=
discuss how teachers might spark enlightened classroom conversations around
these and other questions. I assume that we all wish to get students
involved in diverse readings from the period as well as to promote their
critical engagement with influential historical interpretations. Let=92s
share what works. What teaching materials have proved especially useful?
What teaching approaches have proved especially successful? What questions
spark interest
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:36:05 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Jill Tabachnick
Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
please remove me from the list
>From: Emily Rosenberg
>Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
>
>To: IMPERIALISMFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>Subject: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:58:24 -0500
>
>Dear Participants,
>
>Welcome to the History Matters forum on teaching U.S. imperialism. I’ll
>pose some questions below to get things started; I hope you will introduce
>additional ones.
>
>Historians have often focused on the "causes" of U.S. empire-seeking before
>1898, but I would encourage us to focus on the aftermath as well. Why,
>just
>when the United States became a major imperial power (acquiring Hawaii,
>Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam) did it stop accumulating formal
>colonies? Certainly there was no lack of opportunity. Was benevolence
>involved? Was racism? Was resistance? What was the role of economic
>interest? Did the United States change the form but not the substance of
>imperial dominance as it moved from the nineteenth century to the
>twentieth?
>How, after 1900, did the United States seek other forms of influence –
>through protectorates in Cuba and Panama; through financial receiverships
>in
>the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia; and through other
>kinds of informal economic, cultural, or military connections – and which
>of
>these should be considered examples of "imperialism"?
>
>How did imperial policies interact with domestic political, economic, and
>cultural history? What arguments and techniques were mobilized in favor of
>empire and which were mobilized against it? What were the dynamics and the
>impact of the political and cultural contests –- both in the United States
>and in the territories it influenced -- over the United States’s role in
>the
>world?
>
>As we consider these questions, it becomes illuminating to think about how
>the word "imperialism" was – and is – used by different people. How might
>its various meanings and discursive contexts shape different answers to the
>questions above and frame very different narratives of "American
>imperialism"?
>
>Our goal in this forum is not to settle on answers to these questions but
>to
>discuss how teachers might spark enlightened classroom conversations around
>these and other questions. I assume that we all wish to get students
>involved in diverse readings from the period as well as to promote their
>critical engagement with influential historical interpretations. Let’s
>share what works. What teaching materials have proved especially useful?
>What teaching approaches have proved especially successful? What questions
>spark interest
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:39:30 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: History916@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I would like to see the following addressed:
Why didn't we return the Virgin Islands after WW I?
Bob
ps- I do hope this forum works and a strong network of educators can be
established.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:46:25 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: james jandrowitz
Organization: Kean University
Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I believe that one of the places to begin is to look at US imperialism in a
linear rather than geometric manner. Clearly the Monroe Doctrine is a place to
begin and then one can show how that policy pronouncment was modified by the
Roosevelt Corollary to justify later American imperialism. Similarly the
Mexican-American War,(usually treated as a blip on the radar screen of US
History I somewhere in between the Revolution and the Civil War) can be rightly
viewed as America's first "imperialist war". There are a number of websites
which offer the Mexican perspective on this conflict which are markedly
different from what our history has traditionally reported and discuss this
conflict as being an important precursor to bilateral relations. The
Spanish-American war is all about imperialism, and there are a number of
excellent sources on that. Check some of the links on my US history coursepage:
Blackboard.com, hist2304, enter course page as a guest and view the external
links section for links on imperialism. My coursepage for the American West,
also on blackboard.com, hist3324, has links to the Mexican-American War.
Notions of American cultural, economic and racial superiority permeated much of
the justification for imperialist activity ("civilize them with a Krag") along
with the social darwinism of the latter 19th century. So some sections of
Madison Grant's "The Passing of a Great Race" along with other choice remarks by
Theodore Roosevelt and folks like Josiah Strong can provide some of the
underpinnings of why we did what we did, where we did and when we did. My
students seem to really get puzzled with the concept of being a democracy at
home (or at least a republic) which believes in the rule of the majority
(present presidential politics notwithstanding) and being a colonial power
abroad. Imperialism takes many forms, I try to explain, whether it is cultural,
economic, political or military - it is the imposition of one system in any of
these areas over another people in another place. The WTO is a good example of
how the old imperial powers continue to exercise their dominance over the rest
of the world without it being a level playing field.
I am looking forward to other comments and responses on this topic.
James Jandrowitz
Associate Professor
Department of History
Kean University
Emily Rosenberg wrote:
> Dear Participants,
>
> Welcome to the History Matters forum on teaching U.S. imperialism. I’ll
> pose some questions below to get things started; I hope you will introduce
> additional ones.
>
> Historians have often focused on the "causes" of U.S. empire-seeking before
> 1898, but I would encourage us to focus on the aftermath as well. Why, just
> when the United States became a major imperial power (acquiring Hawaii,
> Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam) did it stop accumulating formal
> colonies? Certainly there was no lack of opportunity. Was benevolence
> involved? Was racism? Was resistance? What was the role of economic
> interest? Did the United States change the form but not the substance of
> imperial dominance as it moved from the nineteenth century to the twentieth?
> How, after 1900, did the United States seek other forms of influence –
> through protectorates in Cuba and Panama; through financial receiverships in
> the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia; and through other
> kinds of informal economic, cultural, or military connections – and which of
> these should be considered examples of "imperialism"?
>
> How did imperial policies interact with domestic political, economic, and
> cultural history? What arguments and techniques were mobilized in favor of
> empire and which were mobilized against it? What were the dynamics and the
> impact of the political and cultural contests –- both in the United States
> and in the territories it influenced -- over the United States’s role in the
> world?
>
> As we consider these questions, it becomes illuminating to think about how
> the word "imperialism" was – and is – used by different people. How might
> its various meanings and discursive contexts shape different answers to the
> questions above and frame very different narratives of "American
> imperialism"?
>
> Our goal in this forum is not to settle on answers to these questions but to
> discuss how teachers might spark enlightened classroom conversations around
> these and other questions. I assume that we all wish to get students
> involved in diverse readings from the period as well as to promote their
> critical engagement with influential historical interpretations. Let’s
> share what works. What teaching materials have proved especially useful?
> What teaching approaches have proved especially successful? What questions
> spark interest
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:06:41 -0600
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: "Fitzgerald, Michael"
Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Wouldn't a true discussion of US Imperialism begin with a look at our
teachers such as France, Spain, and most importantly Great Britain. Even as
a young republic we began the collection of territories for economic gain
rather quickly with the Louisiana Purchase from fellow empire builder
Napoleon.
How far can we go back? If we consider ourselves an extension of Anglo
culture and systems, which we ceratinly are, we need look back to Jamestown,
the treatment of native people, and the system of slavery which was planted
in the colonies.
It is these imperialist policies which started it all, including the
understanding that it is right and proper to eradicate languages, religions,
and communities which exist in the path of the flow of the Anglo Saxon
system west. Just as British colonists laid waste to the eastern Indians and
imported slavery, they were planting the same system in Ireland which also
then lead to the legal eradication of education, language, religion, and
land ownership by the Irish Catholics (the penal laws and the Virginia Slave
Codes are products of the same mindset). Aren't these then the same
practices the American republic impliment in the expansion of our
territories in the West, and then out to Hawaii?
I would suggest that American imperialism did not develope somewhere in the
1800s, but rather was always lurking within our bones having been a colonial
region ourselves.
> ----------
> From: james jandrowitz
> Reply To: Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism
> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2000 10:46 AM
> To: IMPERIALISMFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
>
> I believe that one of the places to begin is to look at US imperialism in
> a
> linear rather than geometric manner. Clearly the Monroe Doctrine is a
> place to
> begin and then one can show how that policy pronouncment was modified by
> the
> Roosevelt Corollary to justify later American imperialism. Similarly the
> Mexican-American War,(usually treated as a blip on the radar screen of US
> History I somewhere in between the Revolution and the Civil War) can be
> rightly
> viewed as America's first "imperialist war". There are a number of
> websites
> which offer the Mexican perspective on this conflict which are markedly
> different from what our history has traditionally reported and discuss
> this
> conflict as being an important precursor to bilateral relations. The
> Spanish-American war is all about imperialism, and there are a number of
> excellent sources on that. Check some of the links on my US history
> coursepage:
> Blackboard.com, hist2304, enter course page as a guest and view the
> external
> links section for links on imperialism. My coursepage for the American
> West,
> also on blackboard.com, hist3324, has links to the Mexican-American War.
>
> Notions of American cultural, economic and racial superiority permeated
> much of
> the justification for imperialist activity ("civilize them with a Krag")
> along
> with the social darwinism of the latter 19th century. So some sections of
> Madison Grant's "The Passing of a Great Race" along with other choice
> remarks by
> Theodore Roosevelt and folks like Josiah Strong can provide some of the
> underpinnings of why we did what we did, where we did and when we did. My
> students seem to really get puzzled with the concept of being a democracy
> at
> home (or at least a republic) which believes in the rule of the majority
> (present presidential politics notwithstanding) and being a colonial power
> abroad. Imperialism takes many forms, I try to explain, whether it is
> cultural,
> economic, political or military - it is the imposition of one system in
> any of
> these areas over another people in another place. The WTO is a good
> example of
> how the old imperial powers continue to exercise their dominance over the
> rest
> of the world without it being a level playing field.
>
> I am looking forward to other comments and responses on this topic.
>
> James Jandrowitz
> Associate Professor
> Department of History
> Kean University
>
> Emily Rosenberg wrote:
>
> > Dear Participants,
> >
> > Welcome to the History Matters forum on teaching U.S. imperialism. I'll
> > pose some questions below to get things started; I hope you will
> introduce
> > additional ones.
> >
> > Historians have often focused on the "causes" of U.S. empire-seeking
> before
> > 1898, but I would encourage us to focus on the aftermath as well. Why,
> just
> > when the United States became a major imperial power (acquiring Hawaii,
> > Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam) did it stop accumulating formal
> > colonies? Certainly there was no lack of opportunity. Was benevolence
> > involved? Was racism? Was resistance? What was the role of economic
> > interest? Did the United States change the form but not the substance
> of
> > imperial dominance as it moved from the nineteenth century to the
> twentieth?
> > How, after 1900, did the United States seek other forms of influence –
> > through protectorates in Cuba and Panama; through financial
> receiverships in
> > the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia; and through other
> > kinds of informal economic, cultural, or military connections – and
> which of
> > these should be considered examples of "imperialism"?
> >
> > How did imperial policies interact with domestic political, economic,
> and
> > cultural history? What arguments and techniques were mobilized in favor
> of
> > empire and which were mobilized against it? What were the dynamics and
> the
> > impact of the political and cultural contests –- both in the United
> States
> > and in the territories it influenced -- over the United States's role in
> the
> > world?
> >
> > As we consider these questions, it becomes illuminating to think about
> how
> > the word "imperialism" was – and is – used by different people. How
> might
> > its various meanings and discursive contexts shape different answers to
> the
> > questions above and frame very different narratives of "American
> > imperialism"?
> >
> > Our goal in this forum is not to settle on answers to these questions
> but to
> > discuss how teachers might spark enlightened classroom conversations
> around
> > these and other questions. I assume that we all wish to get students
> > involved in diverse readings from the period as well as to promote their
> > critical engagement with influential historical interpretations. Let's
> > share what works. What teaching materials have proved especially
> useful?
> > What teaching approaches have proved especially successful? What
> questions
> > spark interest
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:38:14 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: pastimes
Subject: Re: Michael Fizgerald comment
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
I am in agreement with Mr. Fitzgerald. As an undergraduate at St. Mary's
College of Maryland, I took a great course titled "Comaparative Colonial
History." We studied the colonialism/imperialism of France, Spain, England and
others -- such as the Dutch -- to a lesser extent. I completed a term paper
arguing that the the countries used religious missions as a disguise for
imperialism. Much of our subject matter dealt with imperialism and covered a
time period well before the 18th century.
Just a quick introduction: I am finishing my MA this semester in American
Studies at The George Washington University. Although my BA is in Historical
Archaeology, my thesis is focusing on identity issues in the Filipino-American
college community. Imperialism in regard to the Philippines is my main reason
for joining this forum. I' looking forward to it.
steph
Stephanie N. Abdon
3548 Seagrape Ct.
Waldorf, MD 20602-2649
301.893.2975 (home)
301.653.4690 (cell)
pastimes@gwu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:42:38 -0000
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Eric Chase
Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
Comments: cc: olywobs@hotmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Hey all,
Dont have a ton of time to chat about this one, though the discussion is
very interesting. I wanted to throw a thought into the mix. When the Roman
Empire was conquering everyone under the sun, they tended to adopt some of
the "locals" traditions and merge them with their own, ie. religion. This
had a way of making the new ruling authority not too "foriegn" to the
conquered people. Throughout the years, examples of this type of
colonization has taken shape in the sense of setting up puppet governments
controled by our government to IMF bank loans used to open "trade barriers"
in Third World countries leading to the domination of those economies by
US/Euro based multi-national corporations.
So perhaps we didn't out rightly colonize, lets say, Panama, for various
reasons (race relations, balance of power pretense, expense, war losses,
etc), with the government set up there and its strategic canal site. What
we did though is colonize it in kind. A Panamanian president, a Panamanian
military and a Panamanian economy... all trained and controlled by the
United States.
I think that if we are also going to examine US colonization, we also must
define what we consider to be the US. At what point does the economic power
of multi-national corporations flex more muscle than the nation states? Is
the economic colonization of McDonald's, Coke and Starbuck's considered US
colonization? What is the relationship between the multi-nationals and the
US? The "opening" of China which lead into the Opium Wars of 1840's was
pretty much based on a corporate political move by the East India Company (i
think) with very strong ties into the British government. They, too, used
local power dynamics to set up Chinese entreprenuers (tai pai's?) to act as
middle men in the West's economic expansion into China. I believe this
should be considered to be a form of colonization as well, though it doesn't
resemble the colonization the Brits carried out in India.
Well, I suppose that was a bit more than a few thoughts... I do see a
pattern between out and out colonization in the military take over sense,
and that of subtle puppet colonization. Please read "Devil on the Cross" by
Ngugi for a fine literary work, or anything by Chomsky or hmmm... Galeano's
"Open Veins...", "When Corporations Rule the World" by Korten, blah blah
blah. I also see that the US may not always be the colonizing power
necessarily, but merely the muscle behind United Fruit, CocaCola, Ford and
CitiBank, whether that muscle is the Marines or the CIA.
Keep up the good work everyone and see you on the barricades.
Eric Chase
IWW Olympia WA
MA Labor History
currently doing construction,
waiting for that great teaching position,
and thinking big thoughts.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 06:27:08 -0800
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Austin Manghan
Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> >Historians have often focused on the "causes" of
> U.S. empire-seeking before
> >1898, but I would encourage us to focus on the
> aftermath as well. Why,
> >just
> >when the United States became a major imperial
> power (acquiring Hawaii,
> >Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam) did it stop
> accumulating formal
> >colonies? Certainly there was no lack of
> opportunity. Was benevolence
> >involved?
I suspect that the appetite for military outposts was
satisfied, and there was no need for more markets or
raw materials.
Was racism?
Racism didn't disappear. I should say, hasn't
disappeared.
Was resistance?
Att Gen Palmer saw to that.
What was
> the role of economic
> >interest?
Primary, from a ruling class perspective.
Did the United States change the form
> but not the substance of
> >imperial dominance as it moved from the nineteenth
> century to the
> >twentieth?
Yes
> >How, after 1900, did the United States seek other
> forms of influence –
> >through protectorates in Cuba and Panama; through
> financial receiverships
> >in
> >the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and
> Liberia; and through other
> >kinds of informal economic, cultural, or military
> connections – and which
> >of
> >these should be considered examples of
> "imperialism"?
To quote Malcolm X, "By any means necessary."
> >
> >How did imperial policies interact with domestic
> political, economic, and
> >cultural history?
Mass media cooperated with the perceived needs of the
rich.
What arguments and techniques
> were mobilized in favor of
> >empire
Patriotism/ jingoism
and which were mobilized against it?
Working class solidarity
What
> were the dynamics and the
> >impact of the political and cultural contests –-
> both in the United States
> >and in the territories it influenced -- over the
> United States’s role in
> >the
> >world?
> >
> >As we consider these questions, it becomes
> illuminating to think about how
> >the word "imperialism" was – and is – used by
> different people. How might
> >its various meanings and discursive contexts shape
> different answers to the
> >questions above and frame very different narratives
> of "American
> >imperialism"?
HS textbooks treat it as a phenomenon of ancient
antiquity.
> >
> >Our goal in this forum is not to settle on answers
> to these questions but
> >to
> >discuss how teachers might spark enlightened
> classroom conversations around
> >these and other questions. I assume that we all
> wish to get students
> >involved in diverse readings from the period as
> well as to promote their
> >critical engagement with influential historical
> interpretations. Let’s
> >share what works.
The HS students that I work w/ have been exposed to a
steady stream of propaganda.
What teaching materials have
> proved especially useful?
I use Zinn to broaden their perspectives.
> >What teaching approaches have proved especially
> successful? What questions
> >spark interest
My students respond well when I connect issues of
today to historical imperialism.
peace,
Austin
Manghan_____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 20:05:25 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Carmen Bardeguez
Subject: (no subject)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In order to understand Imperialism we need to discuss Capitalism. Capitalism
as a socioeconomic system that is a historical product of the class struggle.
We cannot compare the Roman Empire to Imperialism as it exist today because
we are discussing two different modes of productions. It is historically
incorrect to analyze both process as having a similar origin. Orange Apples
or Mangos are fruits but they are not the same.
Carmen
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 20:50:50 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Where to begin?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear participants,
Thanks for all the great contributions so far!
Mr. Jandrowitz, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Ms. Abdon all raise an important
question: where should one begin a discussion (or a course) on American
imperialism? The war of l898 brings an explicit debate over what all sides
call "imperialism," but these contributors appropriately raise the point that
American imperial aspirations long predated that time. The growth of a
continental empire, as they all point out, can be located in the l7th, l8th,
or l9th centuries; the cultural justifications, military techniques, and
economic arguments for taking territory are deeply embedded in all of
American history.
In teaching, however, we inevitably encounter problems of where to start and
where to stop. We are always grappling with breadth vs. depth. I'd be
curious to know in what kinds of courses these discussions of American
imperialism emerge and what is their time-frame? Are people able, as
Professor Jandrowitz apparently does, to consider both the Mexican-US War and
20th century imperialism within one course? [By the way, thanks for the site
address of the material you mentioned! Do others have similar
material/suggestions to share?]
In short, the issue of where "American imperialism" begins is of greatest
importance; lets have even more discussion of how such broad sweep can
effectively be brought into specific courses.
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:11:53 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Re: imperialism/capitalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Participants,
Mr. Chase, Mr. Manghan, and Ms. Bardeguez all appear to locate imperialism as
an outgrowth of capitalism. They call for a consideration of multinational
corporations and other forms of economic interest when studying American
imperialism. I assume all of them would endorse the idea that American
imperialism, after colonization stops, takes the form of "neoimperialism" --
that is, control by economic means. Howard Zinn's book, mentioned by one
explicitly, provides a well articulated formulation of this view.
I wonder how many participants in this forum generally teach from this
perspective? Does anyone want to elaborate -- or contest -- their
propositions about capitalism and imperialism?
Does everyone agree that the spread of McDonald's should be termed
"imperialism?" When does economic involvement by specific companies overseas
become "imperialism?" Is the internet "imperialism"? I often find that
students like to discuss such questions, and such discussions help make the
point about the problem of definition.
I especially liked Mr. Manghan's call to spur student interest by connecting
to issues of today. How, exactly, do any of you do this and with what issues?
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:25:22 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Linda Dwyer
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_62.9b49e1a.275efd92_boundary"
--part1_62.9b49e1a.275efd92_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry to use a "reply" format. I tried to submit using the listserve
address as instructed and was rejected.
If it is possible, I would appreciate a working definition of imperialism, as
it is used among historians in US History today. It's not a term that I've
come across in my regional specialization in East Asia since works published
about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, my interest in US "imperialism" is
strictly related to involvement in East Asia. I'll spend most of my time
lurking and learning from you all, therefore.
Thanks so much!
Linda Dwyer
(recent and unemployed Ph.D., anthropology)
Lindwyer5@aol.com
--part1_62.9b49e1a.275efd92_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry to use a "reply" format. I tried to submit using the listserve
address as instructed and was rejected.
If it is possible, I would appreciate a working definition of imperialism, as
it is used among historians in US History today. It's not a term that I've
come across in my regional specialization in East Asia since works published
about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, my interest in US "imperialism" is
strictly related to involvement in East Asia. I'll spend most of my time
lurking and learning from you all, therefore.
Thanks so much!
Linda Dwyer
(recent and unemployed Ph.D., anthropology)
Lindwyer5@aol.com
--part1_62.9b49e1a.275efd92_boundary--
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:31:25 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: David Hanson
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
In-Reply-To: <6.ee34763.275ef57a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Emily,
You have nicely stepped in to move the discussion along.
I suppose it depends on what the course is. By far the majority of high
school and college students are exposed to history only through "survey"
courses, so that is where the most work needs to be done. American
imperialism comes up in the context of "manifest destiny" (e.g., the
Mexican-American War) and then again more extensively around the turn of
the century (e.g., Spanish-American War, Roosevelt, Taft, and on through
Wilson...). I have found it works well to lay the groundwork with these
earlier examples so that students are more prepared to consider post-WWII
American imperialism as an undercurrent in the U.S. cold war policy of
containment. Most are used to thinking of it as "saving the free world
from communism" so it can be a challenge to get them to rethink it in these
terms. Laying the groundwork helps.
Dave Hanson
Professor of History
Virginia Western
Roanoke VA
At 08:50 PM 12/05/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear participants,
>
>Thanks for all the great contributions so far!
>
>Mr. Jandrowitz, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Ms. Abdon all raise an important
>question: where should one begin a discussion (or a course) on American
>imperialism? The war of l898 brings an explicit debate over what all sides
>call "imperialism," but these contributors appropriately raise the point that
>American imperial aspirations long predated that time. The growth of a
>continental empire, as they all point out, can be located in the l7th, l8th,
>or l9th centuries; the cultural justifications, military techniques, and
>economic arguments for taking territory are deeply embedded in all of
>American history.
>
>In teaching, however, we inevitably encounter problems of where to start and
>where to stop. We are always grappling with breadth vs. depth. I'd be
>curious to know in what kinds of courses these discussions of American
>imperialism emerge and what is their time-frame? Are people able, as
>Professor Jandrowitz apparently does, to consider both the Mexican-US War and
>20th century imperialism within one course? [By the way, thanks for the site
>address of the material you mentioned! Do others have similar
>material/suggestions to share?]
>
>In short, the issue of where "American imperialism" begins is of greatest
>importance; lets have even more discussion of how such broad sweep can
>effectively be brought into specific courses.
>
>Emily
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 06:48:31 -0600
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: "Fitzgerald, Michael"
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
The issue of McDonald's as imperialism is certainly an issue, yet would we
consider it the poilcy of the US government to protect our fast food empire
with armed intervention. The US certainly has a vast record of armed
intervention to acquire and protect resources and economic partners (The
Gulf War, Vietnam, WW2(Hawaii, Philippines), and pick the Central American
nation of your choice...), yet the interjection of Starbucks and hamburgers
into the equation seems to set this past trend off balance. The idea of a
policy of cultural imperialism enters into the realm of a discussion on
consumer corporate globalism which seems a very recent phenomenon due to the
rise of mass consumerism. Conducting a war in the Persian Gulf to save a
monarchy and Amoco oil wells feels different to me than watching the French
grow irate over a Burger King in Paris.
Consumerism v. the grab for military bases, coaling stations, and raw
materials is an interesting thing, and how far are they removed. If however,
we look back, we owe much of our democratic/capitalist ideals to providing
smokes for Europe, and refusing to pay a tax on our tea.
Mike Fitzgerald
St.Louis, Missouri
> ----------
> From: Emily Rosenberg
> Reply To: Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism
> Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2000 7:50 PM
> To: IMPERIALISMFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> Subject: Where to begin?
>
> Dear participants,
>
> Thanks for all the great contributions so far!
>
> Mr. Jandrowitz, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Ms. Abdon all raise an important
> question: where should one begin a discussion (or a course) on American
> imperialism? The war of l898 brings an explicit debate over what all
> sides
> call "imperialism," but these contributors appropriately raise the point
> that
> American imperial aspirations long predated that time. The growth of a
> continental empire, as they all point out, can be located in the l7th,
> l8th,
> or l9th centuries; the cultural justifications, military techniques, and
> economic arguments for taking territory are deeply embedded in all of
> American history.
>
> In teaching, however, we inevitably encounter problems of where to start
> and
> where to stop. We are always grappling with breadth vs. depth. I'd be
> curious to know in what kinds of courses these discussions of American
> imperialism emerge and what is their time-frame? Are people able, as
> Professor Jandrowitz apparently does, to consider both the Mexican-US War
> and
> 20th century imperialism within one course? [By the way, thanks for the
> site
> address of the material you mentioned! Do others have similar
> material/suggestions to share?]
>
> In short, the issue of where "American imperialism" begins is of greatest
> importance; lets have even more discussion of how such broad sweep can
> effectively be brought into specific courses.
>
> Emily
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:26:23 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Linda Dwyer
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_c3.bb7fc72.275f987f_boundary"
--part1_c3.bb7fc72.275f987f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am very concerned that we are using a term in many different ways. Good
analytical thinking entails defining how a concept may and may not be used.
What is imperialism? If we don't attempt to define it in its various
applications, aren't we doing "pop history?"
I have no problem with seeing the quest for markets and control of the means
of the way markets work as a form of hegemony that we might label
"imperialism" but to what theory does this have a link? How do we forward
theory?
If we are teaching in high school and college, aren't we also teaching the
foundations of analysis, including the basic concepts upon which further
intellectual thought develops? Although all of the points put forward are
intriguing, they seem to be free-floating.
Could someone cite a key text that may be backgrounding this discussion, that
all of you share and assume we all understand as grounding this
theoretically? To which we may be reacting against, expanding, or affirming?
I am sorry about my lack of depth here. But western "imperialism" was
thrown out of the context of analysis years agoin East Asia because it just
didn't work. I was warned not to use it even conversationally in a text, as
it would show a lack of intellectual rigor and currency. I'd like to
understand where and how this term has such elasticity and appeal among my
colleagues in American Studies. The nineteenth and early twentieth century
in Asia, including American trade and colonial ambition, is one of pivotal
import to my field. The "open door policy," America's role in gunboat
diplomacy in opium trade, which fueled one American family's rise to
prominence, and the US response to the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, the role of
American missionaries in East Asia and their profound impact on US foreign
policy in the twentieth century all beg an analytical framework.
Perhaps there is something new and exciting about this concept that we in
Asian Studies are missing and from which we could benefit. Why did we reject
"imperialism" as an explanatory concept when it continues to be embraced here?
Linda Dwyer
anthropologist
--part1_c3.bb7fc72.275f987f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am very concerned that we are using a term in many different ways. Good
analytical thinking entails defining how a concept may and may not be used.
What is imperialism? If we don't attempt to define it in its various
applications, aren't we doing "pop history?"
I have no problem with seeing the quest for markets and control of the means
of the way markets work as a form of hegemony that we might label
"imperialism" but to what theory does this have a link? How do we forward
theory?
If we are teaching in high school and college, aren't we also teaching the
foundations of analysis, including the basic concepts upon which further
intellectual thought develops? Although all of the points put forward are
intriguing, they seem to be free-floating.
Could someone cite a key text that may be backgrounding this discussion, that
all of you share and assume we all understand as grounding this
theoretically? To which we may be reacting against, expanding, or affirming?
I am sorry about my lack of depth here. But western "imperialism" was
thrown out of the context of analysis years agoin East Asia because it just
didn't work. I was warned not to use it even conversationally in a text, as
it would show a lack of intellectual rigor and currency. I'd like to
understand where and how this term has such elasticity and appeal among my
colleagues in American Studies. The nineteenth and early twentieth century
in Asia, including American trade and colonial ambition, is one of pivotal
import to my field. The "open door policy," America's role in gunboat
diplomacy in opium trade, which fueled one American family's rise to
prominence, and the US response to the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, the role of
American missionaries in East Asia and their profound impact on US foreign
policy in the twentieth century all beg an analytical framework.
Perhaps there is something new and exciting about this concept that we in
Asian Studies are missing and from which we could benefit. Why did we reject
"imperialism" as an explanatory concept when it continues to be embraced here?
Linda Dwyer
anthropologist
--part1_c3.bb7fc72.275f987f_boundary--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:55:39 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: james jandrowitz
Organization: Kean University
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------6A49298A3CB801A1EAE8BFB0"
--------------6A49298A3CB801A1EAE8BFB0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In my classes I try to make the following suggestion regarding a working
definition of imperialism: It is the unilateral imposition of one
system, whether political, cultural, and/or economic (or all of the
above) by one nation or group of nations upon anothers
nation or group of nations, with he imposition usually to the benefit of
the imposer.
This explanation is easily supported by a plethora of examples - some of
them serious (the creation of Panama and the building of the Panama
Canal, the global wars of the 19th/20th century for the control of
strategic resources, the ongoing nefarious neo-imperialist activities of
the WTO, the PRC invasion of Tibet, etc. - others more tongue in cheek
but no less significant to those who being imposed upon ( the
"coca-colonization" of the world and the seeming dominance of US pop
culture everywhere - i.e. hip-hop in Italian, Euro-Disney, etc.)
Linda Dwyer wrote:
> Sorry to use a "reply" format. I tried to submit using the listserve
>
> address as instructed and was rejected.
>
> If it is possible, I would appreciate a working definition of
> imperialism, as
> it is used among historians in US History today. It's not a term that
> I've
> come across in my regional specialization in East Asia since works
> published
> about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, my interest in US
> "imperialism" is
> strictly related to involvement in East Asia. I'll spend most of my
> time
> lurking and learning from you all, therefore.
>
> Thanks so much!
> Linda Dwyer
> (recent and unemployed Ph.D., anthropology)
> Lindwyer5@aol.com
>
--------------6A49298A3CB801A1EAE8BFB0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In my classes I try to make the following suggestion regarding a working
definition of imperialism: It is the unilateral imposition of one
system, whether political, cultural, and/or economic (or all of the above)
by one nation or group of nations upon anothers
nation or group of nations, with he imposition usually to the benefit
of the imposer.
This explanation is easily supported by a plethora of examples - some
of them serious (the creation of Panama and the building of the Panama
Canal, the global wars of the 19th/20th century for the control of strategic
resources, the ongoing nefarious neo-imperialist activities of the WTO,
the PRC invasion of Tibet, etc. - others more tongue in cheek but no less
significant to those who being imposed upon ( the "coca-colonization" of
the world and the seeming dominance of US pop culture everywhere
- i.e. hip-hop in Italian, Euro-Disney, etc.)
Linda Dwyer wrote:
Sorry
to use a "reply" format. I tried to submit using the listserve
address as instructed and
was rejected.
If it is possible, I would
appreciate a working definition of imperialism, as
it is used among historians
in US History today. It's not a term that I've
come across in my regional
specialization in East Asia since works published
about thirty years ago.
Unfortunately, my interest in US "imperialism" is
strictly related to involvement
in East Asia. I'll spend most of my time
lurking and learning from
you all, therefore.
Thanks so much!
Linda Dwyer
(recent and unemployed Ph.D.,
anthropology)
Lindwyer5@aol.com
--------------6A49298A3CB801A1EAE8BFB0--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:05:45 -0600
Reply-To: kdb05f@mizzou.edu
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Kevin Butler
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
In-Reply-To: <3A2E455B.CF5B4518@turbo.kean.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, james jandrowitz wrote:
> In my classes I try to make the following suggestion regarding a working
> definition of imperialism: It is the unilateral imposition of one
> system, whether political, cultural, and/or economic (or all of the
> above) by one nation or group of nations upon anothers
> nation or group of nations, with he imposition usually to the benefit of
> the imposer.
>
> This explanation is easily supported by a plethora of examples - some of
> them serious (the creation of Panama and the building of the Panama
> Canal, the global wars of the 19th/20th century for the control of
> strategic resources, the ongoing nefarious neo-imperialist activities of
> the WTO, the PRC invasion of Tibet, etc. - others more tongue in cheek
> but no less significant to those who being imposed upon ( the
> "coca-colonization" of the world and the seeming dominance of US pop
> culture everywhere - i.e. hip-hop in Italian, Euro-Disney, etc.)
At what point does coca-cola and pop culture become "imperialism"? Are
Coke and Michael Jackson being forced on China and the former USSSR or do
the Chinese and East Europeans just want a refreshing drink and a song to
dance to? Am I a victim of Japanese-Canadian imperialism because I own a
an automobile manufactured in Canada by a Japanese company? Consider the
case of Jolibee, the Filipino MacDonald's imitation that is now opening
restaurants on the United State's west coast. How does this fit into the
above definition of imperialism. While I find Mr. Jandrowitz's definition
useful and informative, to apply "imperialism" to pop culture or call it
intrinsically an "imposition" to the benefit of the U.S. seems to to be a
little loose to me. There seems to be no room for trade or exchange in
this definition. Not surprisingly it is an indictment of capitalism, but
it seems that this definition of imperialism has encroached upon the
autonomy, choice, and benefit of other people. After all, doesn't the
employment of a lingua franca, whether English or another language, bring
benefits to all involved in the increased intercourse that mutual
communication brings. The above defintion of imperialism, also a general
indictment of consumerism, seems on some level to take protectionism to an
extreme, suggesting that consumers ought to be deprived of quality and
affordable products on the grounds of imposition by a foreign power.
This definition just strikes me as rather broad and all inclusive.
K. Butler
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:12:28 -0600
Reply-To: kdb05f@mizzou.edu
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Kevin Butler
Subject: texts
In-Reply-To: <3A2E455B.CF5B4518@turbo.kean.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I would like to know what readings list members are assigning or
recommending to their students on the subject of U.S. Imperialism.
K. Butler
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:08:41 -0800
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Austin Manghan
Subject: Re: imperialism/capitalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Emily Rosenberg wrote:
> Hi Participants,
>
> Mr. Chase, Mr. Manghan, and Ms. Bardeguez all appear
> to locate imperialism as
> an outgrowth of capitalism. They call for a
> consideration of multinational
> corporations and other forms of economic interest
> when studying American
> imperialism. I assume all of them would endorse the
> idea that American
> imperialism, after colonization stops, takes the
> form of "neoimperialism" --
> that is, control by economic means. Howard Zinn's
> book, mentioned by one
> explicitly, provides a well articulated formulation
> of this view.
>
> I wonder how many participants in this forum
> generally teach from this
> perspective?
I do. And I believe that racism is always present in
American History.
Does anyone want to elaborate -- or
> contest -- their
> propositions about capitalism and imperialism?
>
> Does everyone agree that the spread of McDonald's
> should be termed
> "imperialism?" When does economic involvement by
> specific companies overseas
> become "imperialism?"
One is reminded of Nigeria where Chevron "loaned" its
helicopters to the government (or paramilitary) troops
to massacre environmentalist protesters.
Is the internet "imperialism"?
The internet is used as a tool of oppression.
Certainly the marketing is oppressive. But it is a
medium that has the potential for revolutionary change
a la Paolo Freire.
> I often find that
> students like to discuss such questions, and such
> discussions help make the
> point about the problem of definition.
>
> I especially liked Mr. Manghan's call to spur
> student interest by connecting
> to issues of today. How, exactly, do any of you do
> this and with what issues?
>
> Emily
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:09:31 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: mmc
Subject: Defining Imperialism
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Dear folks,
I'm very sympathetic to the concerns expressed about what it means to define
imperialism in our teaching. In the fall of 1993, the _Radical History
Review_ published a wonderful special issue called _Imperialism: A Useful
Category of Historical Analysis?_, which explicitly took up questions of
definition between imperialism, neoimperialism, colonialism, and cultural
imperialism.
In my own courses, I aim to teach issues of imperialism, U.S. national
expansion and global power, and global cultural diffusion as inter-related but
also separable issues. I think it IS important to talk about the extension of
U.S. political and state power as continuing through and after the Cold War,
though-- for my undergraduate lecture courses, at least-- I have made the
decision not to use the term imperialism to describe that power.
I don't particularly find it useful to insist in advance that all examples of
"American" cultural products abroad are imperialist -- 3 decades of cultural
studies have aimed to indicate the complex and multi-facted ways that
audiences use and appropriate culture. I'm also interested in thinking
through our assumptions about what constitute "American" cultural products:
did Ang Lee make an "American" movie when he made -The Ice Storm- about the
sexual revolution in Connecticut? Does he make a non-American movie with
_Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_?
There has been some excellent recent work on globalization that takes up the
complexities of these issues, including, of course, Anthony Appadurai's
article on "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy," as
well as Sashia Sassen's work and those articles published in 2 recent
collections on globalization (one by Lowe and one by Jameson and Miyoshi).
In my graduate seminar on "Global Power/CUltural Politics", I taught this
work, but also Amy Kaplan and Donald Pease, _Cultures of United States
Imperialism_, Matthew Jacobson, _Barbarian Virtues_, Chris Appy, ed., _Cold
War Constructions_, Mary Dudziak, _Cold War Civil Rights_.
On the debate over cultural imperialism, I taught (now long out of print),
Mattleart and Dorfman's _How to Read Donald Duck_, David Harvey's _The
Condition of Postmodernity_; selections from Uta Poiger's book on US culture
in postwar Germany _Jazz, Rock, and Rebels_, and -- perhaps most effective of
all -- Jessica Hagedorn's remarkable novel, _Dogeaters_.
I recognize that most of these will not be appropriate for undergraduates, but
I thought it might be helpful to offer some specific texts.
Melani McAlister
Melani McAlister
Assistant Professor of American Studies
George Washington Univ.
2108 G. St. NW
Washington, DC 20052
202-994-6073
mmc@gwu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:13:51 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Paola Durand
Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I believe that the united states stopped occumulating countries because there
are no countries to take over. As of right now the country has not
experienced a war like WW2. I think that the US is just waiting for a to war
and then imperialize. This is one of the strongest and newest nation that
just needs a chance to colonize to gain more power. The role of economic
interest is a vital one since it is the only way for money to continue its
cycle. Of course economic interest was involved, its one of the major
reasons why the united states even bothers with the other countries but dont
get me wrong it also permits the growth of democracy. It is shocking and
revealing how America has progressed from a colonizing nation to an
imperialists without even taking too much responsibility for it. Our policy
to remain neutral has clearly failed for the last past century and the other
centuries too. Haiti and the Domincian Republic were taken under the wing of
the eagle. Critics would look at this as a domination of countries but we
should see it as the florishing of democracy. Over the years it has avoided
the powers of Britain and other outer influences so that they may start a
new. THey have found desception and immorality in there culture but all it
is looking for is liberty. The corallary to the Monroe Doctrine has been
adapted to the countries that are under US control. Even though it remains a
neutral country it cant help to back out of war and into it as well .
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:25:37 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Paola Durand
Subject: Re: imperialism/capitalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There are tons of products and service sold in the internet. IT is no wonder
individuals tend to own an internet provider rather than watch TV. THere is
more varitety and personal connections over the internet than anything the
world itself has to offer. The internet is the world in other words just in
the palm of your hands and one is able to analyze it for as long as the
persona wishes.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 21:18:48 -0700
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Quinton Priest
Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Michael's observations below are right to the point. I we term imperialism
the British practice in Africa and India of subduing native resistance,
enclaving them on reserves, and taking over their best lands for our own
use, exploiting the region's fertility and mineral resources for industrial
development, then are we not also describing the "settlement of the American
West"--read west of the current frontier line?
Quinton Priest
University High School
Tucson, AZ
> Wouldn't a true discussion of US Imperialism begin with a look at our
> teachers such as France, Spain, and most importantly Great Britain. Even
as
> a young republic we began the collection of territories for economic gain
> rather quickly with the Louisiana Purchase from fellow empire builder
> Napoleon.
> How far can we go back? If we consider ourselves an extension of Anglo
> culture and systems, which we ceratinly are, we need look back to
Jamestown,
> the treatment of native people, and the system of slavery which was
planted
> in the colonies.
> It is these imperialist policies which started it all, including the
> understanding that it is right and proper to eradicate languages,
religions,
> and communities which exist in the path of the flow of the Anglo Saxon
> system west. Just as British colonists laid waste to the eastern Indians
and
> imported slavery, they were planting the same system in Ireland which also
> then lead to the legal eradication of education, language, religion, and
> land ownership by the Irish Catholics (the penal laws and the Virginia
Slave
> Codes are products of the same mindset). Aren't these then the same
> practices the American republic impliment in the expansion of our
> territories in the West, and then out to Hawaii?
> I would suggest that American imperialism did not develope somewhere in
the
> 1800s, but rather was always lurking within our bones having been a
colonial
> region ourselves.
>
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: james jandrowitz
> > Reply To: Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism
> > Sent: Monday, December 4, 2000 10:46 AM
> > To: IMPERIALISMFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Opening Message from Moderator Emily Rosenberg
> >
> > I believe that one of the places to begin is to look at US imperialism
in
> > a
> > linear rather than geometric manner. Clearly the Monroe Doctrine is a
> > place to
> > begin and then one can show how that policy pronouncment was modified by
> > the
> > Roosevelt Corollary to justify later American imperialism. Similarly the
> > Mexican-American War,(usually treated as a blip on the radar screen of
US
> > History I somewhere in between the Revolution and the Civil War) can be
> > rightly
> > viewed as America's first "imperialist war". There are a number of
> > websites
> > which offer the Mexican perspective on this conflict which are markedly
> > different from what our history has traditionally reported and discuss
> > this
> > conflict as being an important precursor to bilateral relations. The
> > Spanish-American war is all about imperialism, and there are a number of
> > excellent sources on that. Check some of the links on my US history
> > coursepage:
> > Blackboard.com, hist2304, enter course page as a guest and view the
> > external
> > links section for links on imperialism. My coursepage for the American
> > West,
> > also on blackboard.com, hist3324, has links to the Mexican-American War.
> >
> > Notions of American cultural, economic and racial superiority permeated
> > much of
> > the justification for imperialist activity ("civilize them with a Krag")
> > along
> > with the social darwinism of the latter 19th century. So some sections
of
> > Madison Grant's "The Passing of a Great Race" along with other choice
> > remarks by
> > Theodore Roosevelt and folks like Josiah Strong can provide some of the
> > underpinnings of why we did what we did, where we did and when we did.
My
> > students seem to really get puzzled with the concept of being a
democracy
> > at
> > home (or at least a republic) which believes in the rule of the majority
> > (present presidential politics notwithstanding) and being a colonial
power
> > abroad. Imperialism takes many forms, I try to explain, whether it is
> > cultural,
> > economic, political or military - it is the imposition of one system in
> > any of
> > these areas over another people in another place. The WTO is a good
> > example of
> > how the old imperial powers continue to exercise their dominance over
the
> > rest
> > of the world without it being a level playing field.
> >
> > I am looking forward to other comments and responses on this topic.
> >
> > James Jandrowitz
> > Associate Professor
> > Department of History
> > Kean University
> >
> > Emily Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Participants,
> > >
> > > Welcome to the History Matters forum on teaching U.S. imperialism.
I'll
> > > pose some questions below to get things started; I hope you will
> > introduce
> > > additional ones.
> > >
> > > Historians have often focused on the "causes" of U.S. empire-seeking
> > before
> > > 1898, but I would encourage us to focus on the aftermath as well.
Why,
> > just
> > > when the United States became a major imperial power (acquiring
Hawaii,
> > > Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam) did it stop accumulating formal
> > > colonies? Certainly there was no lack of opportunity. Was benevolence
> > > involved? Was racism? Was resistance? What was the role of economic
> > > interest? Did the United States change the form but not the substance
> > of
> > > imperial dominance as it moved from the nineteenth century to the
> > twentieth?
> > > How, after 1900, did the United States seek other forms of influence –
> > > through protectorates in Cuba and Panama; through financial
> > receiverships in
> > > the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia; and through
other
> > > kinds of informal economic, cultural, or military connections – and
> > which of
> > > these should be considered examples of "imperialism"?
> > >
> > > How did imperial policies interact with domestic political, economic,
> > and
> > > cultural history? What arguments and techniques were mobilized in
favor
> > of
> > > empire and which were mobilized against it? What were the dynamics
and
> > the
> > > impact of the political and cultural contests –- both in the United
> > States
> > > and in the territories it influenced -- over the United States's role
in
> > the
> > > world?
> > >
> > > As we consider these questions, it becomes illuminating to think about
> > how
> > > the word "imperialism" was – and is – used by different people. How
> > might
> > > its various meanings and discursive contexts shape different answers
to
> > the
> > > questions above and frame very different narratives of "American
> > > imperialism"?
> > >
> > > Our goal in this forum is not to settle on answers to these questions
> > but to
> > > discuss how teachers might spark enlightened classroom conversations
> > around
> > > these and other questions. I assume that we all wish to get students
> > > involved in diverse readings from the period as well as to promote
their
> > > critical engagement with influential historical interpretations.
Let's
> > > share what works. What teaching materials have proved especially
> > useful?
> > > What teaching approaches have proved especially successful? What
> > questions
> > > spark interest
> >
> >
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 06:22:25 -0500
Reply-To: Nick Caraway
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Nick Caraway
Organization: Buckeye Cablevision
Subject: DELETE NAME
HELLO,
I HAVE REQUESTED THIS ONCE BEFORE FROM A ERIC CHASE TO TAKE MY NAME OFF WHATEVER LIST IT IS ON. HE SAID HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO.
SO I AM ASKING ONCE AGAIN IF SOMEONE COULD PLEASE DO IT. WE DO NOT WANT ANYMORE E-MAILS SENT TO US. IN THE PAST 3-4 DAYS I HAVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS E-MAILS. THEY HAVE BEEN FROM THE FOLLOWING: QUINTON PRIEST, PAOLA DURAND, MMC, AUSTIN MANGHAN, MICHAEL FITZGERALD, DAVID HANSON, LINDA DWYER, AND ERIC CHASE. AND EVERYONE OF THEM HAS THE NAME EMILY ROSENBERG.
PLEASE STOP SENDING THEM!!!!!!!!!!!
I WOULD LIKE THIS DONE ASAP!!!!!!!
THANK YOU
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:18:30 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Re: Defining Imperialism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Participants,
The responses related to a definition of imperialism have been most
interesting. Ms. Dwyer, in a highly useful posting, pushed the point of a
definition and urged us to set such a definition within theory. My own idea
about this takes off from Dwyer. The term imperialism in the US arises in at
least two very different discursive traditions. In one tradition, elevated
by the "imperialist debate" that followed the War of 1898, "imperialism"
connoted territorial acquisition or occupation. The "Anti-Imperialist
League" was formed specifically to oppose acquisition of the Philippines and
any further territories. Many "imperialists" (such as Roosevelt) did not
mind labelling themself as such. In the second tradition, that comes through
Hobson and then Lenin, "imperialism" connotes the "highest stage of
capitalism," is seen as coming through economic (not necessarily territorial)
dominance, and involving exploitation. Many Americans from the 1920s on who
called themselves "antiimperialists" spoke within this tradition and were
concerned primarily with economic rather than territorial imperialism. Few
Americans, as this second tradition emerged, any longer identified themselves
as "imperialists." It seems to me that Americans (and American historians)
have operated within both discursive traditions but often without defining
their own terms and theoretical positions. Hence much of the great confusion
and debate over "American imperialism." Does it involve mainly territory?
Or mainly markets/resources? You will notice both discursive traditions have
surfaced among those writing into this discussion. Reactions?
Thanks to Mr. Fitzgerland and Jandrowitz and K. Butler for advancing their
ideas of what a definition might look like and for raising more directly the
issue of whether "imperialism" should apply to culture. The idea of
"cultural imperialism" emerges in the l970s out of the Leninist view of
imperialism noted above. As Ms. McAlister points out, it is a concept that
has been under heavy attack by cultural theorists in recent years, and Ms.
McAlister supplied a wonderful bibliography of recent work that addresses
this whole question. She makes important points stressed by recent cultural
theory. It would be great to hear some reaction to from all of you to her
post.
I would add to her impressive list the two books by John Tomlinson, the
first of which (called "Cultural Imperialism" is, in fact, a critique of this
term along the lines that McAlister suggests) and the second of which
examines today's "complex connectivity" (his word for globalization -- a word
he declines to use because of its many associated connotations). I recomment
all of this reading to those interested in the problems of cultural exchange
in a global setting. For those who agree with Mr. Fitzgerald that "consumer
corporate globalism" "feels different" from imperial grabs for resource or
bases, these readings help articulate why the "different feel."
Sorry for the length here. Now I'll just sit back and listen.
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:22:59 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Participants,
Dave Hanson has provided an interesting posting in which he suggests that
most of this discussion takes place in survey courses, where the Mexican War
and the War of l898 can lay a groundwork for providing new (to students)
perspectives on the cold war. I am curious whether most of those engaged
here deal with imperialism at a survey level or whether there are more
specialized courses? And let's keep in mind several requests for readings/
approaches that work and don't work.
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:24:41 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Ellen Noonan
Subject: Welcome from ASHP
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Dear Imperialism Forum participants,
Now that the discussion is off and running, I wanted to take a moment to
introduce myself and provide some basic tips on list etiquette. My name is
Ellen Noonan and I work at the American Social History Project/Center for
Media and Learning at the City University of New York Graduate Center.
ASHP/CML and the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University
produce History Matters.
If you wish to leave the discussion, please *do not* email the entire list
with your request. Go to the following location
(http://historymatters.gmu.edu/talking.html) and choose Imperialism from the
list of forums. Choose Join or Leave list and you can unsubscribe yourself
so that you will no longer receive messages. Alternatively, you can email
me off-list (enoonan@gc.cuny.edu) and I will take care of it for you. If
you are receiving duplicate messages or otherwise experiencing problems with
your subscription, please email me privately as well.
Many thanks!
Ellen Noonan
American Social History Project
enoonan@gc.cuny.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:26:40 -0700
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Quinton Priest
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Emily responds to Dave:
> Dave Hanson has provided an interesting posting in which he suggests that
> most of this discussion takes place in survey courses, where the Mexican
War
> and the War of l898 can lay a groundwork for providing new (to students)
> perspectives on the cold war. I am curious whether most of those engaged
> here deal with imperialism at a survey level or whether there are more
> specialized courses? And let's keep in mind several requests for
readings/
> approaches that work and don't work.
>
> Emily
At what level? I teach in a public college preparatory high school for
academically motivated students. I use the work of several historians
including Bernard DeVoto and Norman Graebner to look at Polk's meddling in
Mexico prior to the American-Mexican War. We use a great number of articles
by historians to get the students to come to grips with historiography and
the conflicting interpretations of American history.
I wrote an article published in the CSUSF College of Education journal
(1995) on this subjec.
Quinton Priest
University High School
Tucson, AZ
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 20:52:19 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Elizabeth Yahn
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well, this is my first response because I must admit I am overwhelmed by the
info and dialog going on here. I teach in a low income, highly diverse,
low skills, etc. High School and I do teach U.S. imperialism -- but, nowhere
on the level that I see here. I guess I was hoping for ideas, lessons,
readings, etc. appropriate to my age group -- anyway, I'll keep reading the
replies. Food for thought. Elizabeth
------Original Message------
From: Emily Rosenberg
To: IMPERIALISMFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Sent: December 7, 2000 9:22:59 PM GMT
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
Dear Participants,
Dave Hanson has provided an interesting posting in which he suggests that
most of this discussion takes place in survey courses, where the Mexican War
and the War of l898 can lay a groundwork for providing new (to students)
perspectives on the cold war. I am curious whether most of those engaged
here deal with imperialism at a survey level or whether there are more
specialized courses? And let's keep in mind several requests for readings/
approaches that work and don't work.
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 20:06:03 -0600
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Carl Schulkin
Subject: Re: Defining Imperialism
In-Reply-To: <98.d8bbb84.276158a6@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Emily,
I think that at least some historians have made a concerted effort to
distinguish between the kind of imperialism that involves direct conquest
of territory and that which is accomplished primarily by means of economic
control. I believe it was William Appleman Williams who coined the term
"Open Door Imperialism" to describe his understanding of the latter, and I
think there are many practicing historians today who still follow his
example. The chapters on foreign policy in the United States history
textbook I use with my students, A PEOPLE AND A NATION, certainly employs
that distinction.
Carl Schulkin
Pembroke Hill School
Kansas City, MO
At 04:18 PM 12/07/2000 EST, you wrote:
>Dear Participants,
>
>The responses related to a definition of imperialism have been most
>interesting. Ms. Dwyer, in a highly useful posting, pushed the point of a
>definition and urged us to set such a definition within theory. My own idea
>about this takes off from Dwyer. The term imperialism in the US arises in at
>least two very different discursive traditions. In one tradition, elevated
>by the "imperialist debate" that followed the War of 1898, "imperialism"
>connoted territorial acquisition or occupation. The "Anti-Imperialist
>League" was formed specifically to oppose acquisition of the Philippines and
>any further territories. Many "imperialists" (such as Roosevelt) did not
>mind labelling themself as such. In the second tradition, that comes through
>Hobson and then Lenin, "imperialism" connotes the "highest stage of
>capitalism," is seen as coming through economic (not necessarily territorial)
>dominance, and involving exploitation. Many Americans from the 1920s on who
>called themselves "antiimperialists" spoke within this tradition and were
>concerned primarily with economic rather than territorial imperialism. Few
>Americans, as this second tradition emerged, any longer identified themselves
>as "imperialists." It seems to me that Americans (and American historians)
>have operated within both discursive traditions but often without defining
>their own terms and theoretical positions. Hence much of the great confusion
>and debate over "American imperialism." Does it involve mainly territory?
>Or mainly markets/resources? You will notice both discursive traditions have
>surfaced among those writing into this discussion. Reactions?
>
>Thanks to Mr. Fitzgerland and Jandrowitz and K. Butler for advancing their
>ideas of what a definition might look like and for raising more directly the
>issue of whether "imperialism" should apply to culture. The idea of
>"cultural imperialism" emerges in the l970s out of the Leninist view of
>imperialism noted above. As Ms. McAlister points out, it is a concept that
>has been under heavy attack by cultural theorists in recent years, and Ms.
>McAlister supplied a wonderful bibliography of recent work that addresses
>this whole question. She makes important points stressed by recent cultural
>theory. It would be great to hear some reaction to from all of you to her
>post.
>
> I would add to her impressive list the two books by John Tomlinson, the
>first of which (called "Cultural Imperialism" is, in fact, a critique of this
>term along the lines that McAlister suggests) and the second of which
>examines today's "complex connectivity" (his word for globalization -- a word
>he declines to use because of its many associated connotations). I recomment
>all of this reading to those interested in the problems of cultural exchange
>in a global setting. For those who agree with Mr. Fitzgerald that "consumer
>corporate globalism" "feels different" from imperial grabs for resource or
>bases, these readings help articulate why the "different feel."
>
>Sorry for the length here. Now I'll just sit back and listen.
>
>Emily
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:19:57 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: David Hanson
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
In-Reply-To: <381642661.976240339415.JavaMail.root@web672-wrb>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply to Elizabeth Yahn:
Do not let the discussion intimidate you. I teach college freshmen and
sophomores in general U.S. history survey courses, and I certainly cannot
go into the depths and complexities of "American Imperialism" to the extent
implied by some of the forum participants. Perhaps some instructors choose
to make it a major part of survey courses, or perhaps they are teaching
specialized courses (foreign policy, diplomatic history, western expansion,
etc.). Personally, I have neither the time nor the interest; likewise my
students. There are plenty of other important things for my students and I
to explore in the study of history. But having said that, imperialism is
nonetheless an important theme that runs through our nation's past, one
that cannot be treated lightly. Many excellent historians have written
good books on the subject. The challenge, I think, is not what resources
to use, but how to guide students though the varied landscape of historical
interpretations. I teach a lot of "nontraditional" students (working
adults) who have strong preconceptions--usually conservative--so a subtle
approach works best.
--Dave
At 08:52 PM 12/07/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, this is my first response because I must admit I am overwhelmed by the
>info and dialog going on here. I teach in a low income, highly diverse,
>low skills, etc. High School and I do teach U.S. imperialism -- but, nowhere
>on the level that I see here. I guess I was hoping for ideas, lessons,
>readings, etc. appropriate to my age group -- anyway, I'll keep reading the
>replies. Food for thought. Elizabeth
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 18:49:59 -0800
Reply-To: msebeth@earthlink.net
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Elizabeth Yahn
Subject: Complexities
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8"
------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Dave,
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I may not be subtle enough
with my students.....I definitely spend time on Anglo Saxon superiority and
"saving our little brown buddies" as well as Mahan's call for sea power,
certainly the need for raw materials and new markets, etc., etc. We look
at the Annexation of the Philippines, Queen "Lil", the Panama Canal, touch on
Nicaragua, of course the causes and results of the Spanish-American War -- I
don't spend too much time on Wilson and Mexico.... Is there something else I
should be covering? Any suggestions? Elizabeth
----- Original Message -----
From: David Hanson
To: IMPERIALISMFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Sent: 12/7/00 6:19:16 PM
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
Reply to Elizabeth Yahn:
Do not let the discussion intimidate you. I teach college
freshmen and
sophomores in general U.S. history survey courses, and I certainly
cannot
go into the depths and complexities of "American Imperialism" to the
extent
implied by some of the forum participants. Perhaps some
instructors choose
to make it a major part of survey courses, or perhaps they are
teaching
specialized courses (foreign policy, diplomatic history, western
expansion,
etc.). Personally, I have neither the time nor the interest;
likewise my
students. There are plenty of other important things for my
students and I
to explore in the study of history. But having said that,
imperialism is
nonetheless an important theme that runs through our nation's past,
one
that cannot be treated lightly. Many excellent historians have
written
good books on the subject. The challenge, I think, is not what
resources
to use, but how to guide students though the varied landscape of
historical
interpretations. I teach a lot of "nontraditional" students
(working
adults) who have strong preconceptions--usually conservative--so a
subtle
approach works best.
--Dave
At 08:52 PM 12/07/2000 -0500, you wrote:
Well, this is my first response because I must admit I am overwhelmed
by the
info and dialog going on here. I teach in a low income,
highly diverse,
low skills, etc. High School and I do teach U.S. imperialism -- but,
nowhere
on the level that I see here. I guess I was hoping for
ideas, lessons,
readings, etc. appropriate to my age group -- anyway, I'll keep reading
the
replies. Food for thought. Elizabeth
--- Elizabeth Yahn
--- msebeth@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.
------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Dave,
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I may not be subtle enough with my students.....I definitely spend time on Anglo Saxon superiority and "saving our little brown buddies" as well as Mahan's call for sea power, certainly the need for raw materials and new markets, etc., etc. We look at the Annexation of the Philippines, Queen "Lil", the Panama Canal, touch on Nicaragua, of course the causes and results of the Spanish-American War -- I don't spend too much time on Wilson and Mexico.... Is there something else I should be covering? Any suggestions? Elizabeth
----- Original Message -----
From: David Hanson
Sent: 12/7/00 6:19:16 PM
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
Reply to Elizabeth Yahn:
Do not let the discussion intimidate you. I teach college freshmen and
sophomores in general U.S. history survey courses, and I certainly cannot
go into the depths and complexities of "American Imperialism" to the extent
implied by some of the forum participants. Perhaps some instructors choose
to make it a major part of survey courses, or perhaps they are teaching
specialized courses (foreign policy, diplomatic history, western expansion,
etc.). Personally, I have neither the time nor the interest; likewise my
students. There are plenty of other important things for my students and I
to explore in the study of history. But having said that, imperialism is
nonetheless an important theme that runs through our nation's past, one
that cannot be treated lightly. Many excellent historians have written
good books on the subject. The challenge, I think, is not what resources
to use, but how to guide students though the varied landscape of historical
interpretations. I teach a lot of "nontraditional" students (working
adults) who have strong preconceptions--usually conservative--so a subtle
approach works best.
--Dave
At 08:52 PM 12/07/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, this is my first response because I must admit I am overwhelmed by the
>info and dialog going on here. I teach in a low income, highly diverse,
>low skills, etc. High School and I do teach U.S. imperialism -- but, nowhere
>on the level that I see here. I guess I was hoping for ideas, lessons,
>readings, etc. appropriate to my age group -- anyway, I'll keep reading the
>replies. Food for thought. Elizabeth
>
--- Elizabeth Yahn
--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.
------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8--
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:59:22 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: pastimes
Subject: Re: Complexities
Comments: To: msebeth@earthlink.net
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Elizabeth,
I am glad to hear you cover the Philippines! I have observed the work of
"Pinoy Teach," a group of HS students who help teach Filipino history in
middle schools, as well as doing some fact-checking for a new textbook from
Teaching Tolerance/The Southern Poverty Law Center. Both were geared toward
diverse school systems, but would serve all students equally well. Perhaps you
could help implement a program that better serve the demographic for which you
teach?
stephanie abdon
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 18:52:37 -0800
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Jim Mamer
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
In-Reply-To: <1C2B89A63E481E4C8AC1D0DBC9AB58884626EB@mail-1.micds.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
In response to Mike Fitzgerald: I suspect that the US Government
would protect the American-based fast food empire with armed
intervention. After all the present American government actually pays
McDonald's (and the like) to expand "overseas."
Some of us may owe some democratic ideals to refusing to allow the
British East India Company to maintain a monopoly on selling tea
without taxes, but I have no idea how "capitalist ideals" could have
originated from this source.
Jim Mamer
>The issue of McDonald's as imperialism is certainly an issue, yet would we
>consider it the poilcy of the US government to protect our fast food empire
>with armed intervention. The US certainly has a vast record of armed
>intervention to acquire and protect resources and economic partners (The
>Gulf War, Vietnam, WW2(Hawaii, Philippines), and pick the Central American
>nation of your choice...), yet the interjection of Starbucks and hamburgers
>into the equation seems to set this past trend off balance. The idea of a
>policy of cultural imperialism enters into the realm of a discussion on
>consumer corporate globalism which seems a very recent phenomenon due to the
>rise of mass consumerism. Conducting a war in the Persian Gulf to save a
>monarchy and Amoco oil wells feels different to me than watching the French
>grow irate over a Burger King in Paris.
>Consumerism v. the grab for military bases, coaling stations, and raw
>materials is an interesting thing, and how far are they removed. If however,
>we look back, we owe much of our democratic/capitalist ideals to providing
>smokes for Europe, and refusing to pay a tax on our tea.
>
>Mike Fitzgerald
>St.Louis, Missouri
>
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: Emily Rosenberg
> > Reply To: Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2000 7:50 PM
> > To: IMPERIALISMFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> > Subject: Where to begin?
> >
> > Dear participants,
> >
> > Thanks for all the great contributions so far!
> >
> > Mr. Jandrowitz, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Ms. Abdon all raise an important
> > question: where should one begin a discussion (or a course) on American
> > imperialism? The war of l898 brings an explicit debate over what all
> > sides
> > call "imperialism," but these contributors appropriately raise the point
> > that
> > American imperial aspirations long predated that time. The growth of a
> > continental empire, as they all point out, can be located in the l7th,
> > l8th,
> > or l9th centuries; the cultural justifications, military techniques, and
> > economic arguments for taking territory are deeply embedded in all of
> > American history.
> >
> > In teaching, however, we inevitably encounter problems of where to start
> > and
> > where to stop. We are always grappling with breadth vs. depth. I'd be
> > curious to know in what kinds of courses these discussions of American
> > imperialism emerge and what is their time-frame? Are people able, as
> > Professor Jandrowitz apparently does, to consider both the Mexican-US War
> > and
> > 20th century imperialism within one course? [By the way, thanks for the
> > site
> > address of the material you mentioned! Do others have similar
> > material/suggestions to share?]
> >
> > In short, the issue of where "American imperialism" begins is of greatest
> > importance; lets have even more discussion of how such broad sweep can
> > effectively be brought into specific courses.
> >
> > Emily
> >
> >
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:15:14 -0800
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Jim Mamer
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
In-Reply-To: <8.d399d83.276159b3@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Hi,
Due to a severe lack of time I need to be taken off this mailing list.
But I did want to add a couple of comments:
I haven't been able to find the time to participate in this
discussion much, but I have read the exchanges and I'm very impressed
with the wonderful teachers that ARE participating.
In answer to Emily's question below... I am History Chair at a new
California High School (Northwood - Irvine) and we have found it best
to deal with various forms of imperialism at the level of both 9th
and 10th survey courses. We team with English teachers and ALL
students read such materials as "Things Fall Apart" "All Quiet" "The
Quiet American" as they study history. We also require that every 9th
and 10th grader in the school (about 400 per level...) write four
essays on identical prompts. Three of these are on aspects of
"imperialism."
A more in depth and specific study of "imperialisms" of many types as
well as global economics and capitalism will be part of all economics
courses and the focus of study of an advanced course in International
Political Economy to be taught in conjunction with AP Government.
Jim Mamer
>Dear Participants,
>
>Dave Hanson has provided an interesting posting in which he suggests that
>most of this discussion takes place in survey courses, where the Mexican War
>and the War of l898 can lay a groundwork for providing new (to students)
>perspectives on the cold war. I am curious whether most of those engaged
>here deal with imperialism at a survey level or whether there are more
>specialized courses? And let's keep in mind several requests for readings/
>approaches that work and don't work.
>
>Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:25:39 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: CONRDSE@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
After reading the 30+ emails, I am impressed at the participation and
information contained therein.
To add my two cents:
1. is the Mexican War (manifest destiny) different, although related, from
the Spanish American War (imperialism/colonialism)
I see a difference in motivation or end results between the two eras. The
first was to seize territory to be politically incorporated into the United
States, the second period followed a more European pattern of acquisition of
colonies for military bases and resources.
2. Was the impulse for imperial expansion really economic?
The economic gain from control of the Philippines and access to the China
market seems truly minimal-could the economic reasons put forward by
political leaders merely be a cover for a desire to enter "the great game" of
imperial expansion? Are we just, as Kipling said, "kin in sin" to the
British imperialists?
I know that this focuses on Asian expansionism rather that our
politcal/military/economic penetration of Latin America- now THAT might be
driven by economic considerations. (again-was the Panama Canal more of
military or economic necessity)?
As to when and where we cover this topic: we cover this in 9th grade with a
section on "Manifest Destiny" and a later look at "Imperialism" both are
driven by chapters in John Garraty's: "The Story of America." Sad to say
Imperialism gets covered quickly, if at all, due to its placement at the end
of the course in June.
sorry to have gone on at too great a length
Steve Conrad
(Council Rock School Dist.-Bucks Co. PA)
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:24:56 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: "Benjamin L.Jessup"
Subject: fast food imperialism
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ive just read jim Mammer's comment about the US government using
armed forces to protect the American Fast food Empire. Doesn't anyone else
remember or read about the controversy over the Desert Shield, the
predecessor to the quick relatively American Bloodless Desert Storm. As I
participant in two demonstrations, I was not a typical citizen but I wasn't
the only one at the time who questioned a " war for oil." Yet the counter
argument was that it was war to defend the oil supply. What situation could
there possibly to shed American blood for the fast food industry? ( A
dictator gaining a stranglehold on the world supply of Big Macs, perhaps?)
Espically since I assume that most McDonalds in foriegn countries are
franchieses owned by local citizens.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:18:20 -0800
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: john Matters
Subject: Re: Where to begin?
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
While not an American (Canadian who works for a museum in British Columbia,
I am very interested in the perspectives from inside your country on
cultural imperalism. Our cultural industries sometimes find it quite
menacing.
I also have a background in medical writing, and at one time I was most
interested in the British colonization of Africa, and how the great and
acclaimed work by the British in the field of tropical medicine at the turn
of the Century seems to have been driven by colonization, rather than
Hippocratean, forces.
In any event, it is a pleasure to be in this group.
At 06:52 PM 12/9/00 -0800, you wrote:
>In response to Mike Fitzgerald: I suspect that the US Government
>would protect the American-based fast food empire with armed
>intervention. After all the present American government actually pays
>McDonald's (and the like) to expand "overseas."
>
>Some of us may owe some democratic ideals to refusing to allow the
>British East India Company to maintain a monopoly on selling tea
>without taxes, but I have no idea how "capitalist ideals" could have
>originated from this source.
>
>Jim Mamer
>
>
>>The issue of McDonald's as imperialism is certainly an issue, yet would we
>>consider it the poilcy of the US government to protect our fast food empire
>>with armed intervention. The US certainly has a vast record of armed
>>intervention to acquire and protect resources and economic partners (The
>>Gulf War, Vietnam, WW2(Hawaii, Philippines), and pick the Central American
>>nation of your choice...), yet the interjection of Starbucks and hamburgers
>>into the equation seems to set this past trend off balance. The idea of a
>>policy of cultural imperialism enters into the realm of a discussion on
>>consumer corporate globalism which seems a very recent phenomenon due to the
>>rise of mass consumerism. Conducting a war in the Persian Gulf to save a
>>monarchy and Amoco oil wells feels different to me than watching the French
>>grow irate over a Burger King in Paris.
>>Consumerism v. the grab for military bases, coaling stations, and raw
>>materials is an interesting thing, and how far are they removed. If however,
>>we look back, we owe much of our democratic/capitalist ideals to providing
>>smokes for Europe, and refusing to pay a tax on our tea.
>>
>>Mike Fitzgerald
>>St.Louis, Missouri
>>
>>
>>
>> > ----------
>> > From: Emily Rosenberg
>> > Reply To: Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2000 7:50 PM
>> > To: IMPERIALISMFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>> > Subject: Where to begin?
>> >
>> > Dear participants,
>> >
>> > Thanks for all the great contributions so far!
>> >
>> > Mr. Jandrowitz, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Ms. Abdon all raise an important
>> > question: where should one begin a discussion (or a course) on American
>> > imperialism? The war of l898 brings an explicit debate over what all
>> > sides
>> > call "imperialism," but these contributors appropriately raise the point
>> > that
>> > American imperial aspirations long predated that time. The growth of a
>> > continental empire, as they all point out, can be located in the l7th,
>> > l8th,
>> > or l9th centuries; the cultural justifications, military techniques, and
>> > economic arguments for taking territory are deeply embedded in all of
>> > American history.
>> >
>> > In teaching, however, we inevitably encounter problems of where to start
>> > and
>> > where to stop. We are always grappling with breadth vs. depth. I'd be
>> > curious to know in what kinds of courses these discussions of American
>> > imperialism emerge and what is their time-frame? Are people able, as
>> > Professor Jandrowitz apparently does, to consider both the Mexican-US War
>> > and
>> > 20th century imperialism within one course? [By the way, thanks for the
>> > site
>> > address of the material you mentioned! Do others have similar
>> > material/suggestions to share?]
>> >
>> > In short, the issue of where "American imperialism" begins is of greatest
>> > importance; lets have even more discussion of how such broad sweep can
>> > effectively be brought into specific courses.
>> >
>> > Emily
>> >
>> >
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:17:41 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: John Stoner
Organization: Skidmore College
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think that the connotation of "fast-food" imperialism does have some merit,
however. I am thinking of the warnings given to South Africa when it
threatened to begin producing generic versions of HIV/AIDS medications because
they did not have the resources to make the name brands available given their
resources. The U.S. government in my understanding, which is admittedly
limited, strongly worked to keep that from happening. It is a life or death
issue in South Africa, but does not certainly have that dramatic impact on most
of our own lives as Americans at least in that specific case. It does set a
precedent that no multi-national corporation wants to encourage.
Fast-food represents intellectual property and commercial power, however
banal it may be in the case of McDonalds. Similar advocacy has taken place in
countries where there have been threats of nationalization, etc. I am also
reminded of the efforts made by the US government to encourage/pressure China
to crack down on pirated compact discs. The government has a vested interest
in the profitability of those companies for many reasons. Whether or not it
would lead to military conflict or not is in my opinion a less interesting
question.
John Stoner
Skidmore College
"Benjamin L.Jessup" wrote:
> Ive just read jim Mammer's comment about the US government using
> armed forces to protect the American Fast food Empire. Doesn't anyone else
> remember or read about the controversy over the Desert Shield, the
> predecessor to the quick relatively American Bloodless Desert Storm. As I
> participant in two demonstrations, I was not a typical citizen but I wasn't
> the only one at the time who questioned a " war for oil." Yet the counter
> argument was that it was war to defend the oil supply. What situation could
> there possibly to shed American blood for the fast food industry? ( A
> dictator gaining a stranglehold on the world supply of Big Macs, perhaps?)
> Espically since I assume that most McDonalds in foriegn countries are
> franchieses owned by local citizens.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:37:52 -0400
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Lynne Feldman
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
Hey John,
What do you think? Lynne
Ive just read jim Mammer's comment about the US government using
>armed forces to protect the American Fast food Empire. Doesn't anyone else
>remember or read about the controversy over the Desert Shield, the
>predecessor to the quick relatively American Bloodless Desert Storm. As I
>participant in two demonstrations, I was not a typical citizen but I wasn't
>the only one at the time who questioned a " war for oil." Yet the counter
>argument was that it was war to defend the oil supply. What situation could
>there possibly to shed American blood for the fast food industry? ( A
>dictator gaining a stranglehold on the world supply of Big Macs, perhaps?)
>Espically since I assume that most McDonalds in foriegn countries are
>franchieses owned by local citizens.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:03:30 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Re: overstretched curriculums
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi participants,
We have a terrific exchange growing over the practicalities of teaching
imperialism particularly in high schools or college classes where a high
degree of specialization is not practical. Elizabeth and Dave have talked
about the need to exchange ideas over how to move effectively through some of
this material, realizing that there is much else to devote time to as well.
There have been some excellent resources suggested by several contributors.
Any more on this? Thanks to the many who have responded.
It seems to me that, at any level we teach, introducing the ideas through a
few primary (short) readings really is effective. The various syllabi sent
by Mr Jandrowitz should be very helpful. In the email,mine came through in
unreadable form, but if one goes to his websites, there are many links to
documents that could be quite useful. I myself am a heavy user of the
"American Anti-Imperialism" website maintained by Jim Zwick. (You can get to
it through Jandrowitz's site or by any web search.) One could quickly select
documents from this site that would help focus a class -- even (or
especially) at a very basic survey level. If you haven't found this site,
check it out!
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:30:17 -0700
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Quinton Priest
Subject: Re: overstretched curriculums
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Something that was done at our school before I came there might be helpful
to others. Instead of teaching World History/World Tour to sophomores, we
created regional courses: Africa-Middle East, Latin America, East Asia, AP
Comparative Governments, and AP European History. Students may pick and
choose among the offerings.
I was hired because of my Ph.D. in Chinese and Japanese history, a
specialization in African history, and experience teaching AP courses.
The upshot is, I spend a great deal of time on imperialism, the
historiography of imperialism, and the language of imperialism, in my
Africa-Middle East, East Asian, and AP European History courses.
Such a change of focus certainly falls within the scope of the World
History/Non-Western History curiculum and yet gives time for more in-depth
coverage.
Quinton Priest
University High School
Tucson, AZ
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:47:30 -0800
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: ashley bowker
Subject: Re: Complexities
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- pastimes wrote:
> Elizabeth,
>
> I am glad to hear you cover the Philippines! I have
> observed the work of
> "Pinoy Teach," a group of HS students who help teach
> Filipino history in
> middle schools, as well as doing some fact-checking
> for a new textbook from
> Teaching Tolerance/The Southern Poverty Law Center.
> Both were geared toward
> diverse school systems, but would serve all students
> equally well. Perhaps you
> could help implement a program that better serve the
> demographic for which you
> teach?
i am not elizabeth. wrong adress
>
> stephanie abdon
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:10:33 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Ellen Noonan
Subject: Online resources for teaching US Imperialism
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
I wanted to follow up on Professor Rosenberg=B9s suggestion about Jim Zwick=B9s
Anti-Imperialism Web site. It is a terrific resource, and there are other
resources on Imperialism to be found on the History Matters site
(http://historymatters.gmu.edu), including links to other sites, primary
documents, and a classroom activity.
WEB SITES
History Matters contains links and brief descriptions of the following
sites; if you want to go to them directly I=B9ve included the URLs below:
Jim Zwick=B9s Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ail98-35.html
Sentenaryo/Centennial: A Collaborative Explanation of the Cultural and
Political Impacts of the Philllippine Revolution and the
Phillippine-American War
http://www.boondocksnet.com/centennial/
A War in Perspective: Public Appeals, Memory, and the Spanish-American
Conflict
http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/epo/spanexhib/
Augusto Sandino (site in English and Spanish)
http://www.pagusmundi.com/sandino/sandino.htm
PRIMARY DOCUMENTS
History Matters also contains the following primary documents. It is
probably easiest to find them via a keyword search on the browse page of th=
e
site=8BI=B9ve indicated useful keywords in parentheses:
"Such Cases of Outrageous Unspeakable Abuse...": A Puerto Rican Migrant
Protests Labor Conditions During World War I (keyword: Marchan)
The United States and the Mexican Revolution: "A Danger for All Latin
American Countries," Letters from Venustiano Carranza (keyword: Carranza)
"Avoid the Use of the Word Intervention": Wilson and Lansing on the U.S.
Invasion of Mexico
John Reed=B9s "What About Mexico?": The United States and the Mexican
Revolution
"Conclusions and Recommendations by the Committee of Six Disinterested
Americans" (keyword: Haiti)
"The People Were Very Peaceable": The U.S. Senate Investigates the Haitian
Occupation (keyword: Haiti)
Bandits or Patriots?: Documents from Charlemagne P=E9ralte (keyword: Haiti)
"The Truth about Haiti: An NAACP Investigation" (keyword: Haiti)
U.S. Intervention in Central America: Kellogg=B9s Charges of a Bolshevist
Threat
"To Abolish the Monroe Doctrine": Proclamation from Augusto C=E9sar Sandino
(keyword: Sandino)
"Un Colombian con Sandino": U.S. Intervention in Central America (keyword:
Sandino)
ACTIVITY
Whose Burden?: Representing American Imperialism in the late Nineteenth
Century is an activity involving the analysis of a political cartoon
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/text/3whoseburden.html
If you know of any other good Web resources please share them with the list=
!
Ellen Noonan
American Social History Project
enoonan@gc.cuny.edu
----------
>From: Emily Rosenberg
>To: IMPERIALISMFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>Subject: Re: overstretched curriculums
>Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000, 10:03 AM
>
> Hi participants,
>
> We have a terrific exchange growing over the practicalities of teaching
> imperialism particularly in high schools or college classes where a high
> degree of specialization is not practical. Elizabeth and Dave have talke=
d
> about the need to exchange ideas over how to move effectively through som=
e of
> this material, realizing that there is much else to devote time to as wel=
l.
>
> There have been some excellent resources suggested by several contributor=
s.
> Any more on this? Thanks to the many who have responded.
>
> It seems to me that, at any level we teach, introducing the ideas through=
a
> few primary (short) readings really is effective. The various syllabi se=
nt
> by Mr Jandrowitz should be very helpful. In the email,mine came through =
in
> unreadable form, but if one goes to his websites, there are many links to
> documents that could be quite useful. I myself am a heavy user of the
> "American Anti-Imperialism" website maintained by Jim Zwick. (You can ge=
t to
> it through Jandrowitz's site or by any web search.) One could quickly se=
lect
> documents from this site that would help focus a class -- even (or
> especially) at a very basic survey level. If you haven't found this site=
,
> check it out!
>
> Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:20:16 -0500
Reply-To: jim@boondocksnet.com
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Jim Zwick
Subject: Re: Defining Imperialism
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001207200603.00989610@mail.gvi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Hi everyone. Since my web site has been mentioned, I guess I better
stop lurking. ;-) I'm not currently teaching about imperialism so I'll
probably listen more than I post to the list, but I'm very interested in
hearing how you are teaching about imperialism, what resources you're
using, and about any that would be useful but are not currently available.
I agree with the importance of theory in assessing U.S. imperialism, and
am also glad to hear that some are dealing with it in a comparative
framework. I think a comparative framework, even if it is limited to just
showing on a map what was going on elsewhere in the world at various
times, helps to clarify why we should call U.S. imperialism "imperialism."
At the same time that Americans were claiming that Providence gave
them a unique "manifest destiny" to spread across the continent, for
example, European populations were also taking control of interior areas
of Australia, Asia and Africa. It is often easier for Americans to call the
actions of other countries "imperialism" and a comparative framework
can highlight the similarities and differences.
I want to add something else to the discussion of confusion about
imperialism that Emily outlined: the need to distinguish between
underlying motives or causes of imperialism and the forms it takes. Even
if we take the 1898-1902 period as an example, we find the U.S. pursuing
territorial annexation, an Open Door policy to guarantee access to
markets in China, and the granting of limited independence to Cuba after
reserving the right to intervene for a variety of reasons, including to
recover debts to foreign (including U.S.) corporations. In the colonies
acquired in 1898-1899, the establishment of U.S.-run schools (cultural
imperialism) went hand in hand with the establishment of military and
political control of the territories. As Melani McAlister suggested, the
various forms (territorial, economic, cultural) can be discussed
separately, but they may all have a common underlying cause or motive,
and this allows them to be combined for discussion. Even if the
underlying cause is economic, it may be pursued through a different
form (e.g. Mahan's discussion of colonies for use as naval bases to
protect shipping) or a mixture of the three.
The participants in the debates about imperialism don't always fit into neat
categories related to the form of imperialism, either. McKinley, Roosevelt
and Taft were each obviously associated with more than one form of
imperialism -- some labeled as such, others not (they always preferred
"expansion" to "imperialism"). Although the Anti-Imperialist League was
created in 1898 to prevent the U.S. from annexing territories, it adapted
to the new policies and was the primary organization concerned with
other forms of imperialism until its dissolution in 1921. Officers of the
original Anti-Imperialist League also formed or served as officers of all of
the major anti-imperialist organizations created in the 1920s and 1930s.
Moorfield Storey, its president, chaired the Haiti-Santo Domingo
Independence Society formed in 1921 and was a member of the
committee that funded publication of Joseph Freeman and Scott
Nearing's Dollar Diplomacy in 1925.
One thing that I think is important to recognize in debates about
imperialism, whether among direct participants or historians, is that they
all involve definitions of the country, not just the meaning of "imperialism."
Before 1898, the country had a strong tradition of seeing itself as wholly
distinct from European empires because it was created in a revolution
against an empire. That tradition endured through continental expansion
and the war with Mexico in part because they weren't defined as
imperialism. It was part of what motivated Americans to support a war to
"free Cuba" in 1898 and for anti-imperialists to support Aguinaldo in the
Philippines as a "Filipino George Washington." It is still part of the
rhetoric. Arguing against those who saw continuities between the
Philippine-American War and the war in Vietnam, historian Richard E.
Welch wrote in 1979 (in _Response to Imperialism: The United States
and the Philippine-American War, 1899-1902_) that "the Philippine War
was essentially the product of a policy of insular imperialism; the Vietnam
War, the product of a global crusade against communist expansion."
More recently, the United States fought a war to "free Kuwait" from "Iraqi
imperialism." Because of the uses and abuses of the word "imperialism"
in these debates, I think it is important to step back from what participants
are calling themselves while creating our own definitions, but to still be
sensitive to what the participants' definitions can tell us about how
debates about imperialism have shaped U.S. culture and national identity.
Do any of you discuss debates about national identity when you're
teaching about U.S. imperialism? It may be a separate topic but I think
it's helpful in understanding why we have such a hard time dealing with
U.S. imperialism.
Jim
Jim Zwick
jim@boondocksnet.com
http://www.boondocksnet.com/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:37:08 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: "Benjamin L.Jessup"
Subject: economic imperailism
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I finally found mike Fitzgerald roginal posting. And ran accross
this intersting sentance about US military force used to "protect resources
and economic partners. Of mike's examples I am most in agreement with
Gulf War the Central American nation of your choice...)an certianly I would
say WW2(Hawaii, Philippinesin the Pacific certianly came from Japanese
attmepts to control resources in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, largely
cotnrolled by Europeans and Americans.
I have to take issue with teh example of Vietnam. I think the US
involvement was an act of misguided idealism.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:51:54 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear participants,
Steve Conrad raised an issue that might be worth evaluating -- that is, how
"different" or "similar" do teachers consider the Mexican War and the War of
1898. He is surely correct that the Mexican War enters history books as
"manifest destiny" (even if the book is critical of the war, it generally
treats the conflict as part of continental expansion and thus never labelled
imperialism. The War of 1898 nearly always introduces students to the term
"imperialism" and to the "imperial debate." Still, most of the participants
here immediately assumed that the Mexican War fell under the subject of this
discussion.
Of course there ARE all kinds of differences but perhaps the similarities are
striking: in both cases, there are certain economic interests who desire
more territory;there are views of Anglo-Saxon superiority; there are efforts
to create a more unified national identity to smooth over sectional conflict;
there are efforts to "civilize" people through education, missionary work,
and other cultural efforts; there is involvement by the military. Both take
place in the context of European empire-building and was, by some, cast as
defensive against such European encroachment.
So why not label the Mexican War a "war for empire" as we do the one in 1898?
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:06:58 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Participants,
Well, this discussion thread has a catchy title, and those who have
contributed have staked out impressive arguments: One points out that
McDonald's, after all, is hardly oil; on the other hand, a reply points out,
the protection of copyrights, patents, and governmental assistance for market
penetration of all kinds does make a kind of argument that applies to global
actors such as McD, if not to McD itself. All of this raises (again) the
larger question -- is free trade and globalization "imperialism" or is it the
basis of an open system that is the opposite of "imperialism"?
To me (again) much of one's answer to this question depends on the academic
tradition in which you operate. The Hobson/Lenin thesis, and echoed in the
writings of William A. Williams and others, have established a long tradition
which sees free trade as assisting the hegemony of the dominant nation and,
therefore, as imperialism. The liberal, Wilsonian tradition (Clinton) sees
an "open world" as ultimately uplifting for all. In that latter tradition --
and related to our discussion -- was the political science study that
postulated that countries with McDonalds restaurants never wage war against
each other! (Known as the "McDonald's theory of international relations.)
This assertion was the subject of much humorous (and also serious) comment on
listserves a few years back. Want to take that one on here?
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:38:04 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: pastimes
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Dear All,
It appears that Ms. Rosenberg's comments also bring back the question of
whether or not imperialism is -- or to what degree -- a result of capitalism.
I am a strong advocate of free enterprise, therefore I tend to see such things
as capitalism at work rather than being quick to judge them as "imperialism."
As for the idea that countires with McD's not fighting each other, I see that
as reflective of the growing globalization. We are moving toward a more global
economy, where all countries are beginning to have similar cultural objects
and customs. The internet has definitely sped up the process. It may be just
that nations with McD's, and probably other American instiutions, tend to be
more progressive and democratic as well as having similar ideologies and value
systems.
stephanie abdon
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:40:39 -0700
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Quinton Priest
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Remembr when the developed world was on the Gold Standard? Then the shifted,
and now monetary values "floated" relative to one another. Well, how about
the "hamburger standard/" Or alternately, the "McDonald's Standatd?"
Some years ago the Asian Wall Street Journal realized that because the Big
Mac was pegged at a constant price throughout Asia, the could track the
relative value of currency on the Asian market. Hence--tah-dah!--The Mac
Index! The Economist ran an article on the Mac Index several years ago. I
use the Mac Index as a humorous introduction to the rise of the global
economy.
Quinton Priest
Univeristy High School
Tucon, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emily Rosenberg"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
> Dear Participants,
>
> Well, this discussion thread has a catchy title, and those who have
> contributed have staked out impressive arguments: One points out that
> McDonald's, after all, is hardly oil; on the other hand, a reply points
out,
> the protection of copyrights, patents, and governmental assistance for
market
> penetration of all kinds does make a kind of argument that applies to
global
> actors such as McD, if not to McD itself. All of this raises (again) the
> larger question -- is free trade and globalization "imperialism" or is it
the
> basis of an open system that is the opposite of "imperialism"?
>
> To me (again) much of one's answer to this question depends on the
academic
> tradition in which you operate. The Hobson/Lenin thesis, and echoed in
the
> writings of William A. Williams and others, have established a long
tradition
> which sees free trade as assisting the hegemony of the dominant nation
and,
> therefore, as imperialism. The liberal, Wilsonian tradition (Clinton)
sees
> an "open world" as ultimately uplifting for all. In that latter
tradition --
> and related to our discussion -- was the political science study that
> postulated that countries with McDonalds restaurants never wage war
against
> each other! (Known as the "McDonald's theory of international relations.)
> This assertion was the subject of much humorous (and also serious) comment
on
> listserves a few years back. Want to take that one on here?
>
> Emily
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:06:56 -0700
Reply-To: mcanz@earthlink.net
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: "Mary C. Canzoneri"
Subject: IMPERIALISM/EDUCATIONALRESPONSE
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------E136942FD04CD63316DDA30B"
--------------E136942FD04CD63316DDA30B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi to all participants...and thanks for the inspiring and very
informative discussion.
However, I offer the following general comments not to address methods
of teaching imperialism per se, but to address the need to restructure
education on a class basis, albeit a fantasy at this time. Your
comments and suggestions are welcomed.
IMPERIALISM INTERCONNECTS
WITH DIVERSITY
* Imperialism develops from diverse forms of private property within
a country, creating a hierarchical system diversified by class,
race, gender, age, and challenge--a political-economic system that
develops superstructural relations (the totality of civic and
cultural institutions, that reflect the diversity within the
aforementioned hierarchy. The dialectics between property and
superstructural relations (inclusive of civic and cultural
institutions) become fluid and dynamic and varies within different
countries. .
* The power of imperialism to dominate varies within diverse
relations of exchange from within and from without within the
global hierarchy. Outcomes are uneven, unequal, and diverse within
time periods. .
EDUCATIONAL RESPONSE
* Education should be restructured, beginning K-12, and upward
through higher education. Multicultural reform, fragments
knowledge into cultural spheres of diversity, with no one sphere
interconnected to the other. Class based knowledge
interconnects. Age appropriate materials could be developed to fit
the grade level.
* Class based knowledge would not merely develop critical thinking
but interconnect the mind to all forms of reality without losing
ground. Global interdependence requires the human polity to
interconnect on common ground. for survival and uplift of mind and
body. .
* Imperialism could be comprehended as a global structure having
diverse and varying forms of property with associated
superstructures.
* The interconnected and comprehensive reality created requires
interdisciplinary disciplines/studies to develop the class based
knowledge.
* Such knowledge should be age appropriate and integrated throughout,
beginning with kindergarten, upward to higher education.
* Class-based education should be interdisciplinary and basis of the
core curriculum.
Thanks for listening and look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Mary C. Canzoneri,
Professor, Community College
Women's History; U.S. History 1877; Political Science
--------------E136942FD04CD63316DDA30B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi to all participants...and thanks for the inspiring and very informative
discussion.
However, I offer the following general
comments not to address methods of teaching imperialism per se, but to
address the need to restructure education on a class basis, albeit a fantasy
at this time. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.
IMPERIALISM INTERCONNECTS WITH DIVERSITY
-
Imperialism develops from diverse forms of private property
within a country, creating a hierarchical system diversified by class,
race, gender, age, and challenge--a political-economic system that develops
superstructural relations (the totality of civic and cultural institutions,
that reflect the diversity within the aforementioned hierarchy. The
dialectics between property and superstructural relations (inclusive
of civic and cultural institutions) become fluid and dynamic and varies
within different countries. .
-
The power of imperialism to dominate varies within diverse relations of
exchange from within and from without within the global hierarchy.
Outcomes are uneven, unequal, and diverse within time periods. .
EDUCATIONAL RESPONSE
-
Education should be restructured, beginning K-12, and upward through higher
education. Multicultural reform, fragments knowledge into cultural
spheres of diversity, with no one sphere interconnected to the other.
Class based knowledge interconnects. Age appropriate materials could
be developed to fit the grade level.
-
Class based knowledge would not merely develop critical thinking but interconnect
the mind to all forms of reality without losing ground. Global interdependence
requires the human polity to interconnect on common ground. for survival
and uplift of mind and body. .
-
Imperialism could be comprehended as a global structure having diverse
and varying forms of property with associated superstructures.
-
The interconnected and comprehensive reality created requires interdisciplinary
disciplines/studies to develop the class based knowledge.
-
Such knowledge should be age appropriate and integrated throughout, beginning
with kindergarten, upward to higher education.
-
Class-based education should be interdisciplinary and basis of the core
curriculum.
Thanks for listening and look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Mary C. Canzoneri,
Professor, Community College
Women's History; U.S. History 1877; Political Science
--------------E136942FD04CD63316DDA30B--
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:21:02 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: David Hanson
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Interesting question, certainly more so [to me] than the debate on the
globalization of MacDonalds restaurants.
I find that my students often see the Mexican War of 1846-48 as an
"inevitable" outcome of Manifest Destiny, and not necessarily a bad thing.
This troubles me somewhat... for reasons that should be self-evident to
participants of this forum. It doesn't help that our textbook, Irwin
Unger's These United States, states "The Mexican War, then, was in some
ways almost inevitable" because Mexico was a weak and unstable country with
a "powerful, dynamic... neighbor to the North." Of course, Unger isn't
quite saying it the way it sounds out of context, but that's the way many
students seem to read it.
On the other hand, my students seem more inclined to accept the notion that
the war with Spain in 1898 was a burst of American "imperialism." The
Philippines "pacification" helps them see the transparency of altruistic
claims in the midst of overseas territorial expansion. (It helps that the
chapter in their textbook is titled "The American Empire.")
So, having said that, it takes me back to Emily's excellent question. What
are the differences between the attack on Mexico and vast land grab, and
the war with Spain, that make it easier for students to recognize
imperialism in the later instance than in the former form. Certainly for
Mexico the former was nothing to shrug off as "inevitable." I point out to
my students that John O'Sullivan, the apostle of Manifest Destiny, wrote
that nothing could be more un-American than "the acquisition of territory
by military conquest."
All I can come up with as a possible explanation is that students seem to
accept the notion that westward expansion across the continent was simply
the "natural" settlement of the frontier [which, of course, it wasn't],
whereas reaching out to overseas remnants of the Spanish empire was an
entirely different matter. I think there are more similarities than
student seem to recognize, and so the challenge is how to help them do more
critical thinking about this issue. Any suggestions? I would elaborate
but I have a large stack of final exams that need grading.
Dave Hanson
Virginia Western
At 05:51 PM 12/12/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear participants,
>
>Steve Conrad raised an issue that might be worth evaluating -- that is, how
>"different" or "similar" do teachers consider the Mexican War and the War of
>1898. He is surely correct that the Mexican War enters history books as
>"manifest destiny" (even if the book is critical of the war, it generally
>treats the conflict as part of continental expansion and thus never labelled
>imperialism. The War of 1898 nearly always introduces students to the term
>"imperialism" and to the "imperial debate." Still, most of the participants
>here immediately assumed that the Mexican War fell under the subject of this
>discussion.
>
>Of course there ARE all kinds of differences but perhaps the similarities are
>striking: in both cases, there are certain economic interests who desire
>more territory;there are views of Anglo-Saxon superiority; there are efforts
>to create a more unified national identity to smooth over sectional conflict;
>there are efforts to "civilize" people through education, missionary work,
>and other cultural efforts; there is involvement by the military. Both take
>place in the context of European empire-building and was, by some, cast as
>defensive against such European encroachment.
>
>So why not label the Mexican War a "war for empire" as we do the one in 1898?
>
>
>Emily
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:38:53 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: MurphyMo@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think the difference between the Mexican War and the Spanish American War
in 1898 is that the lands acquired by defeating Mexico were incorporated
permanently into the United States as part of the country.
Imperialism has a "colonial" aspect whether it is a colony, mandate, sphere
of influence or intervention (in which the USA specializes). It is always
for the economic gain of the "mother" (bad sense of the word in my book)
country and usually to the cultural and economic detriment of those colonized.
While the Indians and Mexicans under the American rule of the New Mexico,
Utah and California territories certainly suffered and lost land, I think it
comes under "manifest destiny" due to the permanent nature of the take over
of the land. This was under the idea of "empire for liberty" - a democracy,
the best kind of government known to God and man so God destined Americans to
be superior and conquer all.
Not dissimilar to the "white man's burden" and religious reasons for other
colonization but all imperialism is basically economically driven. And I
think it is OK to separate the two as there seems to be a 19th century
imperialism with colonies (like Hawaii, Guam, Philippines) and later
intervention - 20th century imperialism for political and economic goals not
clear cut territorial ones.
Otherwise, all of American history would have to be under imperialism as the
Europeans "claimed" lands for themselves that other people owned for
centuries.
In high school, it's easier to make is simple, divide sections of history,
look for similarities but use different names for different eras.
Maureen Murphy
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:59:18 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: MurphyMo@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dave,
I compared the Mexican American War to the Vietnam War as this was not a
popular war with everyone in the USA. I show how Henry David Thoreau did not
pay his taxes to protest it and write Civil Disobedience that later
influences men like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Abraham
Lincoln spoke out against it and indeed Emerson said it was going to come
back and curse the US which it did when the slave-free status of these
territories hit the fan.
We discuss how the fight was provoked by Polk ordering troops in the disputed
territory which to Mexico was an act of war.
However, I do think the students react less to this than 1898 because these
territories became states which they have visited, relatives live in and our
"ours".
And the fight is over. Cuba and the Philippines represent things that
continue in the 20th century.
I don't think McDonalds are forced on anyone and I do think there is now more
a global trading community. We eat candy from Europe, drink coffee from
Africa and who hasn't noticed the abundance of clothing and toys from all
over the world? Many joint ventures, some sweat shops, some locally owned,
many American or European owned.
Maureen Murphy
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:49:04 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: John Stoner
Organization: Skidmore College
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
One thing too that must be kept in perspective in my opinion, is that it is not
necessarily our own definition of imperialism vs. free trade and globalization
that matters (although it certainly makes for a more stimulating email
exchange). Something that I constantly try to remind myself, and my students, is
that what is equally if not more important is how other people around view these
phenomena, especially in the countries affected by the process. I'm reminded of
American commercial and economic penetration of Africa in the post-independence
period as being seen by some Africans as "neo-colonialism." So, to a degree, and
in recognition that the example is getting a little tired, it matters greatly if
the French/Chinese/whomever think McDonalds is imperialist.
John Stoner
Emily Rosenberg wrote:
> Dear Participants,
>
> Well, this discussion thread has a catchy title, and those who have
> contributed have staked out impressive arguments: One points out that
> McDonald's, after all, is hardly oil; on the other hand, a reply points out,
> the protection of copyrights, patents, and governmental assistance for market
> penetration of all kinds does make a kind of argument that applies to global
> actors such as McD, if not to McD itself. All of this raises (again) the
> larger question -- is free trade and globalization "imperialism" or is it the
> basis of an open system that is the opposite of "imperialism"?
>
> To me (again) much of one's answer to this question depends on the academic
> tradition in which you operate. The Hobson/Lenin thesis, and echoed in the
> writings of William A. Williams and others, have established a long tradition
> which sees free trade as assisting the hegemony of the dominant nation and,
> therefore, as imperialism. The liberal, Wilsonian tradition (Clinton) sees
> an "open world" as ultimately uplifting for all. In that latter tradition --
> and related to our discussion -- was the political science study that
> postulated that countries with McDonalds restaurants never wage war against
> each other! (Known as the "McDonald's theory of international relations.)
> This assertion was the subject of much humorous (and also serious) comment on
> listserves a few years back. Want to take that one on here?
>
> Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:52:44 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: John Stoner
Organization: Skidmore College
Subject: [Fwd: CFP: South African Sociological Ass. July 2001]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7AADD07032D6E76EDE91F6F4"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------7AADD07032D6E76EDE91F6F4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I hope this is not inappropriate, but given our recent conversations, I
thought I would show to the folks on the list that this continues to be
a hotly contested definition!
--------------7AADD07032D6E76EDE91F6F4
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path:
Received: from menyapa.cc.columbia.edu (menyapa.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.38])
by monire.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18481
for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:18:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h-net.msu.edu (h-net.hst.msu.edu [35.8.2.57])
by menyapa.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA01226
for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:18:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200012130618.BAA01226@menyapa.cc.columbia.edu>
Received: (qmail 32496 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 06:12:50 -0000
Received: from h-net.hst.msu.edu (HELO h-net.msu.edu) (35.8.2.57)
by h-net.hst.msu.edu with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 06:12:50 -0000
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:25:03 +0200
Reply-To: H-Net List on the History of Southern Africa
Sender: H-Net List on the History of Southern Africa
From: Elize van Eeden
Subject: CFP: South African Sociological Ass. July 2001
To: H-SAFRICA@H-NET.MSU.EDU
Date: Tue. 12 Dec 2000
From: FRED HENDRICKS
Rhodes University
Cross-posted from DEBATE
SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
CONGRESS 2001
CALL FOR PAPERS
GLOBALIZATION, INEQUALITY AND IDENTITY
1- 4 JULY 2001
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
PRETORIA, SOUTH AFRICA
Globalization has been defined in a myriad of different ways
reflecting the full range of ideological predilections and
paradigmatic choices. The same can be said about the
concepts of inequality and identity. In this conference we
hope to provide the space for engagement about the
relationship between globalization, inequality and the
formation of identities. However globalization is
defined, it remains a subject of intense debate.
While some regard globalization as somehow
indistinguishable from imperialism, others
see it representing a fundamental rupture in
the nature of contemporary capitalism.
Does globalization hold the promise of eroding the
distinction between rich developed and poor under-
developed countries or does it entrench inequalities
between and within countries? How is one to periodise
global capitalism? Has there indeed been a movement
from Fordism to Post-Fordism, from mass production to
flexible specialisation, from production-led to
consumption-driven forms of capitalism, from class
antagonism to a disappearance of the working class,
to a purer form of capital (Jameson), to the end of the
third world (Harris)? What forms of agency have
emerged in the global context and how have these
structured the formation of particular identities ?
This conference hopes to bring the various debates
around globalization, inequality and identity into
sharper focus.
Deadline for proposals : 31 March 2001
If you would like to present a paper or organise a
paper session or panel discussion, please contact
the convenor of the working groups indicated below,
or if your contribution falls outside of these groups,
contact the secretary of SASA, who can also be
contacted for all other information on the Congress,
including registration and accommodation details :
Elsa van Huyssteen
Phone : 27-11-717 4448
Fax : 27-11-339 8163
E-mail : sasa@lw.rau.ac.za
WORKING GROUP CONVENER E-MAIL ADDRESS
Crime, violence and security
Lindy Heineken (Cemis) lindy@ma2.sun.ac.za
Monique Marks (Natal) marks@mtb.und.ac.za
Development
Fhulu Nekhwevha (Fort Hare) fhulu@ufhcc.ufh.ac.za
Johan Graaff (UCT) graaff@humanities.uct.ac.za
Economic and industrial sociology
Franco Barchiesi (WITS) 029frb@muse.wits.ac.za
Johan Maree (UCT) maree@socsci.uct.ac.za
Education
Marcelle Dawson (RAU) md@lw.rau.ac.za
Mandla Makhanya (Unisa) makhams@unisa.ac.za
Environment
David Fig (Wits) 029dfig@muse.wits.ac.za
Family
Marlize Rabe (Vista) rabe-me@acaleph.vista.ac.za
Ria Smit (RAU) rsm@lw.rau.ac.za
Gender studies
Debby Bonnin (Natal) bonnin@nu.ac.za
Nhlanhla Jordan (Unitra) jordan@getafix.utr.ac.za
Globalization
David Venter (UWC) dventer@uwc.ac.za
Health
M Pietersen (UP) mariana@postino.up.ac.za
Media, culture and society
K.P. Odhav (UNW) kposoc@unibo.uniwest.ac.za
Methodology
Louis du Plessis (Cemis) louis@cemis.co.za
Politics and law
Elsa van Huyssteen (Wits) 029elsa@muse.wits.ac.za
Race and ethnicity
Louis Molamu (Unisa) molaml@unisa.ac.za
Rural sociology
Fred Hendricks (Rhodes) F.Hendricks@ru.ac.za
Science and technology
Dave Cooper (UCT) cooper@humanities.uct.ac.za
Social demography
Prof Carl van Aardt (UP) carl@postino.up.ac.za
Social theory
Dr Olajide Oloyede (UWC) ooloyede@uwc.ac.za
Teaching sociology
Louise Hagemeier (Wits) 029lou@muse.wits.ac.za
Lionel Thaver (UWC) lthaver@uwc.ac.za
Urban sociology
Owen Crankshaw (UCT) cranksha@humanities.uct.ac.za
--------------7AADD07032D6E76EDE91F6F4--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:56:09 -0800
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Austin Manghan
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The other similarity is the thread of racism that
exists in both cases. Certainly a major motivation
for stealing Texas and the third of Mexico that became
the U.S. West was slavery.
Austin Manghan
--- Emily Rosenberg wrote:
> Dear participants,
>
> Steve Conrad raised an issue that might be worth
> evaluating -- that is, how
> "different" or "similar" do teachers consider the
> Mexican War and the War of
> 1898. He is surely correct that the Mexican War
> enters history books as
> "manifest destiny" (even if the book is critical of
> the war, it generally
> treats the conflict as part of continental expansion
> and thus never labelled
> imperialism. The War of 1898 nearly always
> introduces students to the term
> "imperialism" and to the "imperial debate." Still,
> most of the participants
> here immediately assumed that the Mexican War fell
> under the subject of this
> discussion.
>
> Of course there ARE all kinds of differences but
> perhaps the similarities are
> striking: in both cases, there are certain economic
> interests who desire
> more territory;there are views of Anglo-Saxon
> superiority; there are efforts
> to create a more unified national identity to smooth
> over sectional conflict;
> there are efforts to "civilize" people through
> education, missionary work,
> and other cultural efforts; there is involvement by
> the military. Both take
> place in the context of European empire-building and
> was, by some, cast as
> defensive against such European encroachment.
>
> So why not label the Mexican War a "war for empire"
> as we do the one in 1898?
>
>
> Emily
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:19:17 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Robert Shaffer
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On the "McDonald's theory of international relations" -- propagated most
energetically as far as I know by Thomas Friedman, the international
affairs columnist of the _New York Times_, an avid free-trade
enthusiast: The bombardment of Belgrade by U.S. (NATO) forces meant that
this particular theory had a very short shelf life, as both the U.S. and
Serbia had McDonalds. Of course, the more general point about whether
free trade inhibits war between nations is a more substantive issue,
regardless of other criticisms one may have of free-trade globalization
policies. For example (as I just finished arguing to the students in
my diplomatic history class), the economic and political estrangement
between the U.S. and China after 1949 certainly contributed to the
development of major wars in Korea and Vietnam, while the political
rapprochement and more recently the close economic relations between
the U.S. and China meant that the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in
Belgrade led to noisy demonstrations but no visible military aid by
China to Serbia.
Memo to political scientists: avoid writing theories that can be
disproven by a single wrong case.
-- Robert Shaffer
History Department
Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Emily Rosenberg wrote:
> Dear Participants,
>
> Well, this discussion thread has a catchy title, and those who have
> contributed have staked out impressive arguments: One points out that
> McDonald's, after all, is hardly oil; on the other hand, a reply points out,
> the protection of copyrights, patents, and governmental assistance for market
> penetration of all kinds does make a kind of argument that applies to global
> actors such as McD, if not to McD itself. All of this raises (again) the
> larger question -- is free trade and globalization "imperialism" or is it the
> basis of an open system that is the opposite of "imperialism"?
>
> To me (again) much of one's answer to this question depends on the academic
> tradition in which you operate. The Hobson/Lenin thesis, and echoed in the
> writings of William A. Williams and others, have established a long tradition
> which sees free trade as assisting the hegemony of the dominant nation and,
> therefore, as imperialism. The liberal, Wilsonian tradition (Clinton) sees
> an "open world" as ultimately uplifting for all. In that latter tradition --
> and related to our discussion -- was the political science study that
> postulated that countries with McDonalds restaurants never wage war against
> each other! (Known as the "McDonald's theory of international relations.)
> This assertion was the subject of much humorous (and also serious) comment on
> listserves a few years back. Want to take that one on here?
>
> Emily
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:12:23 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Linda Dwyer
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_79.d7bf031.27692417_boundary"
--part1_79.d7bf031.27692417_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In response to John Stoner's point about the "other's" point of view as
important in our analysis of imperialism:
To what extent is the use of the term dependent upon the oppressor/victim
dichotomy? To what extent is imperialism independent of the oppressor/victim
label, so that one can "be an imperialist" in one's intent and/or actions,
but simply not be effective at the attempt? If one is an ineffective
"imperialist," how do we label the relationship between would be oppressor
and intended victim? Is it something else, if the imperialist does not have
"his" way?
Secondly, if the "victim" does not perceive victimization, or uses
"victimization" creatively and manages to divert the power of the "oppressor"
to its own ends, is this still imperialism?
I am still trying to rush through some of the texts recommended by
participants. Apologies if these questions are therefore too simple, and
already answered in theoretically shared readings.
Linda Dwyer
(unaffiliated anthropologist, China and its Diasporas)
--part1_79.d7bf031.27692417_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In response to John Stoner's point about the "other's" point of view as
important in our analysis of imperialism:
To what extent is the use of the term dependent upon the oppressor/victim
dichotomy? To what extent is imperialism independent of the oppressor/victim
label, so that one can "be an imperialist" in one's intent and/or actions,
but simply not be effective at the attempt? If one is an ineffective
"imperialist," how do we label the relationship between would be oppressor
and intended victim? Is it something else, if the imperialist does not have
"his" way?
Secondly, if the "victim" does not perceive victimization, or uses
"victimization" creatively and manages to divert the power of the "oppressor"
to its own ends, is this still imperialism?
I am still trying to rush through some of the texts recommended by
participants. Apologies if these questions are therefore too simple, and
already answered in theoretically shared readings.
Linda Dwyer
(unaffiliated anthropologist, China and its Diasporas)
--part1_79.d7bf031.27692417_boundary--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:41:00 -0700
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Quinton Priest
Subject: Re: fast food imperialism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robert writes,
....the political rapprochement and more recently the close economic
relations between
the U.S. and China meant that the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade
led to noisy demonstrations but no visible military aid by China to Serbia.
Good point. One of my students, since gone to Harvard, was in Peijing at the
time. He noted that all college classes were cancelled and students directed
into the anti-American demonstrations. When the Chinese government got the
appropriate concesssions from the U.S., the demonstrations were called off
and it was classes as usual. Much better than supplying the Serbs with
weapons.
Quinton Priest
University High School
Tucson, AZ
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:47:50 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: markham
Subject: Re: overstretched curriculums
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Participants,
I have used Dr. Rosenberg's recommendation "Anti-Imperialism in the United
States" (www.boondocksnet.com) in my class. Students can access it easily
and it is excellent. Given the references to Mark Twain, you may wish to
share the site with your English teachers. Students can see cartoons, poems,
even a petition to President Clinton from Filipinos asking for an official
apology. I have assigned this for homework with good results. It is a little
vast, so you might check it out first.
Barbara Markham
>Hi participants,
>
>We have a terrific exchange growing over the practicalities of teaching
>imperialism particularly in high schools or college classes where a high
>degree of specialization is not practical. Elizabeth and Dave have talked
>about the need to exchange ideas over how to move effectively through some of
>this material, realizing that there is much else to devote time to as well.
>
>There have been some excellent resources suggested by several contributors.
>Any more on this? Thanks to the many who have responded.
>
>It seems to me that, at any level we teach, introducing the ideas through a
>few primary (short) readings really is effective. The various syllabi sent
>by Mr Jandrowitz should be very helpful. In the email,mine came through in
>unreadable form, but if one goes to his websites, there are many links to
>documents that could be quite useful. I myself am a heavy user of the
>"American Anti-Imperialism" website maintained by Jim Zwick. (You can get to
>it through Jandrowitz's site or by any web search.) One could quickly select
>documents from this site that would help focus a class -- even (or
>especially) at a very basic survey level. If you haven't found this site,
>check it out!
>
>Emily
>
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:57:59 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: MurphyMo@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is also why so many in New England who were abolitionists were against
the Mexican War - more land for slavery. And a reason the U.S. stopped
trying to get Cuba as a territory (remember the Ostend Manifesto mess) the
northern states did not want another slave state in the Union.
Later of course, Cuba became an economic imperialistic prize.
But racism is something larger and more pervasive than imperialism. And what
do we call racism? The hate of people of different color or the hate of
differences in people. The Irish and Italians and Greeks were hated when
they first arrived. The Asians are not allowed to become naturalized
citizens. Today's Hispanics receive "new immigrant" feelings of resistance.
Anti-semitism and anti-Catholicism continue as well. Racial hatred against
Native Americans and African Americans is the deepest of the hates. But
there is a feeling or fear of whatever is different from the first white
Anglo-Saxon immigrants.
I think the Civil War continues through and after the Civil RIghts movement
finally accomplishes the beginning of making the Declaration of Independence
apply, by law, to all. In a democracy this is a continuous and ongoing
process but one that I feel is being made.
But racism is larger and frightening than imperialism and beyond, I'm afraid,
economic benefits.
Maureen Murphy
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:44:36 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Robert Shaffer
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I'm sorry to respond so late to this discussion of similarities
and differences between the Mexican War and later forms of imperialism
(final exams and grading do tend to take time), but I thought
list-participants would be interested in an exchange between Franklin
Roosevelt and a British official in 1945 which puts the Mexican War in a
broader context. It doesn't compare the Mexican War with the
Spanish-American War, but teachers and professors can use it to make a
variety of connections. The account is taken from Christopher Thorne,
_Allies of a Kind: The United States, Britain, and the War Against Japan,
1941-1945_ (Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 21, and is in the context
of American efforts to get the British to be more willing to return Hong
Kong to Chinese sovereignty at the end of World War II:
"'I do not want to be unkind or rude to the British,' observed
President Roosevelt to the British Colonial Secretary, Oliver Stanley, in
January 1945, 'but in 1841 [sic-CT], when you acquired Hong Kong, you did
not acquire it by purchase.' 'Let me see, Mr. President,' replied
Stanley, 'that was about the time of the Mexican War, wasn't it?'"
This statement, of course, can be presented in U.S. History
classes about the time of the Mexican War, to show how others viewed the
U.S. actions there, in World History classes discussing the Opium War and
British 19th century power and imperialism, to show that the U.S. was not
as "exceptional" as is sometimes claimed, or in U.S. History classes
discussing World War II, to demonstrate the tensions that the legacy of
Anglo-American imperialism had bequeathed to the Allies.
Let me also suggest that one parallel that might be explored with
students between the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars is the ancillary
territory acquired. The Mexican War begins over a border dispute between
Texas and Mexico, but the U.S. quickly asserts control over California,
far to the west, even subduing a more for independence there. The
Spanish-American War begins over Cuba, but the U.S. quickly asserts
control over the Philippines, half the world away. We discuss in my
classes the notion of "defensive expansionism" sometimes used to justify
these conquests, but the shadings between such "defensive" strategic
actions and imperialism can be subject to debate.
Teachers and professors should also be aware of a wonderful
article comparing the U.S. takeover of the Philippines with earlier
U.S. treatment of and conquest of American Indians, which places the
U.S. conquest of the Philippines squarely in the context of the long
tradition of American expansionism and racism: Walter Williams, "United
States Indian Policy and the Debate Over Philippine
Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American
Imperialism," _Journal of American History_ 66 (198), 810-831. The
article is too long and difficult for most high school students and takes
work even for college students (some of the students in my U.S. Foreign
Relations course got the point immediately, while others had real trouble
with it), but teachers can present parts of the analysis and some of the
quotations to students at any level, from middle school up. It is
definitely worth searching for this article.
-- Robert Shaffer
History Department
Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Emily Rosenberg wrote:
> Dear participants,
>
> Steve Conrad raised an issue that might be worth evaluating -- that is, how
> "different" or "similar" do teachers consider the Mexican War and the War of
> 1898. He is surely correct that the Mexican War enters history books as
> "manifest destiny" (even if the book is critical of the war, it generally
> treats the conflict as part of continental expansion and thus never labelled
> imperialism. The War of 1898 nearly always introduces students to the term
> "imperialism" and to the "imperial debate." Still, most of the participants
> here immediately assumed that the Mexican War fell under the subject of this
> discussion.
>
> Of course there ARE all kinds of differences but perhaps the similarities are
> striking: in both cases, there are certain economic interests who desire
> more territory;there are views of Anglo-Saxon superiority; there are efforts
> to create a more unified national identity to smooth over sectional conflict;
> there are efforts to "civilize" people through education, missionary work,
> and other cultural efforts; there is involvement by the military. Both take
> place in the context of European empire-building and was, by some, cast as
> defensive against such European encroachment.
>
> So why not label the Mexican War a "war for empire" as we do the one in 1898?
>
>
> Emily
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:03:30 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: David Hanson
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Good information, Prof. Shaffer. Thanks. I definitely plan to explore
this further when time permits.
Back to grading final exams.
Dave Hanson
Virginia Western, Roanoke VA
At 11:44 AM 12/14/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> I'm sorry to respond so late to this discussion of similarities
>and differences between the Mexican War and later forms of imperialism
>(final exams and grading do tend to take time), but I thought
>list-participants would be interested in an exchange between Franklin
>Roosevelt and a British official in 1945 which puts the Mexican War in a
>broader context. It doesn't compare the Mexican War with the
>Spanish-American War, but teachers and professors can use it to make a
>variety of connections. The account is taken from Christopher Thorne,
>_Allies of a Kind: The United States, Britain, and the War Against Japan,
>1941-1945_ (Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 21, and is in the context
>of American efforts to get the British to be more willing to return Hong
>Kong to Chinese sovereignty at the end of World War II:
> "'I do not want to be unkind or rude to the British,' observed
>President Roosevelt to the British Colonial Secretary, Oliver Stanley, in
>January 1945, 'but in 1841 [sic-CT], when you acquired Hong Kong, you did
>not acquire it by purchase.' 'Let me see, Mr. President,' replied
>Stanley, 'that was about the time of the Mexican War, wasn't it?'"
> This statement, of course, can be presented in U.S. History
>classes about the time of the Mexican War, to show how others viewed the
>U.S. actions there, in World History classes discussing the Opium War and
>British 19th century power and imperialism, to show that the U.S. was not
>as "exceptional" as is sometimes claimed, or in U.S. History classes
>discussing World War II, to demonstrate the tensions that the legacy of
>Anglo-American imperialism had bequeathed to the Allies.
> Let me also suggest that one parallel that might be explored with
>students between the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars is the ancillary
>territory acquired. The Mexican War begins over a border dispute between
>Texas and Mexico, but the U.S. quickly asserts control over California,
>far to the west, even subduing a more for independence there. The
>Spanish-American War begins over Cuba, but the U.S. quickly asserts
>control over the Philippines, half the world away. We discuss in my
>classes the notion of "defensive expansionism" sometimes used to justify
>these conquests, but the shadings between such "defensive" strategic
>actions and imperialism can be subject to debate.
> Teachers and professors should also be aware of a wonderful
>article comparing the U.S. takeover of the Philippines with earlier
>U.S. treatment of and conquest of American Indians, which places the
>U.S. conquest of the Philippines squarely in the context of the long
>tradition of American expansionism and racism: Walter Williams, "United
>States Indian Policy and the Debate Over Philippine
>Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American
>Imperialism," _Journal of American History_ 66 (198), 810-831. The
>article is too long and difficult for most high school students and takes
>work even for college students (some of the students in my U.S. Foreign
>Relations course got the point immediately, while others had real trouble
>with it), but teachers can present parts of the analysis and some of the
>quotations to students at any level, from middle school up. It is
>definitely worth searching for this article.
>
>-- Robert Shaffer
>History Department
>Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
>
>On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Emily Rosenberg wrote:
>
>> Dear participants,
>>
>> Steve Conrad raised an issue that might be worth evaluating -- that is, how
>> "different" or "similar" do teachers consider the Mexican War and the
War of
>> 1898. He is surely correct that the Mexican War enters history books as
>> "manifest destiny" (even if the book is critical of the war, it generally
>> treats the conflict as part of continental expansion and thus never
labelled
>> imperialism. The War of 1898 nearly always introduces students to the term
>> "imperialism" and to the "imperial debate." Still, most of the
participants
>> here immediately assumed that the Mexican War fell under the subject of
this
>> discussion.
>>
>> Of course there ARE all kinds of differences but perhaps the
similarities are
>> striking: in both cases, there are certain economic interests who desire
>> more territory;there are views of Anglo-Saxon superiority; there are
efforts
>> to create a more unified national identity to smooth over sectional
conflict;
>> there are efforts to "civilize" people through education, missionary work,
>> and other cultural efforts; there is involvement by the military. Both
take
>> place in the context of European empire-building and was, by some, cast as
>> defensive against such European encroachment.
>>
>> So why not label the Mexican War a "war for empire" as we do the one in
1898?
>>
>>
>> Emily
>>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:52:56 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Jared Johnston
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
please take me off the list serve
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism"
> Dave,
>
> I compared the Mexican American War to the Vietnam War as this was not a
> popular war with everyone in the USA. I show how Henry David Thoreau did
not
> pay his taxes to protest it and write Civil Disobedience that later
> influences men like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Abraham
> Lincoln spoke out against it and indeed Emerson said it was going to come
> back and curse the US which it did when the slave-free status of these
> territories hit the fan.
>
> We discuss how the fight was provoked by Polk ordering troops in the
disputed
> territory which to Mexico was an act of war.
>
> However, I do think the students react less to this than 1898 because
these
> territories became states which they have visited, relatives live in and
our
> "ours".
> And the fight is over. Cuba and the Philippines represent things that
> continue in the 20th century.
>
> I don't think McDonalds are forced on anyone and I do think there is now
more
> a global trading community. We eat candy from Europe, drink coffee from
> Africa and who hasn't noticed the abundance of clothing and toys from all
> over the world? Many joint ventures, some sweat shops, some locally
owned,
> many American or European owned.
>
> Maureen Murphy
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:21:51 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: "Benjamin L.Jessup"
Subject: McDonalds as peacemaker
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Forgive if I missed a previous mention of this. There is at least
one example of a McDonald's finding itself in a war zone. In 1999 When NATO
forces all 16 with McDonald's I presume attacked Serbia/ Yugoslavia.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:33:22 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Defining Imperialism--National Identity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Participants,
>
> I have just read the wonderful posting by Jim Zwick and am pleased that he
> has surfaced in person! Thanks, Jim for the great teaching materials you
> have provided the country.
>
> He raises the question of imperialism in its relation to national identity.
> When I teach the imperial debate of the turn of the century, I teach it as
a
> debate over national identity. Who gets to say what constitutes the
meaning
> of "America" and how do different groups try to enhance their own cultural
> capital in this regard? I think this issue provides a way for students to
> approach the primarydocuments that Zwick and others have made easily
> available to us. The question also provides a way of beginning to think
> about the encounters Americans then had with those who lived in the various
> colonies and possessions.
>
> Regards,
> Emily
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:29:51 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism" -- more issues
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear participants,
We have had some great suggestions -- both conceptual and in terms of
materials to use -- on this issue. One thing that comes out clearly is that
many of you feel that students accept "manifest destiny" as almost "natural"
because the territory ended up within the United States, whereas
turn-of-the-century "imperialism" involved territory that mostly did not
become incorporated into the nation on equal terms (as the Insular Cases
allowed). Of course, Hawaii is a major exception here.
This re-raises a question posed in my initial message. Why did the US not
incorporate more territory after it became a dominant world power? (Mexico,
after all, was even contiguous -- and there was a major move to overpower
Mexico in l9l9, led by the oil companies.) And why did the US withdraw from
those protectorates or financial receiverships (in Cuba, Panama, Dominican
Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia) that it had? Do many of you have
the time to address such questions? What reading/teaching materials that you
use address these issues?
Regards,
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:41:55 -0600
Reply-To: kdb05f@mizzou.edu
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Kevin Butler
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism" -- more issues
In-Reply-To: <97.e8bcd0d.276aa3df@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Emily Rosenberg wrote:
> Dear participants,
>
> We have had some great suggestions -- both conceptual and in terms of
> materials to use -- on this issue. One thing that comes out clearly is that
> many of you feel that students accept "manifest destiny" as almost "natural"
> because the territory ended up within the United States, whereas
> turn-of-the-century "imperialism" involved territory that mostly did not
> become incorporated into the nation on equal terms (as the Insular Cases
> allowed). Of course, Hawaii is a major exception here.
>
> This re-raises a question posed in my initial message. Why did the US not
> incorporate more territory after it became a dominant world power? (Mexico,
> after all, was even contiguous -- and there was a major move to overpower
> Mexico in l9l9, led by the oil companies.) And why did the US withdraw from
> those protectorates or financial receiverships (in Cuba, Panama, Dominican
> Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia) that it had? Do many of you have
> the time to address such questions? What reading/teaching materials that you
> use address these issues?
>
> Regards,
> Emily
>
Related to this question perhaps, is why, when Civil War destroyed Liberia
and it basically ceased to function as a nation in the 1990s the United
States did not intervene in some way? If the U.S. can legitimately claim
to have a historical basis for a "special relationship" with any country
or a historical interest in it's well being, Liberia would seem to be it,
yet at a time when the United States was directly involved in several
international conflicts Re: Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Somalia, etc..., it took
no actions at all in Liberia.
Kevin Butler
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:48:26 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Re: McDonalds as peacemaker -- and onto broader topics
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Yes, the Serbia example a number of you jumped on. What about the
Argentine/British contest over the Malvinas? But this theory has had far too
much attention -- I loved Mr Priest's contribution of the "Mac Index" related
to currencies. I had missed that but will make use of it in class.
Perhaps we can again repose the more serious question: The term "cultural
imperialism" dates from the 1970s and was adopted by those associated with
calls for a "new information order" and a "new economic order" -- that is,
those who denounced the consequences of capitalism as breeding inequality.
Since then, however, the very idea of "cultural imperialism" has come under
attack both by the celebrants of globalism, and also by those around the
world who notice the grassroots popularity of American culture and its
ability to hybridize with local traditions. Thanks for Professor Stoner and
others for contributions on this. I personally do not think "cultural
imperialism is a particularly useful term. Reactions?
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:20:52 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: David Hanson
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism" -- more issues
In-Reply-To: <97.e8bcd0d.276aa3df@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cynics might have another explanation, but I'd like to think that good
sense and high principles made it politically untenable to exercise the
imperialist impulse in the old fashioned, land-grabbing way once we entered
the twentieth century. But then, I'm often accused of being to trusting.
Perhaps the nation's leaders just got smarter and found more subtle ways to
accomplish their overseas objectives.
Dave
At 05:29 PM 12/14/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear participants,
>
>We have had some great suggestions -- both conceptual and in terms of
>materials to use -- on this issue. One thing that comes out clearly is that
>many of you feel that students accept "manifest destiny" as almost "natural"
>because the territory ended up within the United States, whereas
>turn-of-the-century "imperialism" involved territory that mostly did not
>become incorporated into the nation on equal terms (as the Insular Cases
>allowed). Of course, Hawaii is a major exception here.
>
>This re-raises a question posed in my initial message. Why did the US not
>incorporate more territory after it became a dominant world power? (Mexico,
>after all, was even contiguous -- and there was a major move to overpower
>Mexico in l9l9, led by the oil companies.) And why did the US withdraw from
>those protectorates or financial receiverships (in Cuba, Panama, Dominican
>Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia) that it had? Do many of you have
>the time to address such questions? What reading/teaching materials that you
>use address these issues?
>
>Regards,
>Emily
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:50:05 -0800
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Austin Manghan
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism" -- more issues
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dave,
Would you say the the U.S. Supreme Court is smarter,
more subtle, or none of the above?
austin
--- David Hanson wrote:
> Cynics might have another explanation, but I'd like
> to think that good
> sense and high principles made it politically
> untenable to exercise the
> imperialist impulse in the old fashioned,
> land-grabbing way once we entered
> the twentieth century. But then, I'm often accused
> of being to trusting.
> Perhaps the nation's leaders just got smarter and
> found more subtle ways to
> accomplish their overseas objectives.
>
> Dave
>
> At 05:29 PM 12/14/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dear participants,
> >
> >We have had some great suggestions -- both
> conceptual and in terms of
> >materials to use -- on this issue. One thing that
> comes out clearly is that
> >many of you feel that students accept "manifest
> destiny" as almost "natural"
> >because the territory ended up within the United
> States, whereas
> >turn-of-the-century "imperialism" involved
> territory that mostly did not
> >become incorporated into the nation on equal terms
> (as the Insular Cases
> >allowed). Of course, Hawaii is a major exception
> here.
> >
> >This re-raises a question posed in my initial
> message. Why did the US not
> >incorporate more territory after it became a
> dominant world power? (Mexico,
> >after all, was even contiguous -- and there was a
> major move to overpower
> >Mexico in l9l9, led by the oil companies.) And why
> did the US withdraw from
> >those protectorates or financial receiverships (in
> Cuba, Panama, Dominican
> >Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia) that it
> had? Do many of you have
> >the time to address such questions? What
> reading/teaching materials that you
> >use address these issues?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Emily
> >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:00:53 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: David Hanson
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism" -- more issues
In-Reply-To: <20001215005005.25168.qmail@web3303.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
None of the above. I'm an optimist, but not a naive fool.
(That doesn't mean I'm ready to read "imperialism" into every
American-based international business venture or foreign policy move, either.)
Dave
At 04:50 PM 12/14/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>Dave,
>
>Would you say the the U.S. Supreme Court is smarter,
>more subtle, or none of the above?
>
>austin
>
>
>--- David Hanson wrote:
>> Cynics might have another explanation, but I'd like
>> to think that good
>> sense and high principles made it politically
>> untenable to exercise the
>> imperialist impulse in the old fashioned,
>> land-grabbing way once we entered
>> the twentieth century. But then, I'm often accused
>> of being to trusting.
>> Perhaps the nation's leaders just got smarter and
>> found more subtle ways to
>> accomplish their overseas objectives.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> At 05:29 PM 12/14/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>> >Dear participants,
>> >
>> >We have had some great suggestions -- both
>> conceptual and in terms of
>> >materials to use -- on this issue. One thing that
>> comes out clearly is that
>> >many of you feel that students accept "manifest
>> destiny" as almost "natural"
>> >because the territory ended up within the United
>> States, whereas
>> >turn-of-the-century "imperialism" involved
>> territory that mostly did not
>> >become incorporated into the nation on equal terms
>> (as the Insular Cases
>> >allowed). Of course, Hawaii is a major exception
>> here.
>> >
>> >This re-raises a question posed in my initial
>> message. Why did the US not
>> >incorporate more territory after it became a
>> dominant world power? (Mexico,
>> >after all, was even contiguous -- and there was a
>> major move to overpower
>> >Mexico in l9l9, led by the oil companies.) And why
>> did the US withdraw from
>> >those protectorates or financial receiverships (in
>> Cuba, Panama, Dominican
>> >Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia) that it
>> had? Do many of you have
>> >the time to address such questions? What
>> reading/teaching materials that you
>> >use address these issues?
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Emily
>> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
>http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:35:27 -0600
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Elizabeth Oglesby
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism" -- more issues
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>And why did the US withdraw from
>those protectorates or financial receiverships (in Cuba, Panama, Dominican
>Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Liberia) that it had?
I think an important element was social unrest and resistance to US
imperial policy. During the crisis of the 1930s a number of reform
movements took shape in Central America and the Caribbean, and this raised
the cost of direct US military involvement. For instance, after the Cuban
revolution of 1933, the US abrogated the Platt amendment (which had allowed
the United States to intervene in Cuba's internal affairs even after the
country became independent in 1902) and Roosevelt initiated the "Good
Neighbor" policy toward Latin America. The Liberal revolt in Nicaragua in
the early 1930s created also created pressure to repatriate the marines. US
policy moved to support for local dictators as the costs of direct rule
rose.
Elizabeth Oglesby (oglesby@guate.net)
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:52:47 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Linda Dwyer
Subject: Re: "manifest destiny" vs "imperialism" -- more issues
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_65.d550725.276b7c2f_boundary"
--part1_65.d550725.276b7c2f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It is my understanding that in the early twentieth century, the US became
concerned about the wave of immigration with which it was dealing. One
aspect of that wave was migrants from its colony in the Philippines. At
first, the U.S. sought to exclude Chinese and Japanese, but employers on the
Pacific Coast especially needed cheap labor and therefore encouraged
migration from other Pacific countries. Once in the US, this "different"
workforce became involved in the competition for labor, and at the same time
alarmed others through their differing cultural practices, again causing a
backlash. It is my understanding, that this was one of the primary reasons
that the US sought to provide "independence" to the Philippines. In doing
so, these "nationals" would be more easily excluded from immigration and
participation in the US economy. As today, in the use of illegal migrant
labor, there is conflict between those like labor organizations who wish to
exclude illegal migrants (and governments that wish to avoid paying for their
education and health support) and the business community that benefits from
cheap labor.
One good resource in understanding the Asian immigrant experience as a result
of the forces shaping policy (which is tied to both ambition abroad and
protectionism at home) is Bill Ong Hing's (1993) _Making and Remaking Asian
America Through Immigration Policy, 1850-1990_. Stanford: Stanford University
Press. Unfortunately, this is not a text on imperialism and therefore, it
will be necessary to cull relevant sections in order to deal with student
reading load. The book is extremely well organized, easy to read, and has
little jargon.
Linda Dwyer,
unaffiliated anthropologist, (China and its diasporas)
--part1_65.d550725.276b7c2f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It is my understanding that in the early twentieth century, the US became
concerned about the wave of immigration with which it was dealing. One
aspect of that wave was migrants from its colony in the Philippines. At
first, the U.S. sought to exclude Chinese and Japanese, but employers on the
Pacific Coast especially needed cheap labor and therefore encouraged
migration from other Pacific countries. Once in the US, this "different"
workforce became involved in the competition for labor, and at the same time
alarmed others through their differing cultural practices, again causing a
backlash. It is my understanding, that this was one of the primary reasons
that the US sought to provide "independence" to the Philippines. In doing
so, these "nationals" would be more easily excluded from immigration and
participation in the US economy. As today, in the use !
of illegal migrant
labor, there is conflict between those like labor organizations who wish to
exclude illegal migrants (and governments that wish to avoid paying for their
education and health support) and the business community that benefits from
cheap labor.
One good resource in understanding the Asian immigrant experience as a result
of the forces shaping policy (which is tied to both ambition abroad and
protectionism at home) is Bill Ong Hing's (1993) _Making and Remaking Asian
America Through Immigration Policy, 1850-1990_. Stanford: Stanford University
Press. Unfortunately, this is not a text on imperialism and therefore, it
will be necessary to cull relevant sections in order to deal with student
reading load. The book is extremely well organized, easy to read, and has
little jargon.
Linda Dwyer,
unaffiliated anthropologist, (China and its diasporas)
--part1_65.d550725.276b7c2f_boundary--
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:57:37 EST
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Emily Rosenberg
Subject: Liberia
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Participants,
I'm pleased to see Mr. Butler highlight the issue of America's "special
relationship" historically with Liberia and to raise very good questions
about why, in recent policy in Africa, the U.S. stood somewhat aside while
the country and its people were ravaged in civil war.
I wonder if a call to intervene in Liberia because of our special
relationship would have made sense to the American public generally. Does
anyone these days know about this special relationship? To what extent does
this enter into textbooks or teaching? Liberia, of course, was founded by
African-Americans, who layered their own minority government on top of a much
larger native population and retained control until very recently. Their
control was cemented by a US financial protectorate, established under Taft,
that then mutated into a financial protectorate controlled by Firestone
Rubber in the l920s. But this Liberian protectorate is seldom mentioned
along with other instances of US control directed at the Caribbean and the
Pacific. I wonder if even US policymakers understand much of this.
Regards,
Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:46:16 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: John Stoner
Organization: Skidmore College
Subject: Re: Liberia
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi again everyone.
A few things about Liberia which perhaps throw into sharper relief the degree to
which the U.S.-relationship with Liberia was "special." The U.S. government
provided some basic assistance (mostly protective) for initial forays into West
Africa, but little else. In addition, racist attitudes within the U.S.
government meant that as soon as Liberia became a sovereign state, the U.S. did
not recognize it until decades later (this happened with Haiti as well). This
seems to be because Washington was not ready to have black diplomats and heads of
state negotating as equals.
As for the twentieth century, Firestone's relationship with Liberia has been a
strange mix of exploitation and corporate welfare. While paying extremely low
wages, Firestone provided access for its workers and their families to schools,
clinics, and other things unheard of within the region at the time certainly.
You could of course argue that clinics keep workers healthy so they can work
more, something with which I agree. The company claimed the public relations
benefit of providing unparalleled services while certainly undermining the
workers' abilities to accumulate and tying them to the workplace.
John Stoner
Emily Rosenberg wrote:
> Dear Participants,
>
> I'm pleased to see Mr. Butler highlight the issue of America's "special
> relationship" historically with Liberia and to raise very good questions
> about why, in recent policy in Africa, the U.S. stood somewhat aside while
> the country and its people were ravaged in civil war.
>
> I wonder if a call to intervene in Liberia because of our special
> relationship would have made sense to the American public generally. Does
> anyone these days know about this special relationship? To what extent does
> this enter into textbooks or teaching? Liberia, of course, was founded by
> African-Americans, who layered their own minority government on top of a much
> larger native population and retained control until very recently. Their
> control was cemented by a US financial protectorate, established under Taft,
> that then mutated into a financial protectorate controlled by Firestone
> Rubber in the l920s. But this Liberian protectorate is seldom mentioned
> along with other instances of US control directed at the Caribbean and the
> Pacific. I wonder if even US policymakers understand much of this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Emily
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:51:06 -0600
Reply-To: kdb05f@mizzou.edu
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: Kevin Butler
Subject: Re: Liberia
In-Reply-To: <3A3A3CC8.756635F4@skidmore.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, John Stoner wrote:
> Hi again everyone.
>
> A few things about Liberia which perhaps throw into sharper relief the degree to
> which the U.S.-relationship with Liberia was "special." The U.S. government
> provided some basic assistance (mostly protective) for initial forays into West
> Africa, but little else. In addition, racist attitudes within the U.S.
> government meant that as soon as Liberia became a sovereign state, the U.S. did
> not recognize it until decades later (this happened with Haiti as well). This
> seems to be because Washington was not ready to have black diplomats and heads of
> state negotating as equals.
I believe several things make Liberia an important issue to discuss.
That it was established specifically to resettle African Americans in West
Africa and then colonized with African Americans under the auspices of the
American Colonization Society. Liberia was created by the United States
and sustained through American protection. Given the importance of the
colonization issue and back to Africa movements in African American
history one would think Liberia would be fairly well known. Recently I was
somewhat shocked when I saw a professor in a collegiate survey level
African American history course ask the students who had heard of Liberia.
Of appx. 80 students, only one had even heard of Liberia. Consequently,
per Emily's question, I think the American public would have been totally
perplexed by a call to intervene in Liberia based on the historical
connection that binds the two countries.
Re John Stoner's comment about US recognition of Haiti and Liberia, wasn't
this immediately after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?
Kevin Butler
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:05:28 -0500
Reply-To: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
Sender: "Forum on Teaching U.S. Imperialism"
From: DKramer/ CGomez