Bryan was a conundrum, wrapped in an enigma, and then rolled into a three-piece suit. It wouldn't be fair to call him an out-and-out racist. His writing is both kinda prejudiced and kinda not. Bryan argued for the Filipino right to self-govern when almost no one else would for Pete's sale.
But we also can't let him off the hook completely.
His "Imperialism" speech did contain some undertones of race-based argumentation, ideas from the Social Darwinist crowd, and seemingly innocent statements about the superiority of the United States. All of his comments were pretty tame compared to much of the racial politics of that day. But they're a little icky nonetheless.
Questions About Race
- Using what you know about the Progressive Era, how were Bryan's arguments about race/ethnicity/superiority both typical and different from other movements at that time?
- Bryan wasn't exactly being colorblind here. How did race and ethnicity pop up in his own arguments against empire?
- Didn't you hate it when your parents made decisions for you without ever consulting you? That's sort of what's going on here—a debate about empire, but without the imperialized. This wasn't the first time the U.S. did something like this. Where in this speech (and in U.S. history writ large) can you see examples of this type of behavior? And how can this be seen as racist, or at least insulting?
- Doesn't it seem like Bryan was giving off a sense of self-righteousness or snootiness when viewing the Americans as being oh-so-superior to the Filipinos?
Chew on This
Bryan wasn't just trying to be the PCP (you know, the Political Correctness Police) by calling Republicans out as being racist; he genuinely believed in letting the Filipino have the right to dignity and independence.
In a classic political move, Bryan called the Republican Party a bunch of racists. But the worst part of it was that he even said some terribly condescending (and arguably racist) things too. Typical politician…