Leftovers from Class

I found this quote by Earl Warren to be a really interesting reflection of one of the book's major goals. When I read this I was thinking about how I could use this in a potential lesson plan about Japanese Internment during WWII. Maybe someone else will find this useful as well.

Earl Warren, the attorney general of California explained this policy by commenting that “We believe that when we are dealing with the Caucasian race we have methods that will test the loyalty of them. . . . But when we deal with the Japanese we are in an entirely different field and cannot form any opinion that we believe to be sound.” (Impossible Subjects Pg. 176)

Questions

I'm sorry for being late... I got a bad cold last week. Take care guys...

Historiography question

Throughout our class, we dealt with some redemptive histories for working ladies, Aboriginal people, and illegal aliens. With regard to the histories, I cannot but think of the questions of Spivak, Can the subaltern speak? in the context of historiography. How can we get a legitimacy for this kind of histories even though all historians are not the voiceless and marginalized? How can we judge and conclude life and culture of the subaltern? Can we just answer that it just depends on historian’s close examination or sincerity on his/her subjects? Or can we just say that historian’s racial, ethnic, social, economic, and gender background can get a legitimacy for his/her work like Enstad and Ngai? If Raibmon were a descendent of Aboriginal people, her work would get more legitimacy?

When we think of Ngai’s racial background as a first generation immigrant and social background as an activist for labor movement, these backgrounds give her a certain right to represent illegal aliens or add an aura to her book? I do not deny that these experiences might lead her to a better investigation and research for her subjects. Moreover, by focusing on sociolegal history rather than cultural and micro history of illegal aliens, Ngai’s history is relatively free from the criticism on the problem in representation of historical subject. But still, I am curious about the question, because I am studying a history of gay culture of 20^th century America as a straight Korean.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History Question

As Ngai points out in the introduction, “this book addresses these and other issues by charting the historical origins of the “illegal alien” in American law and society and the emergence of illegal immigration as the central problem in U. S. immigration policy in the twentieth century”(3).

In this sense, this book only shows the one-sided gaze from America to illegal alien. For example, when she mentions about social backgrounds of the anti-Filipino riots (109-116), she only presents the viewpoints from American which had promoted the colonized identity of Filipino. As Dave mentioned, this book does not present any agency of illegal alien, and represent any resistance of the subaltern to its readers. Does this book reproduce a narrative of victim who has no power to change anything? She seems to believe Bhabha’s notion that “the migrants, the minorities, the diasporic come to change the history of the nation”(14), but she focus on examining the power of colonial world rather than resistance of illegal alien in this book. Does the fact degrade the potential of this book to rescue illegal alien as an agent who must fight with and change the nation?

Mass production of U. S. citizen in Korea

Ngai points out that “it[a globalist perspective] suggests a need to dislodge, through critical analysis, the colonialist and superpower nations from their self-claimed positions at the center of world history” (10). Quoting Dipesh Chakrabarty, she claims that we need to understand the forces and relations of power that generate migration between nations. Especially, her notion that “migration to the United States has been the product of specific economic, colonial, political, military, and/or ideological ties between the United States and other countries” (including South Korea) (10) is so interesting, because it reminds me of some problems in Korea.

As you guys know, unlike North Korea, South Korea is one of the allies of the U. S. Since Korea was divided into North and South, South Korea has invariably been under the power of influence of the U. S. Actually, our nation is still a semi-colony of the U. S., because we depend on the U. S diplomatically, militarily, politically, and economically. And the U. S. made us like that, because our location has a strategic importance. In Korea, they could attack China, Russia, and Japan. Now, Americans can use South Korea as a bridgehead to pressure China, Russia, and North Korea.

In this social context, English became very important to live in Korea. Those who can speak English very well can get any kind of job in Korean society. English is a power which can create economic and social opportunities to get into higher level of hierarchy. Plus, academic degrees from prestigious universities in America guarantee a fortune and reputation in Korea. So many Korean pregnant women go to America, bear their child there, and then come back only to get U. S citizenship. After that, the parents send their children to America for education, after they graduate middle school or elementary school. It has been an issue in Korean society that Korean upper class makes their children U. S. citizens to maintain their high status in society. Because when someone is a U. S. citizen, everything would be easier and cheaper in America. It means Korean upper class can easily raise their children in America. Not only upper class, but Korean middle class starts to participate in a mass production of U. S. citizen. It is nothing but a mass production of alien citizens, but it doesn’t matter because they will come back to Korea anyways. But in Korea, they are creating a group of alien citizen, because their cultural back ground influenced by American culture is very different from Korean culture. They spent much of their childhood in America and then come back because they cannot enjoy a privilege as upper class. They are just alien citizens in America. But when they come back, they realize that they cannot assimilate into Korean society either. It’s such a sad story, isn't it?

The portrayal of the Immigrant Groups themselves, a strength of the text

I think a central part of Ngai’s text that has not seemed to come up in the blog is the portrayal of the immigrant populations themselves. Clearly a large focus of this text is on the denaturalizing the concept of illegal alien as well as the concept of nation itself. Ngai successfully does this through a richly sourced detailing of the often racist legal manipulation, usage of quota guidelines and other discourses which both redefined national cultural as well as created hierarchies of racial and national desirability. Obviously these policies and implications are extremely relevant today with the ongoing debate over immigration from Mexico and how citizenship, or the rights of citizenship, should be extended to these populations (which Ngai touches on in the text’s epilogue).
But I also think that Ngai successfully works to portray the immigrant populations as more than single monolithic groups that can be dominated or oppressed by these national and “othering” discourses. We see the immigrant populations as active and diverse groups in Ngai’s text. These immigrant populations negotiated their own citizenship through a high degree of agency that also seems to be a crucial part of Ngai’s work. For example the resistance of exploitation by Mexican bracero workers that we see detailed in Chapter 4, the negotiation of dual national loyalties by the Japanese while in the internment camps, or the financial and social support offered by Chinese family associations, are all sites of agency by these immigrant groups. This agency allowed these groups to resist a unidirectional force of immigration policy and discourse that would be damaging in many regards and thus emerged complex contact zones where culture, nationhood and policy were shifted and altered. I think this is a clear strength of Ngai’s text, because while she clearly details the racist and repressive immigration policy and rhetoric, she shows that it was not a force that was passively accepted, bought rather fought back against.

Mae Ngai

I found the place that economics had/has on the status of illegal immigrants to be very fascinating. Although the economics is often talked about (the old "Americans won't do certain jobs")I found myself wondering how complex the push-pull effect of economics on immigration status might be. It seems that economic need for illegal immigrants is often somewhat kept from public view due to the many strong opinions about the topic. Ngai mentions in the epilogue that during economic boom times businesses often push for an easing of immigration policy because they desire the cheap labor.

This made me think about American policy during WWII. Taking a large amount of potentially skilled workers, in the Japanese, out of any skilled jobs seems counterproductive to wartime mobilization. In this instance the racial motivations and fears won out of the economics of the situation. Are racial fears the only force strong enough to defeat economic desires? I don't feel that I entirely comprehend why illegal immigration is such a boiling point the last few years unless the fears of September 11th are that strong.

Melissa's Discussion Questions (edited)

I'd like to change my history question. I realized after going through it again that she does touch on my question. I guess I was just looking for the word patriotism but instead she used nationalism. Therefore, I have a different question. On page 66, she discusses the change from immigrants landing at seaports to coming by land through the nation's northern and southern borders. She quotes a writer who asks "Can these long borders ever be adequately patrolled?" This is still an issue today, especially after the heightened fear of terrorism. She opens a door with that quote to talk about present day but stops the book in 1965. She talks very little about present day concerns and issues with border patrol and terrorism in her epilogue as well. Should she have continued on further past 1965? Could she, or would this be a different book? Would a lengthier discussion of how the fear of illegal aliens entering the country along these long borders strengthened or weakened the book?

The Nation

Mae M. Ngai spends the last part of her introduction in discussing "Nationalism and Sovereignty." If we look back to our time in American Core 1 we will remember the debate about Sovereignty that we saw in Bailyn's "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" as well as Wood's "The Creation of the American Republic." These idea's of Sovereignty ultimately served as the mortar for the construction of the United States as a modern Nation-State.

The construction and the influence of the modern Nation-State is an integral part of Ngai's assesment on the construction of immigrant status. Ngai states that "nations are," using a Benedict Anderson phrase, "historically produced 'imagined communities.'"(9)The constructed nature of the nation state leads Ngai to ask such question about, "the violation of the nation's sovereign space that produces a different kind of illegal alien and different valuation of claims that he or she can make on society?"(7)Or more generally, just how does the constructed entity of the "Nation" effect the lives of those in a state of flux within a globe dominated by various national entities?

Ngai wastes very little time in stating that the "country" introduced the problem of "illegal immigration" into the "internal spaces of the nation." Her assessment that "Immigration restriction produced the illegal alien as a new legal and political subject(emphasis hers), whose inclusion within the nation was simultaneously a social reality and legal impossibility" moves towards an understanding of how individual subjectivity are constructed and dominated by the nation state and the popular discourse that supports it.(4)

Race Matters

An important theme that runs throughout Impossible Subjects is “how restrictive immigration laws produced new categories of racial difference” (7). According to Ngai, the passing of the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 ushered in a period of racially restrictive immigration policies that would significantly alter how America viewed citizenship rights and the perception of the “American identity.” She provides a table of immigration quotas based on national origin which gives the reader hard numbers that show obligatory racial bias (28-29). Ngai also cites various court cases to show how understandings of race and “Americanness” were not simply anecdotal, but entrenched policy. For example, in Takao Ozawa v. U.S. (1922) and U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) the court ruled that “Japanese and Asian Indians were racially ineligible to citizenship” and therefore “cast Japanese and Asian Indians with Chinese as unassimilable aliens and helped constitute the racial category ‘Asian’” (38). This racialization of unwanted immigrants was drawn in even sharper terms during World War II with the internment of Japanese-American citizens. When addressing the issue of the differing treatment of Germans and Italians from that of the Japanese, Earl Warren stated that the U.S. had methods for effectively testing the loyalty of the Caucasian race, “but when we deal with the Japanese we are in an entirely different field and cannot form any opinion that we believe to be sound” (176). That Warren could express his racial bias so openly demonstrates the racial climate of the time.

While Ngai draws a clear picture of the history of U.S. immigration policy between the 1924 and 1967, she also provides ample evidence of America’s on-going policy of racism in the building and sustaining of this country throughout the twentieth century. She shows how new categories of race were created to deal with the increasing threats of foreign “invasion” even while the more familiar domestic segregation of Jim Crow thrived.

deportation policy

The deportation policy when it came to families and morality was very interesting to me. The idea of family unity and not breaking up the family. On page 80 there is the story of the male head of household being a hero for stealing food for his family. I realize this is not what the entire book is about but these kind of stories kept pulling me back. I found it really interesting how the family unit was more important to some officials then to others. It is also interesting how there were strings attached in some cases (i.e. the example on pg 80 of what would cost the public more).
I think one of the really interesting points of the book came on page 79 where Ngai described how the immigration officers took it upon themselves to become morality officers. Not only did they become morality officers but they basically decided that women, even if they had a job, could not fend for themselves.
So in closing, that is one particular part of the book that interested me and even though it was a minisule part of the story, I felt it was one worth mentioning.

Ngai Questions...

Historiography: In her introduction, Ngai claims that her work (in addition to everything else going on here) is also a critique of nationalism. In fact, she claims that this critique is accomplished through a globalist perspective (10). This being the case, would this part of her work have benefited from a discussion of other nations' immigration laws? Would this type of discussion have clarified American motivations and behavior in this era given the transnational character of the individuals entering into the US during this time? Also, by bringing in this international law discussion, would this have strengthened her argument? How does this additional component help to characterize the immigrant themselves? Given that nationalism is a large component of an immigrant's ethnic identity and it's constantly in flux, would an examination of their native country's immigration legislation have helped to characterize them in a more appropriate way to benefit her other points of racism, immigration policy, economic incentive,etc?

History: What roles do Filipinos and Japanese in Ngai's analysis of "illegal aliens"? Filipinos were considered "nationals" which was unique in that they were legally able to reside in the country but had no rights as citizens or residents (100). Japanese citizens were in fact citizens with full rights alongside Germans and other Axis powers during WWII. Yet, many Japanese Nisei were committed to internment camps which limited their status as full citizens (200-01). There is little doubt that these individuals were in the country legally, but are they "illegal aliens"? If not, how do these unique cases of peoples fit into the history of immigration? In addition, (and this is actually the history part of the question) what do these situations say about Filipino and Japanese agency? Are both given the proper consideration in their acting on their own to affect changes? For the Japanese, this is probably so, but what about the Filipinos?

Melissa's Discussion Questions

History-
Mae Ngai mentions that the U.S. immigration policy contradicted the country's "democratic premises of citizenship" by basing entry solely on race (42). I wondered if the measures being taken by the American people and government of limiting the amounts of "non-whites" and unassimilable races could be seen as a form of patriotism. I don't remember Ngai mentioning patriotism at all. Do you think patriotism was/could be a factor? If so, why wasn't it mentioned? Should it have been? Do you think Ngai would agree it was partly patriotism or something else like a basic fear of allowing an unknown culture/people into their country?

Historiographical-
She uses a lot of sources from government documents to oral histories. Although the oral history sources and newspaper sources could give a bottom-up history, while I read the book, it seemed like it was more of a top-down history. Did you feel the same way? Should she have included more sources that gave the immigrant perspective? Is that possible? Could this history be written more in a bottom-up approach or was this the only way to write this book?

Colonial Obliteration

Paige Raibmon effectively demonstrates how the discourse of “authenticity” significantly altered the trajectory of Aboriginal development within a stifling colonial context. She correctly points out, for example, that while the hop pickers of Puget Sound regularly engaged in “playing Indian” for the vast crowds of “Indian watchers,” they had little choice but to operate within the dominant discourse (10). According to Raibmon, “Aboriginal people were far less likely to gain access to [the] public sphere when they did not ‘play Indian’” (11). As the book implies throughout, this “playing along” would have the long term, detrimental effect of reinforcing many of the stereotypes of the day and, in turn, help bolster dominant society’s binary framework of authenticity—one is either authentic or inauthentic, civilized or uncivilized. These dialectical struggles are all the more bewildering because their ever-shifting rules are controlled by the dominant class. This battle ultimately leads to, perhaps, the most damaging effect of so-called authenticity on Aboriginal peoples: its ability to obliterate their past, while simultaneously writing them out of the future. If Aboriginal people are relegated to an authentic and thus savage and uncivilized past they can be “categorically excluded from the transition into the modern present” (125). If, on the other hand, Aboriginal people attempted to assimilate into modern society “they became something else entirely” (125). Within this either-or framework it would appear impossible for Aboriginal people to continue to exist into the future. The historical and psychological toll this intricate process has on the Aboriginal is tremendous. These colonial tactics combined with Aboriginal acquiescence, whether deliberate or unwittingly, form the dehibilitating context so well discussed by Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth. Despite the difference in time period and place, Fanon's observations largely ring true for the effects of authenticity on Aboriginal Americans. Distinguishable patterns can indeed be found throughout the history of colonialism no matter time nor place.

Authenticity of Asia

I felt construction of authenticity examined in Authentic Indians, when I was watching G.I. Joe: the Rise of Cobra. There was a scene one Asian guy, actually Korean guy who acted Storm Shadow, was looking back upon his childhood. In a temple in Tokyo, he was like a young apprentice. He was fighting small American kid who will become Snake Eyes, because he tried to steal food from the temple. At that time, an old monk who looked like a master came into the kitchen and yelled “stop Storm Shadow!” and then Storm Shadow started talking something in Korean, not Japanese. English speaking monk, young Japanese apprentice named Storm Shadow, and no one speaks Japanese in Tokyo. I was like what the hell…. But all my American friends seemed to notice nothing wield…

I was thinking like you guys have no idea about Japan and Asia, while watching the movie. Many Americans are making something like authenticity about Japanese and Asian culture, and Asian people align themselves with it, because they can sell it and it’s natural in America, as Aboriginal people did. Like Raibmon commented, we “played Asian”, the stereo type which is regarded as Asian by American. (8). There was construction of authenticity which served as a colonial assumption for Asian culture…

The Korean actor is regarded as a patriot in Korea, because he asserted that he wanted to use Korean in the scene to the director of the movie. And he said he accepted the wield Tokyo scene, because he thought presenting Asia, whether it was wield or not, was better than nothing. We can consider his decision as strategic essentialism. But it’s still sad that the director accepted his proposal. It means that it doesn’t matter if they use Korean in the Tokyo scene. Because it doesn’t hurt the authenticity of Asia in America.

Sorry my discussion questions are so damn long.

I have noticed that each week in class (especially the last time I offered discussion questions) that the questions start off at a fairly abstract point, which Professor Herzberg then boils down to get to the more central topics of the text. In efforts to get to the meat and potatoes of the text right away, I was hoping to start my historiography question by flushing out the core themes of the text, rather than the details of it.

Historiography Question
What argument and theoretical position is Raibmon taking regarding the ahistorical cultural purity and the existence of “two inadequate possibilities… of authenticity’s false dichotomy” and how they are so deeply embedded in the understanding of Indigenous cultures?
In conjunction with this question and without either falling into the binaries that Raibmon critiques, identity politics or an essentialization of the subjects of the text, I want to pose a simple question that could have a very complex answer. Can this sort of position regarding the issues of authenticity be taken by a non-native scholar? Would that be problematic, why or why not? Can we truly address issues of authenticity through the gaze of the colonizer/Western academic or must the issues only be addressed from a native perspective? In a question that seems to pervade all aspects of subaltern studies, one could ask if we see a strong enough Native presence in Raibmon’s text to make the claims she is making? Can Native scholars be given a free pass from criticism in cultural studies of Indigenous peoples? What role do insider/outsider dichotomies play on such research?

History Question
First, I would like to note that I really valued those contributions that this text was offering. I found that its integration of both indigenous and non-indigenous sources particularly beneficial to Native Studies, as it created a complicated narrative of the way that authenticity played out in this complex region. Therefore, I found a strong historical question a bit harder to formulate.
One thing I would like to point out is in reference to the time period of the text. Raibmon focuses on a relatively brief period of colonial/indigenous interaction, about thirty years surrounding the turn of the twentieth century. How do we feel about this time frame and why do we think Raibmon focused on it? In attempting to avoid making Indigenous peoples into an ahistorical group, would it have been more effective to follow the negotiation of authenticity over a wider period of time? Does her focus here frame the complex ways that authenticity was utilized by both Native and non-native actors into to specific a time period, thus showing this process as specific to the turn of the 20th Century rather than one that is constantly in flux? Would it have been more effective at creating an evolving idea of authenticity that was employed by native peoples to broaden the focus of the study? Is her short time period inherently limiting in this regard? For example, rather than focusing on a trip to the Chicago World’s Fair by the Kwakwaka'wakw people or a brief period of Tlingit hop picking, would it have helped to focus on a longer history of acculturation of these peoples?

Then and Now

This kind of relates to what Vinnie mentioned about the opening ceremony at the Olympics...

So I found it interesting how Raibmon discusses the model schools the BIA and DIA set up as their way of "civilizing" the Aboriginal people. The children brought to these schools were then put on exhibit for other people to watch them work at different skills they had learned at their various residential schools. The main idea behind these schools and exhibits in Canada was so that Canada could increase their immigration rates and prosperity. They aimed at making people believe that they had civilized these savages who no longer posed a threat to white culture. If they could prove that these savages were civilized then they could announce that Canada as a whole was civilized so more people would migrate and settle in the Canadian frontiers. When she starts talking about how "Canadian officials strove to represent their country as progressive and having domesticated the land and 50,000 Aboriginal people" (42), I thought that was the completely opposite message being portrayed at the Olympics. Canadians were once trying to make people believe that the Aboriginal people lost their "authenticity" and were therefore no longer a threat to white culture, ensuring visitors that Canada was a rising, progressive, society. They were trying to hide the true culture of their land. However, now, Canada is celebrating the Aboriginal culture, displaying their different dances, dress, etc, as a way to entice people to visit. I just found it interesting how it was completely flipped around.

Raibmon and authenticity

Does Raibmon ever define authenticity or is it just talked about. Raibmon talks about authenticity as something created by the colonizer but I'm left wondering if there is such a concept as authenticity. Knowing that cultures change over time can something be authentic. Then again, I don't know if Raibmon needs to define authenticity. The three examples used center around how the idea of authenticity causes certain outcomes and is used by both the natives and whites for their own gain, but are any of these examples something that is truly authentic. I continue to have no idea.

some things

Authenticity for Raibmon is a category of analysis. Like other categories of analysis, such as race, class, and gender, Authenticity is used to subvert the idea that the "binary system" constructed between aboriginal authentic and non-authentic is "a natural manifestation of common sense" (206). In the place of a "manifestation of common sense" we have something, and idea, that is culturally constructed. Yet, as Raibom shows through her study, these cultural constructs have very real world effects on the native peoples of the North West. Keeping in mind the real world effects of this "authenticity we have manufactured" is something that i believe Raibmon was striving for with this work, and it's pretty evident within her conclusion (205).

Also, reducing the events and actions that historical actors take within Authentic Indians to that of economic determinism drastically reduces the agency that these actors could have. Also, reducing the situation to pure economics fails to reveal the power that the "Authentic" binary produced on both colonizer and subject. It is important to keep in mind the Catch-22 that Raibom refers to, that Aboriginal "engagement with colonial agents and categories - whether acquiescent, collaborative, or defiant- further entrenched colonial hegemony." (10)

Dave's Discussion Questions

Historiography: Raibmon centers her work around the idea of "authenticity". In the eyes of what she calls "colonial rule" culture, a false dichotomy is created between authentic and inauthentic. Does she effectively argue this point--especially considering that on a number of occassions, she points out that this dichotomy is disregarded by the non-Aboriginal in the interests of economic incentive or territorial gains? For example, pp.97 and 134. Both instances discuss the "muting" of her authenticity model by whites in the name of profit. How do these instances help her case or do they help to lessen its effectiveness?

History: Building off the same idea of "authenticity" in the previous quesiton: If whites had a static view of authenticity, what was the Aboriginal idea of authenticity? It seems that in certain situations, Aboriginals had a similar static view. For example, on p.104, Raibmon points out Aboriginal chiefs are questioning the authenticity of other tribespeople because they're prioritizing their wage earning (modern) above participating in a potlatch (traditional). Is the battle between the whites and Aboriginals not between conflicting views of authenticity, but rather between conflicting efforts at economic incentive or supremacy or something else?

Meredith's Disscussion Questions

Historiography: Raibmon states in her introduction that she will be using three separate episodes to show authenticity. Do you feel that in some ways her arguments were one sided? Do all of her arguments have the Aboriginal culture being either put down or misrepresented in some way? More importantly do you think that Whites and Aboriginals were truly collaborators when it came to Aboriginal culture or do you think it was more of the Aboriginals being taken advantage of? (i.e. being forced to wear furs and given barely any money).

History: Is authenticity really the motive for all of the episodes and things that happen in the book. Can Raibmon really argue that authenticity was as important as civilization when it came to things such as the schooling in the third episode? Did authenticity make the cut when it came to making a living? I'm also not convinced that authenticity mattered when it came to tourism and such. Where the examples she gave strong in that area?

Hop Farm = Disney World

Who knew that watching hops be harvested was such a tourist attraction?

"Cy Young -- you're the MVP of the 1903 World Series . . . what are you gonna do next?"

"I'm goin' to the hop fields of Washington state!"

Olympics

I was watching a part of the Opening Ceremonies of the Winter Olympics and happened to come across the Indian ceremony which made me think of the book for this week. A couple of questions: How much of this ceremony relates to the Indian exhibits and the "cannibal dance" portrayed at the Chicago World's Fair of 1893? In the present, how did the other Aboriginals feel about this representation of their people?

TIM BOVAY'S DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

From Tim, who swears he knows how to post to the blog, but just doesn't choose to at this precise moment:
--My Historiography question concerns the social factors left out Hoganson's book
namely eugenics.  Hoganson refers to Darwinian theorists, but not to the social
factors bolstering the superiority of a "white culture" that may have also
influenced the conquering of "inferior foreign people" incapable of self rule.
The fears of jingoes regarding masculinity as well as many social evils walked
hand in hand with the perceptions of the Darwinian theorists who would eventually
take on the mantle of eugenicists.
--As for my historiography question, Hoganson paints a gender duality inherent in
the time period and a the warring political factions, arbitration being feminine
and war being masculine.  The question therefore is, is a gender dichotomy
necessary to a narrative regarding gender concerns?  And i have a follow up to
that question when we discuss.  

The amorphous stuff

At the risk of overloading the bandwagon, I agree with the assessment of my fellow bloggers that Hoganson's definition of honor shifts somewhat as the book unfolds, which we can discuss at length in class. That being said, I would also like to observe that as I read the book my mind kept returning to what Hoganson refers to as the "amorphous stuff of culture" (3), the building blocks for her argument concerning the motivation for American political decisions regarding foreign policy. Her ensuing discussions of gender convictions, honor, and the chivalric paradigm are fleshed out nicely, but time and again I questioned the inherent nebulous nature of an exclusively cultural approach. Is this a viable format for a convincing argument, or does this diminish the weight of her thesis by relying too much on what is essentially subjective interpretation of rhetoric, opinions, and oratory hyperbole of the times. Undoubtedly Hoganson has far greater familiarity with the subject matter than most academics from her extensive readings, but the fact that she anticipates this type of criticism in her introduction persuades me that it should be a topic of discussion. I agree with John that although this book has limitations it is certainly important for the new avenues of investigation and thought that it opens.

Stirrup Pants

Who knew Uncle Sam rocked the stirrup pants? Is Lady Liberty hiding legwarmers underneath her robe? Inquiring minds want to know . . .

Placing Hoganson in a larger body of texts

In many respects I agree with the points made by the previous two posts. As Steven notes, some of the texts gendered analysis seems to be less fully formed that more contemporary scholarship. I also agree that the definition of honor seemed to shift through the text. But I do not necessarily believe that either of these points detracts from the values of such a text (not that these posts were necessarily arguing that point either). Hoganson explores the fine distinctions of the gendered rhetoric of policy debate for both the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. She argues that both the constructed hierarchy of gender and the threats to that hierarchy were omnipresent in all policy decisions and cultural rhetoric. Hoganson offers masculity as a conerstone to understanding the justifications for these imperial conquests, thus creating a new site of historical focus and analysis. I think this is where the innovation and importance of this text lies.

Placing gender, as a focal point of analysis for the understandings of U.S. imperial culture seems to be a crucial point of analysis for this work, what that seemed to be fairly groundbreaking at the time (the text is 12 years old). Although this text was not the very first to do so, this move seemed to spark a host of texts that address both the impact of gender on American foreign policy at the turn of the century and the changing negotiation of gendered constructs in American culture. Using a Foucauldian discursive analysis and shifting the academic gaze to a gendered lenses has allowed historians to both study the impact that these social constructs have had on Imperialism, but also the way that foreign policy has also helped to create and reinforce a stratified gendered binary. Many scholars have followed in this vein and offered a gendered analysis of U.S. imperial cultures.

Ann Laura Stoler and Amy Kaplan are two of note whose work complicates the relationship between nation building, imperial expansion and the creation of a normative gendered binary.

Perhaps one of the strengths of this book is that in not completely answering all of the questions regarding manliness and U.S. imperialism, it sparked a great future research on the subject, research and work that has been especially crucial in American cultural studies. In my particular background of study, this book seems to be highly influential to many other scholars. And although I agree that not all of Hoganson’s points are totally focused, the book seems to be important in initiating a great deal of future analysis that utilizes this gendered focus.

See you all tomorrow.
-John

From Steve (hopefully this posts correctly)

Hoganson centers her study of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War in the “cultural frameworks” of the period. Part of these “cultural frameworks” are political culture, “the assumptions and practices that shaped electoral politics and foreign policy formulation”, as well as “gender convictions”, “meaning the ideas about appropriate male and female roles” (3). In using these categories Hoganson is attempting to ground foreign policy decisions, concerning the imperialist wars of the late 19th and early 20th century, in a “wider cultural context”, primarily focused on “gender politics” (in case the title did not give this away already), instead of using “traditional” historic lenses such as: economics, strategic intervention, political motivation. Instead Hoganson uses these ideas to “fill in the gaps” for his narrative (14).

This book was published in 1998 and as such, I believe, that some of his gendered assumptions and statements are not as fully formed as ones we can work with today. Certain general statements she makes such as, “It may seem implausible that such a seemingly personal phenomenon as gender convictions would have far-reaching political implications, but by stipulating social roles for men and women, gender believes have significantly affected political affairs” (3). I do not see this as an “implausible” statement, probably due to me having an academic background. Yet, I do not Hoganson’s work reaching a much broader audience other than historians and individuals that are concerned with gender construction. Even latter Hoganson, her conclusion mirroring his introduction, goes to state that “historians are only beginning to methodically investigate the connections between gender beliefs and foreign policy developments, they have uncovered plenty of evidence suggesting that gender beliefs have affected the appeal of militant and peaceful policies at different points in history” (206). Maybe gender was just a new way of analyzing historical periods in 1998, I lack the historiographical knowledge to give a definitive answer though. Hoganson engages with the idea of gender and constructs a narrative that explains the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars in light of this information. She seems at times one step from away from addressing the power held within the social construction of gender roles, both male and female, in effecting real life power structures; foreign policy.

In addressing the post about “honor” below me I’d like to say something too. In this post it is stated, “The definition of honor changed a bit throughout the book as the definition of manliness changed. It was something people were striving for but could not seem to hold onto.” I agree completely with this statement. It can be seen that both the idea of manliness and “honor” changes throughout historical periods. These gendered assumptions are never solid but always in a state of flux. These gender constructs affect both men and women’s identities are within Hogansons “cultural frameworks”, especially men in Fighting for American Manhood. I believe it is important for us to realize that “personal phenomenon” such as “gender convictions” play a immediate role in shaping peoples rhetoric as well as their actions.

Honor

I am sure everyone else noticed but the word honor is used an awful lot in this book. On page 21, it is used in militant standards while on the page before that it is used twice on the same sentence. When reading this book I kept thinking back to page 24 where a full page is dedicated to describing the rise and fall of the honor of men. On page 39, Hoganson writes that American men feared being "perceived as unmanly". Is this the same as having no honor?
I felt that honor was something that needed to be seen or read between the lines. Honor was making sure that the women did not interfere with the Cuban debate for example. At this point in the book, perhaps honor came head to head with doing the wrong thing. (By the wrong thing I am referring to not allowing women to help besides "plead on behalf of their Cuban sisters" 61.)
One final point on where I felt that honor once again played an interesting role. When President McKinley claimed that he had "demonstrated his manhood in war" 99, he was referring to his honor, however he had major problems keeping his "manly" image.
The definition of honor changed a bit throughout the book as the definition of manliness changed. It was something people were striving for but could not seem to hold onto.

Hoganson Questions

Here are my questions for class on Tuesday, February 9:

Historiography: Hoganson says that one of the goals of this book is to start from the beginning of this period and reconstruct the narrative of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars with gender as a basic building block for understanding why these conflicts took place (p. 13). Does she succeed in convincing the reader that the need to prove masculinity domestically and internationally is what caused these two conflicts and if so, is this perspective something completely new to the scholorship regarding these conflicts?

History question: After reading this book, are gendered motives the foundation for foreign policy decisions during this time period or should they just be considered a part of the "existing framework"? Hoganson wants to place gender as the most simplistic and tidy explanation for why these conflicts took place. Do gendered motives stand above all other reasons for this policy or are gendered motives just a part of the history? Does Hoganson make too big of a deal regarding the role of gender?

Megan's Hoganson Discussion Questions

After about 20 minutes I figured out how to create my own post. Here are my historiographical and historical questions to think about for class on Tuesday.

Historiographical: Does this approach affect the way other nineteenth century wars can be viewed? If the same notions of gender and the inherent manliness of political life carried throughout the nineteenth century, were there gender motivations for the Mexican-American War or the Civil War? Do these notions of gender apply to other nations of the nineteenth century? Hoganson contends that we had to prove our manliness to the rest of the world. Were they as concerned about proving their manliness in their nineteenth century wars?

Historical: Why this specific war? For me, Hoganson does not provide enough evidence that this time period was unique and her evidence for saying it is can be seen in other times and places in the history of the United States. Notions of gender were similar throughout the nineteenth century, why would men wait until the end to prove their manliness?

Also, do her sources (political rhetoric, the press, and correspondence) provide enough evidence to convince the reader that men enlisted to prove their manliness and save the Cuban damsels in distress? Was this merely political fodder or did it trickle down to the masses?

No Really, He Wrote That . . .

I hope everyone has done the reading. Or, to put it another way, I hope you're done "riding the stallion of preparedness." (111)

"Recovery of Lost Options"

In his introduction, Dawley cites that one of his goals is the “recovery of lost options in the past” (6 & 9). He hoped by doing this it would give agency to the historical actors who might have been forgotten otherwise. This approach is quite different from most that I have encountered in history books and it makes me think that there could be so much more to every story that what is presented. Unfortunately, much like the others who have posted about this book, there is a sense of disappointment and questioning at certain times. Perhaps it is in some ways the fault of this goal since it makes the conclusions quite subjective. Using just one example that irked me, Dawley has a large discussion of architecture to make his point about isolationists and the opposition from both imperialists and internationalists (27). He said:

“the dueling architectural styles of Burnham and Wright, Union Station and Taliesin, represented the opposition between an imperial mentality and a more republican, yet cosmopolitan frame of mind.”

Dawley is assuming that these were politically motivated designs, and they could truly have been, but more proof is needed. Could there be other reasons that these men designed the way that they did? How about taste or cultural preferences? It might depend a great deal on how the sources are interpreted. Moments like this threaten to undermine the overall arguments that the author is trying to make.

Does this book sit a bit uneasy with anyone else?

I agree with Colin. There is something about this book that sits uneasy with me.

First, the Dawley text does well to incorporate both a social and political history into a monograph on the birth and growth of Progressivism. By linking progressive domestic reforms with the imperial drive to “redeem” the larger world, Dawley’s text succeeds on some levels. By studying this highly influential period, Dawley makes the claim that during the first third or so of the twentieth century was born the notion that being a good American citizen equated to being a good world policeman. This notion is crucial because both during the Progressive Era and in more contemporary international politics this ideology still have a very tangible impact.

I am also aware of the historiography significance of this text. By linking the reform at home with the expansion overseas, Dawley attempts to place the formation of domestic American culture and social life as from the same process as international relations. And by doing so he creates a more transnational understanding of domestic culture. But I think he takes an awkward methodological and ideological approach to doing so.

Who am I to criticize Dawley (doctorate from Harvard and a very well respected historian) but I simply feel the text does not sit well. First I think his writing of transnational American culture is very much unidirectional. We see Progressivism influencing the sort of politics of the Roosevelt and Wilson’s eras, but we do not see the impact that these imperialist policies have on these foreign nations. Surely you can link progressivism to domestic policy, but what about the impacts that these international policies have had on Panama, Mexico and the remainder of Latin America. American globalism and militarism of the period shirly reconfigured citizenship, economic structures and social life in many post-colonial states in the Western Hemisphere.

By failing to include this, as well as some of the other detriments of Progressive Era agendas (both domestic and international) he seems to paint to positive of a picture of this time period. This goes in contrast to the large body of literature that documents the domestic failings of this period (such as the continuation of racial identies, the creation of sexual hierarchies, and the creation of a heteronormative white ideal around with which all other social hierarchies are created) as well as the international (the birth of U.S. economic imperialism). He does not give enough attention to the shortcomings of these imperial projects, such as U.S. expansion into Latin America that surely had economic incentives. He also underplays the less attractive practices of prominent figures of the time, such as Theodore Roosevelt whose international expansionist agenda surely influenced the rise of American imperialism and globalization. As a result, the text seemed to have a celebratory tone, celebrating the Progressive Era for its crucial impact on contemporary politics, but only the “positive impacts”. I cant help but think that by doing such the text is laden with Dawley’s personal ideological preferences and that these ideals of an America policing the world and spreading democracy (which Dawley claims were aims of Progressives) were at the time (as well as now) rhetorical straw men for the spreading and justification of economic imperialism.

So the text was a bit hard for me to really appreciate after I finished it. What does everyone else think?

Uhh . . .

I don't know what it is, but something about this book seems . . . off. Maybe it's the dead-eyed lady on the cover, or the font size, or maybe the writing just sucks -- who knows? But reading this stuff makes me dizzy.