Changes

After returning to the United State and serving in the South Carolina state government, Poinsett traveled again. During the 1810s, Poinsett spent several years in South America, exploring, spreading republican ideology and attempting to foment revolution against Spain. <ref>Rippy, Fred, <I>Joel Poinsett: Versatile American<i>, pg 39-41.</ref> His story illustrates the transition from idealized depictions of foreign lands to official reports of imperialistic concern in 1822, as he wrote a traveler’s account of Mexico, while acting as an investigative agent of the United States government.<ref>RippyDyer, George B; Charlotte L Dyer, “The Beginnings of a United States Strategic Intelligence System in Latin America, Fred1809-1826”, <I>Joel Poinsett: Versatile AmericanMilitary Affairs<i/I>, pg 39-4114, 2,(1950).</ref>

Mexico has been the object of foreign observations since the early 1800s. Mexico Otherwise examines the content and impact of traveler’s accounts of Mexican people, culture and politics. Employing concepts of Orientalism, developed by Edward Said, and applying it to the literary and intellectual treatment of Mexico, Buchenau argues that travel accounts of Mexico have not only constructed international perceptions of Mexico and Mexican people, but also influenced memory and meaning within Mexico. Buchenau argues powerful nations saw Mexico as a “single undifferentiated other”, just as colonial powers saw India. Traveler and foreign observer accounts of Mexico helped “invent categories”, creating “an essentialist discourse that subsumed a wealth of cultural difference.”[13] <ref>Buchenau, <I>Mexico Otherwise</I>, Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2005, pg 3.</ref> Buchenau features excerpts from many foreign observer accounts of Mexican culture, environments and people. The first two traveler’s accounts of this vast land, Alexander von Humboldt and Joel Poinsett illustrate both Orientalist themes, and the implications and implementations of the human sciences in new North American republics.

Alexander von Humboldt’s work in New Spain, over a decade before the Spanish colony gained independence as the Mexican nation, set the standard for cultural interrogation for the nineteenth century. Humboldt’s work also embodied the interaction between science and politics “at a cultural moment defined by revolutionary transformations in European society and politics.”[14] <ref>Liebersohn, A Traveler’s World, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2006, pg 208.</ref> Friends with Forster, Goethe and de Stael, von Humboldt did not limit his activities to botanical or language research, but also wrote essays on the limits of state formation. After he returned from exploring the Spanish colonies in North and South America in 1804, Humboldt exchanged letters and ideas with Simon Bolivar, hero of Latin American Independence.[15] <ref>Rippy, Fred. J, “Alexander von Humboldt and Simon Bolivar”, <I>The American Historical Review</I>, 52, 4, 1947</ref> This shift from the empirical to the political reflects the power of ideas such as republicanism and nationalism, and the way ideas and theories travel between cultures, facilitated by state-sponsored expeditions and personal connections[16].<Ref>Benedict Anderson provides a compelling analytical modal for understanding nationalism during this time in his influential book <I>Imagined Communities</I>, describing the ideology as trans-Atlantically mobile. David Livingston’s article, “Traveling Theory and the Spaces for Scientific Encounter”, explores the mobility of Darwinian Theory, further illustrating the exchange of ideas.</ref>

Humboldt’s Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain, discussed themes of race, gender and ethnicity in the Spanish colony, and drew the attention of European governments and businessmen to the region. Paternalistic in tone, Humboldt depicted an “unequal struggle between nations far advanced in arts and others in the very lowest degree of civilization.” His sympathy for the “unfortunate race of Aztec”, that he perceived to be in a “state of degradation”, is evident in his account. Humboldt sought a model that would reconcile the poverty of the indigenous people with the evidence of their pre-conquest social, political, and scientific accomplishments. In his effort to remove blame from indigenous people for their “degradation”, Humboldt urges readers not to judge them from their “miserable remains.”[17] <ref> Buchenau, <I>Mexico Otherwise</I>, Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2005, pg 20.</ref> Yet, as Buchenau argues, this laid the foundation for the “essentialist discourse” that obscured the variety of the inhabitants of New Spain, and subsequently Mexico, “under single categories such as ‘Mexican’ or ‘Indian.'”[18]<ref> Buchenau, pg 3.</ref>

The year after Mexico achieved independence, Poinsett came to the country as the appointed emissary on a special mission for President Monroe.[19] <ref>Buchenau, 29.</ref> Traveling as both an explorer and agent, Poinsett’s accounts of this journey display a naturalist’s interest in botany, a statesman’s ideas of republican-style government, and an imperialist’s eye for detail. The two accounts he wrote about his 1822 trip to Mexico parallel each other, they both documented the same expedition, but appealed to different audiences. <ref>Poinsett, Joel, <I>Notes on Mexico</I>, New York; London: Praeger, 1969, pg 119</ref> <I>Notes on Mexico </I> was patterned after other popular travel accounts of the era, mixing a description of Mexican landscape with observations of the people and customs Poinsett encountered. Very different in perspective than the idealistic accounts of Commerson, or the Romantic investigations of Chamisso, Poinsett identified with the Mexican Creoles, whose “good natural talents”distinguished them from the indigenous population and their “indolence…blind submission… (and)…abject misery.”[21] <ref>Poinsett, 120.</ref> He used evidence of beggars in Mexico City as evidence of Mexico’s intermediate level of civilization, beyond subsistence existence, and able to provide charity to a vagrant population.[22] <ref>Poinsett, 203.</ref> Poinsett included an historical sketch of the country, lauding the astronomy, architecture, and technological innovations accomplished by the indigenous people before Spanish conquest, and rued the circumstances that exterminated the indigenous priests and left only the lower classes and “oppressed and degraded people alone to represent the former Mexican.”[23]<ref>Poinsett, 248.</ref>

Poinsett’s <I>Notes on Mexico </I> also discussed the political state of the Mexican government, and woven into his botanical and cultural descriptions were some indications that he is a government agent, responsible for a political report. However, The Present Political State of Mexico, prepared for the US Secretary of State was unambiguous in intent. Poinsett was in Mexico as the nation briefly became an empire under Emperor Iturbide. His report included transcripts of speeches by the Emperor, and organized reports on census data, economic information, military preparedness, and resource estimation.[24] <ref>Poinsett/Smith , <I>Report on the Present Political State of Mexico</I>pg vii-vii. </ref> Not for public consumption, Poinsett’s report exposed Mexico in a different way – instead of revealing unique elements of the people’s environment, culture, or language to avid readers, Poinsett initiated a relationship between Mexico and the Unites States colored by opportunism, expansionism, and suspicion. Remembered in the US as the man who introduced the poinsettia, Poinsett left a negative impression on many Mexicans, many of whom remembered him as an imperialist, with a disrespectful interest in procuring Mexico’s northern states[25].<ref>L. Smith Lee, editor and introducer of Poinsett’s report, <I>The Present Political State of Mexico</I>, describes, on pages viii-ix, a rumored meeting between Poinsett and Emperor Iturbide’s supporter, Azcarante, during which Poinsett communicated the United States plan to “absorb all Texas, New Mexico, and Upper California, and parts of Lower California, Sonora, Coahuila, and New Leon.”</ref>

Poinsett’s expedition to Mexico was part of a larger trend in the history of the United States, during the years of the New Republic, as the U.S. applied the philosophical debate over the definition of the human species and the meaning of human diversity, to American ideas of Manifest Destiny and race. Thomas C. Patterson’s book, A Social History of Anthropology in the United States, examines the purpose and meaning in the development of anthropology in the U.S. Patterson explores the origins of anthropology in European traveler’s accounts and the philosophical debates of Rousseau, Kant and others, and identifies two different ways anthropology and other human sciences have been used by individuals and states. Supporters of social hierarchy used travel accounts to justify conquest and repression, seeing history as, “a series of progressive changes…from the original, primitive condition to more advances, diversified circumstances,” and, “the conquest of nature, material improvement, and increasing modernity as motors driving these changes.”[26] <ref> Patterson, <I>A Social History of Anthropology in the United States</I>, pg 1.</ref>

Critics of imperialism argue that, “egalitarian relations and practices which exist in cultures on the margins exhibit what is essential to the human condition – an essence that is lost or deformed during the civilizing process,” and consider the human sciences complicit in “the genocidal and ethnocidal practices of the imperial states.”[27] <ref>Patterson, p. 2.</ref> The fundamental tension between Rousseauian views of nature, and hierarchical and expansionist visions of empire manifest in the political and social conditions of the New Republic. Patterson defines the era of the New Republic as the years between the American Revolution and Reconstruction, following the American Civil War. Patterson identifies three main purposes of anthropology in the U.S. at this time. The developing science was used to help construct a national identity for Americans, inform U.S. territorial expansion and justify the institution of slavery in the American South.[28]<ref>Patterson, p. 4.</ref> American national identity after the Revolutionary War was elemental to political stability, economic viability, and cultural cohesion, in a country with a skeptical European audience. England, France Russia and Spain had territorial interests in North America, and the scholars and political leaders in the United States were often defensive to Old World scorn.

Scholars like French naturalist Comte Buffon theorized that the new world continents were geologically immature and hostile, producing only “scattered savages”, [29]<ref>Patterson, p. 8.</ref> that were, as a race, evidence of New World inferiority. This dispersion in turn cast doubt on the strength and potential of the Unites States, and the new nation’s ability to qualify for foreign loans. Thomas Jefferson rebutted claims that the United States was destined for political failure due to the innate weakness of the land and inferiority of the native inhabitants by employing a monogenist argument. Thomas Jefferson founded the American Philosophical Society, and aggressively rejected idea that Native Americans were a different race from white Americans, and in 1784 encouraged intermarriage between White and Native Americans in order to facilitate the integration of the two cultures. [30] <ref>Patterson, p. 9.</ref> Jefferson’s ideas of the unity of the human species did not extend to women of Americans of African descent however, illustrating ways ideologies were often applied self-consciously to construct national identity and build political legitimacy.

Territorial expansion in the New Republic was closely connected to the construction of an American national identity. Party to the pursuit of an expanding boarder, anthropologists and other scholars engaged in the debate over inherent land rights and the nature of property and ownership. The theories on men’s natural rights to property were of both theoretical and practical interest at this time. Ever conscience of a critical international audience, anthropologists in service to the government sought philosophical justification for taking territory from native inhabitants. According to Patterson, scholars and politicians used John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. Locke located a person’s right to ownership of their property within the labor that person expends on the land, therefore Native American had no right to the lands they occupied because they did not change and develop the land. This concept was codified in 1823 by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshell’s brief “Johnson and Graham’s Lesee V. McIntosh.”[31] <ref>Patterson, p. 8.</ref> This relationship between law and philosophy concretizes understanding of the practical aspects of the human sciences.

Theories and conversations about race and manifest destiny were an important characteristic of the New Republic, argues Patterson, becoming an “increasingly prominent feature of everyday discourse during the 1830s and 1840s.[32]” <ref>Patterson, p. 17.</ref> Polygenists, like Benjamin Rush and James Madison based their justification of African slavery and colonization, and Indian removal on racial difference arguing that Blacks and native Americans were “fixed at lower stages of development.[33]” <ref>Patterson, p. 17.</ref> American Exceptionalism and Anglo-Saxon superiority were underpinned by men like physician and scholar, Samuel Morton, who distinguished and defined races according to cranial capacities and stages of civilization.[34]<ref>Patterson, p. 19.</ref>