Historical Image of the Day

And to close out this series, let's move from cartoons to reality. Mass grave of dead Filipino freedom fighters after the Battle of Mount Dajo, March 9, 1906

Historical Image of the Day

New York Evening Journal editorial cartoon ripping the military's shoot to kill orders for all potential insurgents if they were male and over 10 years old, May 5, 1902

Historical Image of the Day

"The Forbidden Book," The Chicago Chronicle, January 27, 1900

McKinley stands on the locked book entitled, True Story of the War in the Philippines, barring the United States from knowing what was actually  happening there.

Historical Image of the Day

"Well, I Hardly Know Which to Take First," 1898

I really like how the cartoon gives "Porto Rico" legs to make it look like a pig.

Historical Image of the Day

US getting tangled around an Imperialism tree while trying to tame the bucking bronco that is the Philippines while Spain walks off quietly, 1899

Historical Image of the Day

This week's images will consist of anti-imperialist cartoons produced during the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars.

Anti-imperialist cartoon showing President William McKinley thinking about American expansion while ignoring racial violence at home. Literary Digest, November 26, 1898

Historical Image of the Day

Pro-imperialism cartoon, 1898

Climate Change as Imperialism

So it seems Osama Bin Laden released a statement blaming the U.S. for climate change and talking about fighting climate change as an anti-colonial action.

Obviously, we can't take Bin Laden seriously on something like this. Certainly Juan Cole doesn't and lists 10 reasons why Al Qaeda has been bad for the climate, including causing the war which has created enormous emissions.

But let's at least pretend Bin Laden has a leg to stand on. Can we see climate change as another episode of western imperialism against the developing world?

Absolutely.

And it's actually a fairly simple case. Western nations pump out tremendous amounts of carbon emissions. They exploit nations such as Nigeria, Indonesia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and others to get their fossil fuels. Then sea levels rise and destroy Tonga and Vanuatu, while also erasing much of Bangladesh. Increased drought and desertification make places like Mali and Niger increasingly difficult places to live. Refugees are forced into ever more crowded nations and poverty increases.

The more interesting question whether a global movement can develop that uses climate change as a central organizing issue. It's certainly hard to say. The period of anti-colonial nationalism has largely passed, with old colonial leaders and their descendants making bank off global capitalism. The erasure of western rule or direct domination has made it more difficult for leaders to deflect attention away from their own problems onto the United States or Great Britain. Since the leaders of China, India, and most other developing world nations are trying to increase carbon emissions as fast as possible, an anti-climate change movement will focus on national problems first before going international.

This makes any real organized anti-colonialist movement based around western caused climate change very unlikely.

Historical Image of the Day

By the last years of the 19th century, anti-Asian propaganda shifted gears to new threats. During and after the Spanish and then Philippine-American War of 1898-1902, there was a great deal of debate whether to take on colonies. Much of the anti-imperialist side relied on white supremacy to make their case, fearing the infection of tropical peoples into the white man's nation.

Here is a prime example, with the savage Filipino attacking Congress who is presenting them with civilization. Probably from 1898, but I don't have an exact date.

Historical Image of the Day

American soldiers searching man during American occupation of Veracruz, Mexico, 1914.

Is Brazil the Next Major "Imperialist" Power in South America?

A few weeks back, Upside Down World published an interesting report asking if Brazil is "creating its own 'backyard' in Latin America?" The article looked at Brazil's rapidly expanding foreign investments in recent years (from $250 million dollars US in 2003 to $10 billion dollars US in 2004 alone) and some recent points of contention (with Ecuador and Paraguay, particularly), and asks if Brazil is on its way to becoming an imperialist force in the region. It chronicles the various investments Brazil has made recently, from cattle farms in Uruguay to private companies' involvement in Ecuador to the Itaipu dam agreement with Paraguay to suggest Brazil may be trying to become a hegemonic power in Latin America.

I find the charge of "Brazilian imperialism" interesting but wrong-headed. I suppose from the strictest economic standpoint, Brazil's growth may look somewhat like imperialism, particularly to the political left of the region. I have a hard time buying into this right now, though, simply because countries can only grow their investments internally so much before they have to invest elsewhere. Brazil has invested wisely, and is succeeding for this. Accusing Brazil of becoming "imperialist" simply because it has succeeded in what all of the countries of South America have been trying to do to one degree or another for quite some time makes about as much sense to me as accusing a successful local coffee shop of becoming "corporate" when it expands and has multiple locations in an area.

What is more, I think the "imperialist" charge loses any legitimacy when it comes to dealing with the term from a geopolitical standpoint (because it's not just about economics). Indeed, I would even suggest that having Brazil become such a major global force is probably a net gain for South America as a whole. For too long, Latin America (including Brazil) hasn't really had a powerful geopolitical or economic voice that was willing to stand up for its interests in the global market. Now that Brazil is gaining that power, and has similar past experiences with its neighbors in the global economy, Brazil is definitely in the position to defend the region as a whole, and to use its power to sway American and European powers. I admit that Brazil could disregard its neighbors demands on issues such as equality and fair treatment in the way that the United States and Europe has traditionally disregarded anything that didn't line their own pockets and the pockets of their allies.

However, this just doesn't seem likely to me. First, these are Brazil's neighbors, and not just foreign countries, and it would really hurt Brazil's standing in the region. Secondly (and deriving from the first point) Brazil's global standing in the economy, while growing exponentially, is still relatively new and fragile, and Brazil can't afford to isolate entire neighboring countries where it has invested so heavily. Unlike China, the U.S., or major European countries (at least before the global meltdown), Brazil could not just cut its losses in one part of the world and focus elsewhere without major repercussions in its own economy. Thus, I think it is fair to say that, at least thus far, Brazil in the 2000s has been rather sympathetic to the interests of its neighbors, even while it tries to defend its own economic interests. There was evidence of this "sympathy-factor" when Evo Morales nationalized petroleum production, including holdings by Brazil's Petrobras, back in 2007. Lula calmly responded to the nationalization and took Morales on his word to "re-work" the deal, ultimately still getting a good deal on gas coming from Bolivia, but with terms more favorable to Bolivia than they previously had been, as well. The Paraguay case makes things look bad, but the Itaipu issue has been a contentious one that has been bubbling for years. It may still work to Paraguay's disadvantage, which would be disappointing and unfortunate. Brazil has a lot invested in that dam in terms of economy and infrastructure, and it very well may end up being shortsighted in its efforts to get the best deal possible for Brazil, while angering Paraguay and perhaps offending neighboring countries. But the operative word here is "may" - things still aren't resolved, and there's not a lot of concrete evidence that lets us conclude already that the Itaipu discussions are going to go well or poorly. And even if things do work out in a way in which Brazil comes off as an economic bully on this issue, I still don't think the dam and the recent issues between Ecuador and Brazil (which were since resolved) are enough to really point towards an emerging but latent imperialism on Brazil's part, at least not right now. I could be wrong on this down the road - presidents do funny things for strange reasons sometimes - but for the foreseeable future, at any rate, I really don't see Brazil joining the "traditional exploiters" in its treatment of the other South American countries anytime in the near future.

From Colony to Superpower, Part VIII

This is the seventh installment in the 20 part series Rob Farley and I have commenced to review George Herring's From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. See the Herring Review tag below for previous entries. Forgive the late post this week. I was in Boston until Monday evening and literally within an hour of getting back was hit by a 24 hour flu. Good times.

Rob's entry for the week is here.

This week covers the period from 1893-1901, arguably the most transitional period in the history of American foreign relations. It was during these years that the United States went to war with Spain to become a colonial power, subjugated a colonial rebellion in the Philippines that resulted from our occupation, annexed Hawaii, intervened in the Boxer Rebellion, and issued the two Open Door notes.

The consequences of this period cannot be overstated. The Platt Amendment turned Cuba into a quasi-colony, the previous Teller Amendment probably the only reason that the island did not actually become an official colony. Turning Cuba into a client state with no democratic accountability helped lead to the communist revolution that marched into Havana 50 years ago tomorrow. The Philippines rebellion showed the worst of the US--in fact, it seems to me that Herring underplays the issue. While he claims that atrocities were not ordered or condoned, that's like saying that the horrible things that have happened in Iraq were not ordered or condoned. In a technical sense that may be true, but in both cases it obscures the responsibility for atrocities that should be placed upon people in power.

The Open Door notes began the U.S. involvement in East Asia. I have always found this episode amusing because of the absurdity of calling for Europe and Japan to open their trading zones to U.S. trade. Had the U.S. gotten involved in the imperialism game a little earlier and had acquired a Chinese concession, I doubt we would have embraced the Open Door with such gusto. I have somewhat derisively refered to this idea as "Equal Imperialism for All." Of course, the Open Door is an example of the strong trade orientation of U.S. foreign policy throughout its history.

Rob wonders about the impact of the Spanish-American War on reconcilation between the North and South. He's right that very few military officers from 1865 were fighting in 1898, but the reconciliation was much broader than just issues between individual officers. The entire 1890s (and really going back into the mid 1880s) was a period where the North and South were reconciling, agreeing that the South was right about race relations, even if slavery was wrong and needed to end. This phenomenon affected many parts of American life, from reunions at the battlefields to battlefield monuments to the rise of Jim Crow. Within the military, the Spanish-American War created the first major conflict where North and South could fight together against a common enemy. The Indian Wars that Rob mentions simply weren't large enough to provide that kind of reconciliation. And while I know little about the makeup of the military of the 1870s and 80s, what I do know suggests that the leading military officers in the West had experience fighting for the Union. I can't think of one Confederate officer who was also an officer in the post-war Indian battles, though again, there may be exceptions that I don't know about.

Related to the culture of American expansion was the crisis of masculinity in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. Herring mentions this as he sets the mood of the time, but it was quite important in understanding the period. For many upper class men, war the ideal experience to reclaim an Anglo-Saxon masculinity under threat from a variety of factors, including living in enervating cities, the closing of the frontier, the increased presence of women in the public sphere, the rise of bureaucracy in corporations, the decrease of wildlife populations, and the flood of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe pouring into the country. All of these things made many men feel that traditional American manhood was under threat. The response to this crisis influenced a series of actions that led to national parks, game laws, and the Boy Scouts. Getting out to nature was a good way to build manhood, but nothing could replicate the experience of war. This goes a long ways to explain why wealthy Americans such as Theodore Roosevelt leapt at the opportunity to join up to fight in Cuba. The Rough Riders and other outfits were full of wealthy volunteers looking to have fun killing and build the proper masculinity that would lead Anglo-Saxon culture in the future. And although some of these men died (including the grandson of Hamilton Fish, Grant's Secretary of State), the war was too short to end this fantasy. It would take World War I and the deaths of the British and German elite young men to do so.

A lot of interesting issues in this chapter, but I'll stop for now.

Historical Image of the Day

Cuban flag hosted over Morro Castle, marking official end of U.S. occupation, May 20, 1902.

However, the Americans would continue to essentially occupy Cuba until 1934 and would control the nation through puppet governments until December 31, 1958 with brief exceptions during the Grau presidencies.

And you thought it would be a Christmas image today. Ha! I refuse to cave to Christmas hegemony!

Historical Image of the Day

"Troubles which May Follow an Imperialist Policy," Anti-imperialist cartoon portraying Filipinos as savages that could undermine the United States if we took the islands as a colony, 1898

Historical Image of the Day

"Another American Aviation Achievement." Cartoon from the Louisville Courier-Journal, July 21, 1927.

The cartoon depicts the Battle of Ocotal, where US invading forces killed more than 300 Nicaraguans in what was the first example of an air attack directed from the ground.

Slum Tourism

I've railed before against slum tourism, but I guess it's time to do it again.

The best part about this article about slum tourism around the world is the question the Times asks its readers, "Is taking a tour of a slum or other poverty-stricken area voyeurism or tourism? Um, both. Isn't tourism inherently voyeurism, at least when in the developing world? That's not a general slam on tourism, just a seemingly obvious statement.

But very little good comes out of this slum tourism. At the very best, local people will sell tourists a few trinkets. OK, whatever. But most people going on these tours are going to observe poverty on a superficial level. They might go back and tell their friends about it but they aren't really going to do anything. The article argues that poverty isn't going away if we don't talk about it. That's true but exploiting that poverty for profit isn't going to make it go away either. It's really pretty disgusting.

The article ends with this:

Mr. Fennell, the professor of tourism in Ontario, wonders whether the relatively minuscule tourist revenue can make a difference. “If you’re so concerned about helping these people, then write a check,” he said.

Yep. Your first-world banking account has much more potential to help people than buying a trinket from a hawker. If you want to fight poverty, awesome. But this exploitative slum tours are a new low in the dark history of tourism.

Erik's Random 10

Ah, John Philip Sousa. No musician has made a bigger contribution to historical American wingnuttery than Sousa (sorry Ted Nugent). I can't speak much about "The Marquette University March." I imagine it's just a fight song he got paid for. But Sousa's music was designed to stir the worst passions of Americans. The head of the Marine Band from 1880 to 1892, Sousa's music inspired Theodore Roosevelt and other American imperialists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Sousa actually volunteered to come out of retirement during the Spanish-American War to serve as a bandmaster but couldn't due to illness. He did however manage to rejoin the military during World War I, at the age of 63, to lead the Navy Band at the Great Lakes Naval Station in Chicago.

Sousa's music is pretty over the top and the politics behind it quite reprehensible. Nonetheless, I manage to find it amusing at this point and I don't really flip to something else when it comes up on my random listenings. Maybe because it's three minutes of amusement rather than 60 minutes of annoyance.

1. John Philip Sousa, The Marquette University March (Detroit Concert Band, Leonard B. Smith, conductor)
2. Eels, Checkout Blues
3. Alejandro Escovedo String Quartet, Everybody Loves Me
4. Richard Thompson, The Way That It Shows
5. Ashley Hutchings, Epilogue--Died for Love
6. Ora Alexander, Sweetest Daddy in Town
7. Earl Hines and Jimmy Rushing, Changing the Blues
8. Sonny Rollins, Get Happy (Short Version)
9. Fiddlin' John Carson, In My Old Cabin Home
10. Conway Twitty, It's Only Make Believe

Historical Image of the Day

Emilio Aguinaldo

Historical Image of the Day

1898 editorial cartoon on what William McKinley should do with the Philippines. Notice the lovely depiction of the Filipino people

Tuesday Forgotten American Bastard Blogging: Philander C. Knox

Based on a comment from my friend Yann concerning my overrating of William Howard Taft in my President's Day list, I present you with the case of Philander C. Knox, Taft's Secretary of State and pusher of American imperialism in Latin America.

Most of Knox's life is not particularly interesting to me. Born in 1853 near Pittsburgh, Knox graduated from Mount Union College and went into the law. He went to work for Pittsburgh steel magnate and Robber Baron, Andrew Carnegie. He helped Carnegie form U.S. Steel in 1901. From there, he went into the government when William McKinley named him Attorney General. This appointment shows how beholden the Republican Party was to large corporations at the end of the Gilded Age and was a pick guaranteed to continue the dominance of big business in American life. Knox remained as Attorney General after McKinley's assassination. Many people cite trust busting as a sign of how progressive Theodore Roosevelt was, but in reality TR went after only a few corporations and his continued support of Knox as Attorney General shows how pro-business he was. He left the Roosevelt administration in 1904 to fill a Pennsylvania Senate seat vacated by a death.

Knox wanted to replace Roosevelt as President, an absurd proposition given that the popular president had thrown his influence behind William Howard Taft. Knox lost the 1908 Republican nomination but was named Secretary of State by Taft, serving throughout his administration.

It is here that Knox's bastardy really comes into play. Knox had one major goal as Secretary of State--to promote US business interests abroad at all costs. He was a big proponent of Dollar Diplomacy, originated by Roosevelt and pushed by Taft, which proposed that the United States could step into a Latin American nation to recover debts when that country proved unable to repay them. More generally, the influence of American banks in strategic parts of the world would ensure US control over these areas and prevent rivals like Britain and Germany from expanding their power. This idea led to numerous American interventions in Latin America throughout the early part of the 20th century. Among the most damaging were in Honduras and Nicaragua. In Honduras, Sam "The Banana Man" Zemurray (previously honored in Bastard Blogging), found his interests in trouble when a 1907 revolution brought Miguel Dávila to power. His predecessor, Manuel Bonilla, had jumped to Zemurray's every request and Hondurans were unhappy about their nation being a colony of an American banana company. Dávila quickly became friendly with Nicaraguan president Jose Santos Zelaya, who hated the United States. Zemurray used his connections with Knox and other parts of the U.S. government to undermine these unfriendly leaders. Knox looked to replace London's control over Honduran debt with American control that included Taft having the right to name the Honduran Customs Collector. The Honduran Congress overwhelmingly rejected this idea and the banking scheme, headed by former Knox employer J.P. Morgan, fell apart. Zemurray then financed his own revolution out of New Orleans, returning his lackey Manuel Bonilla to power. Knox and Zemurray thus succeeded in making Honduras entirely dependent on the United States.

Nicaragua was even uglier. Knox and Taft looked to dump Zelaya as well, but doing so ushered in a two decade American occupation and the vile Somoza family to power. Zelaya seized power in 1893 and did all he could from that point on to keep his nation out of U.S. control. In 1909, Conservatives, led by Emiliano Chamorro and Juan Estrada, started a revolution on the isolated Miskito Coast on the Atlantic. Supported by the United States, Washington actually had a three day advance warning that the revolt would take place. Two American citizens living in Nicaragua joined the revolution, were caught mining rivers, and immediately executed by Zelaya. Zelaya also kept pushing for a new canal to be built across his nation to undermine the United States' exclusive control over the Panama Canal that was nearly completion. Zelaya, not a great man, but better than many Central American leaders at that time, read the writing on the wall, and resigned his position in 1909 when it became clear that the United States would invade if he stayed in power. He hoped that by resigning, he could prevent the American domination he had long fought against. But the revolution continued and in 1910, 200 US Marines joined the force, led by Smedley Butler, who had led the 1903 Honduran invasion. The Conservatives quickly toppled the government.

Knox was happy as a clam but all of Central America was furious at this naked act of American aggression. For the rest of the Taft administration, the weak Central American republics worked made their displeasure known. In Nicaragua, a revolt in 1912 led to an invasion force of 2600 Marines. Nicaragua was now fully dependent on the U.S. dollar and American economic control. Nothing bad happened there ever again.

Knox tried to push Dollar Diplomacy in Asia as well, but with little success. The Taft administration wanted more American influence in China, but the already established European powers, as well as Japan, had little interest in allowing the Americans in. In particular, Knox pushed for American control over railroad projects in Manchuria, which had the unexpected result of pushing Japan and Russia, less than a decade after their 1905 war, closer together. This was part of the general failure of American imperialism in Asia at this time, when the nation tried to convince the other powers of a sort of equal imperialism for all based on free trade through the Open Door and then Dollar Diplomacy. Not surprisingly, they didn't elicit a lot of interest in this proposal.

Thus ends the tale of Philander C. Knox. After Taft's loss in 1913, he went back into the law and then returned to the Senate from Pennsylvania in 1917, dying in office in 1921. He never expressed any regret about his actions. Those actions helped create the awful conditions in Central America that led to widespread rebellion and repression in the late 1970s and 1980s and continue to haunt the region today.

Amazingly, I have not been able to find any biographies of Knox. Very strange. Much of this information comes from Walter Lafeber's great book, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America