notes
introduction
1 See also Janice Radway’s 1998 American Studies Association presidential ad-
dress, ‘‘What’s in a Name?,’’ on the move toward what she calls ‘‘Inter-American
studies.’’ This problem of naming plagues all Americanists doing work on em-
pire. To avoid referring to U.S. nationals as simply ‘‘Americans,’’ which is con-
ventional but problematic for these reasons, scholars sometimes resort to more
awkward substitutes like ‘‘U.S. citizens’’ or ‘‘people of the United States.’’ In this
study, rather than invoking the political connotation of citizenship, I will refer
to U.S. nationals as ‘‘USAmericans.’’
2 Buell’s earlier essay ‘‘American Literary Emergence as a Postcolonial Phenome-
non’’(1997)wascriticizedforitstoosimplisticseparationofpostcolonialcultural
development from what Amy Kaplan and Donald Pease have called ‘‘the cultures
of United States imperialism.’’ In her introduction to the groundbreaking an-
thology of that title, Kaplan takes Buell’s essay to task for its failure to recognize
that U.S. nation building and empire building were ‘‘historically coterminous
and mutually defining’’ (‘‘Left Alone with America,’’ 17). I read Buell’s complex
conceptualization of this hemispheric project in his later work as responding to
suchcriticisms;thereheclarifiesthataculturalidentitybasedonrevolutionfrom
colonialism does not preclude simultaneous participation in imperialist prac-
tices. Eric Cheyfitz has similarly proposed what he calls an ‘‘Americas Cultural
Studies’’ that ‘‘would take as its focus, in an international context, a rigorous
theoretical/historicalcritiqueoftherelationshipbetweencapitalismanddemoc-
racy in the hemisphere, positing this relationship as inherently contradictory,
a contradiction that American exceptionalism has typically elided’’ (843–44).
This model would avoid the emphasis on parallelism that weakens compara-
tive studies such as that by Fitz. See discussion of similar possibilities in Paul
Jay, Gregory Jay, Chevigny and Laguardia, Muthyala, Pérez-Firmat, and Rowe,
‘‘Post-Nationalism, Globalism, and the New American Studies.’’
3 William ApplemanWilliams’s 1961 TheContoursofAmericanHistory gave an in-
fluential revisionist critique of the Monroe Doctrine, calling it a ‘‘defensive state-
ment of the territorial and administrative integrityof North and South America’’
that conceals a ‘‘positive, expansionist statement of American supremacy in the
hemisphere’’ (215). See also Allman and Smith.
4 This realist/idealist divide is one major premise separating my approach from
Previous Page Next Page