Two Cases About Empire · 关于帝国的两个案例
Four imperialist arguments
- Imperialists cited economic opportunities, racial theories, competition with European empires, and the perception in the 1890s that the western frontier was "closed" to argue that Americans were destined to expand their culture and institutions to peoples around the globe.
- Four grounds: economic, racial, competitive, and the closed frontier — the last is a claim about running out of somewhere to go.
- Destined echoes 5.2's Manifest Destiny, now aimed overseas rather than at the Pacific coast.
四项帝国主义论证
- 帝国主义者援引经济机会、种族理论、与欧洲帝国的竞争,以及 1890 年代关于西部边疆已经"关闭"的看法,来论证美国人注定要把他们的文化与制度扩展到全球各民族。
- 四条理由:经济的、种族的、竞争性的,以及边疆的关闭——最后一条是关于无处可去的一项主张。
- 注定呼应了 5.2 的昭昭天命,如今指向海外,而不是太平洋沿岸。
Select all · 所有 four imperialist grounds the CED names. · 选择CED列出的所有四个帝国主义理由。
'Destined' echoes 5.2's Manifest Destiny, aimed overseas. · “注定”呼应了5.2的“天定命运”，旨在海外扩张。
Three anti-imperialist arguments
- Anti-imperialists cited principles of self-determination and invoked both racial theories and the U.S. foreign policy tradition of isolationism to argue that the United States should not extend its territory overseas.
- Three grounds: self-determination, racial theories, and isolationism.
- The middle one is the crucial detail — racial theories appear on both sides, which means race did not determine the position.
三项反帝国主义论证
- 反帝国主义者援引自决原则,并诉诸种族理论以及美国孤立主义的外交政策传统,来论证美国不应把领土扩展到海外。
- 三条理由:自决、种族理论,以及孤立主义。
- 中间那一条是关键细节——种族理论出现在双方,这意味着种族并没有决定立场。
Select all · 所有 three anti-imperialist grounds. · 选择所有三个反帝国主义理由。
The middle one appears on both sides. · 中间那个出现在双方阵营中。
Similarities and differences
- The objective asks for similarities and differences in attitudes about the nation's proper role in the world.
- Similarity: both sides invoked racial theories, and both argued from American principles rather than from foreign models.
- Difference: one read those principles as a mandate to extend institutions; the other as a bar to ruling people without consent.
相似与不同
- 这一目标要求的是关于这个国家在世界上应有角色的态度上的相似与不同。
- 相似:双方都诉诸种族理论,而且都从美国自身的原则出发论辩,而不是从外国模式。
- 不同:一方把这些原则读作扩展制度的授权;另一方读作禁止在未经同意的情况下统治他人。
Imperialist, anti-imperialist, or shared? · 帝国主义、反帝国主义还是共享的？
Sort each argument by the side that made it. · 按提出方对每个论点进行分类。
Racial theories were invoked by both sides. · 种族理论被双方引用。
So race did not determine the position. · 因此种族并未决定立场。
Racial theories appear on both sides of the CED's argument. Imperialists cited them, and anti-imperialists invoked both racial theories and the U.S. foreign policy tradition of isolationism — so race did not determine the position, and an answer that assumes it did has misread the sentence.
种族理论出现在 CED 论证的双方。帝国主义者援引了它们,而反帝国主义者也诉诸种族理论以及美国孤立主义的外交政策传统——因此种族并没有决定立场,而假定它决定了的答案,误读了这句话。
Self-determination makes overseas rule a founding problem because 3.4 grounded government in... · 自决使得海外统治成为一个建国问题，因为3.4将政府建立在...
So anti-imperialists could argue from patriotism. · 因此反帝国主义者可以从爱国主义角度论证。
Self-determination against the founding
- 3.4's Declaration grounded government in consent, so ruling a people who did not consent is a founding problem, not merely a preference.
- That is why anti-imperialists could argue from patriotism rather than against it.
- And 7.3 will name the suppression of a nationalist movement in the Philippines, which is exactly the case they anticipated.
自决与建国原则
- 3.4 的《独立宣言》把政府奠基于同意,因此统治一个未曾同意的民族,是一个关乎建国原则的问题,而不只是一种偏好。
- 这正是反帝国主义者能够从爱国主义出发、而不是反对爱国主义来论辩的原因。
- 而 7.3 会点出对菲律宾一场民族主义运动的镇压,那正是他们所预见的情形。
Put the structure of a two-sided comparison in order. · 将双向比较的结构排序。
7.11 asks the same objective again — learn the structure once. · 7.11再次询问同样的客观内容——掌握一次结构即可。
Writing a two-sided comparison
- Give one argument from each side, then the shared premise, then the point where they diverge.
- The shared premise is what makes the comparison sharp, and here it is unusually clear: both used racial theories.
- 7.11 asks the same objective again for the interwar years, so this structure is worth learning once and reusing.
书写一次双方比较
- 各给出一方的一项论证,然后是共享的前提,然后是它们分岔之处。
- 共享的前提正是使这次比较变得锐利的东西,而在这里它异常清晰:双方都使用了种族理论。
- 7.11 会为两次大战之间的年代再次追问同一个目标,因此这一结构值得学一次然后重复使用。
Two people can start from the same doubtful premise and reach opposite policies: one concludes that a difference justifies rule, the other that it makes rule unworkable. The premise is shared; only the inference differs.
两个人可以从同一个可疑的前提出发,得出相反的政策:一个断定某种差异为统治提供了理由,另一个断定这种差异使统治行不通。前提是共享的;不同的只是推论。
Imperialists cited economic opportunities, racial theories, competition with European empires, and the perception in the 1890s that the western frontier was "closed" to argue that Americans were destined to expand their culture and institutions to peoples around the globe. Anti-imperialists cited principles of self-determination and invoked both racial theories and the U.S. foreign policy tradition of isolationism to argue that the United States should not extend its territory overseas.
帝国主义者援引经济机会、种族理论、与欧洲帝国的竞争,以及 1890 年代关于西部边疆已经"关闭"的看法,来论证美国人注定要把他们的文化与制度扩展到全球各民族。 反帝国主义者援引自决原则,并诉诸种族理论以及美国孤立主义的外交政策传统,来论证美国不应把领土扩展到海外。