On evidence and agency

A recent event that took place in my home led me to reflect, as an historian and as a parent, on evidence and agency. It had snowed so school was closed and my daughter and her friend were playing nicely in her room, or so I thought. Much to my surprise, they even included the much disdained little sister.

While they played and I was preparing for class my daughter’s friend came to me complaining about some orange stains on her hands and clothes. I asked the obvious question: “Where did they come from?”

“I don’t know.”

I decided to do some basic research to discover the answer. On a shelf in my daughter’s room was a tube of bright orange oil paint, neatly severed in two.

Another obvious question: “Where did this come from?”

“I don’t know.”

I have found the raised eyebrow to be an effective tool in extracting information from recalcitrant small girls. Eyebrows up. No effect. So I up the ante and try the furrowed brow.

“Well, it was on top of the computer.”

“How did it get there?”

“I don’t know.”

Well this was a line of inquiry that went nowhere. I gave up, threw the paint tube away, and applied stain remover to the clothes.

Later that evening, little sister, says, “Mom, what’s this on my puzzle?” It’s one of those little recessed wooden trays that holds interchangeable faces, dresses and shoes. It is covered with a mystery sticky red substance. So I try my favorite question once again: “Where did this come from?” I am nothing if not persistent.

Small children are sometimes more forthcoming than larger ones. “Well…. maybe it came from the Hawaiian Punch from the tea party.”

Hawaiian Punch. I knew that buying it for my lowbrow-themed dinner party was a bad idea.

So (with studied casualness): “Where was this tea party?”

In my sister’s room. Uh oh. Food in bedrooms is verboten. Especially sticky, sugary food that attracts bugs and vermin. Investigation is in order.

Eyebrows up. A confession of sorts is forthcoming. Yes, there was clandestine Hawaiian Punch use but no responsible party is identified. So evidence but no agency. Next question: “Did any of it get spilled?” Eye contact avoidance. Bingo. A stern look produces a balled up white blanket with telltale red stains from under the bed.

Emboldened by my partial success, I return to the mystery of the orange oil paint. After some pointed questions and much squirming, I get the following hesitant reply: “Well…. some scissors might have cut the paint?”

Such grammatical contortions make a lot of sense in Spanish or Portuguese but don’t come across so well in English. For the moment, I continued in this vein and tried to acquire evidence without assigning agency.

“Did you see the scissors cut the paint?”

“No.”

“Did you see anybody use the scissors?”

“No.”

“Did you use the scissors?”

“No.”

A search for the scissors commences. We have learned that despite not seeing the scissors that they are blue and purple. The pair under the bed does not fit this description. The other pair cleverly concealed in the desk drawer has telltale orange stains on the grips. OK.

Much later in the evening in an effort to regain some credibility, my daughter confesses that “there may also be some paint on the laptop keyboard.” By this time I’m inwardly cringing, but the damage turns out to be inconsequential.

So at the end of the day we have material evidence: a severed tube of paint, orange stains on hands clothes, keyboard, and scissors. We have Hawaiian punch in unauthorized locations. We have scissors with agency and human beings that lack it. What is a historian (or a parent) to do?

My daughter’s friend’s mother is also a historian. Knowing that arriving at THE TRUTH is never possible we decide to give up and punish them equally. But it also reveals a central quandary: If it is impossible to arrive at a consistent narrative moments after the event by eyewitnesses who were directly involved, then the authority of written documents or oral testimony produced at some remove from the events they describe is even more contingent. As for determining human agency, when in doubt, pick an inanimate object.

Ideology and Imperialism

Yesterday we began a very interesting discussion towards the end of class about the origins and nature of U.S. Imperialism. The debate addresssed intentionality – were policy statements and ideological constructs (like the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny respectively), mere window dressing to justify more sinister political and economic aims? Or did they represent sincere and well intentioned beliefs that went awry in practice? Or a combination of the two? Other questions had to do with distinctions among Imperialism, neo-imperialism, economic imperialism, etc.

It would be presumptuous of me to attempt a definitive definition of Imperialism. Additionally it would consume more time than I have available today. But I invite all of you to continue this discussion by posting comments.

Clayton-Bulwer treaty revisited

The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was signed on April 19, 1850 by U.S. Secretary of State John M. Clayton, and British diplomat, Sir Henry Bulwer. By 1850, the British had already established significant territorial claims in Belize, the Mosquito Coast and the Bay Islands. However, the treaty sidestepped territorial issues and focused on policy regarding a proposed inter-oceanic canal. Both nations had researched the possibility but neither wanted to assume the costs of the project at that time. Essential passages of the treaty stated that neither power, “will ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal … that neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the same … or occupy, or fortify, or colonize or assume, or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America.” Essentially a canal would be pursued jointly by both nations or not at all. Complete text of the “Convention Between the United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, April 19, 1850,” can be found at http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/cb.htm

However, the status of pre-existing British claims in Nicaragua and Honduras that might enable Great Britain to assert control over a future canal remained unresolved. The US argued that the convention should be applied retoactively; the British clearly disagreed when they named the Bay Islands a British colony in 1852. A compromise was reached in 1859-60 when Great Britain ceded claims on the Bay Islands and Mosquito coast and was awarded greater latitude with respect to Belize.

The treaty (with respect to its canal policy) came to be seen in the US as a betrayal of the Monroe doctrine and by 1880, US presidents began seeking ways to overturn it. The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty (signed in 1901, ratified in 1902) replaced the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and provided the means for the US to build a canal independently. This concession on the part of Great Britain reflects the changing international status of the US following the Spanish American War and growing concerns with the balance of power in Europe, particularly with respect to Germany.