What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
The idea of populism stood out to me the most in the readings this week, mainly because it is still important to issues today. In the 1880's, people began to really challenge the economic order and demand a better system that would combat this new, extreme poverty. Farmers, laborers, and other low class citizens banded together to stage strikes and fight the systemic factors that kept them poor. Although they weren't traditionally successful, people still debate the economic order today and how to best handle it. Welfare, taxes, and other economic issues are still hot topics with politicians today. The problem of poverty and wealth has transcended time, but can it ever really be solved in a way that satisfies everyone?
The excerpt from the critique by Emilio Aguinaldo stood out to me this week in its discussion of American imperialism in the Philippines. It was interesting how Aguinaldo continued to compare what the United States was doing to the Philippines to what England did to the United States. He states in the excerpt, “Give us the chance; treat us exactly as you demanded to be treated at the hands of England, when you rebelled against her autocratic methods…” (p. 97). In this quote, Aguinaldo is trying to gain the sympathy from the Americans and remind them how they felt over a hundred years ago when they were in a similar situation with England. While Cuba was granted independence by the Treaty of Paris 1898, why did Americans not believe that the Philippines should deserve their independence as well?
It amazed me how much of an impact Imperialism had on the Spanish-American War because even today this idea of Imperialism is present in the United States. It is interesting to learn about the beginnings of this belief of a superior nation in the United States, and how this mindset impacted the nation as a whole. In the modern day, the US still, to a certain extent, exerts its own agenda and policies onto other smaller nations. The Spanish-American War was the first time that the United States inserted itself into foreign affairs and exerted itself as a world power, thus setting the stage for these practices to prevail into modern day. One question I was left with was how did the other powerful nations, like Britain and France, respond to these Imperialist American policies?
The rise of the US as an imperial power stood out to me. America is so eager to extend its power and influence during this time and this is evident in the quick decision to focus US attention in Cuba after the explosion of the USS Maine in the Havana Harbor. It seems that Americans were itching for an opportunity to show the world what they could do. President McKinley's war message to congress included the basis on which US should go to war with Spain which including providing protection for Cuba, ending barbarities against Cubans, and stopping the Spanish from injuring commerce. These reasons to go to war reflect the geographical boundaries that America had drawn through the Monroe Doctrine and demonstrate the willingness to protect those boundaries.
I found the debate on U.S. imperialism in Cuba and the Philippines very interesting. The reason for U.S. involvement was to "free the people", but ironically became the ruler of that region. I could be wrong, but this seems to have some similarities with the U.S. involvement in the Iraq War, where the rationale was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to U.S. and that U.S. should free the Iraqis from Saddam's dictatorship.
The general theme of expansionism and imperialism from this weeks reading seemed very familiar. We discussed earlier in class about Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis, which was about the importance of the land in the west that is available to, in a sense, conquer. Now, we had no western frontier anymore, besides the Pacific Ocean, and we were in the midst of a depression, it seemed to make sense for the United States to want to find a new frontier outside its borders. I found it interesting in the Emilio Aguinaldo primary source when he criticized the United States of believing Filipinos were "savages" like Africans and Mohawk Indians. To me it seems like the relationship in the Philippines is similar to the one with Native Americans, in that the United States held this belief they were doing a service for these people. It is a very similar story to what we saw earlier in the class, but just with interaction from other nations. A question I had from the week was, how did the Spanish-American War impact the economy? I know it brought the country closer together, but did it increase production of goods in the United States?
It surprised me the relative speed in which the United States went from a non-imperial nation to a nation which possessed an empire of respectable size. Before the Spanish American War, the US did not posses any overseas territories or colonies of any true size or importance. It was also largely not respected as an international or imperial power as a result. In the Spanish American War However, the US invoked the Monroe Doctrine and the belief that Latin America and the Caribbean could only be in the US sphere of Influence and not any European power. They fought and won the war against the Spaniards and as a result gained Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines in the Treaty of Paris. In just a few moths they went from possessing hardly any overseas territory to becoming a legitimate imperial power. I wonder if the view of the US from the perspective of other European Imperial Powers was changed by the result of the war or if they continued to look at the US with a general lack of respect for its imperial power?
How we're ideologies like Thomas E. Watson and Henry Sebastian Doyle, acknowledging the economic relevance of white and black farmers, not applicable to northern states and cities? The election map in 1896 showed the Populist electoral votes came from southern, mid western states... farmlands, etc. But this ideology seems applicable to urban areas. Recognizing that white laborers were just as influential on a system as a minority group in the city would have secured so many votes. Did the Populist party attempt to do so? I'd imagine that bossism played a huge role in this, and that the Populist Party did in fact attempt to preach this ideology to urban work sites. But it is strange that it didn't get any traction.
What stood out to me this week was the growth of the Populist party in the United States out of a critique of the new American economic order. A platform built more for the working class, farmers now had a stronger voice in congress and had real government assistance due to the 11 seats held in congress and the 3 governors elected in Populist states. It is also interesting to note the comparison in the rise of the Populist movement in the 1880s and 1890s and the beginnings of the Republican party in the 1850s and 1860s in the sense that they both gathered a respectable amount of votes during their first elections. Although the Populist party eventually merged with the Democratic platform, ideas such as a graduated income tax still have had a lasting impact on politics to this day. Why exactly did the Populist party decide to merge with the Democrats rather than continue to grow their own platform since it seemed as if they were well on their way to becoming a major political power?
What stood out to me the most in class and the readings was the discussion of US imperialism. During the end of the 1800s and beginning of the 1900s, we turned our focus to flexing our new economic muscles and extending our power over other nations such as Cuba, the Philippines and Hawaii. This is a hypocritical policy considering our own history, and the fact that our country formed from a colony that rebelled against its oppressive mother country. Now had become the oppressive mother country, which goes against the ideas of personal freedom and democracy that our country was founded on.
The thing that stood out to me the most from the lectures this week was the United States' new policy of imperialism. This seems to mirror the earlier idea of manifest destiny, which led Americans to believe that they were destined to control the North American continent. In addition, the events leading up to the Spanish-American War seem similar to those that preceded the Mexican-American War - Congress declaring war on circumstantial evidence and "standing up" for a third party (which was Texas in 1846 and Cuba in 1898. The one question I had was could the actions of the United States be justified to the world community? The creation of an American sphere of influence seems to differ from the earlier ideas of isolationism in the Monroe Doctrine.
To me, it seems that the United States' new imperialistic mindset at the end of the 19th century is merely the next logical step following the majority of the 1800s where "Manifest Destiny" became the creed to which the United States did much of its expansionary activity. Imperialism is essentially an expansion upon this theme to bring the American ideals to other lands such as the Philippines and Puerto Rico. An interesting theme I thought we didn't talk about in the lecture as much as I thought was the similarity of why the United States waged war on Spain with why Indian lands were taken; the government gave altruistic reasons, but ultimately, the economic interests of the country were what the U.S. was thinking most about in opening up new markets.
What most interested me was the extent to which the Spanish-American war allowed itself to expand its imperialist ideas, flex its muscles, and begin to assert itself as global force in the world. The United States seemed to have taken the previous of idea of manifest destiny, and believed that it was their duty to protect the western hemisphere, while also making their presence felt beyond it. In addition, I was surprised at how much of an effect a 5 month war could have on the course of american history. It allowed the US to being to realize its full potential as an imperialist state, while also operating under the pretense that we were "protecting" these lands from enroachment and enslavement by European powers. A shocking realization to me was that this was simply a facade to hide the fact that the US wanted to exploit these lands, much as the Europeans did to Africa. While it was not as extreme as the Europeans, the US did take advantage of the region via state supported monopolies, such as the Banana Republics of the time period. My question would be, to what extent did the Spanish American War influence US foreign policy during this time period, and how did it change the European perspective of the US?
The most interesting aspect of this weeks reading was the idea that America was willing to create spheres of influence and colonies very similar to Britain's rule over the thirteen colonies. The United States had decided to go against everything the revolution stood for and attempted to gain control of the Philippines through military force. Emilio Aguinaldo states, "Now, the moral of all this obviously is: Give us the chance; treat us exactly as you demanded to be treated at the hands of England, when you rebelled against her autocratic methods." My question would be: How did the views of Americans come to change so much that colonization was acceptable?
The idea of populism stood out to me the most in the readings this week, mainly because it is still important to issues today. In the 1880's, people began to really challenge the economic order and demand a better system that would combat this new, extreme poverty. Farmers, laborers, and other low class citizens banded together to stage strikes and fight the systemic factors that kept them poor. Although they weren't traditionally successful, people still debate the economic order today and how to best handle it. Welfare, taxes, and other economic issues are still hot topics with politicians today. The problem of poverty and wealth has transcended time, but can it ever really be solved in a way that satisfies everyone?
ReplyDeleteThe excerpt from the critique by Emilio Aguinaldo stood out to me this week in its discussion of American imperialism in the Philippines. It was interesting how Aguinaldo continued to compare what the United States was doing to the Philippines to what England did to the United States. He states in the excerpt, “Give us the chance; treat us exactly as you demanded to be treated at the hands of England, when you rebelled against her autocratic methods…” (p. 97). In this quote, Aguinaldo is trying to gain the sympathy from the Americans and remind them how they felt over a hundred years ago when they were in a similar situation with England. While Cuba was granted independence by the Treaty of Paris 1898, why did Americans not believe that the Philippines should deserve their independence as well?
ReplyDeleteIt amazed me how much of an impact Imperialism had on the Spanish-American War because even today this idea of Imperialism is present in the United States. It is interesting to learn about the beginnings of this belief of a superior nation in the United States, and how this mindset impacted the nation as a whole. In the modern day, the US still, to a certain extent, exerts its own agenda and policies onto other smaller nations. The Spanish-American War was the first time that the United States inserted itself into foreign affairs and exerted itself as a world power, thus setting the stage for these practices to prevail into modern day. One question I was left with was how did the other powerful nations, like Britain and France, respond to these Imperialist American policies?
ReplyDeleteThe rise of the US as an imperial power stood out to me. America is so eager to extend its power and influence during this time and this is evident in the quick decision to focus US attention in Cuba after the explosion of the USS Maine in the Havana Harbor. It seems that Americans were itching for an opportunity to show the world what they could do. President McKinley's war message to congress included the basis on which US should go to war with Spain which including providing protection for Cuba, ending barbarities against Cubans, and stopping the Spanish from injuring commerce. These reasons to go to war reflect the geographical boundaries that America had drawn through the Monroe Doctrine and demonstrate the willingness to protect those boundaries.
ReplyDeleteI found the debate on U.S. imperialism in Cuba and the Philippines very interesting. The reason for U.S. involvement was to "free the people", but ironically became the ruler of that region. I could be wrong, but this seems to have some similarities with the U.S. involvement in the Iraq War, where the rationale was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to U.S. and that U.S. should free the Iraqis from Saddam's dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteThe general theme of expansionism and imperialism from this weeks reading seemed very familiar. We discussed earlier in class about Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis, which was about the importance of the land in the west that is available to, in a sense, conquer. Now, we had no western frontier anymore, besides the Pacific Ocean, and we were in the midst of a depression, it seemed to make sense for the United States to want to find a new frontier outside its borders. I found it interesting in the Emilio Aguinaldo primary source when he criticized the United States of believing Filipinos were "savages" like Africans and Mohawk Indians. To me it seems like the relationship in the Philippines is similar to the one with Native Americans, in that the United States held this belief they were doing a service for these people. It is a very similar story to what we saw earlier in the class, but just with interaction from other nations. A question I had from the week was, how did the Spanish-American War impact the economy? I know it brought the country closer together, but did it increase production of goods in the United States?
ReplyDeleteIt surprised me the relative speed in which the United States went from a non-imperial nation to a nation which possessed an empire of respectable size. Before the Spanish American War, the US did not posses any overseas territories or colonies of any true size or importance. It was also largely not respected as an international or imperial power as a result. In the Spanish American War However, the US invoked the Monroe Doctrine and the belief that Latin America and the Caribbean could only be in the US sphere of Influence and not any European power. They fought and won the war against the Spaniards and as a result gained Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines in the Treaty of Paris. In just a few moths they went from possessing hardly any overseas territory to becoming a legitimate imperial power. I wonder if the view of the US from the perspective of other European Imperial Powers was changed by the result of the war or if they continued to look at the US with a general lack of respect for its imperial power?
ReplyDeleteHow we're ideologies like Thomas E. Watson and Henry Sebastian Doyle, acknowledging the economic relevance of white and black farmers, not applicable to northern states and cities? The election map in 1896 showed the Populist electoral votes came from southern, mid western states... farmlands, etc. But this ideology seems applicable to urban areas. Recognizing that white laborers were just as influential on a system as a minority group in the city would have secured so many votes. Did the Populist party attempt to do so? I'd imagine that bossism played a huge role in this, and that the Populist Party did in fact attempt to preach this ideology to urban work sites. But it is strange that it didn't get any traction.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me this week was the growth of the Populist party in the United States out of a critique of the new American economic order. A platform built more for the working class, farmers now had a stronger voice in congress and had real government assistance due to the 11 seats held in congress and the 3 governors elected in Populist states. It is also interesting to note the comparison in the rise of the Populist movement in the 1880s and 1890s and the beginnings of the Republican party in the 1850s and 1860s in the sense that they both gathered a respectable amount of votes during their first elections. Although the Populist party eventually merged with the Democratic platform, ideas such as a graduated income tax still have had a lasting impact on politics to this day. Why exactly did the Populist party decide to merge with the Democrats rather than continue to grow their own platform since it seemed as if they were well on their way to becoming a major political power?
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me the most in class and the readings was the discussion of US imperialism. During the end of the 1800s and beginning of the 1900s, we turned our focus to flexing our new economic muscles and extending our power over other nations such as Cuba, the Philippines and Hawaii. This is a hypocritical policy considering our own history, and the fact that our country formed from a colony that rebelled against its oppressive mother country. Now had become the oppressive mother country, which goes against the ideas of personal freedom and democracy that our country was founded on.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that stood out to me the most from the lectures this week was the United States' new policy of imperialism. This seems to mirror the earlier idea of manifest destiny, which led Americans to believe that they were destined to control the North American continent. In addition, the events leading up to the Spanish-American War seem similar to those that preceded the Mexican-American War - Congress declaring war on circumstantial evidence and "standing up" for a third party (which was Texas in 1846 and Cuba in 1898. The one question I had was could the actions of the United States be justified to the world community? The creation of an American sphere of influence seems to differ from the earlier ideas of isolationism in the Monroe Doctrine.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it seems that the United States' new imperialistic mindset at the end of the 19th century is merely the next logical step following the majority of the 1800s where "Manifest Destiny" became the creed to which the United States did much of its expansionary activity. Imperialism is essentially an expansion upon this theme to bring the American ideals to other lands such as the Philippines and Puerto Rico. An interesting theme I thought we didn't talk about in the lecture as much as I thought was the similarity of why the United States waged war on Spain with why Indian lands were taken; the government gave altruistic reasons, but ultimately, the economic interests of the country were what the U.S. was thinking most about in opening up new markets.
ReplyDeleteWhat most interested me was the extent to which the Spanish-American war allowed itself to expand its imperialist ideas, flex its muscles, and begin to assert itself as global force in the world. The United States seemed to have taken the previous of idea of manifest destiny, and believed that it was their duty to protect the western hemisphere, while also making their presence felt beyond it. In addition, I was surprised at how much of an effect a 5 month war could have on the course of american history. It allowed the US to being to realize its full potential as an imperialist state, while also operating under the pretense that we were "protecting" these lands from enroachment and enslavement by European powers. A shocking realization to me was that this was simply a facade to hide the fact that the US wanted to exploit these lands, much as the Europeans did to Africa. While it was not as extreme as the Europeans, the US did take advantage of the region via state supported monopolies, such as the Banana Republics of the time period. My question would be, to what extent did the Spanish American War influence US foreign policy during this time period, and how did it change the European perspective of the US?
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting aspect of this weeks reading was the idea that America was willing to create spheres of influence and colonies very similar to Britain's rule over the thirteen colonies. The United States had decided to go against everything the revolution stood for and attempted to gain control of the Philippines through military force. Emilio Aguinaldo states, "Now, the moral of all this obviously is: Give us the chance; treat us exactly as you demanded to be treated at the hands of England, when you rebelled against her autocratic methods." My question would be: How did the views of Americans come to change so much that colonization was acceptable?
ReplyDelete