Week 3- "Taking Haiti" (post #2)

            This week reading of “Taking Haiti” by Mary A. Renda was very rewarding. Upon my exploration of the novel in its beginning chapters, I began to believe the book only revolved around the U.S., troops/soldiers of the American government, and how the Haitians (African Americans) were conquered under what was then perceived as, “military occupation”; however, this piece gave valuable information regarding U.S. imperialism in foreign countries, masculinity defined under the circumstances of the period, culture, and colonialized North America, and it also presented re-birth to the questions and answers to gender, race, sexuality, and class conflicts.  This novel allowed me to have a full understanding of how to define imperialism in the U.S. as well as the island of Haiti. It broke the boundaries of defining Haitians/African Americans, natives, and primitives; all which pertained to the presented and situated idea of racism, imperialism, and power politics among these two countries.

            Imperialism is the policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. Renda allows the role of imperialism in Haiti by the U.S. and their very young, uneducated, some southern troops to be interpreted out of the idea of description instead of definition. The idea of the American government to invade a foreign country for simply control of the “inferior” race, hierarchy standards, and continued colonialism control is exactly the type of paternalism initiated and sustained in the mindset of White and African Americans here in the U.S. As mentioned previously, an American formed government policy, action, and structure known as the ‘occupation” was created in Haiti with complete rule of U.S. government and policy. ‘In this sense, “the occupation” refers to a process that could never be any one party, by any one man or group of men, not even by the men with authority over the men with guns.” This was an event which combined Haiti and the U.S. as different in belief and religion, masculinity, control, and an attempt to uplift the spirits of the soldiers of the Marine Corps themselves as a created idea of right and wrong, black and white, and masculine “father” figures of the personal and societal perspective.

            Gender, race, paternalism, and the ideas associated around masculinity and femininity were displayed in a variety of circumstances. The idea that man, the White man no matter where he travels globally especially in the early 20^th century was dominant and in power was not surprising at all. This wouldn’t be the first time Western culture was forced upon a group of people and maintained. From my understanding, the proposal of the U.S. government to create the idea of the “occupation” to strike some type of military relation of government within Haiti based on foreign policy and trade of goods and services, was simply another blind fold to a way of insuring control over what they (U.S. government) for seen as a helpful way to  “civilization” of these African Americans based on their description as Haitians (African Americans), their culture, and their physical and mental capabilities. This paternalistic discourse shaped the U.S. government’s attempt of created racial ideologies. It even created a difference in the masculinity among the soldiers themselves.

            It was stated, some of the southern American troops did not understand why they were called to do such a duty on behalf of their country. Stories were even given of American Marines being petrified of the beating of drums by natives in their presence. The idea of sexuality, masculinity, “fatherhood” and control rearranged my thoughts about homosexuality and heterosexuality. It seems as if American women at this time were developing into feminists, attaining wage labor jobs from some men, and becoming into their own identity, the identity of masculinity that is. This act was not very well taken by most American men, and especially not southern men of the “occupation.” A particular quote that caught my eye was the one pertaining to then “an expression of masculinity”, but today homosexuality, of men soldiers partaking in intimacy among other men that were seen as “less masculine” or “more feminine.” This critique supposedly allowed for men to be prideful of themselves in every situation as long as their manhood of White supremacy, masculinity, and paternalism was dominant among all who encountered them, especially the primitives (African Americans/Haitians).

            This piece allowed me to re-think gender in the 21^st century America to which we live. This novel also showed in every aspect colonial/imperial pedagogy included in movies, plays, journals, and magazines. The mentioned play of “Emperor Jones” gave a different discourse to White Americans as it did the natives of Haiti or other African ethnicities. The reference to W.E.B. Dubois, Langston Hughes and stories of generals of the Marines along with the soldiers gave a diversified sense of politics among the reader and the presented information. “Taking Haiti” allowed for the perspective of both the Haitians and the American troops in a creation of voice and standpoint. It allowed the reader to situate themselves from biased thoughts to open-minded capital T “truth” of imperialism, and all of its effects. Overall, the novel was extremely beneficial, knowledgeable, and eye-opening. It gave way to understanding paternalism discourse in a visual lens with its foundation, current status from 1915-1940, and the current affects it now holds on foreign countries and their relationship with the U.S. today.