Another way that race comes into the history is that around 1900, the killing of blacks was common, especially in the South. Yet blacks were being asked to fight in a conflict against other dark-skinned people in the Philippines who wanted their freedom, first from Spain and then from the U.S. Filipinos were commonly referred to as "niggers." In the Cuban war, blacks could actually be proud to support the "Cuba Libre" movement, for a while at least, but after Spain withdrew it became clear that the U. S., while not attempting to annex Cuba, wanted to attach strings to its independence, and did. Blacks were in a severe bind; with opportunity largely denied them, one of the only ways to prove their worth was to fight for the country that devalued them.
The U. S. conduct in the Philippine war was especially egregious. Shades of Vietnam.
Throughout this book, Zinnn has strained to exculpate the people by pinning almost all the blame on business interests and the politicians beholden to them. He does, after all, make it pretty clear that he sides with the people. For me, however, this practice works against respect for the people, who often look like easily duped pawns in Zinn's telling.
I cite an opposing view from Wikipedia not to prove Zinn is wrong (it is only one source), but to indicate that there are other ways to tell the story, other quotations to select, other interpretations to impose on the facts.Many histories of the Spanish-American war have said that "public
opinion" in the United States led McKinley to declare war on Spain
and send forces to Cuba. True, certain influential newspapers had been
pushing hard, even hysterically. And many Americans, seeing the aim
of intervention as Cuban independence--and with the Teller Amendment
as guarantee of this intention-supported the idea. But would
McKinley have gone to war because of the press and some portion of
the public (we had no public opinion surveys at that time) without
the urging of the business community?
Wiki goes on to say that that after a pro-war senator gave a powerful speech, the country began to fall into line with the pro-war cause, including the previously opposed business community. Zinn perhaps doesn't give us an accurate picture of how a consensus for war came about. He wants to absolve the people. Unfortunately, as with the election of Donald Trump, I don't think we often can.This new "yellow journalism" was, however, uncommon outside New York City, and historians no longer consider it the major force shaping the national mood.[60] Public opinion nationwide did demand immediate action, overwhelming the efforts of President McKinley, Speaker of the House Thomas Brackett Reed, and the business community to find a negotiated solution. Wall Street, big business, high finance and Main Street businesses across the country were vocally opposed to war and demanded peace. After years of severe depression, the economic outlook for the domestic economy was suddenly bright again in 1897. However, the uncertainties of warfare posed a serious threat to full economic recovery. "War would impede the march of prosperity and put the country back many years," warned the New Jersey Trade Review. The leading railroad magazine editorialized, "From a commercial and mercenary standpoint it seems peculiarly bitter that this war should come when the country had already suffered so much and so needed rest and peace." McKinley paid close attention to the strong anti-war consensus of the business community, and strengthened his resolve to use diplomacy and negotiation rather than brute force to end the Spanish tyranny in Cuba.[61]
I'd like to see some perspective on the imperialism/colonialism practiced by the U. S. vs. that of European powers. Are there clear differences to be noted? Has the U. S. been, on the whole, heavy on imperialism but light on colonialism, relatively speaking?