scholarly journals “‘Far from the Pacific’: Reading Anglo-American Imperialism and the Pacific: Discourses of Encounter

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinnosuke Takahashi

No description supplied

Author(s):  
Shin Takahashi

When I was a doctoral student, a group of students and teaching staff travelled to a coastal village east of Canberra called Kioloa every year, to breathe in the air from the Tasman Sea, which we normally had no chance to be exposed to in the inland capital city.


The Second World War marked the apex of industrial war and was nothing short of the most costly and destructive conflict ever experienced. It was total in its conduct and global in its scale—a true World War. The scale of the conflict may be explained by virtue of the fact that it was the product of numerous regional conflicts and theaters of operation that increasingly became woven into a contiguous war. In Western Europe the conflict began as a rerun of the Great War. In Eastern Europe it evolved into an ideological war of extermination between the polar opposites of fascism and communism. Parts of Africa and the Middle East became battlegrounds where European colonial ambitions clashed while other parts provided men and material. Maintaining access to resources more generally was indispensable for all belligerents in order to sustain their war efforts, thus attempting to stem the flow of their opponents’ resources was a central facet of most wartime strategies. Farther east, Japanese imperial ambitions clashed with the dynamics of a civil war in China in the attempt to create a new “Asian” international system free of American and European encroachments. In this respect, the war in the Asia-Pacific region that broke out in December 1941 should be separated from the one conducted in China up until that point. Japanese operations in China and on the Mongolian border before 1941 certainly had an impact on, but were different from, the vast new front that opened up in the Pacific following the Japanese attacks on Anglo-American positions from Pearl Harbor to Singapore. It was the events of December 1941 that brought these disparate strands formally together and linked them to events in Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. The result was a single war with very few areas formally out of bounds to armed conflict....


Author(s):  
J.M. Opal

The foreign relations of the Jacksonian age reflected Andrew Jackson’s own sense of the American “nation” as long victimized by non-white enemies and weak politicians. His goal as president from 1829 to 1837 was to restore white Americans’ “sovereignty,” to empower them against other nations both within and beyond US territory. Three priorities emerged from this conviction. First, Jackson was determined to deport the roughly 50,000 Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles living in southern states and territories. He saw them as hostile nations who threatened American safety and checked American prosperity. Far from a domestic issue, Indian Removal was an imperial project that set the stage for later expansion over continental and oceanic frontiers. Second and somewhat paradoxically, Jackson sought better relations with Great Britain. These were necessary because the British Empire was both the main threat to US expansion and the biggest market for slave-grown exports from former Indian lands. Anglo-American détente changed investment patterns and economic development throughout the Western Hemisphere, encouraging American leaders to appease London even when patriotic passions argued otherwise. Third, Jackson wanted to open markets and secure property rights around the globe, by treaty if possible but by force when necessary. He called for a larger navy, pressed countries from France to Mexico for outstanding debts, and embraced retaliatory strikes on “savages” and “pirates” as far away as Sumatra. Indeed, the Jacksonian age brought a new American presence in the Pacific. By the mid-1840s the United States was the dominant power in the Hawaiian Islands and a growing force in China. The Mexican War that followed made the Union a two-ocean colossus—and pushed its regional tensions to the breaking point.


Author(s):  
JoAnna Poblete

This chapter examines the Philippines's authority over labor complaints in Hawaiʻi, with particular emphasis on the position of resident labor commissioner that Filipino U.S. colonials in Hawaiʻi lobbied for and acquired in 1923. It first provides an overview of the U.S. government's Filipinization policy in 1913 before turning to early Philippine labor mediators. It then considers the creation of a permanent worker representative in the islands through the Philippine legislature. It also looks at the appointment of Cayetano Ligot as the first Philippine labor commissioner and the movement launched by Filipinos in Hawaiʻi to remove him from office. It shows that Ligot created more problems than solutions for Filipino laborers in Hawaiʻi, and that the Filipinization of the intra-colonial labor complaint process in the Pacific did not result in improved conditions for the average Filipino. Despite the collaboration between Philippine and Anglo-American leaders, Filipino intra-colonials in Hawaiʻi found ways to express their own desires and free will.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document