Read the following articles on US foreign policy at the turn of the 20th (a) and 21st (b, c) Centuries
How does AFL leaders' Samuel Gompers' views on imperialism compare with those of the contemporary editorialists featured in articles B and C?
What similarities and differences do you see between US foreign policy in the Phillipines and Hawaii under Mickinley and Roosevelt and that of G.W. Bush?
In your opinion, when is US foreign intervention justified? What should be the role of the US government in "developing nations" and "emerging deomocracies?" Provide specific examples and evidence to support your response?
Minimum 300 words
Respond to at least one other post
Due Fri. 2/29 at the begining of class
25 comments:
Teresa Konopka
AP US
Samuel Gompers had a very distinct paradigm when it came to imperialism. As the President of the American Federation of Labor, he greatly respected the plea of the working man. In his eyes, imperialism was totally abhorrent. He claims that it is a crime to conquer hardworking people of another race and nation. Gompers felt that, by dividing workers—regardless of where they lived in the world—ruined any effort that would expose abuses on workers and relinquish injustice. Gompers made a very intriguing point about imperialism when he stated that other nationalities would become property of America. That would, in his opinion, result in more immigrants and workers. With more workers available, wages and working conditions would slide down a slippery slope of descent.
When it came to foreign policy, McKinley definitely had his say. After the Panic of 1893, he enjoyed the return to prosperity. In 1900, he won over populist Bryan and fought the Spanish American war. For a while, McKinley resisted the public demand for such a bellicose war. Unable to get Spain to agree to implement reforms with respect to Cuba, McKinley annexed the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam. By doing so, he set up a protectorate over Cuba. McKinley was later assassinated by an anarchist and was succeeded by Roosevelt. Regardless of Gompers’ views, McKinley did not believe that he was ruining workers lives or preventing the exposure of injustice. In his eyes, he was merely keeping a close eye on Cuba the only way he knew how—by physically being able to watch Cuba from a close distance while still of “American soil.”
Roosevelt ended up annexing Hawaii. After the Spanish American war, Spain had set its sights on Hawaii. At that time the Hawaiian government feared an invasion from Spain. Roosevelt’s intentions may not have been as benign as McKinley’s. As quoted, Roosevelt said “We attributed to this feeble nation plans of offensive warfare which it never dreamed of making.” In fact, acquisition of Hawaii merely helped Roosevelt construct canals, build ports, and strategically project power across sea lanes. The attainment of Pearl Harbor was also very important. Apparently, Roosevelt was more interested in improving the navy. It makes sense, though because a stronger navy meant a stronger country; and, during those times, global image was very important as the US projected itself as superior (they had to back up their claims).
In modern times, Bush has his own way of controlling other nations. According to his doctrine, a new global order is promoted. He aims at having world nations compete on a productive basis rather than on a militaristic basis. While still wanting a strong military, Bush hopes that they won’t be needed—that an overly optimistic peace can be achieved. Still, Bush hopes to limit rivalries to trade. Basically, with America having a monopoly on “the exercise of military force, other countries should be able to set aside the distractions of arming and plotting against each other and put their energies into producing consumer electronics, textiles, tea. What the Bush doctrine calls for—paradoxically, given its proponents—is a form of world government.” Unlike other presidents before him, Bush isn’t so severely concerned with annexing nations. Instead, he is interested in imperializing the military and recapitulating the economy into a blissful state where Americans make large profits off of cheap products other nations compete over (who gets to make money by selling products to America). Such an exploitation of workers would have made Gompers himself turn over in his grave!
Question to AP peers:
Do you feel that if Gompers had not been associated with the American Federation of Labor, he would have still felt as he did about imperialism?
John Harden
Block B
Posted: Feb.28th, 2008
On the 18th of October in 1989, Samuel Gompers delivered a speech at the Chicago Peace Jubilee which strongly outlined his beliefs regarding imperialism. At the time, Samuel Gompers was President of the American Federation of Labor, and therefore obviously suppourted the rights of the working class. Samuel believed that imperialism, espically that of American Imperialism only brings more problems, to both the native people and the imperialists. Imperialism in his mind led to more workers which in turn led to lower wages which would only harm and belittle the working classes of both areas. President McKinley whom was in office at during the time of Gompers presidency in the American Federation of Labor held different beliefs on imperialism. In 1900, McKinley had defeated the populist party representitve and runner up for presidency Bryan and went on to lead American into war with Spain. McKinley had tired to aviod the war for sometime, but rising tensions and disagreements between the Spanish and American empires led to the breakout of war. McKinley had America annex and grab control of a large amount of islands, these include Hawaii, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. McKinley certainly did not believe that imperialism would not ruin America and her society, he in fact believed that more workers could only better the economy which in turn betters the people. After McKinley’s assisnation at the hands of an anarchist rebel, Teddy Roosevelt took office. Upon sitting in his rightful throne of power, Teddy grabbed Hawaii before Spain could secure it. With an acquirment of many southern nations and islands, Roosevelt was able to carve out trade routes for American ships, most importantly, the Panama Canal. Teddy also began to strenghten the military, espically the navy which could be used for more overseas expansion. President Bush currently uses somewhat different methods to create a global image and gain power. According to doctrine, Bush believes that there is a demand for a stronger military but he does not want one and hopes for world peace to be reached through agreement and discussion with foreign nations. Bush is not interested in land expansion, but it seems that he is pushing for a stronger military overseas to insure trade with other nations. Such trade can only blissfully increase the American economy while workers in third world countries create the objects sold in America. These workers are mistreated and unrespected by both America and the American forces for the most part. Their work is under rewarded and such treatment is exactly that which Samuel Gomper’s wanted to aviod in the past. In response to Teresa’s query, I believe Gompers would still not promote overseas expansion if he was not President of the American Federation of Labor. He must have suppourted the working class to have gained their presidency in the first place. He strongly beleived agianst overseas imperialism because of the effects it has on the working class, therefore his beliefs would most likely stay.
Elizabeth Che
Block B - AP US History
Based on the excerpted speech by Samuel Gompers on Oct. 18, 1898 at the Chicago Peace Jubilee, Gompers could be viewed as an advocate of the working class. As Teresa and John mentioned before me, Gompers believed that American imperialism would only lead to the downfall of establishment within the United States. Already, majority of the citizens resent immigrants, especially “Chinese coolies” for taking away job opportunities. In relation, if the US were to continue annexing other areas and adding territories / states, the country can no longer be protected from unwanted immigrants. Not only did Gompers view the increase of population to drag down the working standard, Gompers also saw the foreigners as negative influences on society. Gomper states that “in a country such as ours the conditions and opportunities of the wage-earners are profoundly affected by the view of the worth or dignity of men who earn their bread by the work of their hands.” Hence, as the economic system of the poor, middle-class and the rich continue to stand firm, the victims will be “poor, ignorant and weak.” Not only will the American citizens be affected but also the annexed area. Subjected to follow a new government, the inhabitants of the territory will resent and fear the new government as their social order is disrupted.
Similar to Gomper’s view, contemporary editorialists like Joshua Micah Marshall of The New Yorker notes how the United States uses their military power to handle situations. “Despite dire predictions that every military engagement would lead to a quagmire, America found that it could strike with virtual impunity almost anywhere on the globe, and military forays became more common.” Like so, Gomper also felt that conflict would arise from imperialism. Through the use of violence, needless bloodshed continues until one side admits defeat or a compromise is formed. Action is important regardless of opinion, no matter what someone may choose to do, it will be perceived by others as beneficial or un-beneficial to the general whole. Marshall continues to state that “America isn’t powerful because people like us: our power is a product of dollars and guns. But when people think that America’s unique role in the world is basically legitimate, that power becomes less costly to exert and to sustain. People around the world have respected and admired American power because of the way America has acted.”
As Teresa and John also mentioned, the US foreign policy under McKinley and Roosevelt dealt mainly with the Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico and Hawaii. Puerto Rico was attained as a colony after the Spanish-American War followed by a set up of a protectorate over Cuba, annexation of the Hawaiian Islands and Spain’s cede of the Philippines. As McKinley quotes, “There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died." In such a manner, McKinley set about civilizing and converting the inhabitants of annexed lands. However, the Philippines had large percentages of Roman Catholics already, thus, suggesting a larger goal which will support the United States as a higher power. Roosevelt on the other hand strengthened the US Navy, boosting the power of the US. However, by 1904, the Roosevelt Corollary was framed as a policy statement that barred the United States from outside intervention in Latin American affairs and policed the area to make sure other countries met policy. Meanwhile, G. W. Bush can be seen as a combination of McKinley and Roosevelt. Although President Bush is not too concerned with obtaining other nations, he does seek to expand trades and marketing between countries. Military power maintains to be an important aspect to any nation as defense is needed to support any country in times of crisis however, there doesn’t appear to be as much of a stress on the building of armies.
In my opinion, US foreign intervention is justified only when a country / nation is being forced to submit to cruel standards that may affect the safety of United States itself. The US shouldn’t interfere with the business of other nations without their consent or desire. By forcefully budding into their personal issues, the United States is seen to be a nosy country that wastes precious supplies and money for no benefitting reasons. “Developing nations” and “emerging democracies” may require the help of powerful countries to support it. However, the US should only help when needed. For a country to grow, they must overcome hardships on their own, building a stronger bond of unity between the citizens. If the country is in dire need of aid and seeks the help, the United States should only then respond.. There is no point to help when a country can take care of them selves. Force will not always generate nice conclusions for groups within the distressed country may take the initiative to attack out of fear. For example, “How United States Intervention Against Venezuela Works” by Philip Agee describes the US operations “in favor of the Venezuelan political opposition to remove President Hugo Chavez Frias and the coalition of parties that supports him from power.” The budget having risen from $2 million in 2001 to $9 million in 2005 shows the increase in cost for help efforts. If the case of removing a president from office, the United States should have no say as it Is not their place to note how another country should be run. Only when incidents move out of hand should the US do something in efforts to save money and put the money to use for something better.
Response to Teresa’s Question:
Had Gompers not been associated with the American Federation of Labor, he would still feel as he did towards imperialism since a relationship with the AFL is not needed to support the working class. Gompers believed that US imperialism would lead to devastating effects on the American economy and society. Such feelings are not quite as easy to remove or change by just a missing connection. Another way to view this is how someone who is not in a club may like the activities the certain club does and so is free to do as he/she pleases.
Imperialism, the practice of one country extending its control over the territory, political system, or economic life of another country, was strongly practiced quite a few times throughout American history. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, opposed imperialism as he strongly believed in the individual rights of the workers. Based on Gompers’ speech delivered at the Chicago Peace Jubilee on October 18, 1898, Gompers labeled imperialists as conquerors. Gompers believed America to be a ‘peace-loving’ nation that should not use force and violence to empower their international neighbors. Defining imperialism as a crime, Samuel Gompers denotes the victims of imperialism to automatically be poor, ignorant and weak. Overall, Gompers advocates sympathy and aid rather than violence and force. Nevertheless, Gompers believed imperialism to be immoral, inappropriate and dangerous for such a grand developed nation, as the more people migrated to America the less amount of decent jobs were available.
Likewise, journalist Joshua Micah Marshall recalls America’s usage of imperialism as intervening and aggressive. “They [The United States of America] were policing actions, small wars of management—of, in a sense, imperial management, like the “little wars” that were a backdrop to life in Victorian England. Similarly, the United States Treasury worked through the I.M.F. and the World Bank to head off a Mexican financial collapse in 1995, and did much the same thing in 1997 to contain the so-called “Asian flu.” Step by step, America took on the job, often with others but sometimes alone, of enforcing order in almost every corner of the globe.” With this grand image of the United States as a mega-powerful nation other countries immediately began to question America’s usage of authority. Indeed, America was viewed as an extremely influential country which gradually led to America’s snoopy and powerful reputation.
Nevertheless, the US foreign policies made under McKinley, Roosevelt and George W. Bush all had the main driven force of an increase in influence and authority. The desire to grow America’s industry dominantly led to the colonization of foreign land. Perhaps there may have been different, personal motives behind the reason to colonize in foreign countries, yet all three Presidents were determined to expand American influence. While George W. Bush was more for tidying up America’s army, Roosevelt and McKinley were in search for an increase in land. Before assassinated, McKinley was able to colonize large amounts of land including beautiful Hawaii and breath-taking Puerto Rico. Overall, the importance to be globally aware is strongly promoted throughout these three presidencies, as they each stress the vitality to reach other to individuals beyond the land of the free.
In response to Elizabeth, I strongly agree that the United States should only intervene with other countries when the safety of America is at risk. Indeed, the importance to reach out and help other countries is key. However, the United States should not continuously intrude into the privacy and business of others. As of now, American troops are still occupying Iraq, as the government is not considered to be stabled enough. In this case, the United States should let the people of Iraq make their own decisions and choose their own actions. A little guidance by the United States can be done, but that’s about it.
Justin Lefkowitz
AP US History
According to Wikipedia, Imperialism is the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political domination of other nations. Many nations used imperialism in order to build an empire. At the turn of the 20th century, imperialism was on the rise in the United States of America.
The AFL, also known as the American Federation of Labor, was one of the first federations of labor unions in the United States of America. The President of the AFL at the turn of the 20th century was Samuel Gompers. Gompers’s views on imperialism were very common for some of the citizens of the USA at the time. He was not a strong believer in imperialism. He felt that it was not okay to capture land or people and place them under the United States’ control. Gompers makes his view visible in his speech at the Chicago Peace Jubilee on October 18, 1898. In his speech, Gompers tries to stand up for citizens of the nations whom the U.S. wants the land from. He also believes that imperialism will create for problems for the U.S. and other countries involved with it. He also said how imperialism would, for the most part, lead to war. Besides war, some other things that will be created as a result of imperialism are worsened conditions for the poor. In his speech, Gompers puts emphasis on the poor and lower class, and he says they will become weak as a result of imperialism.
There are some similarities and differences that could be seen in the United States’ foreign policies in the Philippines and Hawaii under McKinley and Roosevelt and that of George W. Bush. All three Presidents were strong believers in imperialism, even if it is hard to tell for one or two of them. McKinley fought the Spanish in the Spanish-American War in order to build the American Empire and to allow a few different nations to gain full independence from Spain. Roosevelt fought in the Spanish-American War also. He helped capture San Juan Hill with the Ruff Riders. George W. Bush is currently running the United States imperialistically without too many people realizing it. Almost everybody knows what George W. Bush is doing in Iraq. He is spreading the ways of American Democracy to the Iraqi people. He is trying to get them, to be like us. The problem is, this will never happen and he will never realize it. In McKinley and Roosevelt’s foreign policies, they accomplished what Bush is trying to do today, strengthen the American Empire and spread the ideas of America all over.
In my opinion, U.S. foreign intervention is never really needed unless something really bad is going on. For example, if one of our allies is in trouble, we should do something and help them out. We never know when we might need their help in the future. U.S. intervention should also be needed if there is a large problem going on in the world, like the crisis in Darfur. The United States should not focus on the needs of “developing nations” or “emerging democracies,” until we have taken care of all of the problems that we are facing in our own country. This is the problem with the United States! We are way too nice. Instead of fixing problems in our own country, like Hurricane Katrina, we decide fix problems in other nations first. This must change if the United States really does want to maintain their status as a Super Power.
In response to Teresa’s Blog:
Even if Gompers had not been associated with the American Federation of Labor, he still would have been against imperialism. His beliefs would probably remain the same because he stated that he strongly opposed imperialism. I am sure he would have disliked it either way.
Ashley Aydin – Block B.
Advanced Placement United States History.
__________________________________
Throughout the 19th century, Americans discussed issues connected to expansion. Westward acquisitions began with the Louisiana Purchase and continued through the mid-century period with the land gained through the warfare with Mexico. Rising in the 19th century, imperialism reinvented the United States, promoting the urgency to flex political muscle. America’s rise to world power occurred in the fifty-year period between 1870 to 1920. The expansion overseas was fueled by desires: economic markets, raw materials, and military bases. Nonetheless, underlying expansionist policies was a philosophy of cultural superiority, racism and a duty based on the perception of advancement.
__________________________________
Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, held intriguing, reflective judgments in which he publicized. “If we attempt to force upon the natives of the Philippines our rule, and compel them to conform to our more or less rigid mold of government, how many lives shall we take? Of course, they will seem cheap, because they are poor laborers. They will be members of the majority in the Philippines, but they will be ruled and killed at the convenience of the very small minority there, backed up by our armed land and sea forces.” Seemingly, Gompers believed that imperialism had the potential to ultimately destroy the prominent status of the United States. He explained that if the United States conquered available territory, more pupils would be able to alter common customs and governmental practices. “If these facts have operated so effectually to prevent necessary changes in the condition of our own people, how difficult will it be to quicken our conscience so as to secure social and legislative relief for the semi-savage slave or contract laborers of the conquered islands?” Furthermore, Gompers presented the idea of the rebirth of slavery and harsh industry. If the United States, indeed, carried out various conquests, minorities would have faced much adversity. As he put it, “…how much more difficult will it be to arouse any sympathy, and secure relief for the poor semi-savages in the Philippines, much less indignation at any crime against their inherent and natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Likewise, “Power Rangers” by Joshua Micah Marshall suggests that the United States has become much more money oriented through past politics. “For leftist critics of America’s role in the world, it has long been a baleful article of faith that the United States is an agent of “neo-imperialism,” exerting its power through global capital and through organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund”. Similar to Gompers, Marshall explains that the has always been United States remains power hungry. Imperialism, thus, proves a damaging practice to Marshall. “If America, militarily unchallenged and economically dominant, indeed took on the functions of imperial governance, its empire was, for the most part, loose and consensual. In the past couple of years, however, neo-imperialism, this thing of stealth, politesse, and obliquity, has come to seem, so to speak, too neo. Especially as the war on terror began, hard-liners who were frustrated by Clinton’s bumbling and hesitations saw no reason to deny that America was an imperial power, and a great one: how else to describe a country that had so easily vanquished Afghanistan, once legendary as the graveyard of empires?” Marshall seems to dislike the idea of empires and empire building. Accordingly, he remains uncomfortable with the drive to expand the United States, specifically conquering lands that remain foreign and helpless. “Great powers, after all, are normally custodians of peace and stability. Why shouldn’t they be? They’re already on top.”
__________________________________
The U.S. foreign policy in the Philippines and Hawaii under McKinley and Roosevelt was exceedingly similar to that of George W. Bush. Seeing that McKinley, Roosevelt, and Bush aimed to maintain the United State’s global control and influence, their policies vividly reflect their ideals of autonomy and rank. Nonetheless, McKinley’s and Roosevelt’s goals were well known and publicly discussed. Bush’s intentions remain rather debated and discrete. Whatever the case, the accomplishment of international supremacy has played a significant role in past/current political actions.
__________________________________
Certainly, a U.S. foreign intervention can only be justified in an extreme situation. If a developing nation/ emerging democracy is in critical danger and/or adversity, a more powerful, renowned state should step in and take charge. Nevertheless, each country should have the right to create legislative bodies and standards for their own population. A modern example of the detrimental affects of U.S. imperialism is the invasion of Iraq. The United States abolished the political set up, pushing for modern, changing principles. Yet, the populace is currently suffering from the instability of the current governmental grouping.
__________________________________
*Response to Teresa’s Posting:
Samuel Gompers was strongly influenced by his work and experience. If he wasn’t involved in humanitarian circumstances, he probably wouldn’t have been as passionate about the dangers of imperialism. Since he worked around labor and oppression, he had a valuable understanding about the affects of conquest and complete supremacy. Undoubtedly, Gompers fulfilled the voice of the conquered, less fortunate people.
Samuel Gompers was an American labor union leader and a key figure in American labor history. Gompers founded the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and held the position of president of the federation for all forty eight years, until his death accept one. He opposed industrial unionism and socialism, and formed an alliance with the Democrats. Both Samuel Gompers and Joshua Micah Marshall during their times believed that imperialism would ultimately lead to the downfall of the United States. Gompers labeled imperialists as Professor Charles Eliot Norton labeled imperialists as conquerers. They both used United States history to defend their points. Norton reminded the people on how the British oppressed the colonists and Gompers reminded many on how the United States is built by the workers and without them the country would be a failure. There are numerous similarities between the imperialistic ideas of the period that we are studying and today. To start off, all of the candidates (McKinely, Roosevelt and Bush) were/are all Republicans. Throughout history, the Republican party is known for backing up such ideas as imperialism, expansion and economic growth no matter what. Especially during these periods America was dominated by the rich, and whatever the rich wanted they received. As with Westward expansion the United States grabbed any land they could before anyone else could grab it, even if they didn't need it. Both of these periods also reflect one of the more brutal international periods in United States history. Americans used unnecessary military tactic to oppress certain cultures. American lies were very common in these periods as the government needed the peoples support to achieve what they wanted (Philippians's are dangerous and Iraq's WMD). Sometimes, I think that the Republican party cannot do as they please because they lack the peoples support but they gain the needed support through lies. That's why the upcoming presidential nominations will be won by the democrats. In my opinion, most forms of US foreign intervention is unjustified. For example, I'm alright with US troops in Darfur helping victims of genocide and policing the war torn lands. I am very proud of the fact that the United States is the number one funder for Darfur relief. But this good reputation is easily forgotten and erased off a decent resume when the most powerful country in the world is in nine, if not twelve, figures in debt due to a stupid war which happened thanks to lies. The US government shouldn't have a say in developing nations and emerging democracies. This country flourished by itself with no help at all. The first colonists had models but didn't build this country through donations. It shouldn't be our business to help third world countries and it isn't our fault that Africa can't develop. We have other national problems that should be fixed first and a debt to get out of.
Teresa:
Samuel Gompers founded and was the president of the American Federation of Labor. This means that he started this federation and set out the key ideas. Later others joined the federation and made it what it was/is. Maybe is Gompers was in a different social, political or economical status then then his ideas would have been different.
1.
Samuel Gompers, leader of the American Federation of Labor, has a negative view of imperialism. He discusses the rights of the workers and the effects of the freedom of slaves. He mentions how there has been an improvement in the condition of wage-earners and former slaves since, “the South now, with difficulty, respects labor, because labor is the condition of those who were formerly slaves.” This shows that at this time slaves were just being freed and the hard work they did for free in the past was finally being recognized and they were being paid. Teresa brought up a good point from Gompers’ speech that I missed the first time I read it. She mentioned that America began regarding other nationalities as property, rather than equal in power to Americans. In addition, Gomper’s talked about natives of the Philippines, saying that although they would be a majority in the Philippines, in America they will just be ruled and killed to benefit Americans.
“Power Rangers” by Joshua Micah is similar to the views of Gompers in the sense that America was increasingly power hungry in both situations. He focuses on the way America uses military power to handle everything. He states, “America isn’t powerful because people like us: our power is a product of dollars and guns.” This shows the extent to which America has become reliant on military power in addition to becoming power hungry.
2.
McKinley annexed the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Hawaii, and set up a protectorate over Cuba. Despite Gompers’ views of imperialism, McKinley didn’t feel he was negatively affecting workers. He was assassinated by an anarchist and succeeded by Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was very involved with the navy, stating "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." This quote is similar to Bush’s principals today since Bush seems to be very involved in the military, for example with the war in Iraq. The main difference, as Ashley discussed, is that McKinley and Roosevelt’s views were much more public than Bush’s whose are widely debated.
3.
A US foreign intervention is only justified in extreme situations. America is no better than every other nation and doesn’t have the right to go around controlling everyone else. The only time when an intervention would be completely necessary is when the US itself is in danger due to another country, or is another country physically asks for help. When compared to developing nations, the US is very well off and as a result it can be useful to help other nations. However, America has a habit of sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong and becoming too involved. The war in Iraq, for example, although it may have started with good intentions seems to be dragging on now. It may have been justified at first since America could’ve been in danger since some believed Iraq was posing a danger to America. However, now that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, America may be better off withdrawing from Iraq.
Rachel Geissler
APUSHistory- BBlock.
Between Samuel Gompers’ views on imperialism and those of the contemporary editorialist of “Power Rangers”, it’s rather simple to draw ties. Both articles seem to present feelings and ideas of negativity towards imperialism. They seem to both draw the conclusion that America was thriving off the power that they could only gain via annexation or colonization of other territories and lands around the world. Furthermore, Gompers and Joshua Micah Marshall make it evident that they thought imperialism could lead to the demise of the United States in both incidences. Gompers saw imperialists more so as conquerors than as imperialists. This perception was rather accurate because the imperialists simply sought to expand the United States’ power and territory. The United States was basically only trying to create a strong and intimidating persona for the rest of the world to judge them by.
The United States foreign policy in the Philippines and Hawaii under McKinley and Roosevelt are rather similar to that of George W. Bush. McKinley and Roosevelt were super concerned with maintaining control over Hawaii and the Philippines, thus advocating their projected image of powerfulness. Jackie quoted Roosevelt, demonstrating his involvement with the United States Navy and his desire to take military action at any opportunity available. Roosevelt’s military policy, as Jackie pointed out, is similar to that of George W. Bush but at the same time different because Bush tries to be more discrete about his desire for military action and involvement in other nations. For example, Bush always masks his military involvement with the excuse of trying to help solve whatever the given nation’s problem is, as he did in Iraq. It’s only his way of justifying his escalation of an ordeal via military action.
Personally, it seems that United States intervention should only be considered justified when the other nation is desperately in need of our intervention and actually asks for help. It seems highly doubtful that George W. Bush has any inkling of psychic capabilities. How does he know when a country wants his help? There’s a line between wanting and needing help. However, Bush seems to mesh the two into one. In the case of the war in Iraq, Bush went over there to help and still claims he’s helping yet more people are dying day by day. It just doesn’t seem right to me. In the case of “developing nations” and “emerging democracies”, the United States should offer examples and ideas - not enforce them. A nation needs to develop independently, as its own nation rather than as a mini-me of America.
Sarah Berfond
Block B
1) In his speech from 1898 Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, argued that American involvement in the Philippines would harm both the Philippines and the American worker. He claimed that if the Philippines became a territory or state of the United States, it would open the door to Chinese and other immigrants who will ultimately lead to those immigrants coming to the mainland. His fear was that the foreigners would take jobs from Americans because they would work for lower wages. Gompers also felt that many Philippinos would die as a result of the invasion and the United States would be violating its own basic concepts of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The New Yorker article seems critical of America’s imperialistic policies after September 11. It compares the United States to the British empire and says that American policy makers plan to bring “enlightenment” to the foreign countries.
2) I see many similarities between the foreign policy in the Philippines and Hawaii under Mickinley and Roosevelt and that of G.W. Bush in the Middle East. All of the leaders seem to be trying to force American ideas unto struggling nations. The argument that America needed to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq is similar to the white man’s burden argument during the 1800’s. President Bush believes that American style democracy is the best way for a government to be run and should be used around the world. Unfortunately, the policy did not take into account the different cultures, customs and rivalries of the Middle East. Similarly, white man’s burden is the belief that Americans need to spread democracy and liberty to struggling countries. Usually, Americans ended up oppressing the country’s citizens and forcing them to conform to their ideals and culture.
3)In my opinion, American foreign policy should focus on economic and humanitarian aid to developing and third world countries. America should encourage democracy and human rights but should not force countries to change their government to conform to American beliefs. At the same time, US military force should only be used to protect weak countries from invasion and assist groups threatened by genocide. There are many countries in the world whose governments are not perfect, however it is important to allow those countries to find their own way to a satisfactory standard for their country.
Response to Heather’s comment- I agree with your opinion on America’s occupation of Iraq. America needs to allow Iraq to build a democracy that incorporates the country’s culture and customs. We cannot force Iraq’s new government to conform to the cultures and values in the American democracy. America should only help countries with economic and humanitarian issues and should allow countries to create a government that is right for them.
How does AFL leaders' Samuel Gompers' views on imperialism compare with those of the contemporary editorialists featured in articles B and C?
AfL leader Samuel Gompers stated his views on US imperialism in his speech at Chicago on October 18, 1898. He believed US imperialism is not a belief the US was founded on, and imperialism would only lead to US characteristics of tyranny. The US was founded on beliefs of equality, freedom and liberty, and the US fought a long war for independence from its tyrannical rulers in England. Therefore, Samuel believes annexation would only be best, as everyone needs to be given a chance to experience US liberty. He doesn’t want the US to basically have colonies, and he acknowledged that every colony eventually rebels. Therefore, taking over the Philippines by force is not only tyrannical but stupid.
PLEASE NOTE THAT ARTICLE A AND B ARE THE SAME, AND ARTICLE B SIMPLEY DISCUSSES US IMPERIALISM-NO OPINION…………….so I WILL JUST SUMARIZE ARTICLE B
The article “Power Rangers” by Joshua Micah Marshall of the New Yorker is about a new form of US imperialism. According to this article, the US basically has a military and economic monopoly around the world. Through military might, the US forces nations like China to do certain economic things. Also, US corporations compete all over the world and outsell other nation’s corporations. This is how a global economic monopoly is held. Microsoft, an American company, has a global computer monopoly currently. Corporations continuously search for new markets. However, recent US imperialism has not gone so well. While the US can do whatever it wants, barely any nations will follow it now. A perfect example is the Iraq War, as little nations decided to help the US in the war. The Bush Administration’s belief that all nations will follow US actions because of military superiority turned out to be false.
What similarities and differences do you see between US foreign policy in the Phillipines and Hawaii under Mickinley and Roosevelt and that of G.W. Bush?
There are many differences and little similarities in US foreign Policy in the Philippines and Hawaii under Mckinley and Roosevelt and that of G.W. Bush. Mckinely acknowledged the strategic value Hawaii could have during the Spanish-American War, so he wanted it annexed to the US as soon as possible. Hawaii was annexed on July 7, 1898, and the Philippines was annexed to the US in the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. Both Mckinley and Roosevelt worked to obtain these areas, and this led to the Philippine-American War where hundreds of thousands died. In a few years, a treaty was signed between the Americans and the Philippnies on July, 1902 which established a legislature in the Philippines. Bush’s Foreign Policy today is very different. For one, Hawaii is now a state, and the people there are mostly happy to be part of the US. In the past, a larger majority of the Hawaii population was opposed to being Americans. In the Philippines the US still holds some economic monopoly aspects in the nation. For instance, many American companies don’t allow for Philippine company growth by outselling Philippine competition. Thus, the Philippines is a dependent nation. The only similarity to Mckinely and Roosevelt foreign Policy would be the use of military force in the Philippines. For instance, there is still American military presence in the Philippines to affect Philippine decisions in favor of the US.
In your opinion, when is US foreign intervention justified? What should be the role of the US government in "developing nations" and "emerging democracies?" Provide specific examples and evidence to support your response?
US foreign intervention is only justified when the people of a nation need true help. For instance, during WWII, the Brits, French, Jews, Poles, Chinese and Russians needed true help, as they were being massacred. If the US didn’t help, there will probably still be a Cold War, except between a massive German Empire allied with a massive Japanese Empires and the US. Therefore, the Iraq War was justified, but only because the people of Iraq were suffering under Saddam’s rule. However, American Occupation of Iraq is not justified, as the Iraqis need to learn how to protect themselves. American occupation will not encourage military growth in that nation to care for itself, and thus, this will only lead to dependence.
Moreover, the US should barely help developing nations and emerging democracies. When a nation receives help by simple gifts like food, the nation does not develop quickly. This is because the nation and the people overall become dependent on these gifts in order to live. For instance, why would an African work really hard to produce his food when he or she receives free food. Moreover, gift giving in the form of money will never work, as many governments are corrupt. For instance, many African nations put much of the money given to it inside the pockets of government officials. The only way the US should help is by teaching nations to be independent. This can be done by showing governments techniques to govern effectively and raise economic growth. The US went through the developing nation period, so the US government officials know the techniques. Moreover, the US can help emerging democracies by showing the people how a proper democratic state should function. This can be done with officials sent to the nation to write a Bill of Rights and a constitution for instance.
This is never going to happen though, as every nation is greedy and wants everything to benefit their nation. It’s a shame really. For instance, why didn’t the US go to war with Sudan when they had a huge genocide problem in order to help the people? It’s because the US wouldn’t benefit from such a war. The US did however go to war with Iraq in order to end a threat to the US and to obtain cheaper oil.
Question to AP peers:
Do you feel that if Gompers had not been associated with the American Federation of Labor, he would have still felt as he did about imperialism?
No, Gompers would definitely not have felt the same way about imperialism. Since he wouldn’t be pressured to have a view in favor or the skilled worker, he would’ve supported imperialism, as imperialism would lead to new markets, thus more money for him.
Anam Baig, 3/2/08
On October 18, 1898, Samuel Gompers, president of the AFL at the time, delivered a speech in which he denounced imperialism. Gompers saw imperialism as an extreme injustice to the working man. He says, “We cannot with safety to ourselves, or justice to others keep the workers and the lovers of reform and simple justice divided, or divert their attention, and thus render them powerless to expose abuses and remedy existing injustice.” This means that conquering another nation would make the US an abuser of power, and exposing other nations to the policies of the US would be an obstruction of justice. Imperialism would also, in his mind, effect the imperialists negatively. The working class of both sides would be negatively effected and there would be a sharp decrease in wages because of the bigger amount of workers. Job opportunities would be lost for the Americans if more nations were added to the already vast empire the US had at the time. Gompers felt that the US already had to correct the wrongs within itself, and adding another nation would amplify problems and leave the issues at home to cumulate and exacerbate.
McKinley was a president who supported imperialism. His opinion was that imperialism would expand the power of the US and improve the economy by adding more workers and giving the US a chance to develop industry. McKinley was keen on making American producers supreme in the world market, so his administration worked towards making the US dominate in global economy. After winning re-election in 1900 against William Bryan, McKinley vehemently pursued his goals in controlling the Philippines and gaining control over Cuba. After McKinley’s assassination by a anarchist in 1901, VP Theodore Roosevelt became president. Roosevelt was similar to McKinley because both presidents had access to telephones and other devices which would keep them updated about the situations in various nations, especially the Philippines, which the US was at war with at the time. Roosevelt was also very adamant about increasing the size of the navy, which was drastically changed because of the annexation of Hawaii. It is evident that both presidents had militaristic rule in the countries they controlled. Hawaii became a prominent naval base, and for nearly a decade, there was a militaristic rule in the Philippines. It is clear that both presidents believed in the white man’s burden, which in the US’s case was to spread democracy into nations in need of political change.
George W. Bush has similar views with McKinley and Roosevelt because he feels the need to spread democracy into the Middle East. In Iraq, Bush felt that the US was doing the Iraqis a favor by putting Saddam Hussain out of power. It was obvious that Bush wanted a military rule over Iraq, and it was also obvious that there were resources he desired to acquire, such as oil.
US foreign intervention should not be allowed. The US should only react when it is directly threatened by another nation. It is not right for the United States to impose itself on other nations who simply do not desire any help. If the US observes serious crisis, such as genocide, in other nations, it has every right to intervene through the UN. If there are nations that are emerging democracies, the US does not have the right to set up military rule in that nation, rather, it should diplomatically assist its transition.
Response to Teresa:
If Gompers was not the president of the AFL, I feel his opinions about imperialism would be the same. Being Anti-Imperialist is a matter of morals. It seemed like Gompers’ morals were against imperialism. Being the president of the AFL might have heightened his anti-imperialist sentiments because he knew the plight of the working man, but since he aspired to become an activist in the labor force, it must have been his morals that made him anti-imperialist.
Also, I agree with Ashley Aydin about her opinions on the US’s intervention in global affairs. Iraq was a product of the US meddling with foreign affairs, and an example of the terrible affects of modern day imperialism.
**Quick note that B&&C are the same article?
-->The extract from Samuel Gompers speech on the Savage Acts site lends a shockingly eerie note to what is going on today in the Middle East. The quote "A "foreign war as a cure for domestic discontent" has been the device of tyrants and false counselors from time immemorial" seems just as if Gompers is talking about the war in Iraq. Both Gompers and the editorialists of the New Yorker share very similar views on American Imperialism, even with the century difference between the two. Gompers also discusses the immigration issue posed from annexing the Philippines, just as we have the issue of illegal immigration today. If all the jobs are to be taken by immigrants to the United States, what would the actual citizens of the U.S do? Be unemployed and on welfare?
--> Similarly, the foreign policies in the Philippines and Hawaii under McKinley and Roosevelt are very similar to those of G.W. Bush and Iraq/Afghanistan. Our government both times decides to invade the country and make them more "democratic" and "American" usually with brute force and other undiplomatic methods. Unlike Hawaii, which is now a state, the Philippines managed to resist becoming part of the United States for the most, retaining it's dignity and native culture. Afghanistan and Iraq are different in this, as the United States came into these countries to put the Taliban out of power and instill a more democratic system into the nation. Many of the people, however, only wanted the U.S. to put the Taliban out of power then go home while they sorted everything out, but the US wanted to expand their influence into homes, schools, jobs, government etc.
-->However, this is no excuse for foreign intervention from the United States. The United States needs to focus more on the issues at home instead of poking around in "developing nations" and "emerging democracies." There are many other democratic nations that can help these "up and coming" nations. Right now, the United States has the one of the highest poverty rates we've seen in a long time, but the government will not help those in need in our country, instead focusing more on the needs of other small nations.
I agree with both Ashley Aydin and Anam, the US should NOT be allowed to mess with foreign nations. We wouldn't be in the Iranian situation if we hadn't stuck our noses in.
Sorry for posting the same article twice!
Theresa: E
John: E
Elizabeth: E
heather: E
Justin: E
Rachel: E
Ashley: E
Jakub: E, I wonder if the US could have developed without the aid of original colonial powers
Marco - E - I think your comment on Gompers makes sense in some ways, though I'm not convinced he'd support the rights of working class people being violated by governments anywhere even if he wasn't the leader of the AFL.
Anam: E - I agree with your views on Gompers, his was a moral position as much as it was that of leadership.
Ashley F: E
sarah - E
jaclyn - E
Samuel Gompers's view on imperialism differs from contemporary editorialists mainly because Gompers thought imperialism was a bad thing. Gompers believed that the United States should in no way annex the Philippines because that would lead to "barbarians" such as the Chinese entering the United States much easier because of the proximity of the Philippines to such "barbarian" nations. Joshua Micah Marshall, author of "Power Rangers," on the other hand, compares U.S. Imperialism with that of the British Empire, and feels that imperialism is perfectly justified because of the many "benefits" it brings to colonized nations.
Similarities between the United States's foriegn policies are most obvious in the effect that any foriegn intervention is, of course, on behalf of the country being intervened. Those poor Filipinos are unfit to govern themselves, and those poor Iraqis have to deal with Saddam Hussein! Why don't we go help them out?
But the differences are more obvious. Now the States have an entire developed world to answer to when they make any imperialistic moves. Back then, no one quite condemned anyone for imperialistic moves. In fact, they were all scrambling to do the same thing.
U.S. foriegn intervention is rarely justified, and certainly never as a means of self-defense or as helping people with a revolt against an oppresive ruler (coughpanamacough). "Developing nations" and "emerging democracies" are just that and do not need to be sped along. Any help the U.S. gives should be strictly humanitarian and in the form of NGOs or donations. No military service required, thank you very much. The only exception to this is when another country specifically asks for troops. They usually don't, instead asking for U.N. blue helmets, but they only time U.S. troops should be deployed, besides in a time of war, would be if another country asked for our military aid in fighting like, insurgents or something like in Colombia.
Teresa: The view Gompers held at the time was a sentiment many Americans echoed. Things such as the Chinese Exclusion Act made evident the apparent hatred Americans had for "foriegners." Although his position with the AFL certianly bolsters his position with regard to the work force, it is not likely his position would be altered is he was not affliated with them.
Kasey - E-: fantastic in every way, but late.
99Dominique D. Johnson
Block B. AP U.S. history
Sorry for the late post, but this week has been stressful since we came back form Germany.
Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor stated that “A "foreign war as a cure for domestic discontent" has been the device of tyrants and false counselors from time immemorial, but it has always lead to a Waterloo, a Sedan, to certain decadence and often utter ruin.” He believes that he although he supports colonization by having a war, this would ruin the build up of America. Gompers suggests that our country is perhaps too powerful to incur outside disaster. By solving the problems at home first we would restore our nation's sense of justice and love of right. He oppose immigration among the Chinese, and “semi-savage races”. Gompers feels that the U.S. colonizing the Philippines’ would further encourage the Chinese to flee to the Philippines in search to have an easy access to enter the U.S. He wants to secure social justice and legislation in the states, but fears that more immigrants and the colonization of the Philippines would become difficult to enact.Gompers seems to believe that Americans have lost their slogan which made this country great. He questions the pursuit of happiness, and liberty among Americans during that period of time. He is against imperialism. He compares manual labor and slave labor as identical, which seems to me that he opposed slavery. He is all for the just cause for the working class to have equal and fair rights. Since men in the former slave states are forced to work with manual labor that slaves once were forced to do, the wage earning and conditions is affecting the southerners.
Joshua Micah Marshall’s article, “Power Rangers” suggests that U.S imperialism as well as the imperialism of the British Empire is completely normal and justified. With the colonization of other nations, the economy will prosper and would further more benefit both countries.The U.S. is continuously practicing their colonization of other countries with Iraq and Afghanistan. Some percentage of Americans including the U.S. government would agree with Marshall of colonization being apart of nature and further more expanding and building our country. With oil monopoly being the focuses of many countries, many countries look at the Middle East as they looked at Africa centuries ago, as being open for colonization that each wants a apart of.
However; the difference between the colonization back than and now is slim. Today we think about practicing Manifest Destiny by spreading democracy to those “developing countries” which could be the modern term for “barbarians”. We think about our economy prospering like we did with the Philippines and the Hawaii.
Comment to John:
I agree that Gompers perhaps would not be a fan for foreign expansion overseas, rather he would perhaps go aginst the U.S. government today and help promote international helath care and ending the war in Iraq. he would oppose Bush being in favor of the high class.
Forgot to add this:
To emerging developing countries, we shouldn't have to use that as a weakness to enforce the veiws of democracy. Democracy is not for every country although it is designed for the people. the democracy in our country is slightly corrupt since the dscussion of the war overseas to the soldiers is heavily cencored. As a country we need to remain neutral and give out help when asked or when there are crissis such as a child soldiering, child labor, genocides,etc. Iraqis under the Hussien regime would get killed or jailed if they spoke agianst the government. With Anericans occupying Iraq people are afraid to leave their houses because they would get gunned down or be a victim of bombing. What is the difference? What is the difference between the casualities with the Iraq war and the Iraqis under the Hussien regime?
Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor supported the rights and betterment of the working class. Samuel Gompers believed that Imperialism only would harm the working class, as it would open new markets and require more hours at the workplace. To me, the whole cycle of Imperialism just seemed vicious. Americans make too much and experience deflation, then, we look to sell our excess goods to other countries, and then we colonize and have to have people in the continental United States work harder to supply goods for all of these people. It's easy to see how Gompers would frown upon imperialism. McKinley, on the other hand, managed to gain control of several islands in the South Pacific. A few well known island would be Guam, The Philippines and Puerto Rico. McKinley didn't believe that imperialism would ruin American values and society, he believed the exact opposite of Gompers. He believed that imperialism would boost the economy by bringing more workers into the United States workforce. Shortly after McKinley was assassinated, Theodore Roosevelt became the president and obtained Hawaii, with this Roosevelt began to strategically plot routes of trade. This was important because it made the United States look wealthy and powerful. Clever! This also helped to expand naval power and influence in Latin America.
Again, Gompers felt as though it was a crime to capture and enslave other immigrants and migrant workers only for the United States to exploit them.
In response to Teresa's question, I don't think he would be so avid about rights if he did not head an organization like the American Federation of Labour
Cash Making Opportunities - The Beginning The working life is already tough enough, but the worries of being out of work was even tougher. The unsecured working environment have prompted me to search the internet for an alternative source of extra income so that I could learn how to Make Money Work for me and be Financially Independent. I listed down a number of Free Internet Business Opportunity Ideas while researching ways how people earn money online while working-from-home.......
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Our Statistics homework help service provides statistics assignment help, statistics dissertation, math homework help and online tutoring to students with very low fees.statistics help
Assignment Help has online solution for students problem like mathematics, physics, chemistry, statistics, accounting, computer science in Australia.Assignment Help
Hi,
These discussions are really a great source to learn new things.
Assignment Service Provider
Assignment Help and Writing Service
Post a Comment