Community, Power, and Colonialism: The U.S. Army in Southern Arizona and New Mexico, 1866-1886

Empire is central to U.S. history. When we see the U.S. projecting its influence on a global scale in today s world it is important to understand that U.S. empire has a long history. This dissertation offers a case study of colonialism and U.S. empire by discussing the social worlds, labor regimes, and culture of the U.S. Army during the conquest of southern Arizona and New Mexico (1866-1886). It highlights some of the defining principles, mentalities, and characteristics of U.S. imperialism and shows how U.S. forces have in years past constructed their power and represented themselves, their missions, and the places and peoples that faced U.S. imperialism/colonialism. Using insights from postcolonial studies and whiteness studies, this work balances its attention between discursive representations (army stories) and social experience (army actions), pays attention to silences in the process of historical production, and focuses on collective group mentalities and identities. In the end the army experience reveals an empire in denial constructed on the rule of difference and marked by frustration. White officers, their wives, and the white enlisted men not only wanted the monopoly of violence for the U.S. regime but also colonial (mental/cultural) authority and power, and constructed their identity, authority, and power in discourse and in the social contexts of the everyday through difference. Engaged in warfare against the Apaches, they did not recognize their actions as harmful or acknowledge the U.S. invasion as the bloody colonial conquest it was. White army personnel painted themselves and the army as liberators, represented colonial peoples as racial inferiors, approached colonial terrain in terms of struggle, and claimed that the region was a terrible periphery with little value before the arrival of white civilization. Officers and wives also wanted to place themselves at the top of colonial hierarchies as the refined and respectable class who led the regeneration of the colony by example: they tried to turn army villages into islands of civilization and made journeys, leisure, and domestic life to showcase their class sensibilities and level of sophistication. Often, however, their efforts failed, resulting in frustration and bitterness. Many blamed the colony and its peoples for their failures. The army itself was divided by race and class. All soldiers were treated as laborers unfit for self-government. White enlisted men, frustrated by their failures in colonial warfare and by constant manual labor, constructed worlds of resistance, whereas indigenous soldiers sought to negotiate the effects of colonialism by working in the army. As colonized labor their position was defined by tension between integration and exclusion and between freedom and colonial control.

Rätt som argument : Leo Mechelin och finska frågan 1886-1912

Right as an Argument. Leo Mechelin and the Finnish Question 1886-1912 At the turn of the 20th century the Finnish Question rose up as a political and juridical issue at the international arena. The vaguely précised position of Finland in the Russian empire led to diverse conclusions concerning the correctness of the February manifesto of 1899. It was predominantly among a European elite of politicians, cultural workers and academics the issue rose some interest. Finns were active making propaganda for their cause, and they put an emphasis on the claim that the right was on the Finnish side. In the study Elisabeth Stubb compare the Finnish, Russian and European statements about the Finnish Question and analyse their use of right as an argument. The Finnish Question offers at the same time a case study of a national entity which possesses a political sphere of life but is not fully independent, and its possibilities to drive its interests in an international context. Leo Mechelin (1839-1914), the leader of the Finnish propaganda organization abroad, is used as a point of departure. The biographical stance is formed into a triangle, where Leo Mechelin, the idea of right and the Finnish Question abroad are the three cornerstones. The treatment of one cornerstone sheds a ligth on the two others. The metaphor of triangulation also worked as a method to reach "a third stance" in a scinetific and political issue that usually is polarised into two opposite alternatives. An adherence to a strict legal right could not in the end offer a complete, unquestionable and satisfactory solution to the Finnsih Question, it was dependent on "the right of state wisdom and sound insight". The Finnish propaganda abroad used almost completely alternative ways of making politics. The propaganda did not have a decisive effect on countries' official politics, but gained unofficial support, especially in the public opinion and in academic statements. Mechelin claimed that the political field was dependent on public opinion and scientific research. Together with the official politics these two fields formed a triangle that shared the task of balancing the political arena and preventing it from making unwise decisions of taking an unjust turn. The international sphere worked as a balancing part in the Finnish Question. Mechelin tried by claiming the status of state for Finland's part to secure the country a place at the official international arena. At the same time, and especially when the claim was not fully adopted, he emphasised, and in a European context worked for, that right would become the guiding light not only for international relations, but also for the policy making in the inner life of the state.