This subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message of the propaganda. Here we should be conscientious and wary of manipulation/distortion/oversimplification (which the above likely has), not duped by it. "Don't be a sucker."
Stay on topic -- there are hundreds of other subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. No partisan bickering. No soapboxing. Take a chill pill. "Don't argue."
I think the most interesting thing about this cartoon is how Alaska is viewed as an obedient equal amongst the states even as a territory (especially since it was drawn with the idea of the Alaskan natives in mind). How were the natives viewed in this era? How much political freedom did they have? Pre statehood, were the rights of the Alaskan natives respected more so than other American Indian tribes in the US?
Yeah, that makes sense to me. I think my bigger question is why is there a difference between the portrayal of the two native groups. The ‘plains Indians’ are the ones shown as unwilling and unable to learn, while the Alaskan tribes seem to be shown as a valued part of the country. Why the divide?
Less direct interaction would be my guess. US relations with tribes like the Comanche were infamously fractious, and this was only 24 years after their “””resettlement””” in Oklahoma.
this source indicates that Native sovereignty was just never much of a concept in the Alaskan territories and this Reddit post discusses the phenomenon at (I presume) more length
The entire history of interaction with the native people in the US and Canada has been based on the fact that they were viewed as primitive peoples that needed to be civilized, with no right to the land they lived on, since they were not making "Proper use of it". They were, for the most part looked at as an obstacle to progress.
It was a core tenant of both countries that native culture was to be educated out of existence in order to "civilize" the natives. The history of the Bureau of Indian affairs schools and the Canadian Indian Residential School system are particularly horrifying when looked at today.
Alaska had been part of the US for 32 years at this point, perhaps they thought the delusion of the “civilizing mission” had had enough time to take effect there
Because Alaska Natives never fought the US Government, while in the 48, there were still groups in active conflict with the US Government at the time of publication. Wounded Knee happened in 1890, the last Medal of Honor in the Indian Wars was issued in 1898, the last battle between Indians and the US Army occurred in 1918, and sporadic raids on settlers occurred into the 1920s.
In some groups, less so in others. The Seminole for example even had their own newspapers before they were driven away by european-americans from their native land (by Andrew Jackson if I remember correctly, but I might remember wrong).
In the late 1800s (and into the 1900s), the US was under a policy of federally controlled boarding schools for indigenous populations. The goal of these schools was, of course, de-tribalization and assimilation to 'civilized' (white) society. I assume that is why Alaska is drawn with the other, older children : they've been 'civilized'.
Assimilation was viewed as a positive good by 'enlightened anti-racists'. Check out people like Richard Henry Pratt if you're curious about this ideology.
Alaska was handled differently back in the day than the lower 48. The state was too massive and unsettled to have the politics of pushing natives onto reservations.
Nothing like the boarding schools of the US or Canada again because of the isolation. No big wars between the natives and fed government either from the get go in 1867.
Still lots and lots of racism and segregation, but that was everywhere for everyone at the time
That makes sense. I feel like the difficulties and conflicts with the boarding schools is also why the plains American Indian stereotype is shown as unintelligent and unwilling to learn. Were there schools in Alaska? Were they seen as better able to assimilate?
Now Alaska was purchased in 1867 so this was almost twenty years after the U.S. took sovereignty, but the natives were still practicing chattel slavery, killing slaves upon the death of the master, etc. etc. etc.
So that should tell you a lot about just how much "reach" the U.S. govt. had in Alaska at that time.
They were mostly forgotten about. Still treated badly when they were remembered though.
During the 1918 flu, when they went to remote Alaskan villages; the natives spoke to them in Russian. Because that was the last language they’d seen white people using nearly 50-60 years before.
In 1899 the amount of contact they had with anyone at all was pretty limited, mainly being very occasional trips to trading outposts to exchange furs for supplies. There were no "rights" to bargain with since both sides lived independently away from each other. The gold rush territory didn't overlap with Inuit hunting grounds near the coast. Even now they don't have very many competitors for their land b/c it's not suitable for European style settlement.
Why are you assuming those whites aren't Mexican? "Mexican" was not counted as a racial category distinct from "white" in the US census until 1930. In any case, having been Mexican territory, all the states mentioned could be caricatured as Mexican, just as Alaska could be caricatured as Indian, even though in 1900 census "whites" outnumbered "Indians, taxed" by several thousand (though there was no overall majority).
Good point, but even looking at the 1930 census, they were still majority white, being 63.2% and above
Yeah, you could caricature them as Mexican if you wanted still because they used to be Mexican, it just wasn't the point of this image. The artist wanted to show territories of the U.S. that were being governed without the consent of their people and being actively oppressed by a country that has freedom as its core, founding principle
I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many white people in New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, or California who'd prefer if their state was Mexican instead/independent or that were being oppressed
It is the point of the image. Uncle Sam is using the territories perviously forcibly integrated into the US as examples to the more recently acqured colonies. In reference to Alaska, New Mexico, California, Texas, and Arizona, he says to the Philippines, Porto Rico, Hawaii, and Cuba:
take a look at the class ahead of you, and remember that in a little while, you will be as glad to be here as they are!
which is making precisely the point that a few decades after annexation, Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California were all "glad to be here [in the US]" and that, in time, the newer acquistions would feel the same way.
Yeah, but the artist is clearly making a point about race of the people in the territories as well. That the reason the U.S. is governing these people without their consent is because they aren't majority white, at least not yet from the artists perspective
It's not about who the U.S. took them from, it's about the people actually living there, or else Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines would be Spaniards instead of an actual Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Philippino
I don't think racial majorities or former colonial powers comes into it. Government without consent is not dependent on race, it's dependent on the acquistition of the skills of self-government, which is why the schoolbook on Uncle Sam's desk is U.S. Lessons for Self-Government. The older class of Alaska and the old Mexican territories has learnt, or has begun to learn, self-government, whereas the island territories taken from the Spanish Empire have had no instruction in self-government. Self-government is here both the political concept of government by the consent of the governed and the behavioural concept of self-discipline, which the unruly "new class" have yet to learn. (This same pun on "self-government" is also played with in The Madness of King George.)
My point was that caracturizing California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico as Mexican would only make sense if the artist was depicting them based on who we took the land from and not based on their majority race
But since Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines aren't Spaniards, that can't be the case. It's pretty clear that the artists message is based on who actually lives in these territories, not who we took them from
Love the reference to the Chinese Exclusion Act as a Chinese immigrant is at the door but not allowed in. Lots of critiques that are probably lost on people today.
My interpretation would definitely be that it is saying that governing without consent is sometimes necessary, rather than it being ironic. Otherwise the text at the top about the confederacy would be ironic and so the cartoon would be pro-confederacy, which wouldn't make sense since Puck was an NYC-based publication.
In my view it is saying that pro-imperislists will grab any analogy that they can find, good or bad. Anti-imperialists often said that America had begun to act like George III. By not only holding up England as a role model but also deliberately taking the phrase "consent of the governed" from the Declaration, the cartoon seems to be within that tradition. While also mixing in racist depictions of the conquered peoples. Which was also not unusual - as strange it might seem, Southern segregationist politicians tended to be anti-imperialist.
I would describe the school cartoon as ambivalent rather than outright anti-imperialist, but the situation had changed quickly from the time of this earlier cartoon promoting intervention in Cuba. The view that taking the Philippines was a betrayal of the original intention to free Cuba was also held by some (whether or not Dalrymple was one of them).
People speaking so definitively without knowing that Puck was very famously and controversially an anti-imperialist magazine is so funny. It isn’t ancient history
Anti-imperialism was also a much more mainstream sentiment back then, not just being pro-imperialism. For instance the American Anti-Imperialist League was founded a year before this was published and would have many prominent members including Andrew Carnegie, Grover Cleveland, Mark Twain, Benjamin Harrison, John Dewey, William James, Jane Addams, Samuel Gompers etc.
I think this may actually be a cartoon in favor of governing without consent. The board in the background, to the left of the door frame, makes reference to the US preserving the Union without the consent of the "confederate states."
Edit: either that or the cartoonist is also a believer in secession.
Folks: Puck was a satirical publication (more or less The Onion of its day) and anti-imperialism was a dominant theme of American politics at the time. It's satire. Satire that is also incredibly racist, but satire nonetheless.
What true principles? It was a settler colonial project that either killed or enslaved people for land and resources. Still does the same shit today outside of America
Weirdly enough, the UK came to be considered the more civilized counterpart to the USA, which critics of the USA painting the British Empire as more "compassionate" and "intelligent" compared to the slavery and racial injustices in the USA (though the British Empire had both for a long time).
I think there were probably several steps in the hundred and seventeen years between this comic and Brexit that lead to a revisiting of Britain’s place in the world.
I thought it was an anti-intergration cartoon at first, but then noticed it was about taking in countries without "civilizing" them first. Still very racist in deed.
If you see it as 100% inevitable that eventually someone was gonna "expand" to all these new places, then yeah, I guess you can say "better Country A do it than Country B".
But today we're at a point where the few uncontacted / seldom contacted peoples left are deliberately left alone, and there is basically nobody even debating the idea that it'd be better to go in and civilize them.
And note, the "seldom contacted" are aware we have all kinds of high tech stuff, and probably unaware of the worst problems in civilization ... yet AFAIK they aren't coming out of the forests saying "we wanna live with u".
That seems a pretty strong indicator that we actually don't think imposing western civilization on everyone we can is a good idea. Which is pretty crazy, since we are western civilization.
Well, that's certainly a take, and I appreciate you not mincing words about it.
I would imagine you are in quite a small minority here. Also, note again from the seldom-contacted that they also would prefer their own system.
God knows how many of these indigenous people have been "westernized" in the name of treating disease/education/preventing violence, then within a year or two, were conscripted into western armies and killed by the thousands...
Friend, look at the Mennonite kids who spend some time exploring standard American life. They see a ton of grocery stores, and typically return to their community after.
Also, if after the trip to the grocery store you took them to a prison and explained that they will almost certainly face a far higher chance than white Americans of ending up here...or to Wind River Reservation, and showed them how life looks for another indigenous people.
And you cannot actually mean "zero doubt". You know not all would always make this choice.
Dude, you can export and exchange tech and information without literally militarily conquering countries or strong-arming them into near-slavedriving exploitation, thus assuredly PREVENTING them from developing their own statehood and expertise.
Some did not but I’d argue that quite a few countries are doing better after colonialism. It can’t really be proven as we don’t have a without colonialism timeline to compare it to. Fiji or Singapore for some examples.
And it also depends on your definition of colonialism. Is Russias expansion eastwards colonialism? What about Japanese in Hokkaido or the Ryukyu Islands? And so on.
It was at the cost of throwing their entire social structure in complete disarray, mixing up peoples artificially without integration and assimilation, displacing entire ethnicities and destroying their culture. And I'm not talking about wishy-washy "must protect ancient crafts boo hoo" viewpoint — I'm talking about the sheer ability for these peoples to maintain expertise, so that yesterday's blacksmiths and woodworkers teach tomorrow's factory workers — colonial system destroys local expertise and replaces it with only the minimum required personnel to maintain extractive industries. I'm talking about the opportunity to develop stable nationhood, the thing that Europe itself moved towards for hundreds of years and only attained in the 19th century proper. The ability to gradually integrate and consolidate ethnic groups in a POLITICAL way (not by forced displacement, which is BTW one of the signs of genocide per UN), melding into larger polities. The ability to integrate foreign tech and knowledge in an uninterrupted way and build their own educational and administrative cadre — the abilities that Europe enjoyed.
Relentless exploitation, displacement, marginalization, stripping of potential cadre and stable social structures, and then decades of conflict because of the above, — is what prevents many of former colonial nations from developing normally and enjoying organic economic growth inside their own structures and for the benefit of their own people — not by virtue of the implanted extractive systems of kleptocratic bureaucracy and military that basically behave like a colonial administration, fleecing the population and cutting each others' throats in a bid for power.
But these are not "costs". Cost is something you pay to attain a goal.
There was no goal of "civilizing" the colonized despite all the rhetoric. You compare it to China and Russia, but their conquest, though similarly cruel and destructive for the locals' culture, way of life, language, and potential national identity (inc. what they'd be good at — like European countries which found organically what each is good at) was, nevertheless, with the aim of direct integration and unification. These new territories became Russia and China, no ifs and buts.
(This started to change when, say, Russia conquered nations that have already finished nationbuilding and HAD their own identity and industry — and they never suceeded (or really tried) to assimilate them: Finland, the Baltics, etc. Which is also very relevant to our topic. E.g. India was already millenia deep into government organization and politics, and also prohibitively big, so it received the most "hands-off" treatment and basically survived as a (collection of) nation(s).)
Meanwhile, the goal of "classic" colonialist empires was to extract to the max, razing down and rebuilding the colonies' society to the extent that's needed to not interefere with extraction, and clamping a bare minimum of colonial infrastructure and administration to operate these industries, like a base in a real-time strategy.
You know very well the extremes that this tactic led to, from near-extinction of entire empires and hundreds of small polities in the Central and North Americas (including by starting internecine wars and literally hiring some peoples to exterminate others), to the "export" of millions of people outside their homeland, like Nazis did with the Ostarbeiters, to work and die on island plantations, or Belgian hand bounties. Or less graphic but no less destructive creation of artificial countries in Africa (the least problem it created is, for example, countries where half a dozen languages can be used in the same country with zero integration), and interfering with any normal organizational development there and, to some extent, in the Asias.
Despite the self-congratulatory speeches about bringing them schools, medicine, and industry, there was explicitly no goal of integrating these countries wholesale as equal, domestic sub-states — because it was pretty much impossible, unwanted, and not beneficial to profit and rapid industrial growth in Europe (which would greatly increase its power multiplier over everyone else, so it's a win all around!). The only schools, medicine, and industry that was "exported" was to service the colonial infrastructure, everything else (if present) was a charity. And there was a lot of charity, because there are charitable people — but one cannot build a state on charity.
Of course, you could say that the locals should have pulled their own weight to build their own schools and hospitals, but... here the question rises again: is the colony now a fully-fledged pice of the metropoly? If yes, it's the metropoly's full responsibility to provide its citizens with infrastructure (even including forcing them to build it). If not, then no "civilization" was brought besides just showing that healthcare and education are possible (but not for you, you're not citizens). But there is also no sovereign self-governing country to try and implement education and healthcare on their own — you the colonizer is explicitly in full charge here, and doing so is not your first, second or even last priority.
It's a kind of a Catch-22, or a "stop hitting yourself": we conquered this people, we're now in charge of it, and we will not fully provide it with infrastructure (since they're not citizens); but we won't let them do it either following our example, since we hold the purse and man the guard towers, and they have a job to do (extract resources). We'll shame them as uncivilized for not being able to, though.
Same here. The teacher pointed out the Chinese student at the door during our discussion as well. Other commenters connected this to the Chinese exclusion act, but it could also be imperialist dreams during the end of the Boxer Rebellion
I can see it being more connected with imperialist dreams since in my interpretation it looks like the US is trying to “educate/civilize” them and with China in the doorway it seems to suggest they are next. With the Boxer Rebellion starting in 1899 I think it’s likely.
Also interesting seeing the other people in the background. Like the Native American with the book upside down or the African American cleaning the windows.
Feels very white mans burden, but the text on the board almost makes me want to say it’s a criticism of America losing her anti-imperial roots. The board praised Britain for how she ruled the colonies without their consent, but the fact that we fought against Britain for that is a source of notional pride for us - it doesn’t really fit in a pro American piece imo.
Considering all of the other messages in the comic, like how the black servant seems to really want to be in the "class" but isn't allowed, maybe the bad textbook was on purpose
We had this in our history book (Italy). The message is ambigous to me: it would seem to offer a positive interpretation of American colonialism as a civilazing process, but the black man and the native in the background seem to be meant to criticise these groups' emargination.
Inside the visual language of this cartoon (whether it's ironic or not), the figures of the black man, the Indian, and the Chinese make perfect (disgusting) sense too:
The black boy is not invited, he's the caretaker, the servant: he has no place among the civilized, he just serves them. (And also obviously naive and dumb, as was the tradition of depicting black people).
The Native American is nearly extinct and removed from most real political or social life, and has no land to call his own; he's depicted as a stupid, illiterate, worthless relic (he holds his ABCs upside down) — sure he's invited, but "he'll never learn", so he's destined to leave the "school" and disappear.
the Chinese is not invited to the "school", as someone else pointed out, because of the Chinese Exclusion Act (I've learned about it today). Basically a ban on Chinese immigration — as in "you want to join and be an obedient boy, do you? but no US for you".
Yeah, that makes sense, I guess my modern outlook may mislead me. As for the Chinese boy, I thought it was a reference to American ambitions in eastern Asia, but what you say makes more sense.
The consent of the governed is a good thing, in theory, but very rare in fact. England has governed her colonies whether they consented or not. By not waiting for their consent, she has greatly advanced the world's civilization. The United States must govern its new territories with or without their consent until they can govern themselves.
The Confederate States refused their consent to be governed, but the Union was preserved without their consent.
Uncle Sam to his new class in Civilization: "Now, children, you've got to learn these lessons whether you want to or not, but just take a look at the class ahead of you, and remember that, in a little while, you will feel as glad to be here as they are."
The United States has always been a colonial empire, from the day it declared independence from England, there were already "territories" in the west. The founding fathers deliberately chose that word to avoid looking similar to the British Crown and hopefully not have Americans ask too many questions.
I highly reccomend the book "How to Hide an Empire". It goes very in depth about American territories. The US was no better than the British or other European colonialism. The US just doesn't teach it or acknowledge it.
This is not a new take on the US history at all by the way, there is plenty of Cold War era books in Marxist historiography that treat USA as an expansionist-colonialist state from its very origins. They usually point out how British authorities were a limiting factor on white settlers moving further west, due to binding treaties with native tribes.
Sorry for the confusion, these are not necessarily Marxists but historians who bought into Marxist historiography (rather than his economic theories which most of them ignored). They also mostly died out in the 1980s and 1990s. Some of the Neo-Marxist stuff is dangerously close to Nazism in how totalitarian they are ideologically.
Marxism can be politically impartial. Das Kapital is taught in business schools because it's largely correct in it's analysis of capitalist mechanisms.
How about we don't bring commies into this as an example of a """paragon of virtue"""
Do we really have to bring up Afghanistan and Eastern Europe again.
Don't get me started on Angola, Tibet, and Xinjiang.
Marxist historiography isn't necessarily from communist historians, it's a well-respected school of historical thought (even by people who disagreed with it).
See, this is the kind of big freaking disclaimer that I want to see. All that's missing now is an explanation about how actual Marxism condemns real-world commie regimes
They absolutely were not paragons of virtue, though many of these historians either lived before even the Warsaw Pact occupation of Prague in 1968 or were staunchly against Soviet imperialism as well from the start. Others were Maoists but they abandoned that ideology too after China invaded Vietnam.
Eh, it is taught as things that simply happened, but it isn't really given the context or weight it deserves. Then a lot of stuff we just don't talk about. We absolutely do NOT talk about most of American activities in Latin America during the 1800s and early 1900s and then American History classes barely cover post-1945, so nothing about our many coups and subversive activities.
Even local settler colonialism, the genocide of the Native Americans, isn't handled that well and they are mostly relegated as a secondary concern. They are mentioned in early colonial history, then you hear about the Trail of Tears, which is the only significant mention they get, then you never hear about the Native Americans after that in K-12 education. You might see a sentence about Little Bighorn or the Navajo code talkers, but you aren't going to see significant discussion about the Wounded Knee Massacre or how Native Americans came to exist on reservations.
Perhaps its taught more nowadays, and its for sure in college level courses. It was almost entirely brushed over as "we acquired some territories after a war or trade. Its like a state but not!" And that was the extent it was acknowledged in my k-12 education. Southern states ftw
I was surprised reading a quote from someone in about early 1900s, they say “The Europeans squeeze their colonies like fruit”, I’d think they’d be very aware but colonising America is just brushed off because they were ‘unorganised’ or ‘unincorporated’, did the resources stay in the ground too? Then literally taking Spains colonies and people still thought they weren’t a colonial power.
I never got it. I’m very interested if people post the propaganda of this day and age to where people have that sort of gall.
The political rhetoric of that time painted the subjugation of the Philippines as an evangelical mission. Even though it was common knowledge that Manila was Christian before the U.S. was founded.
Another user pointed out that this hints at the Chinese Exclusion Act, a complete ban on Chinese immigration that came to be after racist anti-Chinese pogroms in the US (which partly built its railroads and mines on the backs of the Chinese).
Invading foreign lands was a relatively new experience for the U.S. Given the rhetoric of civilizing uplift used to justify expansion, training was expected as part of the incorporation of new territories into the U.S. Uneasiness over the idea of using force to govern a country was overcome by tracing the issue of consent back through recent history. An elaborate Puck graphic from early in 1899 called “School Begins” incorporates all the players in a classroom scene to illustrate the legitimacy of governing without consent. In the caption, Uncle Sam lectures: “(to his new class in Civilization): Now, children, you've got to learn these lessons whether you want to or not! But just take a look at the class ahead of you, and remember that, in a little while, you will feel as glad to be here as they are!”
The blackboard contains the lessons learned from Great Britain on how to govern a colony and bring them into the civilized world, stating, “... By not waiting for their consent she has greatly advanced the world's civilization. — The U.S. must govern its new territories with or without their consent until they can govern themselves.” Veneration of Britain’s treatment of colonies as a positive model attests to the significant shift in the American world view given U.S. origins in relation to the mother country. Even the Civil War is referenced, in a wall plaque: “The Confederate States refused their consent to be governed; but the Union was preserved without their consent.” Refuting the right of indigenous rule was based on demonstrating a population’s lack of preparation for self-governance.
The image exhibits a racist hierarchy that places a dominant white American male in the center, and on the fringes, an African-American washing the windows and Native-American reading a primer upside down. China, shown gripping a schoolbook in the doorway, has not yet entered the scene. Girls are part of the obedient older class studying books labeled “California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.” The only non-white student in the older group holds the book titled “Alaska” and is neatly coifed in contrast to the unruly new class made up of the “Philippines, Hawaii, Porto Rico, and Cuba.” All are depicted as dark-skinned and childish.
I find it funny how america was found on enlightenment principles of consent of the governed and right in the back they are like "england governed her colonise weather they consented or not and that a good thing" like no it wasnt that the whole reason we fucking ditched them? Colonialists are hypocrites
This is supposed to be satire, right? And still manages to be racist, even taking "it was different times" into account! Despite all the progress we made in 125 years, we're seeing a resurfacing of these "different times" racism!
It's truly impressive that people are managing to misinterpet this cartoon when the artist literally spelled out the message he was trying to get across. No, it's not critical of colonialism.
The consent of the governed is a good thing in theory, but very rare in fact. England has governed her colonies whether they consented or not. By not waiting for their consent she has greatly advanced the world's civilization. The U.S. must govern its new territories with or without their consent until they can govern themselves.
But that misses the context of america wanking itself silly about fighting us and the "old tyrant" King George.
To me its almost saying "Our enemies did this, and then we kicked their arse. Is that really something we want to say is great and a road we want to go down?"
Edit: Judging by the other works from the cartoonist, perhaps not.
By 1900 we certainly weren't friends though. In 1895 the UK and the USA were locking horns over Venezuela, and there was a fair chunk of anglophobia going around, especially in washington
That doesn't mean that Americans couldn't admire specific aspects of British policy (in this case, Britain's "civilising mission"—her policy of introducing Western customs and institutions to benighted corners of the world, whether they want them or not).
What do you make of the board above the door which references how the US preserved the Union without the consent of the "Confederate States?" If this is critical of colonialism then it would also appear to be pro-secession.
I wonder why the former confederate states aren’t featured as “trouble students”. Even though reconstruction has officially ended, it wasn’t as if former confederate states didn’t have troops sent in from time to time. I suppose it the reconciliation era?
Mostly unrelated but it’s so funny seeing Cuba and Puerto Rico depicted as here incredibly dark skinned because every single Cuban & Puerto Rican I’ve met has looked white as hell
Believe it or not, but this cartoon is pro-imperialism. Basically, argument it makes is that US needs to take over other places, and force civilization on them, until they are "ready to govern themselves".
This subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message of the propaganda. Here we should be conscientious and wary of manipulation/distortion/oversimplification (which the above likely has), not duped by it. "Don't be a sucker."
Stay on topic -- there are hundreds of other subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. No partisan bickering. No soapboxing. Take a chill pill. "Don't argue."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I think the most interesting thing about this cartoon is how Alaska is viewed as an obedient equal amongst the states even as a territory (especially since it was drawn with the idea of the Alaskan natives in mind). How were the natives viewed in this era? How much political freedom did they have? Pre statehood, were the rights of the Alaskan natives respected more so than other American Indian tribes in the US?
They weren’t. It’s the whole “empty land” thing, the conceptualization of the American frontier elided the existence of entire preexisting societies
Yeah, that makes sense to me. I think my bigger question is why is there a difference between the portrayal of the two native groups. The ‘plains Indians’ are the ones shown as unwilling and unable to learn, while the Alaskan tribes seem to be shown as a valued part of the country. Why the divide?
Less direct interaction would be my guess. US relations with tribes like the Comanche were infamously fractious, and this was only 24 years after their “””resettlement””” in Oklahoma.
this source indicates that Native sovereignty was just never much of a concept in the Alaskan territories and this Reddit post discusses the phenomenon at (I presume) more length
The entire history of interaction with the native people in the US and Canada has been based on the fact that they were viewed as primitive peoples that needed to be civilized, with no right to the land they lived on, since they were not making "Proper use of it". They were, for the most part looked at as an obstacle to progress.
It was a core tenant of both countries that native culture was to be educated out of existence in order to "civilize" the natives. The history of the Bureau of Indian affairs schools and the Canadian Indian Residential School system are particularly horrifying when looked at today.
Alaska had been part of the US for 32 years at this point, perhaps they thought the delusion of the “civilizing mission” had had enough time to take effect there
Because Alaska Natives never fought the US Government, while in the 48, there were still groups in active conflict with the US Government at the time of publication. Wounded Knee happened in 1890, the last Medal of Honor in the Indian Wars was issued in 1898, the last battle between Indians and the US Army occurred in 1918, and sporadic raids on settlers occurred into the 1920s.
Wild to think about how this comic came out one year before Wounded Knee
Comic is actually from 1899, so 9 years after Wounded Knee
Ope you're right, makes a bit more sense
I think by the time mass settlement came to alaska and the west, they already had a formula for dealing with natives and everyone knew this
The image shows a Native American reading an ABC book upside down, mocking them for supposedly being illiterate.
While the cartoon is pretty racist, do you think there was a high level of english literacy amongst then Native Americans?
In some groups, less so in others. The Seminole for example even had their own newspapers before they were driven away by european-americans from their native land (by Andrew Jackson if I remember correctly, but I might remember wrong).
In the late 1800s (and into the 1900s), the US was under a policy of federally controlled boarding schools for indigenous populations. The goal of these schools was, of course, de-tribalization and assimilation to 'civilized' (white) society. I assume that is why Alaska is drawn with the other, older children : they've been 'civilized'.
Assimilation was viewed as a positive good by 'enlightened anti-racists'. Check out people like Richard Henry Pratt if you're curious about this ideology.
Alaska was handled differently back in the day than the lower 48. The state was too massive and unsettled to have the politics of pushing natives onto reservations. Nothing like the boarding schools of the US or Canada again because of the isolation. No big wars between the natives and fed government either from the get go in 1867. Still lots and lots of racism and segregation, but that was everywhere for everyone at the time
Interesting. I know the reservation system was not prevalent there, but I thought that federally run boarding schools were still present.
That makes sense. I feel like the difficulties and conflicts with the boarding schools is also why the plains American Indian stereotype is shown as unintelligent and unwilling to learn. Were there schools in Alaska? Were they seen as better able to assimilate?
Seems like Alaska was so big that the US government never tried to eradicate the tribes, and just pretended they didn't exist.
Obedient, but not equal, hence still being black.
At the "boots on the ground" level, Alaskan natives could literally be untouched by the government.
There is a law case, In re Sah Quah (1886), a U.S. District Court in Alaska ruled that slavery was illegal between all peoples, including Alaska Natives, making Sah Quah a free man. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F/0031/0031.f.0327.pdf#:~:text=A%20custom%20or%20rite%20prevailing%20among%20the,the%20court%20upon%20writ%20of%20habeas%20corpus.
Now Alaska was purchased in 1867 so this was almost twenty years after the U.S. took sovereignty, but the natives were still practicing chattel slavery, killing slaves upon the death of the master, etc. etc. etc.
So that should tell you a lot about just how much "reach" the U.S. govt. had in Alaska at that time.
Subdued, submissive, therefore not a threat.
They were mostly forgotten about. Still treated badly when they were remembered though.
During the 1918 flu, when they went to remote Alaskan villages; the natives spoke to them in Russian. Because that was the last language they’d seen white people using nearly 50-60 years before.
In 1899 the amount of contact they had with anyone at all was pretty limited, mainly being very occasional trips to trading outposts to exchange furs for supplies. There were no "rights" to bargain with since both sides lived independently away from each other. The gold rush territory didn't overlap with Inuit hunting grounds near the coast. Even now they don't have very many competitors for their land b/c it's not suitable for European style settlement.
The face kinda looks different from the white kids too
The "white kids" are Mexicans who have been Americanized by a few years in Uncle Sam's school: California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona.
Actually, according to the 1900 census, they were all majority white at the time. By percentage:
Calirfornia: 94.5% white
Arizona: 75.6% white
New Mexico: 92.8% white
Texas: 79.6% white
Unless you just mean Mexican territory that had been Americanized and not Mexicans themselves, then yeah
Why are you assuming those whites aren't Mexican? "Mexican" was not counted as a racial category distinct from "white" in the US census until 1930. In any case, having been Mexican territory, all the states mentioned could be caricatured as Mexican, just as Alaska could be caricatured as Indian, even though in 1900 census "whites" outnumbered "Indians, taxed" by several thousand (though there was no overall majority).
Good point, but even looking at the 1930 census, they were still majority white, being 63.2% and above
Yeah, you could caricature them as Mexican if you wanted still because they used to be Mexican, it just wasn't the point of this image. The artist wanted to show territories of the U.S. that were being governed without the consent of their people and being actively oppressed by a country that has freedom as its core, founding principle
I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many white people in New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, or California who'd prefer if their state was Mexican instead/independent or that were being oppressed
It is the point of the image. Uncle Sam is using the territories perviously forcibly integrated into the US as examples to the more recently acqured colonies. In reference to Alaska, New Mexico, California, Texas, and Arizona, he says to the Philippines, Porto Rico, Hawaii, and Cuba:
which is making precisely the point that a few decades after annexation, Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California were all "glad to be here [in the US]" and that, in time, the newer acquistions would feel the same way.
Yeah, but the artist is clearly making a point about race of the people in the territories as well. That the reason the U.S. is governing these people without their consent is because they aren't majority white, at least not yet from the artists perspective
It's not about who the U.S. took them from, it's about the people actually living there, or else Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines would be Spaniards instead of an actual Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Philippino
I don't think racial majorities or former colonial powers comes into it. Government without consent is not dependent on race, it's dependent on the acquistition of the skills of self-government, which is why the schoolbook on Uncle Sam's desk is U.S. Lessons for Self-Government. The older class of Alaska and the old Mexican territories has learnt, or has begun to learn, self-government, whereas the island territories taken from the Spanish Empire have had no instruction in self-government. Self-government is here both the political concept of government by the consent of the governed and the behavioural concept of self-discipline, which the unruly "new class" have yet to learn. (This same pun on "self-government" is also played with in The Madness of King George.)
My point kinda flew over your head, didn't it?
My point was that caracturizing California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico as Mexican would only make sense if the artist was depicting them based on who we took the land from and not based on their majority race
But since Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines aren't Spaniards, that can't be the case. It's pretty clear that the artists message is based on who actually lives in these territories, not who we took them from
What do you think?
They don’t know that’s why they’re asking.
Love the reference to the Chinese Exclusion Act as a Chinese immigrant is at the door but not allowed in. Lots of critiques that are probably lost on people today.
Yeah the "window washer" and his eagerness to join in is more (consciously) damning than I expected for the time.
There are lots of other cartoons that show Uncle Sam giving his focus to "the new kids" while ignoring the older black kids in class.
The glazing of Britain ruling without consent on the black board is beyond ironic to me
It is meant to be ironic. The cartoon is obviously racist but is also implying that America is abandoning its true principles.
My interpretation would definitely be that it is saying that governing without consent is sometimes necessary, rather than it being ironic. Otherwise the text at the top about the confederacy would be ironic and so the cartoon would be pro-confederacy, which wouldn't make sense since Puck was an NYC-based publication.
In my view it is saying that pro-imperislists will grab any analogy that they can find, good or bad. Anti-imperialists often said that America had begun to act like George III. By not only holding up England as a role model but also deliberately taking the phrase "consent of the governed" from the Declaration, the cartoon seems to be within that tradition. While also mixing in racist depictions of the conquered peoples. Which was also not unusual - as strange it might seem, Southern segregationist politicians tended to be anti-imperialist.
You're mistaken. The cartoonist's other works make it very clear that he saw American imperialism as a good thing.
I would describe the school cartoon as ambivalent rather than outright anti-imperialist, but the situation had changed quickly from the time of this earlier cartoon promoting intervention in Cuba. The view that taking the Philippines was a betrayal of the original intention to free Cuba was also held by some (whether or not Dalrymple was one of them).
People speaking so definitively without knowing that Puck was very famously and controversially an anti-imperialist magazine is so funny. It isn’t ancient history
Puck was an anti-imperialist publication, many anti imperialists supported the Spanish-American War purely to get Cuban independence
Very interesting take, but it not being satire also sits in line with the sentiment at the time tho
Anti-imperialism was also a much more mainstream sentiment back then, not just being pro-imperialism. For instance the American Anti-Imperialist League was founded a year before this was published and would have many prominent members including Andrew Carnegie, Grover Cleveland, Mark Twain, Benjamin Harrison, John Dewey, William James, Jane Addams, Samuel Gompers etc.
There is not universal "sentiment at the time." Especially not with political cartoons which were used to convey all sorts of random political views.
I think this may actually be a cartoon in favor of governing without consent. The board in the background, to the left of the door frame, makes reference to the US preserving the Union without the consent of the "confederate states."
Edit: either that or the cartoonist is also a believer in secession.
Do you see the last line on the chalkboard
Yea I do, seems like a “white men’s burden” type slogan to me
So you understand it's not ironic, the artist literally rewrote the line about Britain but replaced it with the US. They knew what they were doing
The irony is being pointed out by the artist.
Right, either this is the least self aware propaganda poster ever or it's satire. Racist satire mind you
Folks: Puck was a satirical publication (more or less The Onion of its day) and anti-imperialism was a dominant theme of American politics at the time. It's satire. Satire that is also incredibly racist, but satire nonetheless.
Wrong
I don’t think so
What true principles? It was a settler colonial project that either killed or enslaved people for land and resources. Still does the same shit today outside of America
Weirdly enough, the UK came to be considered the more civilized counterpart to the USA, which critics of the USA painting the British Empire as more "compassionate" and "intelligent" compared to the slavery and racial injustices in the USA (though the British Empire had both for a long time).
BREXIT destroyed that reputation.
I think there were probably several steps in the hundred and seventeen years between this comic and Brexit that lead to a revisiting of Britain’s place in the world.
I thought it was an anti-intergration cartoon at first, but then noticed it was about taking in countries without "civilizing" them first. Still very racist in deed.
Puck was basically a 1900s political trolling magazine
[removed]
If you see it as 100% inevitable that eventually someone was gonna "expand" to all these new places, then yeah, I guess you can say "better Country A do it than Country B".
But today we're at a point where the few uncontacted / seldom contacted peoples left are deliberately left alone, and there is basically nobody even debating the idea that it'd be better to go in and civilize them.
And note, the "seldom contacted" are aware we have all kinds of high tech stuff, and probably unaware of the worst problems in civilization ... yet AFAIK they aren't coming out of the forests saying "we wanna live with u".
That seems a pretty strong indicator that we actually don't think imposing western civilization on everyone we can is a good idea. Which is pretty crazy, since we are western civilization.
[removed]
Well, that's certainly a take, and I appreciate you not mincing words about it.
I would imagine you are in quite a small minority here. Also, note again from the seldom-contacted that they also would prefer their own system.
God knows how many of these indigenous people have been "westernized" in the name of treating disease/education/preventing violence, then within a year or two, were conscripted into western armies and killed by the thousands...
[removed]
Friend, look at the Mennonite kids who spend some time exploring standard American life. They see a ton of grocery stores, and typically return to their community after.
Also, if after the trip to the grocery store you took them to a prison and explained that they will almost certainly face a far higher chance than white Americans of ending up here...or to Wind River Reservation, and showed them how life looks for another indigenous people.
And you cannot actually mean "zero doubt". You know not all would always make this choice.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Dude, you can export and exchange tech and information without literally militarily conquering countries or strong-arming them into near-slavedriving exploitation, thus assuredly PREVENTING them from developing their own statehood and expertise.
[removed]
Exactly! That's what the colonizers razed to the ground and then salted the ground.
At the expense of the people and their resources.
[removed]
[removed]
Some did not but I’d argue that quite a few countries are doing better after colonialism. It can’t really be proven as we don’t have a without colonialism timeline to compare it to. Fiji or Singapore for some examples.
And it also depends on your definition of colonialism. Is Russias expansion eastwards colonialism? What about Japanese in Hokkaido or the Ryukyu Islands? And so on.
It was at the cost of throwing their entire social structure in complete disarray, mixing up peoples artificially without integration and assimilation, displacing entire ethnicities and destroying their culture. And I'm not talking about wishy-washy "must protect ancient crafts boo hoo" viewpoint — I'm talking about the sheer ability for these peoples to maintain expertise, so that yesterday's blacksmiths and woodworkers teach tomorrow's factory workers — colonial system destroys local expertise and replaces it with only the minimum required personnel to maintain extractive industries. I'm talking about the opportunity to develop stable nationhood, the thing that Europe itself moved towards for hundreds of years and only attained in the 19th century proper. The ability to gradually integrate and consolidate ethnic groups in a POLITICAL way (not by forced displacement, which is BTW one of the signs of genocide per UN), melding into larger polities. The ability to integrate foreign tech and knowledge in an uninterrupted way and build their own educational and administrative cadre — the abilities that Europe enjoyed.
Relentless exploitation, displacement, marginalization, stripping of potential cadre and stable social structures, and then decades of conflict because of the above, — is what prevents many of former colonial nations from developing normally and enjoying organic economic growth inside their own structures and for the benefit of their own people — not by virtue of the implanted extractive systems of kleptocratic bureaucracy and military that basically behave like a colonial administration, fleecing the population and cutting each others' throats in a bid for power.
[removed]
But these are not "costs". Cost is something you pay to attain a goal.
There was no goal of "civilizing" the colonized despite all the rhetoric. You compare it to China and Russia, but their conquest, though similarly cruel and destructive for the locals' culture, way of life, language, and potential national identity (inc. what they'd be good at — like European countries which found organically what each is good at) was, nevertheless, with the aim of direct integration and unification. These new territories became Russia and China, no ifs and buts.
(This started to change when, say, Russia conquered nations that have already finished nationbuilding and HAD their own identity and industry — and they never suceeded (or really tried) to assimilate them: Finland, the Baltics, etc. Which is also very relevant to our topic. E.g. India was already millenia deep into government organization and politics, and also prohibitively big, so it received the most "hands-off" treatment and basically survived as a (collection of) nation(s).)
Meanwhile, the goal of "classic" colonialist empires was to extract to the max, razing down and rebuilding the colonies' society to the extent that's needed to not interefere with extraction, and clamping a bare minimum of colonial infrastructure and administration to operate these industries, like a base in a real-time strategy.
You know very well the extremes that this tactic led to, from near-extinction of entire empires and hundreds of small polities in the Central and North Americas (including by starting internecine wars and literally hiring some peoples to exterminate others), to the "export" of millions of people outside their homeland, like Nazis did with the Ostarbeiters, to work and die on island plantations, or Belgian hand bounties. Or less graphic but no less destructive creation of artificial countries in Africa (the least problem it created is, for example, countries where half a dozen languages can be used in the same country with zero integration), and interfering with any normal organizational development there and, to some extent, in the Asias.
Despite the self-congratulatory speeches about bringing them schools, medicine, and industry, there was explicitly no goal of integrating these countries wholesale as equal, domestic sub-states — because it was pretty much impossible, unwanted, and not beneficial to profit and rapid industrial growth in Europe (which would greatly increase its power multiplier over everyone else, so it's a win all around!). The only schools, medicine, and industry that was "exported" was to service the colonial infrastructure, everything else (if present) was a charity. And there was a lot of charity, because there are charitable people — but one cannot build a state on charity.
Of course, you could say that the locals should have pulled their own weight to build their own schools and hospitals, but... here the question rises again: is the colony now a fully-fledged pice of the metropoly? If yes, it's the metropoly's full responsibility to provide its citizens with infrastructure (even including forcing them to build it). If not, then no "civilization" was brought besides just showing that healthcare and education are possible (but not for you, you're not citizens). But there is also no sovereign self-governing country to try and implement education and healthcare on their own — you the colonizer is explicitly in full charge here, and doing so is not your first, second or even last priority.
It's a kind of a Catch-22, or a "stop hitting yourself": we conquered this people, we're now in charge of it, and we will not fully provide it with infrastructure (since they're not citizens); but we won't let them do it either following our example, since we hold the purse and man the guard towers, and they have a job to do (extract resources). We'll shame them as uncivilized for not being able to, though.
[removed]
[removed]
Remember analyzing this one in my AP US History class in high school
Same here. The teacher pointed out the Chinese student at the door during our discussion as well. Other commenters connected this to the Chinese exclusion act, but it could also be imperialist dreams during the end of the Boxer Rebellion
I can see it being more connected with imperialist dreams since in my interpretation it looks like the US is trying to “educate/civilize” them and with China in the doorway it seems to suggest they are next. With the Boxer Rebellion starting in 1899 I think it’s likely.
Also interesting seeing the other people in the background. Like the Native American with the book upside down or the African American cleaning the windows.
The American occupation of the Philippines was brutal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War
We got the iconic M1911 .45 because US troopers complained their .38s weren’t stopping the insurgents charging them.
250,000 civilian deaths 😢
Is this pro or anti imperial? I feel like you could take it both ways.
Feels very white mans burden to me
Feels very white mans burden, but the text on the board almost makes me want to say it’s a criticism of America losing her anti-imperial roots. The board praised Britain for how she ruled the colonies without their consent, but the fact that we fought against Britain for that is a source of notional pride for us - it doesn’t really fit in a pro American piece imo.
It was published in Puck, which was a satirical magazine. It's anti imperialism.
Even if the indigenous student by the door had the book right side up, the book would still an issue as it would read CBA.
They purposely gave them a bad textbook.
Probably an error by the artist, but I think it also speaks to the actual quality or even the purpose of what and how they were being taught.
Considering all of the other messages in the comic, like how the black servant seems to really want to be in the "class" but isn't allowed, maybe the bad textbook was on purpose
We had this in our history book (Italy). The message is ambigous to me: it would seem to offer a positive interpretation of American colonialism as a civilazing process, but the black man and the native in the background seem to be meant to criticise these groups' emargination.
Inside the visual language of this cartoon (whether it's ironic or not), the figures of the black man, the Indian, and the Chinese make perfect (disgusting) sense too:
The black boy is not invited, he's the caretaker, the servant: he has no place among the civilized, he just serves them. (And also obviously naive and dumb, as was the tradition of depicting black people).
The Native American is nearly extinct and removed from most real political or social life, and has no land to call his own; he's depicted as a stupid, illiterate, worthless relic (he holds his ABCs upside down) — sure he's invited, but "he'll never learn", so he's destined to leave the "school" and disappear.
the Chinese is not invited to the "school", as someone else pointed out, because of the Chinese Exclusion Act (I've learned about it today). Basically a ban on Chinese immigration — as in "you want to join and be an obedient boy, do you? but no US for you".
Yeah, that makes sense, I guess my modern outlook may mislead me. As for the Chinese boy, I thought it was a reference to American ambitions in eastern Asia, but what you say makes more sense.
The credit goes to this comment!
https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1prcoxa/school_begins_united_states_1899/nv0x7yl/
A republic teaching that the consent of the governed is a good “in theory” is how one shifts to an empire.
The United States has always been a colonial empire, from the day it declared independence from England, there were already "territories" in the west. The founding fathers deliberately chose that word to avoid looking similar to the British Crown and hopefully not have Americans ask too many questions.
I highly reccomend the book "How to Hide an Empire". It goes very in depth about American territories. The US was no better than the British or other European colonialism. The US just doesn't teach it or acknowledge it.
And the US kept it's colonies.
It has kept nearly all of them. I think it released a lot of the uninhabited islands however. How noble lol
This is not a new take on the US history at all by the way, there is plenty of Cold War era books in Marxist historiography that treat USA as an expansionist-colonialist state from its very origins. They usually point out how British authorities were a limiting factor on white settlers moving further west, due to binding treaties with native tribes.
Yes, but this isn't from a Marxist perspective, its quite impartial. Self described marxists are always just horseshoe theory nazis anyway lol
Sorry for the confusion, these are not necessarily Marxists but historians who bought into Marxist historiography (rather than his economic theories which most of them ignored). They also mostly died out in the 1980s and 1990s. Some of the Neo-Marxist stuff is dangerously close to Nazism in how totalitarian they are ideologically.
Understood! 🫡
Marxism can be politically impartial. Das Kapital is taught in business schools because it's largely correct in it's analysis of capitalist mechanisms.
How about we don't bring commies into this as an example of a """paragon of virtue"""
Do we really have to bring up Afghanistan and Eastern Europe again.
Don't get me started on Angola, Tibet, and Xinjiang.
Marxist historiography isn't necessarily from communist historians, it's a well-respected school of historical thought (even by people who disagreed with it).
See, this is the kind of big freaking disclaimer that I want to see. All that's missing now is an explanation about how actual Marxism condemns real-world commie regimes
They absolutely were not paragons of virtue, though many of these historians either lived before even the Warsaw Pact occupation of Prague in 1968 or were staunchly against Soviet imperialism as well from the start. Others were Maoists but they abandoned that ideology too after China invaded Vietnam.
lol we absolutely learn about American colonialism here.
Eh, it is taught as things that simply happened, but it isn't really given the context or weight it deserves. Then a lot of stuff we just don't talk about. We absolutely do NOT talk about most of American activities in Latin America during the 1800s and early 1900s and then American History classes barely cover post-1945, so nothing about our many coups and subversive activities.
Even local settler colonialism, the genocide of the Native Americans, isn't handled that well and they are mostly relegated as a secondary concern. They are mentioned in early colonial history, then you hear about the Trail of Tears, which is the only significant mention they get, then you never hear about the Native Americans after that in K-12 education. You might see a sentence about Little Bighorn or the Navajo code talkers, but you aren't going to see significant discussion about the Wounded Knee Massacre or how Native Americans came to exist on reservations.
Perhaps its taught more nowadays, and its for sure in college level courses. It was almost entirely brushed over as "we acquired some territories after a war or trade. Its like a state but not!" And that was the extent it was acknowledged in my k-12 education. Southern states ftw
I was surprised reading a quote from someone in about early 1900s, they say “The Europeans squeeze their colonies like fruit”, I’d think they’d be very aware but colonising America is just brushed off because they were ‘unorganised’ or ‘unincorporated’, did the resources stay in the ground too? Then literally taking Spains colonies and people still thought they weren’t a colonial power.
I never got it. I’m very interested if people post the propaganda of this day and age to where people have that sort of gall.
Man this is racist towards countries and nationalities I didn’t even know you could be racist against…
The political rhetoric of that time painted the subjugation of the Philippines as an evangelical mission. Even though it was common knowledge that Manila was Christian before the U.S. was founded.
The US hated Catholics anyways during this time period
I think by 1899 America had largely moved on from seeing itself in Britain’s shadow and saw it as more of a peer.
Hypocrisy has never stopped the US before, and the caption of the image feels more pro- than anti-imperialist
Look at the Native American over there learning their CBAs.
This was impressively racist. Like everywhere I looked there was something new. 0/10
Why is the clearly east asian stereotype guy black as well bruh
Another user pointed out that this hints at the Chinese Exclusion Act, a complete ban on Chinese immigration that came to be after racist anti-Chinese pogroms in the US (which partly built its railroads and mines on the backs of the Chinese).
Can't make him white 🙄
The true soul of the nation
I don't get the intended message?
It's a reference to "White man's burden" which is the idea that the White race is supposed to "tame" and "educate" the other races.
In essence, rob them of their cultural identity and force them to conform to American homogeneity.
Wow, they couldn’t even spell Puerto Rico right
Yeah, I’d be freaking too if an 8-foot man was hulking over child me with a 4-foot cane.
From: MIT Visualizing Cultures https://share.google/TTZWuYGESwhWVvU0d
“School Begins”: Unfit for Self-Rule
Invading foreign lands was a relatively new experience for the U.S. Given the rhetoric of civilizing uplift used to justify expansion, training was expected as part of the incorporation of new territories into the U.S. Uneasiness over the idea of using force to govern a country was overcome by tracing the issue of consent back through recent history. An elaborate Puck graphic from early in 1899 called “School Begins” incorporates all the players in a classroom scene to illustrate the legitimacy of governing without consent. In the caption, Uncle Sam lectures: “(to his new class in Civilization): Now, children, you've got to learn these lessons whether you want to or not! But just take a look at the class ahead of you, and remember that, in a little while, you will feel as glad to be here as they are!”
The blackboard contains the lessons learned from Great Britain on how to govern a colony and bring them into the civilized world, stating, “... By not waiting for their consent she has greatly advanced the world's civilization. — The U.S. must govern its new territories with or without their consent until they can govern themselves.” Veneration of Britain’s treatment of colonies as a positive model attests to the significant shift in the American world view given U.S. origins in relation to the mother country. Even the Civil War is referenced, in a wall plaque: “The Confederate States refused their consent to be governed; but the Union was preserved without their consent.” Refuting the right of indigenous rule was based on demonstrating a population’s lack of preparation for self-governance.
The image exhibits a racist hierarchy that places a dominant white American male in the center, and on the fringes, an African-American washing the windows and Native-American reading a primer upside down. China, shown gripping a schoolbook in the doorway, has not yet entered the scene. Girls are part of the obedient older class studying books labeled “California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.” The only non-white student in the older group holds the book titled “Alaska” and is neatly coifed in contrast to the unruly new class made up of the “Philippines, Hawaii, Porto Rico, and Cuba.” All are depicted as dark-skinned and childish.
I find it funny how america was found on enlightenment principles of consent of the governed and right in the back they are like "england governed her colonise weather they consented or not and that a good thing" like no it wasnt that the whole reason we fucking ditched them? Colonialists are hypocrites
Something for r/Colonialism
Why is Alaska black
That's an Alaska Native
This is supposed to be satire, right? And still manages to be racist, even taking "it was different times" into account! Despite all the progress we made in 125 years, we're seeing a resurfacing of these "different times" racism!
Lotta words, but all it’s saying is “racist colonialism is good.”
It’s critical of colonialism, not supportive.
It's truly impressive that people are managing to misinterpet this cartoon when the artist literally spelled out the message he was trying to get across. No, it's not critical of colonialism.
But that misses the context of america wanking itself silly about fighting us and the "old tyrant" King George.
To me its almost saying "Our enemies did this, and then we kicked their arse. Is that really something we want to say is great and a road we want to go down?"
Edit: Judging by the other works from the cartoonist, perhaps not.
Britain and America hadn't been enemies for decades by the time this was made.
By 1900 we certainly weren't friends though. In 1895 the UK and the USA were locking horns over Venezuela, and there was a fair chunk of anglophobia going around, especially in washington
That doesn't mean that Americans couldn't admire specific aspects of British policy (in this case, Britain's "civilising mission"—her policy of introducing Western customs and institutions to benighted corners of the world, whether they want them or not).
the point is that it's so obviously anti-american by saying england ruling america was right
Idk, it’s presenting the new colonies as unruly children to be educated despite their misgivings, that feels more pro-colonialist to me
What do you make of the board above the door which references how the US preserved the Union without the consent of the "Confederate States?" If this is critical of colonialism then it would also appear to be pro-secession.
Yeah, I’m sure that’s what all the racist caricatures are about. I think you need to look again.
I think you need to stop acting like a Redditor and understand
“The confederate states of America refused their consent to be governed, but the US persisted without their consent”
Up on the wall, left of the door
I don’t get it?
Porto Rico
Can't even spell potato correct
I wonder why the former confederate states aren’t featured as “trouble students”. Even though reconstruction has officially ended, it wasn’t as if former confederate states didn’t have troops sent in from time to time. I suppose it the reconciliation era?
Puck had a ton of really great cartoons.
Would love to see a higher res of this image to make out all the writing
Mostly unrelated but it’s so funny seeing Cuba and Puerto Rico depicted as here incredibly dark skinned because every single Cuban & Puerto Rican I’ve met has looked white as hell
So what's up with the text related to the confederates at the top near the door?
Final grades: Hawaii: A Puerto Rico: B Philippines: C Cuba: F
the message is communism bad?
Believe it or not, but this cartoon is pro-imperialism. Basically, argument it makes is that US needs to take over other places, and force civilization on them, until they are "ready to govern themselves".
Where the hell do you see a reference to communism here??
I mean, there's a kernel of truth in here, but I don't love the implication (on the sign on the left) that the USA was wrong to fight the CSA.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given how the front row is depicted.