very expansion of civilization makes for peace. In other words, every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness. This has been the case in every instance of expansion during the present century, whether the expanding power were France or England, Russia or America. In every instance the expansion has been of benefit, not so much to the power nominally benefited, as to the whole world. . . .

Question

So it has been in the history of our own country. Of course our whole national history has been one of expansion. Under Washington and Adams we expanded westward to the Mississippi; under Jefferson we expanded across the continent to the mouth of the Columbia; under Monroe we expanded into Florida; and then into Texas and California; and finally, largely through the instrumentality of Seward, into Alaska; while under every administration the process of expansion in the great plains and the Rockies has continued with growing rapidity. While we had a frontier the chief feature of frontier life was the endless war between the settlers and the red men. Sometimes the immediate occasion for the war was to be found in the conduct of the whites and sometimes in that of the reds, but the ultimate cause was simply that we were in contact with a country held by savages or half-savages.

Where we abut on Canada there is no danger of war, nor is there any danger where we abut on the well-settled regions of Mexico. But elsewhere war had to continue until we expanded over the country. Then it was succeeded at once by a peace which has remained unbroken to the present day. In North America, as elsewhere throughout the entire world, the expansion of a civilized nation has invariably meant the growth of the area in which peace is normal throughout the world.

The same will be true of the Philippines. If the men who have counseled national degradation, national dishonor, by urging us to leave the Philippines and put the Aguinaldan oligarchy in control of those islands, could have their way, we should merely turn them over to rapine and bloodshed until some stronger, manlier power stepped in to do the task we had shown ourselves fearful of performing. But, as it is, this country will keep the islands and will establish therein a stable and orderly government, so that one more fair spot of the world’s surface shall have been snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace. . . .

Nations that expand and nations that do not expand may both ultimately go down, but the one leaves heirs and a glorious memory, and the other leaves neither. The Roman expanded, and he has left a memory which has profoundly influenced the history of mankind, and he has further left as the heirs of his body, and, above all, of his tongue and culture, the so-called Latin peoples of Europe and America. Similarly to-day it is the great expanding peoples who bequeath to the future ages the great memories and material results of their achievements, and the nations which shall have sprung from their loins, England standing as the archetype and best exemplar of all such mighty nations. But the peoples that do not expand leave, and can leave, nothing behind them.

It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world. The Arab wrecked the civilization of the Mediterranean coasts, the Turk wrecked the civilization of southeastern Europe, and the Tartar desolated from China to Russia and to Persia, setting back the progress of the world for centuries, solely because the civilized nations opposed to them had lost the great fighting qualities, and, in becoming overpeaceful, had lost the power of keeping peace with a strong hand.

—Theodore Roosevelt, published in The Independent, December 12, 1899

Answer 1

The passage you provided represents a perspective from Theodore Roosevelt, articulating his views on the nature of civilization, expansion, and the supposed relationship between the two. Roosevelt's argument can be summarized and critiqued as follows:

Summary of Arguments:

1. Expansion as a Force for Civilization: Roosevelt posits that the expansion of powerful civilized nations leads to peace, order, and righteousness across the globe. He illustrates this notion through examples from U.S. history, noting that westward expansion involved conflicts with Indigenous peoples, but those conflicts were ultimately framed as necessary steps toward establishing civilized governance and peace in those territories.

2. Historical Context: He references historical instances of expansion (both American and those of other nations like France, England, and Russia) to support the claim that civilization's growth coincides with peace. He argues that regions that remain uncivilized or ungoverned are prone to violence until they are "civilized" by stronger powers.

3. Imperialism in the Philippines: Roosevelt specifically addresses the situation in the Philippines, arguing against those who advocate for abandoning these islands. He believes that maintaining control will prevent chaos and disorder, suggesting that American intervention will lead to a stable and orderly governance.

4. Legacy of Expansion: He suggests that expanding nations leave behind a legacy and cultural influence that non-expanding nations cannot claim. He glorifies the Roman Empire as a model of expansion that provided lasting impacts on language, culture, and societal structure.

5. The Role of Military Strength: Throughout the passage, Roosevelt underscores the idea that military might is essential for maintaining peace. He laments the decline in the martial qualities of nations, which he believes facilitates chaos and instability at the hands of less civilized groups.

Critique of Roosevelt's Perspective:

1. Eurocentrism and Cultural Superiority: Roosevelt's views reflect a Eurocentric belief in the superiority of "civilized" peoples over others. This perspective often disregards the rich cultures, governance systems, and histories of the indigenous peoples adversely affected by expansionist policies.

2. Justification of Imperialism: The argument that imperial expansion is inherently beneficial can be critiqued as a justification for imperialism. Historical examples often illustrate that military conquest results in exploitation, oppression, and significant suffering for the colonized populations, contradicting the notion of a benevolent civilizing mission.

3. Complexities of Conflict and Peace: The assertion that peace follows expansion oversimplifies the complexities of the resulting social and political violence. The peace established by one group often comes at the cost of another's autonomy, culture, and life, leading to a legacy of resentment and conflict rather than true peace.

4. Evolution of Modern Relations: Roosevelt's views may not accurately project the intricacies of modern geopolitical relations, where power dynamics are influenced by global interdependence, diplomacy, and international law, rather than the mere assertion of military might.

5. Representation of Non-Expanding Nations: The argument dismisses the potential for flourishing, peaceful societies that do not seek expansion. It fails to acknowledge that many cultures have thrived without widespread territorial conquests.

In summary, while Roosevelt champions expansion as a means to achieve peace and civilization, this perspective is not only historically contentious but also raises ethical questions regarding imperialism and cultural dominance that have ongoing relevance in discussions about international relations today.