In an 1898 essay called Distant Possessions: The Parting of the Ways, Andrew Carnegie addresses the top issue facing the United States: “Shall we attempt to establish ourselves as a power in the far East and possess the Philippines for glory?” Carnegie offers three reasons against this course of action:
- Imperialism costs money
- Imperialism violates the principle of liberty and self-governance upon which the United States is founded
- Imperialism threatens the security and safety of the United States by bringing it into conflict with other colonial powers.
Colonies and Dependencies
First, though, Carnegie draws a distinction between colonies and dependencies. A colony is defined by populating the land with one’s own people, as in the case of Britain in Australia and Canada. A dependency is a foreign land that is ruled by but not populated by one’s own people, e.g., Britain in India. Carnegie offers much praise to the British, declaring “no nation that ever existed has done so much for the progress of the world,” but acknowledges that the time of empires has passed.
Imperialism costs money: Imperialism is outdated because it is not necessary for trade. Carnegie offers as proof the fact that the United States’s exports are the greatest in the world–American goods are sold around the world, despite the absence of any US colonies. Far from being necessary to trade, colonies actually cost the mother country financially: Spain’s rule over the Philippines netted them nothing, and eventually cost them a great deal.
Imperialism violates American principles: Carnegie draws a parallel between the Philippine struggle for independence from Spain and the American Revolution.
The aspirations of a people for independent existence are seldom repressed, nor, according to American ideas hitherto, should they be. If it be a noble aspiration for the Indian or the Cuban, as it was for the citizen of the United States himself, and for the various South American republics once under Spain, to have a country to live and, if necessary, to die for, why is not the revolt noble which the man of the Philippines has been making against Spain?
To establish rule over the Philippines would be to reject the principles upon which America is founded.
Carnegie’s most poignant statement about the Filipinos comes in a follow-up essay (Americanism versus Imperialism) written during the Philippine-American War:
They have just the same feelings as we have, not excluding love of country, for which, like ourselves, as we see, they are willing to die. Oh, the pity of it! the pity of it! that Filipino mothers with American mothers equally mourn their lost sons — one fallen, defender of his country; the other the invader. Yet the invader was ordered by those who see it their “duty” to invade the land of the Filipinos for their civilization. Duty, stern goddess, what strange things men sometimes do in thy name!
Imperialism theatens American safety: By virtue of geography, America is relatively safe from external threats.
To-day two great powers in the world are compact, developing themselves in peace throughout vast conterminous territories. When war threatens they have no outlying possessions which call [sic] never be really “possessed,” but which they are called upon to defend. They fight upon the exposed edge only of their own soil in case of attack, and are not only invulnerable, but they could not be more than inconvenienced by the world in arms against them. These powers are Russia and the United States. …
We repeat, there is no power in the world that could do more than inconvenience the United States by attacking its fringe, which is all that the world combined could do, so long as our country is not compelled to send its forces beyond its own compact shores to defend worthless possessions. If our country were blockaded by the united powers of the world for years, she would emerge from the embargo richer and stronger, and with her own resources more completely developed.
This natural geographical advantage, however, is lost if America must defend colonies around the world. A relatively small military is adequate to defend the continental homeland, but imperialism requires the ability to project force anywhere in the world. An imperial America must field a navy and army equal to the combined strength of the European colonial powers, which will be extraordinarily expensive.
Carnegie argues well, and although America did not heed his advice, I find myself agreeing with almost everything he says. Imperialism has cost the US money, it has violated American principles, and it has required the US to field a world-dominating military at extraordinary expense.
I agree with Carnegie’s views on imperialism. Although He overestimates the strength of the US at that time. Britain alone could have started a war that would have been far more than an incoveince to the US, and Britain with either Germany or France would have been a dire threat to the US’ very existence.
That is the one thing I always get confused about American Colonialism was often more or less encouraged by liberals in Christianity desiring to bring the kingdom of God after we bought the Philippines from Spain and as a conservative I am supposed to feel guilty for our forrays into Colonialism?
For different reasons but along the same lines I do feel kind of guilty for the Philippines and what we did there. My unit in the Army actually gets our heritage from the Philippines in 14 CAV Regiment who fought in the insurrection in the Philippines after we bought a country. On the unit crest we have this little sword big knife used to kill Rattlesnakes which we also had on our unit crest. Then when called to attention we had to shout, “Rattlesnake” and everyone hisses which is hilarious. Of course learning about the Philippines came after I was already retired.
I am more bummed out of what we did in the last century with Marcos and sewing another insurrection when he did not bow to our needs or what we did when forced the Philippines to stop subsidizing their rice farms with fertilizer and other argrarian stuff that helped produce an abbundance of rice where the Philippines were always rice exporters and after we got involved are now rice importers. Besides the hypocrisy of subsidizing our farms. Am not saying we should stop subsidizing but allow countries to run their own economy. On the other hand, not many know why Marcos was overthrown and when there not too many can tell me why this happened and hard to track down books about this. Yet the story goes that the Philippines were so in debt to the IMF they could not even pay the interest let alone the principal. As Marcos fought against Japan, his government took their gold reserves and buried it out in the jungles and no one really knew where it was. The IMF went to Manila and told him if he signed over the mineral rights of his country all was forgiven. He basically told them you have about three days to get out of my country and wala-now we know his wife had a few thousandf pairs of shoes and because obviouskly this showed how bad Marcos was he had to go.
Of course this after his visit to America he refused to meet with a professor of a North Carolina school by the name of Walker(hint hint)and when he went back is when the insurrection happened. I was lucky to learn some of this from a professor I had for American Foeriegn Affairs and happened to be a professor in North Carolina when this happened so I basically got lucky. When talking to Philippinos who lived throught this speak of many more jobs in the Philippines compared to today and when there was no jobs Marcos would send food to differing islands and villages so at least people did not starve.
Of course in the last century there was never a democracy that had a famine. When I asked about Martial law is when I found out Marcos had his army looking for the buried gold and knew others were out there doing the same. I wander if we got their gold? Good research project. If we did, could there be a causual relationship with how the Philippines is now.
Oh yes, do not let me forget as in America and many countries only a few families are allowed to rule and cannot remember if Marcos was not in one of those families or was and tried to do right by his counttry ala the Camelot episode of the Kennedies here in the USA.
So do I feel bad for what we did in the 19th and 20th century in the Philippines? You bet. Does this mean I own the guilt for it since I am white and American? Certainly not as I feel I did a bit in my share in buying a house for a family in the Philippines so they have a place of refuge during the Typhoons when they largely lived on the beaches. Also did other things to help this family whom I might be related to one day and a Baptist church. In other words as a disabled Vet I did quite a bit more then McLaren who happens to teach white Americans should shoulder guilt for nothing most had nothing to do with let alone alive when this happened. Not that I did anything because of white guilt but for love of some in the Philippines. My actions had nothing to do with white guilt for Colonialism which ws largely done by liberals and Democrats largely opposed by Conservatives.