Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

Reading through Gloria Anzaldúa’s excerpts made me think that no matter who we are or where we come from, we will have this idea that if something is different, then it is bad simply because it is not us. I wish that this wasn’t true, but stories like this prove that this is. Her stories about outwardly speaking Spanish stuck out to me because I see a lot of these problems from an outside perspective. For my friends who speak Spanish, they feel that when they speak Spanish around English speakers, they are being judged for not speaking the same language, or for their heavy accent when they do speak English. It is so much of a problem for some of them that they don’t even feel comfortable speaking it at home either. The fact that many people feel this way is a problem. It’s not just about Spanish speakers, what about the many other languages that people speak in the U.S.? I am sure that this is something that they feel as well. This can be very damaging because smaller problems can snowball into bigger ones. If one generation within a family doesn’t feel comfortable learning their native language and they grow up not passing it onto the next generation, then that as an aspect of culture that is slowly being washed away from a family tree.

 

I think this problem originated with imperialism in the Americas. Although the history of the Americas is not the first example of imperialism, identity mattered the most then and that is why it matters so much now. The three parts of identity that mattered the most were your race, gender, and economic status because those were telling factors of the life you were going to live. As time went on, these problems were only perpetuated further and made things worse. The fact that differences amongst people were used as a tool to advance other people, its something we can’t let go of and is the basis of many problems in our country today. If differences between cultures were embraced years ago, it would be a much different story. Do you think that this is something we will ever be able to change? I really do think that the way our country was founded and progressed is the reason why we automatically think that anything different or new to us is either a bad thing or something we can use to advance ourselves. We are wired to think this way. Can we rewire our way of thinking to do the exact opposite? Beyond recognizing and addressing it as a problem, can we ever naturally assume the difference is a good thing?

 

4 Comments

In Chapters V and IX of Jacob A. Riis’s How the Other Half Lives, the reader is given insight into the anti-immigration sentiments of late-19th Century America. This is first demonstrated by impressions of Italian immigrants offered in Chapter V. The author describes poor conditions for Italian immigrants in both residential and vocational pursuits, settling for unfair contracts with tenants and low-paying jobs where they’re unable to receive the entirety of their earned wages. This is reminiscent of earlier depictions of colonial indentured servitude; in both cases, the U.S. was advertised as a country of grand opportunity but turned out to welcome new populations in states of oppression. Riis goes on to attribute Italians’ agreements to adverse conditions to a certain ignorance inherent to their ethnicity, explaining that they are unable to learn English as successfully as other immigrants and that they are therefore of inferior intelligence. This perpetuates the notion of American linguistic imperialism and the sentiment that cultures speaking other languages are inferior to those that speak English. Riis later describes Italians as being driven by political impulse rather than civility, characterizing them as less socially advanced than the desirable English-American standard.

Chapter IX focuses on negative sentiments toward Chinese immigrants. Similarly to the devaluation of Italians because of their inability to speak English, Riis insults Chinese immigrants for being unwilling to convert to Christianity, thus exercising a sense of superiority in another aspect of English-American culture, religion. He goes on to denounce the reserved appearances of Chinese neighborhoods as dreary and lacking of spectacle-like scenery, asserting an orientalist notion that Eastern cultures exist to please people of European origin as viewers and can be viewed as inferior when they fail to do so. Riis marvels at Chinese men’s tendency of cleanliness and subsequent prominence within the domestic sphere, relating it to what he perceives as weak submissiveness to women in other areas of life, establishing a sense of English-American cultural superiority through gender roles. He further portrays Chinese men as sexual predators, suggesting that young girls are “wrecked” by Chinese communities while visiting their “dens.” Finally, Riis illustrates Chinese immigrants’ reserved nature as suspicious due to their “menacing” contributions to society and asserts that the Chinese population can’t safely be left alone. Overall, Riis summarizes the Chinese population as undesirable to society because of its lack of “useful purpose,” asserting the imperialist notion that immigrants are only worthy of human value if they are able to offer vocational value.

Leave a Comment

After listening to Dr. Bezio’s podcast regarding the relationship the U.S. has with immigrants, I feel frustrated that I do not know how diversity and the representation thereof will look like in the future. Anzaldua’s excerpts from Borderlands points out how aggressive assimilation into the white, English-speaking culture of the U.S. can lead to the erasure of ethnic tongues and people, which many African Americans have already experienced as a result of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Also, Anzaldua stresses that the key to fostering a healthy “melting pot” is for both the dominant culture and the other minority cultures to work towards cross-cultural communication and collaboration. In cross-cultural communication and collaboration, both groups of people have to learn a language that is different from the one they commonly speak at home. For instance, a person who speaks English 100% of the time should actively listen and learn how to understand Spanish and vice versa. Additionally, I do acknowledge that there are shortcomings in achieving cross-cultural communication and collaboration. The primary hurdle being that how Southern black people speak English is going to be radically different from how Western black people speak English. In this sense, is it realistic for our society to educate the entire human population in many languages that differ from their native tongue?

On another note, I am happy to hear the truth behind the value immigrants bring to our society. One, immigrants who become entrepreneurs in the U.S. create jobs and contribute to the American economy. Two, immigrants take jobs that most of us born in America feel too privileged to even consider. If we look at the work that janitors to factory workers have to do daily at low wage rates, especially amid COVID-19, they actually play a vital role in making sure that our workspaces are correctly cleaned and that our manufactured items are crafted with care. In response, there are actions that our society can take to address the images that the federal government and the media use to portray immigrants. The first step: all of us need to stop assuming that the actions or responses of one individual wholly translates to the experiences of all. Instead, we need to create a system of cultural and ethnic close-reading so that we can understand and better serve our immigrants who come to this country in hopes of achieving the idyllic American Dream.

Leave a Comment

The readings and podcasts focused on immigration, something very relevant in today’s society. As Dr. Bezio spoke of the unsubstantiated fears and biases that surround immigration, Gloria Anzaldúa and Jacob Riis’s works provided testimony and example. America still holds on to the idea of being a melting pot, but the actions we have taken against immigration says otherwise. America has made the process of immigration very difficult and placed restrictions on who is even eligible to apply. We claim that we are open to everyone, but then prevent an easily accessible way to immigrate.

Immigration comes with negative stereotypes. People associated certain races with bad characteristics that gave them an excuse to fear and discriminate when in reality, this fear was completely unfounded and wrong. In the same way Americans use the job excuse as a reason to restrict immigration. As the podcast mentioned, the opposite is true.

A focal point of immigration is tied to “The American Dream”. Oxford languages defines “The American Dream”  as, “the ideal by which equality of opportunity is available to any American, allowing the highest aspirations and goals to be achieved.” It is supposed to be obtainable to all that come to America, a reality that does not seem true. Gloria Anzaldúa describes the identity crisis that burdens her life. Jacob Riis illustrates the harsh conditions that immigrants faced, specifically in New York City, which disadvantaged them and kept them in a system where it was hard to break free. They didn’t have equal opportunities to achieve all there dreams. They had to deal with poverty and conditions that kept them struggling to stay afloat. This makes me wonder if the American dream is something that is actually obtainable to all or restricted. America has restricted immigration and made it very difficult. Once it is achieved, there are still internal biases that threaten people’s cultural identity and ability to succeed. People should not feel targeted by their language or their heritage or their cultural identity? So I am wondering, is the American dream just that, a dream?

3 Comments

Jacob Riis’s book, How the Other Half Lives, paints a bleak picture of a New York City that is riddled with poverty and corruption, which contributed to a negligent tenement housing system in the 1880s. It is obvious that this book was written in the nineteenth century, as much of the language used to describe Italians and Chinatown in New York City is influenced by stereotypes and generalizations. For example, when describing people who live in Chinatown, Riis says, “It is doubtful if there is anything he does not turn to a paying account, from his religion down, or up, as one prefers” (Riis 17). Despite the cultural and racial stereotypes of the book, Riis’s critiques of the broken housing system in New York City were justified. More importantly, Riis discussed a problem that affected a large portion of the city, but was ignored by many New Yorkers. Before the great riot of 1863, “it was said that ‘one half of the world does not know how the other half lives’… The half that was on top cared little for the struggles, and less for the fate of those who were underneath” (11). This ignorance began to change in the advent of muckraking, when journalists began reporting on uncovered stories of corruption and negligence of the lower classes. 

Unfortunately, the problems that Riis discussed have not gone away, even though people began to talk about them. Riis argued that “the remedy that shall be an effective answer to the coming appeal for justice must proceed from the public conscience. Neither legislation nor charity can cover the ground. The greed of capital that wrought the evil must undo itself, as far as it can now be undone” (12). Riis identified capitalism as the problem that was central to New York’s housing crisis; he believed that anything short of changing this system was insufficient. One hundred years later, cities across the country continue to face housing crises such as eviction and poor public housing quality. Whether Riis’ proposed solution was correct is unknown, but his identification of the problem was certainly correct, and it still persists today.

3 Comments

When I read both Chapter V and Chapter IX from How the Other Half Lives, I was saddened by the things that Americans did and the way that they viewed immigrants. Unfortunately, I can’t say that everything I read was new information to me. I always knew that there was bias and discrimination against immigrants but I never truly understood the extent that those biases went to. After reading Chapter V which talks about Italian immigrants in America, I was disgusted by the way Americans treated them and classified them. The book described them, the Italians, as reluctant towards Americanizing. The chapter described that the Italians were not eager to adopt the English language whereas some of the other immigrants from nations like Poland and Germany adopted the language right away. They also talked about how the Italians were, generally speaking, liars and gamblers and we considered to be the lowest of lows in society. Chapter IX, on the other hand, talked about the Chinese immigrants that lived in the United States. The chapter talked about the dark, damp, dirty, and crowded Chinatown’s’ that were formed in cities across the United States. These towns were described to have a lot of messages and such regarding drug use and opium. The chapter also tells us that the Chinese immigrants, like the Italian immigrants, were reluctant to change their ways. More specifically, they were reluctant to adopt a new religion and change their clothes. Americans wanted the Chinese immigrants that were scattered across the nation to Americanize and convert to Christianity.

 

The excerpts that we read from Borderlands were very upsetting as well. It was very upsetting to read that people from the Latin community are being criticized for speaking their own language. A person or group of people should not feel oppressed or concerned about speaking their own language. They have the right to speak their language where they want, and when they want. Others who might not understand the language should not feel frightened/threatened if they hear someone speaking another language. A quote that resonated within me from the excerpts was, “Attacks on our native tongue diminish our sense of self.” This was heartbreaking to read. People should feel comfortable speaking their own language and simply being in their own skin when around others. They should not been attacked constantly by others who don’t even know that person. It is truly horrible to see that Americans are forcing other cultural communities to Americanize. People should have the freedom to do what they want without thinking about if they are going to be attacked by the general public.

Leave a Comment

I thought the reading “From Borderlands/La Frontera” by Gloria Analdua was extremely powerful and eye opening. I had no idea that some of the different sectors of the Spanish language were considered illegitimate. As I was raised speaking English in the United States my entire life, I have realized how easy it has been for me- to speak the most universal language in the world without second thought. Language is such an important part of culture and identity, and to have one’s language categorized as “wrong” is unbelievable. I think a major problem with our world today is not recognizing smaller languages, as we believe everyone should have to learn English or Chinese or Spanish, and we just gloss over the other languages. I am worried about the effect this will have on the future, as elements that made a specific group unique and special are erased, and people become more and more similar until whole cultures are ultimately eliminated. In addition, from the reading I was inspired by Gloria’s tone and outlook on the topic in general. Although she acknowledges that she did experience adversity with her identity and language, she states she will not let this get to her as she claims, “I will no longer be made to feel ashamed of existing. I will have my voice. Indian, Spanish, white….I will overcome the tradition of silence.” I think this empowerment is very influential for every audience reading- those who can relate to what she is saying, and those who are having their perspectives enlightened for the first time on the topic.

I was also struck by the “How The Other Half Lives” chapters for many reasons. It really made me think about the concept of immigration for the past, present, and future of America. The fact that immigration is such a controversial and difficult subject today, when none of us would be here if we did not have immigration to the United States back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, is very concerning. How can we keep calling ourselves a “Melting Pot” when there is nothing in the pot?

3 Comments

As a Latina woman myself, I found Anzaldúa’s work very personal. She speaks of the struggles of being a Hispanic-American and not knowing or having much of an identity. I have found myself in similar thoughts throughout my life. I am too gringa for the people in my homeland, but too Latina for the gringos. This is something I have discussed with my Hispanic-American friends. It is a struggle that most of us face. Living inside your culture in a different country’s culture can be very difficult, confusing, and frightening.

Anzaldúa mentions immigration patrol, which is a fear and a huge reality within the community. Today we live in a social climate where being by simply being part of the Latinx community, people assume that you’re a rapist, drug dealer, exploiter, and illegal. It is a sad bias and what’s even sadder is seeing the President of the United States reinforce those ideas. Whenever I tell people I am from Latin America, the first question I get is: But you’re a legal resident, right? I find that question to be completely inappropriate because it is simply none of anyone’s business, but also it is rude to just ask that. It is so rare to see that question being asked of European immigrants or even Asian immigrants. There is this idea that all Latinx people are immigrants and illegal immigrants at that. Because of that idea, most Hispanics live in constant fear of ICE and the government in jail. Your grandma, your uncle, or even your parents can be taken away from you and sent away forever at any moment. Immigration is also a silent argument because the only people who have a say are the citizens, and citizenship often takes ten+ years to achieve. Hence, people live silent and in fear until they can get a piece of paper that will make them be seen as humans and worthy of fair treatment.

3 Comments

When reading How The Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis, I was immediately appalled by the way he spoke of both Italian and Chinese immigrants. In “Chapter V”, Riis outlines his different opinions on Italian immigrants. He characterizes them as attention cravers, illiterate and hot-headed. He claims that the slums welcome them as tenants and Italians will “eat his meals under the dump, on the edge of slimy depths and amidst surroundings full of unutterable horror”(52). Throughout the entire chapter Riis only listed out a variety of stereotypes, insults, and back-handed compliments. In “Chapter IX”, Riis once again outlines his unwanted opinions on the Chinese in Chinatown. He claims that the Chinese lack a handle of strong faith, are weak, and both stealthy and secretive. Riis even goes so far to say that Chinese immigrants serve no useful purpose to the United States and therefore we “must make the best of them”. I was disgusted to read the utter amount of disrespect that he had for these Chinese immigrants. 

 It’s truly sad to see that these immigrants were treated differently all because they wanted new and better opportunities for themselves and their families. They shouldn’t have to deal with the alienation and rude insults from other citizens in the United States. To this day, a large percentage of the United States population refuses to accept immigrants. We ignore the fact that they are humans and are craving a better life. We are so quick to judge individuals who are not like us. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and equality. Although the general perspective on immigration has improved, I wonder when this concept will be accepted by all. The topic of immigration continues to be a touchy subject for the U.S. and I wonder how policy will change in the future.

 

3 Comments

After reading the chapters from How the Other Half Lives and the exerpts from Boderlands/La Frontera I realized how tough it is to succeed in our country, especially if you are a minority. Immigrants already have to take a huge risk by leaving our country and starting over in a foreign place, but they also often have to deal with poor living conditions. Not to mention the prejudice they recieve from stereotypes can make becoming accustomed to a new country almost impossible.

Arguably the most intimidating of all is the “unwritten law” to either conform or get out. What I mean by this is the harsh reality that many cultures face in the United States. Despite our countires diversity, there are still many examples of “white washing” going on everyday. The pressure to assimilate is real. This can come in the form of speaking English, or following certain traditions other than those of a person’s original culture. Although our country prides itself on being accepting of all diffeent types of people, this is not always the case.

4 Comments

When reading Gloria Anzaldua’s excerpts from “Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza” I was once again disheartened and became more aware of my own privilege. Gloria Anzaldua describes how it feels to be too much of one thing to fit it with the other, but too much of the other thing to fit it with that group too. She was thought of as not being Mexican enough to be a true Mexican, but not white enough to be a true American. She describes how she feels as though she is denied by her roots and doesn’t have a place to fit in. Her poem, “To Live in the Borderlands…” really stuck out to me. Each stanza goes through a different reason why she feels like she doesn’t fit in, from where she lives to what she looks like to how she talks to what she eats. This made me sad because as I was reading this I realized that I am so lucky to not really ever have to think about these things. I am what is perceived to be “normal” in the United States, but that is unfair. Everyone who lives here is just as much American as the next person regardless of race, what language you speak, or what food you eat. 

The United States prides itself on being a “melting pot” when in reality we are not. The United States wants to think that it is accepting of all different cultures, races, and types of people, however after reading what Gloria Anzaldua had to say and how she feels, it is clear that she and other immigrants do not feel welcomed. The United States takes great pride in saying that it is the greatest country in the world, but if that were true they would want to share that with others and let them enjoy it too, not make it so hard to move here and if they ever are finally able to, strip them of their own culture. That is not acceptance. A trademark of being “the greatest nation in the world” is the fact that it is a melting pot, however there is not much different culture to be seen, as the people of diverse cultures feel the need to hide their differences. When people are told to “speak English because this is America”, it takes away a part of someone, causing them to lose part of their culture and themselves. We should want to preserve other cultures and history instead of make everyone feel like they need to be the same. The United States needs to work to get rid of the sense of the “dominant culture” and embrace the fact that there are many cultures here and we should be learning from each other. 

3 Comments

When reading Zinn’s chapter The Empire and the People, I was surprised by the amount of influence the wealthy and business men had on the government and America’s overseas expansion. The first sentence of the chapter, which quotes Theodore Roosevelt, that he “should welcome almost any war, for [he] thinks this country needs one” (297), already gives this idea that war and expansion is something powerful people wanted. I was shocked by this sentiment because I have always known war to be horrible and no one ever wants it, but I guess that wasn’t the case. The most influential and wealthy people in the nation were the ones supporting the Spanish-American war, even though they weren’t even going to be the ones fighting. 

The high opinion of the US, from Americans, that I have always been aware of is something, that I think, stems from the idea that we are the most powerful nation and have the most freedom. But, reading this chapter, makes me wonder why so many people have this high opinion of us, because even if we are very powerful and take control of these places, we are in no way giving people freedom, and we don’t help these nations, instead we were violent and brutal towards these places. The way we were so violent in the Philippines and massively racist not only there but in our own nation, does not call for anyone to have a high opinion of the US. There seems to have been many people who were against the war and what we were doing in Cuba and the Philippines, yet it seems our desire for power didn’t stop us. 

This chapter once again highlights what schools in the US don’t always teach us. They don’t teach the detailed parts that highlight the horrible things this nation did. We focus a lot on our own country and the things we did here with slavery, and racism, it seems more than our influence in other countries. It’s important to understand the impact America has had on the rest of the world and not become stuck in a bubble of how “great” we are.

Leave a Comment

 

Zinn talks about how America is involved in making affairs with other nations and the need to economically expand in his chapter, “The Empire and the People”. The first line instantly catches one’s attention as it says that ‘Theodore Roosevelt’  said that he would “welcome any war” which would be considered to solve the economic crisis the country was going through as it was believed that it would unite the people against the external enemy. America portrays this image of war as a good thing for the nation, an act that brings people together. The author describes the Spanish Cuban American War and how the United States used force to enter Cuba and fight the Spanish people. Such wars happened for more financial and economic development for the country with no consideration of the effects they have on the middle and lower class citizens as well as minority groups. This annoys me as it seems more important for the leaders of the country to start a war that would benefit the rich wealthy elites instead of fixing the injustices and the social issues existing in the country.

The fact that this country would do anything to support the economy and to be seen as the ‘greatest’ links directly to the idea of American exceptionalism which I feel that a lot of people in this country believe is true. This assumption that America is the best and is superior to all other nations due to its history of being the first to break from colonial governments is dangerous and creates sort of a superiority complex among its citizens. I believe that such a problem would also create other social issues like xenophobia; the only way for a government to actually keep progressing is by acknowledging that it has flaws and issues that need to be solved. This issue can still be seen nowadays especially with doing anything to maintain a stable economy as the President refused to shut down the country in the current pandemic which resulted in the loss of thousands of Americans. Many other lives are still in risk just because of greed and the capitalist system which only sees the money.

4 Comments

Imperialism is an ideology that does not stem from the US though for a time we adopted the framework soon after the revolution had been won. Why? Why would America adopt a policy that represented everything that they hated about Britain? Why start a nation reborn on the foundation that reminds us of the very life we wanted to escape?

 

Imperialism offers an opportunity at expansion at rapid rates. It was through imperialism that nearly every world power gained and acquired new territory. A major way in which America used imperialism to quickly rise as a world power was through military force. The Spanish-American War was The US’s  way of quickly acquiring foreign territory. With their victory over Spain they colonized Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. While thinking about imperialism, and specifically American imperialism, it begs the question of what that says about who we are as a nation. In the defense of American imperialism, as a newborn nation, we were vulnerable. With world powers like France and the threat of Britain returning to begin a second war, it is in fact fair to say that The United States were in need of expanding and growing their new born empire, but at what cost? Does that threat in and of it self make imperialism acceptable? I’m not sure.

 

When thinking about what American Imperialism says about the US as a country, I think it is no wonder we view ourselves as so important. American exceptionalism in my eyes is a result of professing the narrative that the United States is “big”, “strong”, and “brave”. Through American imperialism we shaped the minds of our ancestors into believing we were inconceivably stronger than all other nations. On top of this, we had just taken down arguably the strongest nation in the world, granting us our freedom. Not only was Britain a world power, but we were nothing more than a collection of colonists that in no way should have been able to defeat the British military. All things considered I think our American exceptionalism stems from the birth of our nation.

2 Comments

When reading Zinn’s the Empire and the People chapter of A People’s History of the United States, I was particularly surprised by the amount of involvement and influence that unions and other home groups had on international affairs in Cuba. Although I knew about these “two concepts” of union fighting during the end of the nineteenth century/beginning of the twentieth century and of the United States conquest of Cuba (and other areas), I never thought about them in relation to each other. I honestly never even recognized that these two extremely important aspects of American history were happening at the same time! Understandably, a lot of public support or opposition from the working class was influenced by unions like United Mine Workers, Knights of Labor, and the American Federation of Labor (to name a few) which then had an influence on the media. This influence then would have had an even larger impact on policy if it weren’t for the intersecting influence companies and the rich had in the government. After reading the Myth of American Exceptionalism and listening to the podcast I think it is easy to see how embedded American business goals are into the policies of the United States, with Cuba being a defining example of many. 

The United States not only manipulated their power over Cuba, but they imposed their own business ideals onto the country, people, and government for their own gain. I was both surprised to read about the hypocrisy that the United States government participated in, and continues to participate in, to gain the market and resources that Cuba offered, but I also have learned to expect the United States to always take an angle of personal advantage in international situations. What I did not know was that there was a history of international manipulation of power before Cuba and the Panama Canal starting in the mid-1800s. Even though most policy decisions do have some intersection of economic, social, and political motives, I questioned throughout the Zinn reading how many American policies/acts have left long-lasting social or economic impacts on the country? Should countries always be trying to work for their best interests, or do policies that work with only self-interest in mind hurt everyone else in the longer run? I can only hope that there will be more of a balance between government and business motives when it comes to the international power of the United States in the future as there definitely could be future conflicts if one type of policy is overreaching.

On a separate note, this podcast explores how dehumanization takes place through imperialism powers and American exceptionalism, but I do not think that American exceptionalism is ingrained into American culture as America has no defined culture and is much more defined by region, religion, state, and honestly … political belief. The idea that American exceptionalism is in American culture seems more like an accurate stereotype created by others based on the fact that Americans always talk about “large concepts” like liberty, freedom, or justice. Even though many other countries also talk about larger values in politics, I think the conversation around these values is more prevalent in American politics and make it seem like an intense superiority complex simply because these values connect to the human experience (don’t get me wrong though America does have a superiority complex, but I just think it is different).

7 Comments

America did not invent imperialism. Imperialism existed for centuries before the American Revolution, and if it was not for British imperialism, there would have been no Thirteen Colonies to have a revolution. The Crash Course video only briefly mentions America’s investment in expansion, and mainly focuses on Europe. After all, America had to learn it from someone. However, that isn’t to say that America did not have imperialistic tendencies. 

 

Late 19th century America was desperate to grow and to make a name for itself. After the Battle of Wounded Knee solidified the U.S.’ control of what we now refer to as the continental United States, so when depression hit in 1893, overseas markets became increasingly appealing. Under the administrations of McKinley and Roosevelt, America adopted an “Open Door Policy” and became involved in China and Cuba. However, this form of imperialism was intended more for economic purposes rather than land and colonies. Not surprisingly, involvement led to conflict such as the Cuban Revolution (in which America supported Cuba, not Spain), the Spanish-American War and violent conflict in the Philippines. Imperialism was deeply racist, horribly violent and overall destructive.

 

Despite this, imperialism, as terrible as it was, led to modern globalization and the world as we know it today. We wouldn’t be here without imperialism, for better or for worse. No, America is not perfect. It never has been, and it probably never will be. However, the beauty of America is that it has the capacity to have that “positive role on the world stage” that the article “The Myth of American Exceptionalism” mentions, even if it doesn’t always fulfill it. We cannot go back and change the atrocities committed during the initial colonization of America, the revolution, slavery, the Civil War or the era of American imperialism. We can only learn and grow from it.

5 Comments

In The Myth of American Exceptionalism Stephen Walsh explains how the strong nationalism in the US leads to us lying to ourselves about the importance of the United States.  As Americans, we generally view the United States as by far the most important country in the world.  He uses five different points to prove how American Exceptionalism is really just a myth.  First Walsh says that American Exceptionalism is actually nothing special, and uses the British and other colonial powers, to try and show that American Exceptionalism is no different.  However, I believe this not to be true, he claims that we are just “They are simply the latest nation to sing a familiar old song” yet, the other examples that Walsh uses didn’t have the same global connectivity that we have today.  The United States is the world’s only true superpower, and there are certain duties only a superpower has.  

Walsh also says that there is another myth that the United States is responsible for most of the good in the world.  I definitely agree with Walsh in that the United States is not responsible for most of the good in the world.  However, Walsh uses dismantling Nazi Germany as one of the examples of American Exceptionalism.  He states, “For starters, though Americans watching Saving Private Ryan or Patton may conclude that the United States played the central role in vanquishing Nazi Germany, most of the fighting was in Eastern Europe and the main burden of defeating Hitler’s war machine was borne by the Soviet Union.”  Yet, the United States did have a very big role in defeating Nazi Germany.  Yes it is true that the fighting happened in Europe, but the Lend Lease Program was very important in helping the British stop the Nazis advances in Western Europe.

 

6 Comments

Education is important. I don’t think any of us would attend a challenging university like Richmond if we did not believe in the power of knowledge. Today’s readings on American Imperialism and American Exceptionalism revealed a lot to me about how our education system persuades our perception of our country. For example, many of us learned about the atrocities committed by European imperial powers in Africa and Asia in the late 19th and 20th century. We learn about the Belgians in the Congo and the British in India, but we don’t learn about the Americans in the Philippines. Indeed, American control of the Philippines resulted in countless murders and the subjection of terrible conditions onto Filipinos. Still, many American history classes do not detail this part of American history. Instead, we choose to focus on other parts of our history during the same time period such as the creation of Unions and National Parks. I believe a good example of the one-sided history taught in the American education system is the history of the Panama Canal. For myself, and I suspect many American school children, the creation of the Panama Canal is taught as a feat of American greatness. The engineering masterpiece provided an economic good to the world and the people of Panama — or so the history says. In reality, the United States overthrew the Colombian government in Panama and controlled the area until the canal was fully constructed. While the canal did open trade routes for the global economy, the history we learn does not recognize how Panama was gifted and immediately stripped of its Independence by the United States in order to build the canal.

If we establish that our educational system teaches us lies about the history of American foreign policy, we must question our education’s effects on society. When examining the Walt article it becomes clear that American education is designed to foster a sense of pride in our nation which easily flows into American Exceptionalism. By not learning the entire history of our countries actions — both domestically and abroad — we shutter ourselves from gaining an honest look at our country. Instead, we inject ourselves with a dopamine of pride that encourages a belief in superiority. This belief in superiority becomes dangerous when people begin to perceive America as standing for and representing one people or idea. Instead of promoting a diverse, nuanced understanding of the world, Americans promote a world view that sees Americans as superior. When this is combined with a domestic history of racism and sexism, the toxic parts of American society quickly spread to the rest of the world. If America reformed their education system, this could be combatted. If children grow up to understand that their country is not infallible, they will believe they have obligation to make it better. Thus, rethinking how we tell American history to our children could have major, important impacts on our society.

4 Comments

In Zinn’s Chapter, “The Empire and the People”, talks about the desire for international economic expansion, or the lack of it from the common people. Zinn mentions that newspapers actually could have overemphasized the publics’ opinion about international relations. President Roosevelt had a wanting for taking over nations that he thought to be lesser due to race. Cuba was an example of these two combined, with the people thinking that the United States was supporting Cuban freedom but actually it was protecting its personal interests in trade. When the American ship was brought down close to Cuba shortly after, the bond of war brought a kind of identity that the United States needed. The idea of war brought both money and unity to the United States so this is why Zinn said that the country needed it.

The Crash Course episode talks about how Europe succeeded at colonizing close to all of Africa. They were able to do this by industrialization. Europeans controlled the production which allowed them to expand. The interesting problem that Europeans ran into while trying to conquer and expand was not the force of Africa, but rather the disease that Africa has had for years and years before which the common people were immune to. With the development of technology, the machine gun allowed Europe to completely wipe out African people at ease allowing for the eventual expansion into Europe. The domination that Europe had in Africa came from wars that killed a lot of people. Africa resisted Europe; however, did not have the technology to withstand Europe.

5 Comments

I found Walt’s article to be an accurate representation of how I have viewed America, especially in recent times. It’s become increasingly evident that many Americans view the United States as being the most important and powerful country in the world. They argue that this makes the United States more important and contributes to our strong national sense of patriotism which is a dominant sentiment in the US. These ideals discussed in Walt’s article directly relate to Zinn’s discussion of expansion because the idea of American exceptionalism contributes to American’s thinking that the United States has the right and authority to expand. I think that in a sense, yes, the United States is a powerful country that has an economic and political presence in the world. As Zinn states, “American trade exceeded that of every country in the world except England” (p. 301). Thus, in some ways it is fair to say that with the US’s power, military, and economy it makes sense to expand.

However, thinking back to previous class discussions about listening to the voice of the oppressed and minorities, the same ideas apply. The United States, a country predominantly ruled by white politicians, asserts an excessive amount of force to expand into the land of another country made up of mainly people of color. This “‘right to intervene'” that Zinn mentions ties into the common myth that Americans believe they have a divine mission to lead the rest of the world that Walt brings up. I’m unsure if this is somehow rooted to white supremacy and that sense of nationalism or if it is genuinely an idea expressed in religious philosophies. Regardless, what we see in Zinn’s discussion of the US’s involvement with Cuba is an example of how American exceptionalism can actually be dangerous when it comes to the United State’s interventionist policies with the rest of the world. Ultimately, the US is not as important as we think it is but it’s the common myths and misconceptions that Americans have of the states that leads to such strong beliefs in nationalism. It’s also important to note a difference between civilized expansion where treaties and negotiations occur, and less civilized expansion which seems to be the majority of the United State’s expansion. If deals can be worked out between both parties, expansion and American exceptionalism is less of an issue than when military force is taken advantage of to take land.

3 Comments