• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

'Big Stick' review

Is this supposed to make up for Balangiga, Bud Dajo, and Samar?
It's a pity that a story that at least made an effort to mention the darker side of Victoriana sweeps Theodore Roosevelt's imperialism under the rug. He was a complex person but pop history all to often takes his carefully curated self-promotion at face value.

It's been quite a while since I read Caleb Carr's Alienist, I don't remember whether his depiction of TR was historically accurate.
 
That's a no then.


I dunno. Kipling was a racist, militarist imperialist whose writings got his own son killed- and it broke him; a huge part of the reason he survives as a writer is because he had to come to terms with the evils he'd put out into the world. His poems and stories about the aftermath of the war- I'm thinking of things like 'My Boy Jack,' 'Epitaphs of War' and 'The Gardener'- are brilliant and heartbreaking and absolutely guiltridden.
That doesn't excuse the things Rudyard wrote or said or did before, but to a very large extent he is interesting now because he's a rare propagandist who had a moral reckoning; you can still dislike the man and his works, but there's something to grapple with as a reader.

Roosevelt, by and large, is not remembered as a writer but as a statesman- so that's the thing to judge him by. He had second thoughts about the Philippines? He considered giving them independence? Well, those thoughts weren't enough to change his policy and he didn't pull out of the islands. He sat back and enjoyed the fruits of atrocity and conquest.

I'm not saying we should dismiss Teddy Roosevelt or his career; I do think that responding to a Filipino-American with a literal 'Actually, he felt bad about helping to kill and conquer your ancestors' is an incredibly trite statement.
 
Last edited:
He did toy with giving the Philippines independence in 1907.

Reading up on the issue, his stance in 1907 was that the Philippines should be given independence ‘eventually’ with the condition of Filipinos “handl[ing] themselves wisely in their legislative assembly” - whatever that means. He also opposed setting a date for Filipino independence, on the basis that “it must depend upon the way in which the Philippine people themselves develop the power of self-mastery”. The way this differed from his earlier position was that, before, he believed the Philippines might never be ready for democracy.

Fundamentally, his stance was that the Philippines simply wasn’t ready for democracy, and until some vague time in the future the Philippines would have to be an American colony. This is standard colonial logic - the same as was used by the British in India, or by the Dutch in Indonesia, take your pick. To treat this as opposition to imperialism is entirely wrong.
 
That's a no then.


I dunno. Kipling was a racist, militarist imperialist whose writings got his own son killed- and it broke him; a huge part of the reason he survives as a writer is because he had to come to terms with the evils he'd put out into the world. His poems and stories about the aftermath of the war- I'm thinking of things like 'My Boy Jack,' 'Epitaphs of War' and 'The Gardener'- are brilliant and heartbreaking and absolutely guiltridden.
That doesn't excuse the things Rudyard wrote or said or did before, but to a very large extent he is interesting now because he's a rare propagandist who had a moral reckoning; you can still dislike the man and his works, but there's something to grapple with as a reader.

Roosevelt, by and large, is not remembered as a writer but as a statesman- so that's the thing to judge him by. He had second thoughts about the Philippines? He considered giving them independence? Well, those thoughts weren't enough to change his policy and he didn't pull out of the islands. He sat back and enjoyed the fruits of atrocity and conquest.

I'm not saying we should dismiss Teddy Roosevelt or his career; I do think that responding to a Filipino-American with a literal 'Actually, he felt bad about helping to kill and conquer your ancestors' is an incredibly trite statement.

I get what you say. I just wanted to note Theodore Roosevelt did change his mind. It's not a big deal but I did want to note it.
 
Reading up on the issue, his stance in 1907 was that the Philippines should be given independence ‘eventually’ with the condition of Filipinos “handl[ing] themselves wisely in their legislative assembly” - whatever that means. He also opposed setting a date for Filipino independence, on the basis that “it must depend upon the way in which the Philippine people themselves develop the power of self-mastery”. The way this differed from his earlier position was that, before, he believed the Philippines might never be ready for democracy.

Fundamentally, his stance was that the Philippines simply wasn’t ready for democracy, and until some vague time in the future the Philippines would have to be an American colony. This is standard colonial logic - the same as was used by the British in India, or by the Dutch in Indonesia, take your pick. To treat this as opposition to imperialism is entirely wrong.

I don't know if you read the same as me but he said
"The Philippines form our heel of Achilles. They are all that makes the
present situation with Japan dangerous. I think that in some way and with
some phraseology that you think wise you should state to them if they
handle themselves wisely in their legislative assembly we shall at the
earliest possible moment give them a nearly complete
independence...Personally I should be glad to see the islands made
independent, with perhaps some kind of international guarantee for the
preservation of order, or with some warning on our part that if they do not
keep order we would have to intervene again; this among other reasons
because I would rather see this nation fight all her life than to see her
give them up to Japan or any other nation under duress...". To me, that sounds like he was willing to consider independence in the short term.
 
That's a no then.


I dunno. Kipling was a racist, militarist imperialist whose writings got his own son killed- and it broke him; a huge part of the reason he survives as a writer is because he had to come to terms with the evils he'd put out into the world. His poems and stories about the aftermath of the war- I'm thinking of things like 'My Boy Jack,' 'Epitaphs of War' and 'The Gardener'- are brilliant and heartbreaking and absolutely guiltridden.
That doesn't excuse the things Rudyard wrote or said or did before, but to a very large extent he is interesting now because he's a rare propagandist who had a moral reckoning; you can still dislike the man and his works, but there's something to grapple with as a reader.

Roosevelt, by and large, is not remembered as a writer but as a statesman- so that's the thing to judge him by. He had second thoughts about the Philippines? He considered giving them independence? Well, those thoughts weren't enough to change his policy and he didn't pull out of the islands. He sat back and enjoyed the fruits of atrocity and conquest.

I'm not saying we should dismiss Teddy Roosevelt or his career; I do think that responding to a Filipino-American with a literal 'Actually, he felt bad about helping to kill and conquer your ancestors' is an incredibly trite statement.

As for him being a racist, while he would be one by our time's standards, he was fairly progressive for his time, inviting Booker T Washington to dine with him at the White House.
 
Could you, please, expand on that? I do know he had pretty nasty opinions on Native Americans.

George Sinkler's The Racial Attitudes of American Presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt has two whole chapters on Teddy because, more than pretty much any other President he thought a lot about race and wrote a lot about race. Racial suicide and the idea that the white man had won his prominent position through vigour and would lose it to the asians if not active in maintaining that position through breeding.

He very much took a 'hate the sin, love the sinner' approach, in that he did invite prominent black americans to dine with him and said he would treat a black man the same as a white man, but he also felt the black race was primitive and unworthy of education and did nothing about lynching and inequality. In the same way he opposed immigration and mixed race marriages while openly arguing for equal treatment of those he wanted segregated.

Read Sinkler if you want more or at least the recaps @Nofix did years ago on here. They can be found here and here and are a decent summary of the man.
 
Could you, please, expand on that? I do know he had pretty nasty opinions on Native Americans.
Yeah he did. And about Asian, Hispanic, Black, Slavic, Arabic, Eastern and Southern European peoples too. Which he never recanted.

He had a lifelong obsession with white supremacy and race.

The Booker T. Washington dinner was (1) Not unprecedented, just unusual at the time and (2) was ENTIRELY a calculated political move to try and win support in Southern Republican delegations for the 1904 convention. If you want to actually talk about something he actually did policy wise its always worth pointing out his debased and cowardly conduct in yanking the rug out from under the Alabama Peonage Trials and expelling 167 Black Troops from the Army by fiat after the Brownsville Affair, giving into a lynch mob and its political champions.

Also worth talking about but Before he was President he opposed his friend's Hoare-Lodge Force Act in 1890. He wasn't Progressive for his time, he was more racist then Henry Cabot Lodge. Which considering Lodge is amazing.
 
Last edited:
George Sinkler's The Racial Attitudes of American Presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt has two whole chapters on Teddy because, more than pretty much any other President he thought a lot about race and wrote a lot about race. Racial suicide and the idea that the white man had won his prominent position through vigour and would lose it to the asians if not active in maintaining that position through breeding.

He very much took a 'hate the sin, love the sinner' approach, in that he did invite prominent black americans to dine with him and said he would treat a black man the same as a white man, but he also felt the black race was primitive and unworthy of education and did nothing about lynching and inequality. In the same way he opposed immigration and mixed race marriages while openly arguing for equal treatment of those he wanted segregated.

Read Sinkler if you want more or at least the recaps @Nofix did years ago on here. They can be found here and here and are a decent summary of the man.

Yeah he did. And about Asian, Hispanic, Black, Slavic, Arabic, Eastern and Southern European peoples too. Which he never recanted.

He had a lifelong obsession with white supremacy and race.

The Booker T. Washington dinner was (1) Not unprecedented, just unusual at the time and (2) was ENTIRELY a calculated political move to try and win support in Southern Republican delegations for the 1904 convention. If you want to actually talk about something he actually did policy wise its always worth pointing out his debased and cowardly conduct in yanking the rug out from under the Alabama Peonage Trials and expelling 167 Black Troops from the Army by fiat after the Brownsville Affair, giving into a lynch mob and its political champions.

Also worth talking about but Before he was President he opposed his friend's Hoare-Lodge Force Act in 1890. He wasn't Progressive for his time, he was more racist then Henry Cabot Lodge. Which considering Lodge is amazing.

I did know he felt the South needed segregation. How was the Booker T Washington supposed to win Southern Republican support? Was the Southern Republican delegation still predominantly black? I do know it was very hard to primary incumbent Republican Presidents because of Southern Delegates who represented few actual voters and depended on federal patronage. As for the Hoare-Lodge Force Act, I remember reading that Progressive Republicans opposed it in exchange for Southern Democratic support on free silver. I have also read that Conservative Republicans cared more about blacks than Progressive Republicans.
 
I did know he felt the South needed segregation.

Yeah.

How was the Booker T Washington supposed to win Southern Republican support? Was the Southern Republican delegation still predominantly black?

Yes there was a large black poltiical component in the parties. Thats why it did help him secure Southern delegations

I do know it was very hard to primary incumbent Republican Presidents because of Southern Delegates who represented few actual voters and depended on federal patronage.

In 1904 TR didn't have control of the Party and was trying to entrench against his worries of Mark Hanna organizing a challenge against him, so he did put a lot of federal resources into the Peonage Trials and met with Washington and did other things. And the moment he secured the nomination he simply shut it all down. Blackmon's Slavery By Another Name is an excellent source for this.

As for the Hoare-Lodge Force Act, I remember reading that Progressive Republicans opposed it in exchange for Southern Democratic support on free silver.

Progressives weren't the Populists and they weren't a Free Silver group.

I have also read that Conservative Republicans cared more about blacks than Progressive Republicans.

Sometimes. Plenty of Conservatives also didn't care and a very small number of Progressives did care, for example Taft was drastically more Progressive then TR on race (And everything else besides National Parks)
 
Back
Top