The Philippines and the Transvaal: The “Necessity” for Intervention and the Rhetoric of “Performed Reluctance”

In an article published in 1900, the noted American naval officer Alfred Mahan drew a direct comparison between U.S. actions in the Philippines and the ongoing British war in South Africa. “Is it possible,” he asked, “that there are Americans who, in face of the records, really believe that in the community of contemporary peoples the Transvaal, rather than Great Britain, stands for the cause of political liberty and purity of administration?”[1] This piece will compare and contrast justifications for intervention on the part of the U.S. in the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars, and Britain in the South African War. Key to contemporaries’ understandings of their recent history was the oft-repeated assertion that English-speaking peoples were inherently reluctant to take responsibility for the governance of others. In reality, however, this “reluctance” was often little more than a rhetorical flourish masking an interventionist, imperial impulse which saw both empires expand markedly. This piece will argue that reluctance to intervene, whether consciously feigned, otherwise performed, or (less often) genuinely believed was an indispensable part of the rhetoric of Anglo imperialism.

---

[1] Alfred Thayer Mahan, “The Transvaal and the Philippine Islands,” Independent 52, no. 2670 (February 1, 1900): 289-291.

See more of: Colonial Connections: Comparison, Exchange, and Entanglement in the American Empire
See more of: AHA Sessions

<< Previous Presentation | Next Presentation >>