imperialism+outside+readings

x CJD- NBC News Archives - “Western Powers Push Into China” United States involvement with China began after acquisition of the Philippine Islands occurred in 1898. China became essential for America to have trade with the Eastern market, and an Open Door Policy was advanced at other nations who had a vested economic interest in China. The increased use of China’s financial viability by Japan, America, and many European nations was what caused the Boxer Rebellion. John Hay, the U.S. Secretary of State extended the Open Door Policy to foreign countries which had control over China. Japan had extreme dominance over sections of the Chinese economy, resulting in civil unrest. The Boxers were a belligerent force that arose from the Chinese population to remove alien presence from their nation. Western ideals had been pushed upon many Chinese civilians by missionaries who had arrived there along with merchants and traders. Boxers targeted Christians, both of their own race and Americans, as they were seen as a source of mistreatment of all Chinese by invading powers. The question of whether the Boxer Rebellion was justified involves more than just the relationship between Chinese, Americans and Europeans. While the United States and Europe had exhibited mild imperialism with their forays into China, they were not as violent to the Chinese as Japan had been at the end of the 19th century. In addition, not all Western nations had similar goals in China; Japan, Russia, Germany, and France all sought to extend their spheres of influence over certain parts of the Asian country. Britain and the United States wanted to be able to benefit from an intact Chinese economy, however, and that is why the Open Door Policy was instituted. Although Boxers saw all Westerners as damaging to their culture, the true goal of these nations was focused on economy, and China did not have a strong central market, perhaps justifying the action of Europe, Japan, and the United States. The Open Door Policy put in place by America was likely the best solution to the competition between these nations, rather than partitioning China and driving it into further turmoil.  MDS Based on NBC Archives video “The Spanish-American War” and article “Thoughts on American Imperialism” by Carl Schurz. Many great thinkers of the Progressive Era vehemently opposed the new American policy of imperialism and involvement in the European and Eastern Asian conflicts thousands of miles away. While advocates argued that they worked to improve less developed civilizations and to encourage the adoption of democratic processes, men like Carl Schurz wrote to remind the morally pretentious American public to examine the real reasoning behind their imperialist attitudes. The introduction of American imperialism represented a stark diversion from previous foreign policy approach. Traditionally, since Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796 warned against permanent foreign alliances and involvement in world affairs, America had taken a stance of essentially removing itself from European conflict. This philosophy changed as Americans saw themselves as having a civic duty to enter other cultures and to “civilize” them and their governments. However, as Schurz points out, this was a direct result of America’s egotistical confidence in its ability to be the most advanced and civilized nation in the world. Their motives became increasingly selfish and they tended to work in areas where territory was to be gained, as in the Spanish-American War, which initially began as a campaign for Cuba’s independence and became a war to gain control of the Spanish Empire. Remarkably, the situation parallels recent conflict in America involving the war in Iraq. Highly publicized motives for entering into war in Iraq included supposed human rights abuse by the Iraqi government, led by Hussein, against its citizens. In this case, as in the Spanish-American War, the United States government led troops into war on a basis of securing rights and independence for an oppressed people. However, as Schurz asserted in the case of America’s war with Spain, real motives were primarily self-interested, involving the fear of Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction and improving economic interest. As predicted, America’s imperialistic attitude begun in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries left a legacy of “responsibility” for the American nation to spread civilization and democracy to other countries in their own interest.  KBM - Based on class discussion and NBC video [|American Imperialism at the Turn of the 20th Century] Foreign affairs generally seem to be a taboo topic for the United States pre-WWI, as we intended to maintain a neutral stance. After a while, it was discovered that a flourishing economy was not entirely possible without foreign trade routes and markets. Had the foreign trade routes not been established, it is likely that the American economy would have crashed resulting in lesser power of today. The establishment of these trade routes were an important aspects of product circulation. Once a product was made that people wanted, the business flourished until everyone had it. This is when foreign routes were seeked out. A general realization occured that 'staying out of foreign affairs' and the 'hands off' policy should more relate to warfare rather than foreign market as essential economy stimulation. Although, when we were brough into WWI, this policy was eliminated as a whole as the nation was fully enveloped by foreign conflict and alliances. Needless to say, the interaction within foreign affairs as America grew to a world power, as Manifest Destiny proposed, was inevitable if the country wanted to succeed. Gaining new lands such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Seward's Folly required international interaction, caused social controversy among those who believed the nation should adhere to traditional views of the founding fathers. The progressive times brought around new views at the turn of the century as the nation evolved into a system of more modern rather than traditional approaches. Today, it is apparent that the traditional foreign affairs policy was almost impossible if we wanted to grow and maintain a flourishing economy.  JGF NBCLearn Video “The Lusitania,” and NBCLearn Video “Remembering the USS Maine” On May 1, 1915, an American passenger ship, The Lusitania, set sail bound for Irish waters and German missiles. On February 15, 1898, the USS Maine rested in Havana Harbor until she exploded from unknown causes. On the surface, these events seem very similar; both precipitated an American war, both suffered heavy casualties, and both caused a major public outcry. The Lusitania lost about 1,200 and caused the United States to become involved with World War 1. The USS Maine lost 266 and caused the US to declare war against the Spanish. What remains to be seen, however, is whether the United States reacted appropriately to either of these tragedies. In the case of the Lusitania, an advertisement was placed in the New York Times, by the Germans, declaring their intention of harming any vessel entering their waters. Surely the United States should not have been outraged about something they knew was coming. And in the case of the USS Maine, science and history have never conclusively explained why the ship exploded. Evidence suggests that it might have been entirely accidental, which would have made the US rallying cry “Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!” quite inappropriate. In any case, both wars, justified or not, were entered into on shaky grounds at best. KBM- Based on Resistance to American Imperialism in the Philippine Islands Not only did Americans fear the new interaction within new foreign affairs, but when America started working towards gaining more land, foreigners began fearing for their independence and posed resistance to American Imperialism. American involvement in the Philippine Islands directly contradicted the traditional view to stay out of foreign affairs as America sought to gain more land into their additional territories. Philipino resistance was accompanied by those Americans holding traditional views and believed that we should not impose on other countries immorally. The Anti-Imperialist League was an example of such American opposition to gaining more land and thus much power. It seemed America to be overpowering and greedy with an unsatisfiable desire for more even when many opposed it. When America first experienced its defiance of the hands-off foreign affair approach during this era, they 'over-indulged', so to speak and became reckless with a desire to contol as a rising world power, harming those who got in their way. The Philippine-American war was unnecessary and caused many preventable deaths due to a national greed of the government which was detrimental to the people of the Philippines who had fought for their Spanish independence, then only to be counteractive when the American assistance back-fired and they attempted to regain control. The American government acted completely immorally, betraying the Philippine Islands after they attempted to gain independence, however, America did gain an example for this avoidable war to not be repeated in the future. 11/21 checked

KBM As America became determined to gain world power, it resorted to hypocritical actions that were immoral and inhumane. While fighting to gain control over the Philippines, Americans resorted to an 'unrestricted warfare' in which they did not differentiate between civilian and combatant. Innocent civilians were being slaughtered, not for doing direct harm to the US, but for simply desiring freedom. The Philippines did not have a place as a great world power, so any reaction to this unrestricted warfare was limited. Now, the immorality in killing innocent people is taken for granted, but the hypocrisy comes from a sense of "What goes around comes around". When the German's began using unrestricted //submarine// warfare, a little over 100 Americans were killed in the sinking of the //Lusitania.// This death was, although, avoidable for these Americans as they were told that once they stepped on a ship flying a British flag, they were no longer protected. There was a conscious awareness of the risk they were taking and yet the American population was appalled by this unrestricted warfare, despite their use of it in the Philippines. Yellow journalism, however, managed to blow these deaths out of proportion for publicity, and eventually, America threatened to take involvement in World War I, as a result of these deaths, if Germany did not take part in the House-Grey Memorandum. This violation of international law caused the US to break diplomatic relations with Germany, which had a large impact on Germany since America was becoming such a strong world power. Had the Philippines threatened the same, to put it simply, it really would not have made such a big difference. The Philippines held little power as a 'newly free', technically speaking, country, as the Spanish had just left. American relations with such an insignificant country clearly was not something they cared about, therefore they didn't think twice before violating international laws of war crime by killing civilians.

Based on NBC Archive Video "The Spanish-American War" EMB— As the Spanish-American War loomed nearer, Americans grew angrier with Spain’s treatment of Cuba. Americans were outraged with the oppression that the nation just south of them that both they and Catholics inhabited experienced. Because of the tensions between Spain and the United States at this time, Americans took the word of journalists for granted and simply believed that everything they said involving what was happening in Cuba was cold, hard fact. Joseph Pulitzer of //New York World// and William Randolph Hearst of //New York Journal// were two imperialist journalists who began the misconstrued and highly exaggerated line of yellow journalism that made war seem like the only option to their fellow Americans. Their message to the citizens of the United States was one of poverty and degradation experienced by Cubans. Yellow journalism was key in boosting the idea of the White Man’s Burden, where those who lived in the United States owed it to the world to educate and aid them out of their barbarianism. This ideology infected the minds of the people to the point where nationalism mixed with a false sense of responsibility and ultimately resulted in a sharp outcry for war with Spain that ultimately occurred and resulted in the liberation of Cuba. . MRL - Based on information from NBC Archive video "American Imperialism at the Turn of the 19th Century" and the articles "American Imperialism in the 1890s" by Michael Streicher, "American Imperialism, Then and Now" by Christopher Hitchens, and "Was Annexation Legal? Did Hawaiians Benefit from Annexation?" by Bill Burgess. . The United States has a thorough history of intervening in the affairs of other nations. Many times, US intervention is unwanted, though whether it is unneeded remains debatable. The United States is heavily criticized for any foreign endeavor that appears to go against the very principles of the United States: That no nation shall impose its government on another nation without that nation's consent. While it seems contradictory that a country like the United States would diverge from the principles it was founded on, it is questionable whether these seemingly oppressive maneuvers deserve heavy criticism. Author Christopher Hitchens provides the following quote on this subject: "[...] the plain fact remains that when the rest of the world wants anything done in a hurry, it applies to American power. If the "Europeans" or the United Nations had been left with the task, the European provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo would now be howling wildernesses, Kuwait would be the 19th province of a Greater Iraq, and Afghanistan might still be under Taliban rule. In at least the first two of the above cases, it can't even be argued that American imperialism was the problem in the first place." Although Hitchen's argument pertains to the modern-era, the concept can be applied to any example of allegedly unjust imperialism of the United States. Bill Burgess argues a similar point by claiming that Hawaii greatly benefited from becoming a part of the United States. He provides evidence indicating that more Native Hawaiians held top-tier administrative positions in Hawaii's State Government and businesses after Hawaii was annexed. His evidence also clearly reveals that the state as a whole benefited from better living conditions and support provided by the United States, due to the significant increase in population that occurred after the annexation. Although the claim that US imperialism throughout time has resulted in various negative effects is easily supported, the resultant positive effects cannot be ignored either.

“The Jones Act of 1916 and 1917”- NBC Archives MJM. Studying imperialism and the Spanish American War at the turn of the 19th century reflects not only international affairs but also sheds a lot of light on domestic problems of the time. Seeing that imperialism was pushed strongly by McKinley, or Mark Hanna, and then by his successor, Theodore Roosevelt, there is no question as to why imperialism was associated with the Republican Party. This split the country down party lines once again seeing as democrats questioned the morality and benefits of annexing the Philippines from the beginning of the Spanish-American War. Woodrow Wilson was the first Democratic president since the war and democrats, Anti-Imperialist League members, republicans and especially Philippinos were waiting with bated breath to see what he would do surrounding the American occupied Philippine islands. Wilson passed the Jones Act and it was acceptable almost everyone. Anti-Imperialists, democrats and the Philippine people were all relieved that it promised eventual independence but republicans that had justified intervention in the Spanish-Philippine conflict on the basis of promoting democracy were pleased that independence would only come when a stable democracy was in place. This is the same basic reasoning for still being involved in the Middle East, because there is no way to leave if a democracy is not in place. Wilson probably made the Jones Act knowing that he would not ever have a target on his back because he would most likely never have to make a decision during his term in office. He left this for administration after administration to consider until independence was finally granted in 1946. The Jones Act set a precedent for future international involvement and occupation because its reasoning protects either side and simply postpones the problem. 12/5 checked