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.

Q: Julio asks, “what is the origin of the term gaucho?”

A: According to www.paginadogaucho.com, a Brazilian site, the word comes from Guarani – guahu, “the howl of a dog” with the pronoun, che, “ my,” resulting in “people who sing sadly.” I think this translates to melancholy, a supposedly gaucho characteristic. Another theory links it to the Guarani mispronunciation of garrocha, a kind of scythe. Some have argued that it is a corruption of the French word “gauche,” (farfetched to my mind). Wikipedia attributes the etymology of gaucho to the Quechua huachu (orphan, vagabond) or the Arabic chaucho (a type of whip used in herding animals). An online dictionary claims it derives from Araucanian (a Southern Cone indigenous language) cauchu “wanderer.” (www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gaucho)

If you are completely confused by this point, you are not alone. The ever-helpful pagina do gaucho informs us that in 1925, an Argentine journal sponsored a roundtable to clarify the term’s definition. Thirty intellectuals debated the matter and failed to arrive at a consensus. The term with its present meaning first appeared in Spanish texts and dictionaries in the 1780s, signifying a wandering cattleman (presumed a rustler or thief) of the pampas.

I love the Internet. Thanks to Google I did not have to go to the library to check out Richard Slatta’s Gauchos and the Vanishing Frontier (U. of Nebraska, 1983). However, if you would like more information, it’s a decent social history of Buenos Aires.

As an aside, if you google “gaucho” and “etymology” you will come up with a link that takes you to a very intriguing short story by Jorge Luis Borges entitled “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius,” that might change how you think about history. It may be found at aegis.ateneo.net/fted/tlontext.htm

Q: How did Spain get away with expelling the Jesuits in 1767?

A: This question was posed by David after class. So here goes (with the caveat that religious history is not one of my main areas of specialization). Three issues come to mind – the first is the right of royal patronage, or Patronato Real. This was a privilege that both the Crowns of Spain and Portugal had secured from the Papacy prior to the era of expansion into the Americas. Simply put, it enabled the Spanish and Portuguese states to wield power over the church in their dominions. They enjoyed the right to appoint and dismiss secular clergy at all levels, maintained control over the Inquisition, and could selectively enforce or suppress Papal decrees within their respective empires.

The second was the increasingly secular political climate in Europe in the mid 18th century. Prior to the Spanish expulsion, Jesuits had already been ousted by France, Portugal and parts of present-day Italy. Pope Clement XIV, in an effort to improve relations between the Papacy and secularizing political leaders, ceded to pressure and suppressed the order throughout Europe in 1773 (except in Russia where Catherine the Great refused to abide by the decree). So the Papacy was hardly putting up a fight. The Jesuits were eventually restored in 1814 and today constitute the largest of the remaining monastic orders.

The third has to do with imperialist dynamics in Latin America that I alluded to in class – the Jesuits were economically very successful, as missionaries they wielded a great deal of influence over their indigenous converts, in many regions they dominated in higher education, and as confessors, they had the ear of well placed bureaucratic authorities. This was considered problematic by states wishing to centralize their power and become more economically efficient. Expelling the order achieved many objectives – the economic windfall realized by exproporiating their estates and enterprises, increased access to indigenous labor, and the elimination of potential political rivals. Rather sordid, really.