In Mary A. Renda's Taking Haiti, she discusses myriad of reactions to the U.S. occupation of Haiti. But she is careful to note that "the occupation of Haiti did not, in and of itself, bring about parentalism, racism, race pride, exoticism, gender inequalities, modern sexualities, psychological discourses, or U.S, nationalism, but it provided a host of cultural vehicles with which U.S. Americans would come to express, bolster, or challenge each of these" (300). This was a crucial distinction for me because she's saying that the U.S. occupation did not institute these forces of nationalism or racism but rather allowed them to be investigated essentially because these forces already existed outside of the occupation of Haiti. In her prologue, she gives examples of peoples investigation of things like parentalism, for instance, in William Seabrook's travel novel The Magical Island. It embodied a rags to riches story, thus inspiring nationalism, which in turn led to imperialism and the establishment of "imperial citizenship." What is it about citizenship that is so compelling, demanding, an wanting? The parentalism that guided the U.S.'s interaction with Haiti not only institutionalized a master/slave relationship but also a father/son relationship that extended not only to the Haitians but also the those Americans scrambling to identify themselves under the headline of imperial citizenship. This could be because it bolstered a false sense of authority within the given citizen when in reality the power always resided with the U.S. government (i.e. the father).
One thing that was particularly interesting of Renda's rendition of the U.S. occupation was how little history seems to afford it. Indeed, she states that "as an exercise of military power and imperial will, the occupation has earned little more than a footnote in standard accounts of U.S. history" (11). Why is it that (U.S.) history doesn't find this extension of power to be noteworthy? Naturally, it was overshadowed by the war in Europe, but still, why was it never emphasized later on? The occupation lasted longer than the Great War, why won't the U.S. want to express their own singular power over another country? I think it goes back to Renda's statement that the occupation did not initiate feelings of nationalism, race pride, or parentalism. Indeed, there was nothing there to prove by occupying another country when in fact parentalism was taking place within the U.S. given President Wilson's handling of the workings of such things as the woman's movement. Indeed, she states that, "parentalism invoked gendered meanings associated with men, women, and families to naturalize and normalize the authority it asserted" (15-16). Ironically, I found that parentalism seemed to bring close those one would wish to repel, such as women and later Haitians. It's similar to the saying: keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The real point of parentalism that I thought Renda was driving at was that it's not only a control mechanism but an entire psychology--a whole way and attitude of being in relation to others--you simply believe in it. Indeed, the occupation of Haiti served as a rejuvenation because it allowed the U.S. to come into contact with another "other," whereby it could refine its practices of parentalism. The father/son relationship of parentalism also existed in the U.S. wherein boys were encouraged to be "savage," reading stories of bloodshed, whereas men were expected to be "civilized." But does the man every truly outgrow his "savageness?" I believe that it is this brutish nature that serves as the key to parentalism: one has to be a violent brute to think himself rightly the master of another.
Moreover, the U.S. fascination with the exotic "reinforced parentalism by focusing American attention on the differences between the two cultures, often expressed as primitive shortcomings in Haitian life, which justified a parental American presence in Haiti" (208). But why are we attracted to the exotic when are end goal is to make it just like us--to assimilate it to our standards, which means that it ceases to be exotic. Furthermore, is parentalism ever ineffective once it has succeeded in making the ward like himself?
No comments:
Post a Comment