Renda: Culture, Paternalism, & Empire

     In Mary Renda's Taking Haiti, she recounts the US occupation of Haiti from 1915-1940 as an event in history that shaped the societies and histories of both Haiti and the United States. By focusing on the evidence presented by the lives and stories of the marines who were stationed in Haiti, Renda reveals that there were significant overlaps of gender, race, nationality, and sexuality in relation to power structures that deserve recognition in our nation's history. More specifically, Renda thoroughly investigates what happens when you blur the lines of dichotomies such as father/child, critique/commodification, white/black, republic/empire, etc.
     Another dichotomy that is apparent in the text but not as blatant is that of owner/possession. This could certainly be paralled to the dichotomies that materialize from paternalism and the idea of adoptive parent/orphan, but it is most relevant in conversation with the Monroe Doctrine. Written in 1823 and enacted in 1850, the Monroe Doctrine established that any acts of aggression exhibited in the Latin American countries would be interpreted as an act of war against the United States. Within this framework, all the countries involved are immediately placed within the realm of American property, thus allowing the other aforementioned dichotomies to operate effectively. This idea is further evidenced by literature produced fifty years later; in Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden," he portrays nonwhite peoples as uncivilized savages who need the care, attention, and wisdom of the white man. Socially consructed ideas such as these set the tone for the Haitian invasion of 1915, thus normalizing our role as keeper and protector.
     The United States' role as keeper and protector enabled the building of an empire. This idea of empire building and erasing empire building was coined by the cultural critic Van Doren; Renda mentions this framework in the prologue of the text, and it was one of the questions I was most interested in raising in class on Wednesday. I wanted to know if the class though that the US invasion and occupation of Haiti achieved the goal of empire building and erasing empire building (one goal, connected by the same interests). If so, what is its significance in relation to transnational histories? From both my reading and Renda and consideration of Van Doren's framework, I think that, collectively, this goal was achieved. The United States built the empire in Haiti via occupation, crop-raising, policing, violence, and social control. However, it is arguable that an empire was established since it was hardly an independent, functioning nation when the US made its exit. But considering the interests of the US, an empire was certainly established, despite the claims at the time that the occupation was for the purpose of stabilization and democracy. Secondly, the history of the building of the empire has certainly been erased; almost no one in our class knew of this occupation and neither did my 80 year-old grandfather when I asked him about it. This monumental event in our nation's history has been reduced to a blip on the map of the United States' past relations with Latin American and Caribbean countries. Because this is true, then, its significane to transnational histories is that one should always be weary of when knowledge flows from the most powerful, or in this case, lack of knowledge. There must be a reason this historical event has ben censored, but the purpose of such is not as important as the implications for those who lived it and for those who are learning about it now.