× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
5
o
5
4
m
4
b
4
x
4
a
4
l
4
t
4
S
4
m
3
s
3
New Topic  
wale wale
wrote...
Posts: 2
Rep: 0 0
5 years ago
What motivated U.S. American expansionism in the 1890’s – and perhaps still today? Do you think U.S. foreign policy is primarily an interventionist savior of other nations or an interfering expansionist into the affairs of other nations? Or some of both? Give examples, but focus mainly on events covered in Chapter 18, the documentary excerpts, and image of Uncle Sam teaching a diverse group of students.
Read 264 times
1 Reply

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
5 years ago
It seems as if the motivation for U.S. expansionism was money and industrial growth. The U.S. during that time definitely seemed more on the side of interfering expansionism- not necessarily in the form of territorial expansion, we didn’t really want those areas to become part of the United States, but definitely with economic expansion. We went in to utilize their resources, exploit them, and try to impose our way of living onto the people living there. There may have been some places we went with the intentions of helping, but I believe there was always an economic underlying bottom line. For example, the instability in Cuba was something that threatened America’s investments and economic recovery (PBS- American Experience). The U.S. did help them in a time of need, but the motives turn back to economic ones, not the motives of a true savior. In “Imperialism of Decadence” Calderon says “Neither irony nor grace nor skepticism… can make way against the plebeian brutality, the excessive optimism, the violent individualism of the [North American] people.” The U.S. at this time was exceeding individualistic with the growth of industry, and an individualistic mindset is definitely not the mindset of a “savior” nation. Calderon lists in his article different reasons the U.S. was interfering in some South and Central American countries- all of which seemed to be financially beneficial to the U.S. especially building the Panama Canal, that was specifically to be able to grow their industry, not to help the people of Panama who were in desperate need of terrible working conditions and a canal going through the width of their country. I really like the ironic difference of the two poems. The original made it seem as if the U.S. should be pitied for the way they were treated after doing such ‘noble’ deeds: “Take up the White Man's burden-- And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard—“ (Kipling 1899). I don’t think Mr. Kipling considered that maybe the intention wasn’t pure. I don’t think he looked at the situation from the other perspective. In regards to Crosby’s “The Real White Man’s Burden” what kind of business do you think he means when he says in the last line of the poem “This kind of business pays”?
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  822 People Browsing
 111 Signed Up Today
Related Images
  
 283
  
 549
  
 348
Your Opinion
Which industry do you think artificial intelligence (AI) will impact the most?
Votes: 308

Previous poll results: Do you believe in global warming?