The U.S. is your father.

            In Mary Renda’s Taking Haiti, she explores not only the effect the U.S.’s interventionist paternalism has on Haiti, but also the affect Haiti’s “exoticism” has on the U.S. By exploring this paternalistic control the U.S. craves, Renda is able to make many more observations on disparities regarding religion, race, class, and gender. These paternalist interventions are particularly relevant now, as we look at the United States President forced to make a decision about whether a military strike will occur in Syria. Why is that the job of the United States? What makes us the father country, and what good does this role actually do (if any)?

            One chapter I found particularly interesting of Renda’s is the Occupation chapter, where she discusses the indoctrination of the Marines. In the Marines, Renda says, was “an ethos of male rivalry based on competitive claims to toughness and physical prowess—whether enacted on the battlefield or in a brothel” (71). This morale, ever present in the Marines, exposes ideological differences between the U.S. Americans and the Haitians. These differences also result in the contradictory accounts of the Marines themselves in terms of how they viewed the Haitians. The Marines were expected to forego their individual identity, to replace it with a loyalty to the U.S., but their individual identities crept in from time to time. For example, Adolph Miller recorded in his journal: “The natives all cheered and seemed very glad to see us, although quite a number of brickbats were heaved at us from dark places along the line…” (83). Is this obvious hypocrisy a result of conflicting identities or a more calculated indoctrination, creating the U.S. Marines’ paternalistic pride?

            Renda seems to think it is more intentional, being “reinforced by the systemic indoctrination of marines with respect to the fatherly intentions of U.S. policy” (303). This discursive move by the United States to justify occupation in other countries is still what the U.S. uses today. It reminded me of the discussion we had in class about Laura Bush, imploring U.S. women to feel empathy for the Middle Eastern women who (according to Laura Bush) needed our help. Is the discourse used by the United States merely a way of controlling other countries, of creating infrastructures more like ours but weaker, giving the United States greater power and authority? The paternalistic role is one we will see politicians claiming as our duty as we look at the Syrian conflict. Is it, though? Even if the U.S. decides it is, does our occupation in another country only reinforce the racial and gender hierarchies? Here and there?