Imperialism Computer Lab Assignment - Mr. E's Forum: 2006-2007

Date: Feb 1, 2007

Imperialism Computer Lab Assignment

Date: Feb 1, 2007

Option #1

2) Images from the Philippine-American War

Frederick N. Fuston was an amazing military leader to the United States and also was a big supporter of the war in the Philippines. He commanded his regiment in San Francisco, California which then led him to the Philippines. The context of this image in relation to the topic of Imperialism is that in each of these pictures he has a brave and confident posture about him. Simply the posture of this man is enough to intimidate anyone.

The Political Cartoon titled “the Forbidden Book” suggests that the true history of the War in the Philippines should not be spoken of or taught to future generations. This cartoon leads you to believe that something horrible must have happened during that war for the book to be “locked shut.”

The picture that shows the Filipino casualties is a gruesome image. It shows hundreds of native Filipinos lying dead in a ditch somewhere after what looks like a former battle. It is estimated that besides the 20,000 military casualties of the Filipinos, between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Filipino civilians were lost as well. These numbers show the destruction to humaity that this war caused. 3)The platform of the anti-Imperialist League (to be continued at home, I just had to post this so it can be saved for me)

Date: Feb 1, 2007

Jessica Furtado Assignment 1 2-1-07

The Spanish-American War

1.b. The Spanish-American War was based on a conflict between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America. The United States declared war on Spain because of its inability to guarantee peace and stability in Cuba. The explosion of the Maine focused American attention on Cuba and was not a cause of the war. The explosion of the Maine however killed many people; “ It was horrible…as I descended into the death ship the dead men rose up to meet me. They floated to me with out stretched arms, as if to welcome their shipmate. Their faces for the most part were bloated with decay or burned beyond recognition.” (Diver Charles Morgan USS New York). After many battles between America and the Kingdom of Spain, Spain sued for peace. The Treaty of Paris was signed in Paris on December 10,1898. The United States Senate ratified it on February 6, 1899. In August ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. Warfare broke out between U.S forces and The Filipinos when U.S Troops began to take the place of the Spanish in control of the country.

P.s the Essay on the Phillipine-American War is saved on the other comp.lab...just a reminder

Date: Feb 1, 2007

1: First-hand account in the Spanish-American War:

General John Blow wrote a letter to his wife saying that he was okay and that she shouldn’t worry about him. He wrote about the blowing up of the USS Marine and that about 250 men died and he could only save 50 men. The reason he was able to save those 50 men was because every part of the ship blew up except the Officers’ Quarters. That was indeed lucky because at least some of the men could be saved. There were also accounts of how the Cuban general Antonio Maceo was killed during one of the battles. Supposedly he was very brutally shot in the neck and almost immediately killed shortly after.

2: Images from the Philippine-American War:

There were several images of the Filipino leader of independence Emilio Aguinaldo. He obviously had a lot to do with the fighting that took place during the war between Philippines and America. There was also a cartoon that showed Aguinaldo asking two Anti-Imperialists to sign an oath to remain loyal to the Filipino cause. The Americans found it as a joke that the Filipino people really wanted their independence and that’s exactly how they portrayed it to the other Americans. There was another cartoon that showed two Anti-Imperialists mourning for the fact that Aguinaldo got captured. I couldn’t believe that they would actually use that as a joke at the expense of the Filipino people. That was in a way very disrespectful to the Filipinos at that time. All the Americans were thinking about was getting more territory that they could call theirs.

3: A Historians Account of Roosevelt’s Acquisition of the Panama Canal:

The U.S had been interested in building this Canal for a long time. When Roosevelt was vice president he thought and deeply believed that the U.S needed to build this canal. Roosevelt saw the demand for the canal because the average mileage of going from New York to San Francisco was about 13,600 miles because one would have to go around the tip of South America. With the building of this canal it wouldn’t take as much time to get to those places. The distance would be reduced by almost 5,000 miles. Another advantage that the building of the canal would bring would be the advance and extra boom in the commerce of the U.S. Without the building of the Canal, Roosevelt thought that the whole Foreign Policy would suffer tremendously. Since Colombia and Panama were in a way connected the U.S had to go by Colombia in order to do anything involving Panama. The Colombians rejected the first treaty by the U.S. Finally the Panamanians gained control and had the Colombians removed. They then gave the U.S the permission to build the canal.

4: Anti-annexation documents from Hawaii:

In one of the protests, Liliukalani, the queen of Hawaii, wrote something to Sanford Dole. She was very much against the annexation of Hawaii to the U.S. Sanford Dole was in office in Hawaii but wanted the annexation of Hawaii. She basically wrote that she was against the annexation and wouldn’t allow it in any way. She wrote another letter to the president of the U.S and stated that she really didn’t want to have to write it but she had been getting requests for annexation by natives to her country. We can see how much she had fought so that Hawaii wouldn’t be handed over to the U.S. Unfortunately it was eventually annexed and had become a territory of the U.S. Liliukalani was also eventually removed from her position as queen of Hawaii.

Date: Feb 1, 2007

Option #12) Images from the Philippine-American War Frederick N. Funston was an amazing military leader to the United States and also was a big supporter of the war in the Philippines. He commanded his regiment in San Francisco, California, which then led him to the Philippines. The context of this image in relation to the topic of Imperialism is that in each of these pictures he has a brave and confident posture about him. Simply the posture of this man is enough to intimidate anyone. The Political Cartoon titled “the Forbidden Book” suggests that the true history of the War in the Philippines should not be spoken of or taught to future generations. This cartoon leads you to believe that something horrible must have happened during that war for the book to be “locked shut.” The picture that shows the Filipino casualties is a gruesome image. It shows hundreds of native Filipinos lying dead in a ditch somewhere after what looks like a former battle. It is estimated that besides the 20,000 military casualties of the Filipinos, between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Filipino civilians were lost as well. These numbers show the destruction to humaity that this war caused. 3) The platform of the anti-Imperialist League Many wealthy leaders of the early 1900s including Andrew Carnegie and William James formed the anti-imperialist league. They believed that imperialism was a form of evil and was hostile to liberty, which were the foundations of what our country was built on. They felt that taking other governments captive was strictly against the basis of our own government. They described the slaughter of innocent Filipinos as a needless horror. 4) A historian’s account of Roosevelt’s acquisition of the Panama Canal The United States wanted to acquire permission to build this canal for a very long time. It seemed like it was only destiny for the United States to build this canal because it did not make sense to have to go around the southern tip of South America just to get from a port in New York to a port in Los Angeles. The Hay-Heran Treaty of 1903 was the treaty that gave the United states permission to begin building this canal. The US essentially was the backbone for the Republic of Panama to break free from its former affiliation to another country. The US eventually negotiated with Panama to build the Canal for a much cheaper price then that of the first negotiating contry.

Date: Feb 1, 2007

Option #1
2) Images from the Philippine-American War
Frederick N. Funston was an amazing military leader to the United States and also was a big supporter of the war in the Philippines. He commanded his regiment in San Francisco, California, which then led him to the Philippines. The context of this image in relation to the topic of Imperialism is that in each of these pictures he has a brave and confident posture about him. Simply the posture of this man is enough to intimidate anyone. The Political Cartoon titled “the Forbidden Book” suggests that the true history of the War in the Philippines should not be spoken of or taught to future generations. This cartoon leads you to believe that something horrible must have happened during that war for the book to be “locked shut.” The picture that shows the Filipino casualties is a gruesome image. It shows hundreds of native Filipinos lying dead in a ditch somewhere after what looks like a former battle. It is estimated that besides the 20,000 military casualties of the Filipinos, between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Filipino civilians were lost as well. These numbers show the destruction to humanity that this war caused.
3) The platform of the anti-Imperialist League
Many wealthy leaders of the early 1900s including Andrew Carnegie and William James formed the anti-imperialist league. They believed that imperialism was a form of evil and was hostile to liberty, which were the foundations of what our country was built on. They felt that taking other governments captive was strictly against the basis of our own government. They described the slaughter of innocent Filipinos as a needless horror.
4) A historian’s account of Roosevelt’s acquisition of the Panama Canal
The United States wanted to acquire permission to build this canal for a very long time. It seemed like it was only destiny for the United States to build this canal because it did not make sense to have to go around the southern tip of South America just to get from a port in New York to a port in Los Angeles. The Hay-Heran Treaty of 1903 was the treaty that gave the United States permission to begin building this canal. The US essentially was the backbone for the Republic of Panama to break free from its former affiliation to another country. The US eventually negotiated with Panama to build the Canal for a much cheaper price then that of the first negotiating country.
5) Anti-annexation documents from Hawaii
The first document is from Queen Liliuokalani to Sanford Dole explaining how she would like to avoid conflict with the United States. She says she does not want to cause any loss of life and for the US to just leave her people alone. If you look at this situation from the Hawaiian side it kind of makes you feel bad for them. It seems that this queen is just asking for peace and asking for her constitution of Hawaii to not be tampered with. In all of her letters to US officials she addresses it with great respect and good manners. I think that this is her peaceful way of trying to make the US just leave her and her people alone.

***okay mr everett i swear tyhis is my final copy of this assignment.. if youd like u can delete my other posts from when i wasn't finished so it does not confuse the other students, sorrrrrry)

Date: Feb 2, 2007

I think im gunna bring in munchkins for tomoro ..if thats alryte with you Mr.E and Every1.

<3 Jessica

Date: Feb 2, 2007

OPTION 1:
1) A Historian's Accounts on Roosevelt's Acquisition of the Panama Canal
The United States for a while had wanted to build a canal, probably from about the middle of the 19th century, but they did not know whether it should go across Panama or Nicaragua. Roosevelt thought that it was in the county’s best interest to build the canal and also be able to defend it. The United States proceeded to make a treaty with Great Britain that gave them the ability to build the canal, but it did not allow them to defend it. But Roosevelt took a stand and made the US go over the treaty with Britain, allowing them to have full control over the building of the canal. Before the canal, in order to go from New York to San Francisco you would have to go around the tip of South America. Other journeys would also take massive amounts of time. Roosevelt believed that without the canal that foreign policy (such as the building of a great navy and the United States entry into the imperial race) would not fall into place. The Hay-Heran Treaty of 1903 gave the US the rights to build the canal in Panama. This whole incidence with the US trying to acquire rights to build the canal ties into imperialism because of the main definition of imperialism. It is basically the policy of control and authority foreign entities. Roosevelt was trying to gain the rights from foreign countries in a way that would benefit his own country.

2) The Platform of the Anti-Imperialist League
The Anti-Imperialist League was founded in 1899. This was after the US occupied Cuba and Puerto Rico and the Philippine Islands. Puerto Rico and the Philippines became American colonies, but the Filipinos revolted against American rule in 1899. Andrew Carnegie and William James were both against imperialism. They founded the Anti-Imperialist League together in order to stand against the annexation of the Philippines, but it was unsuccessful. In the reading it stated, " We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free." They thought that the policy of the National Administration in the Philippines sought to take away the spirit of 1776 that was in the islands. They also saw imperialism as a destruction of the government. They talked about the slaughtering of Filipinos and how horrible it was. They go on to talk about the fate of the government by stating,"If an Administration may with impunity ignore the issues upon which it was chosen, deliberately create a condition of war anywhere on the face of the globe, debauch the civil service for spoils to promote the adventure, organize a truthsuppressing censorship and demand of all citizens a suspension of judgment and their unanimous support while it chooses to continue the fighting, representative government itself is imperiled."They even quoted Lincoln saying that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.hey finished by reminding everyone to stay loyal to the Declaration of Independence.This whole passage directly talks about imperialism and the effects it could have on a country, its democracy, its people, and the other people living around you.

3) Anti-Annexation Documents from Hawaii

Many of the documents about the annexation of Hawaii were pleads from Queen Liliookalani for the United States to just leave her and Hawaii alone. She didn’t want anyone to get hurt or any destruction to come about her land. But she did also in the documents yield to the authority of the United States. But she mostly just wanted to avoid collision with armed forces of the US. As is able to be seen, she was very upset when she stated in one of her documents, "BECAUSE said treaty ignores, not only all professions of perpetual amity and good faith made by the United States in former treaties with the sovereigns representing the Hawaiian people, but all treaties made by those sovereigns with other and friendly powers, and it is thereby in violation of international law."She wanted to United States to withdraw the treaty.Hon John Sherman, Secretary of State for the US even joined the queen’s said on the issue of the annexation of Hawaii. He wanted them to have independence under their own islands. Imperialism even turned some of the most important people in the country that time away from the country’s views. Not everyone agreed with the annexation of Hawaii.

4) First Hand Accounts in the Spanish-American War

This website talks about the devastations of imperialism and the effects it caused on the different people who were caught up in the wars. Francisco Gomez wrote a letter to his mother, father, and brothers, saying that he did not want to abandon his general. He said that he did not fall into the hands of the enemy and was happy to be dying for the Cuban cause. He ended by saying he would wait for them in the other world. He was a noble fighter for his country that got caught up in the effects of imperialism. Other stories from people talked about the remembering of the destruction of the Battleship Maine. Different accounts talked of writing to family when they heard an explosion. Some talked about trying to escape out of the ship before it sank. Most accounts say that they will never forget what happened that day. General Joaquin Vara del Rey was the officer in charge of the Spanish defense of an advanced position at El Caney. He was shot in his leg and he had to hand over his position. People not only died during these wars but lived through the pain of having their joys taken away from them. One account talks about the conditions at Camp Wikoff. Twenty thousand soldiers in less than three weeks, many of them dying from disease, had to go to the fields of Montauk Point. 126 men died at Camp Wikoff. One doctor even wrote to an editor saying how bad the conditions were.Imperialism not only effecting the people directly involved with it, but also effected the lives of many who sadly suffered because of it.

Date: Feb 2, 2007

Leslie wrote:

1: First-hand account in the Spanish-American War:

General John Blow wrote a letter to his wife saying that he was okay and that she shouldn’t worry about him. He wrote about the blowing up of the USS Marine and that about 250 men died and he could only save 50 men. The reason he was able to save those 50 men was because every part of the ship blew up except the Officers’ Quarters. That was indeed lucky because at least some of the men could be saved. There were also accounts of how the Cuban general Antonio Maceo was killed during one of the battles. Supposedly he was very brutally shot in the neck and almost immediately killed shortly after.

Leslie,
I liked how you talked about and addressed specific incidents that people went through during this time. It also helps to grasp the concept when family is brought into it, because that is something we can relate to, like when you talked about John Blow writing to his wife. (Obviously I didn’t mean we can relate to having a wife haha but you know what I mean, just family members in general.) But how do you think these incidents were tied directly to imperialism? Do you think that the country went too far in determining what we should acquire and what we shouldn’t?

-Brandi

Date: Feb 4, 2007

Was the Spanish-American War justified? In the 1890’s the United States became more aggressive and expansionistic then it had been for the past few decades. There was a hunger for foreign conquest. The conflict with Spain came from the American desire to help the Cubans with their independence from Spain. Americans wanted the war, which could have been avoided, but they had very little understanding of what the results would be. I believe that the Spanish-American War was not justified. Industrialism had changed the United States. Americans began to view their nation with increasing nationalism. Expansion and imperialism was fueled by these feelings. America felt that they needed to gain control of a vast imperial empire. This empire would provide a market for our goods, raw materials for our factory and protection for our commercial interests. The expansion was justified by the need for our people to expand commercially and the social Darwinism idea of the white mans burden. With this need the focused on Spain. Spain was weaker then us and were ripe for the picking. On February 15, 1898, an explosion sank the American battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor. There was a loss of 266 men. The evidence really didn’t tell them much. It could have been an accident, or caused by a Spanish or Cuban mine. The American press however, had no doubts about who was responsible for sinking the Maine. They cried it was the Spanish. The New York Journal even published pictures, they showed how Spanish saboteurs had fastened an underwater mine to the Maine and had detonated it from shore. Newspapers had reached influence and importance and viciously competed for reader’s attention. They didn’t mind fabricating stories in order to reach their goal. The idea of expansion and imperialism had caused the Americans to want it really bad and go to the point to where they didn’t care how they got it.

Date: Feb 4, 2007

Since the frontier was ‘closed’, was imperialism inevitable? I think that imperialism was not inevitable. After expanding to the west, America began to view their nation with increasing nationalism. America felt that they needed to gain control of a vast imperial empire. After temporarily resolving the problems of Reconstruction and Industrialization, Americans began to resume the course of the expansion. Now as pioneers settled in the last western frontiers, expansionists looked father west, toward Asia and the Pacific. Imperialism is a policy of exerting successful and continuing control or authority over the foreign entities as a means of gaining and/or maintenance of empires. This could either be done through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the politics and/or economy. Imperialism is used to describe the policy of a nation’s dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the conquered nation considers itself part of the empire. America felt that they needed to gain control of a vast imperial empire. They were ready to expand outside of their territory. Mainly for commercial interests and what the empire had to offer.

Date: Feb 4, 2007

Was the Philippine-American War dishonorable?

The Philippine-American War, from 1899 through 1913, was between the First Philippine Republic and the United States. In December 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain as part of the Treaty of Paris. The U.S. made plans to make the Philippines an American colony but the Filipinos had already declared independence on June 12, 1898, and considered Americans allies. Tensions began to from between the Filipinos and the American government because of the conflicting movements for independence and colonization. They also thought that America was trying to help their cause when really they weren’t. Hostilities also started when an American soldier shot a Filipino soldier crossing a bridge. Many believed this to be the start of the war. America also said that the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government. War crimes and American torture and scorched-earth campaigns were high during the war. This was a time of intense racism in the United States. To the Americans, the Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported “Our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up.” Attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture and the concentration of civilians into concentration camps. From the beginning of the war, soldiers wrote home describing and usually bragging about atrocities committed against the Filipinos. The most conclusive evidence that the enemy wounded were being killed came from the reports of Otis and his successor, which claimed fifteen Filipinos killed for every one wounded. American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. One British witness said: “This is not a war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery.”

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Was the Philippine-American War dishonorable???
I believe that the Philippine-American war was incredibly dishonorable. America entered the Philippines based on imperialist ideas … In which America’s self interest led to the deaths of hundreds upon hundreds of innocent Filipinos. George Dewey’s account of the Battle of Manila Bay talks about one hundred and fifty men killed and wounded on the Reina Cristina. He later speaks about how he is glad that none of his men were greatly hurt. The war swiftly began to take on a huge issue of racism… in which American soldiers were now killing innocent people and treating them poorly because of their race. One General of the American army in the Filipinos told the president his troops were being so cruel because they were not dealing with ordinary people… but they were dealing with “Orientals” (the Zinn pamphlet). A Boston Herald Correspondent in the Philippines describes the attitude American troops held towards the natives on the island mentioning how "Our troops in the Philippines...look upon all Filipinos as of one race and condition, and being dark men, they are therefore '******s,' and entitled to all the contempt and harsh treatment administered by white overlords to the most inferior races."

Several other quotes I found over the internet proves supportive evidence for the dishonor of the Philippine-American War:

- Filipinos are "treacherous, arrogant, stupid and vindictive, impervious to gratitude, incapable of recognizing obligations. Centuries of barbarism have made them cunning and dishonest. We cannot safely treat them as equals, for the simple and sufficient reason that they could not understand it. They do not know the meaning of justice and good faith. They do not know the difference between liberty and license.... These Filipinos must be taught obedience and be forced to observe, even if they cannot comprehend, the practices of civilization." – Anonymous man

^ This perspective was common among the American troops and it is ridiculous.

- "the American soldier viewed his Filipino enemies with contempt because of their short stature and color. Contempt was also occasioned by the refusal of the Filipino 'to fight fair'- to stand his ground and be shot down like a man. When the Filipino adopted guerrilla tactics, it was because he was by his very nature half-savage and half-bandit. His practice of fighting with a bolo on one day and assuming the guise of a peaceful villager on the next proved his depravity."--Richard E. Welch, Jr., a professor of history at Lafayette College

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Is imperialism consistent with democracy?

Imperialism is not consistent with democracy because these terms contradict each other. Imperialism is when a country tries to dominate another country and tries to extend their rule or influence upon them. Democracy is the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government. If a nation is practicing democracy, then tries to conquer other places and force their rule over the other territories, such as America tried doing with the Philippines, then they are taking democracy away from the other territory. Imperialism is also not consistent with democracy because there are going to be people that don’t agree with using imperialism on other territories. These people are the ones that have a say in their government, however, they do not have a say in their country going to war. They do not agree with imperialism, and their opinion doesn’t affect what the government does about going to war, so these citizens’ participation in democracy is ignored. Some American citizens disliked the idea of American imperialism, and in 1899, the American Anti-Imperialist League was formed by Andrew Carnegie and William James. The American Anti-Imperialist League said that “the subjugation of any people is “criminal aggression” and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our Government.” Imperialism goes against the idea of freedom America was built on, and if America takes the freedom away from the people of the Philippines, they are also taking away their chance of democracy. Forcing people to do things one way is not characteristic of a democracy. The American Anti-Imperialist League said, “We hold, with Abraham Lincoln, that “no man is good enough to govern another man without that others’ consent.” For a country to force its rule upon another (imperialism) without the other country wanting to by ruled over by them, is taking away their freedom and their means of democracy. This is why imperialism isn’t consistent with democracy.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1899antiimp.html

Was the Philippine-American War dishonorable?

The Philippine-American War was dishonorable because the Americans fought the Philippines showing no mercy at all and gloating over how many Filipinos they killed. In George Dewey’s account of the Battle of Manila Bay, he recalls that there were 150 killed, and wounded on the Reina Cristina. He then goes on to say, “I am happy to report that damage done to the squadron under my command was inconsiderable. There were none killed, and only seven men in the squadron very slightly wounded.” Dewey also said in his report how when the United States found no vessels, proceeded until they found an enemy ship to attack. They didn’t stop, even when they had a chance to. At the end of his report, George Dewey, a Commodore for the U.S. Navy, says, “On the morning of May 4 the transport Manila, which had been aground in Bakor Bay, was towed off and made a prize.” This shows no respect at all for the Philippine navy. It also makes this part of the war look like a game. Another way the Philippine-American War was dishonorable was because it made the Philippines look like they couldn’t take care of themselves. President William McKinley came to the conclusion that the United States couldn’t leave the Philippines to themselves because “they were unfit for self-government - and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was.” This statement gives people the impression that the Philippines are weak and incapable of ruling themselves. William Burdette Smith, an American soldier, wrote a letter to his sister describing conditions in the Philippines. At one point in the letter, he tells his sister how someone died and his remains were carried to the graveyard and placed in a shallow grave. He also says that the ground of the graveyard was covered with human bones. This shows a great lack of respect for those that had died during the war; for their remains to just be put in a graveyard without proper burying. The Philippine-American War also brought dishonor to America as well. Those that were against the war began to lose respect for the United States, as was the case of the American Anti-Imperialist League.

http://www.spanamwar.com/dyreport.htm

http://www.spanamwar.com/McKinleyphilreasons.htm

http://www.spanamwar.com/13mnletter2htm.htm

Did the media create a war-frenzy in America?

The media did create a war-frenzy in America. The media influences its viewers, whether positively or negatively, either way it contributes to how people feel over certain issues. How they portray these issues, is how people’s reactions come about. The ‘New York Evening Journal’ printed a picture on May 5, 1902 titled, “Kill Every One Over Ten.” This pictures shows a line of soldiers getting ready to shoot four Filipino boys. People who view this picture will think of the United States as cruel for shooting little kids. There was a cartoon of Theodore Roosevelt upset by Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “A people which denies freedom to others cannot long itself of free.” This is making the government look like all they want to do is take over foreign places. Those who disagree with this idea could possibly join the American Anti-Imperialist League. In 1901, Lathrop Publishing in Boston also published reminders of Spanish cruelty. These reminders showed things such as hangings and lashings. These pictures would make Americans recall the cruel ways from previous wars they were involved in, and make them question the treatment of the Filipinos, since America claimed they wanted to help them. There were other pictures from battles in the Philippines which showed many Filipinos just lying on the ground. These pictures would make America seem like the bad guy since the Americans were the ones who killed the Filipinos. The media did create a war-frenzy in America because it made Americans realize how cruel their country was being to the Philippines. These pieces of media were leaning against the war efforts, so the way they portrayed images was in a way to try to get fellow Americans to oppose the war as well.

http://historicaltextarchive.com/images/samar.gif

http://historicaltextarchive.com/images/treason.gif

http://historicaltextarchive.com/images/remind3.jpg

(I cited the sources in the essay, but I dont't know if you want the actual sites as well, so those are at the bottom.)

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Was the Spanish American War Justified???

I read the Zinn article as my assignment I believe that the Spanish American war was not necessary. During the 1890s America became aggressive and expansionists. There seemed to be a huge interest in foreign conquest especially when Cubans began rebelling from its mother country, Spain. Even President Theodore Roosevelt at the time had mentioned that he would welcome any war in a letter to his friend, because he felt that the American people needed one.

As a result, businessmen and the American economy began to take control of the Cuban Island for its own self interest. For example, Cuba had thick virgin forests that would have been perfect for lumber and the soil there was rich and would have been good for sugar plantations. Because Cuba was rebelling from Spain, America went to war in order to “help the Cubans fight for their independence”… which was primarily an excuse to get into Cuba for American self-interest. However, Congress had already passed an amendment stating Cuba could not be annexed into the Union.

So in order for America to still remain in control and use Cuba for all it was worth, Congress passed the Platt Amendment, which allowed the American government to enter Cuba at anytime. America was allowed to get involved with any Cuban affairs. (i.e. Makeda’s metaphor from class). I read the Zinn article… therefore, so far my opinion on the Spanish war is probably the same as Zinn’s. It was wrong to enter Cuba. It seems that the whole point of America going to war against Spain is because they wanted to use Cuba for its recourses. I personally believe that this is not a crucial reason for war.

Other resources I have read online… including this website: http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_60_Notes.htm greatly displays the huge role that the press played in pushing America over the edge into war. For example, The DeLome letter called President McKinley "...weak and a bidder for the affections of the people...a would be politician who leaves a door open behind himself while at the same time trying to appease the jingoes of his party." The sinking of the Maine played another huge role… especially when the news hit the headlines, such as in the New York Journal.

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Is American an imperialist today?

I am not quite certain if America is an imperialist today. Right now the main question is over the War in Iraq. Many people feel as though America is in Iraq because we wish to instil democracy on the Iraq Government. President Bush has made several comments that do not hold any bit of imperialism, such as "I don't want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don't want to be the world's policeman; I want to be the world's peacemaker…"

However, others argue that we are only in Iraq for American self-interests... oil. Today a man named John Peterson writes about the issue of Iraq and whether it is imperialist. Talks about how President Bush blamed Iraq's dictator Suddam for weapons of mass destruction.... however Bush's assumption was ultimately wrong. Nonetheless, American troops searched the deserts of Iraq and found Suddam hiding underground. The Iraqy dictator was resently tried and exectuted.

My gut feeling tells me that this is a form of imperialsm, but not as aggressive as it was during the 1890s. After all, why else would we enter a foreign country, get engaged in their affairs, execute their leaders, and then put in our own form of government. If this is considered a form of imperialism, then it isnt as bad as it used to be because there are people in Iraq who do want a democracy. Only a portion (large portion) of people who dislike American presence in their country and do not wish to abide by their new government. However this differs greatly from the Philipine-American War, when America brutely killed hundreds of people because of their race....... or the Spanish-American war where we entered Cuba without giving any people on the island a say.

http://www.socialistappeal.org/antiwar/us_imperialism_and_the_war_on_ir.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/newz-j07.shtml

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Jessica Furtado.

1.c The Platform of the anti-Imperialist League

The Anti-Imperialist League was made up of wealthy leaders involving William James and Andrew Carnegie. James and Carnegie both stood up against the annexation of the Philippines however it was very unsuccessful. Believing that imperialism was hostile to liberty and a form of evil they felt as though taking over other governments was strictly against the basis of our own government. The slaughter of innocent Filipinos was became a needless horror to them. The thought that the National Administrations policy in the Philippines would eventually take away the spirit that was in the islands. This passage provided us about information on the different opinions many people had during the time of imperialism and the effects that were placed upon our country and people.

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Jessica Furtado 1.d A Historians Account of Roosevelt’s Acquisition of the Panama Canal Building the Panama Canal was in best interest for the United States. It provided a quicker transport route. The route from New York to san Francisco would be around 13,600 miles and building the canal would decrease it to around 9,000 miles. Roosevelt believed that building the canal would also give the economy a boost and extra boom in the commerce of the United States. Foreign Policy would surely endure greatly with out the new canal in place. The first treaty made for the Canal was rejected and then after another try they finally gave the United States Permission. This Treaty was known as the Hay-Heran Treaty of 1903.

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Jessica Furtado 1.e. Queen Liliukalani wrote to Sanford Dole that she indeed was against the annexation of Hawaii. She feared for her peoples lives and thought that if she was to allow the annexation of Hawaii that her people would in someway get hurt by the American people. However Sanford Dole wanted the annexation of Hawaii to go through. She wrote to many people including the president stating that she really didn’t wasn’t to write for the annexation by natives of her country. Queen Liliukalani was eventually removed from her position of monarchy

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Kristen. wrote:
I believe that the Spanish-American War was not justified. .

Good Essay Kristen However. Make sure not to referr to yourself in your essay. State facts such as :::The spanish-American War was not Justified due to ...blahblahblah:::
Other than that i liked the explaination to why the war was not justified.

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Was the Spanish-American War justified?
   The Spanish-American War was a conflict between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States that took place in 1898. The Treaty of Paris ended the conflict, giving the United States Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. They did not gain Cuba until 1902.
   There is reason to believe that the Spanish-American War was not justified because the USA wanted to achieve foreign conquest. The conflict with Spain began when the Americans wanted to help the Cubans with their independence from Spain.
   The American economy soon took control of the Cuban island for their own benefits. The resources on the island were perfect for the United States. Huge forests with plenty of lumber and rich soil could perfect their own plantations. When the United States decided to help Cuba "gain their independence", Cuba could see to the United States as friends and wouldn't mind helping them out.
To Cuba's dismay, the United States Congress passed an amendment forbidding Cuba to be annexed into the Union.
The United States could not let all these resources go without being used, so instead the Congress passed the Platt Amendment, allowing American government to enter Cuba at any time.
   In my opinion, the United States used Cuba, without giving them much of a benefit in return. This was wrong in many ways, and should not have occured. If the United States had not entered Cuba and minded their own business..an argument with Spain wouldn't have happened either, making the Spanish-American War never happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_War

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Jessica wrote:

I think im gunna bring in munchkins for tomoro ..if thats alryte with you Mr.E and Every1.

<3 Jessica

So what happened??? No munchkins?

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Is imperialism consistent with democracy?
    Imperialism is not consistent with democracy. The basis of democracy is the the governd give consent to the government. Being imperialist means taking over others, whether you have their permission or not, and taking them, or forcing them, under your government. Thus not allowing the people to give the government consent, merely forcing them to follow it. Looking at the Phillipians and Hawaii during America's imperialistic times, they gave us no consent to govern them, yet we pretty much gave ourselves permission to take them under america's wing. The hawaiian's queen tried everything she could to keep them an independant nation, but was eventually forced to surrender to america's will. The phillipians revloted in war against our imperialism, and our anexation of thier nation. Neither nation gave us consent to govern them, yet we did anyways and in one case, succeded. Therefore imperialism is n ot consistent with democracy.
Did the media create a war-frenzy in America?
    Before and during the Spanish-American war, the media did create a war-frenzy. They media told exagerated stories about the cruel mistreatment of cubans but spain. They also told stories of horrible mistreatment of americans in cuba, and even printed politcal cartoons aimed at making spain look awful,. such as a cartoon of spanish officals strip searching an american woman. The explosion of the uss maine also helped to create this war frenzy. the media told of how the spanish blew up the ship, while there was overwhelming evidence that the ship blew up due to hot coals being kept to close to the gun powder storage.
Is America an imperialist today?
      Today america is still very much an imperialist nation. our modern military actions are not far different from those during our times as an out of the closet imperialist. Now we are trying to change the governments of other counrties based on our own democracy. while these changes will be beneficial in saving the lives of many people around the world, it is still imperialist actions. the forming of a government, a democracy, under our wing without the consent of the governed.

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Julia wrote:

Was the Spanish-American War justified?
   The Spanish-American War was a conflict between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States that took place in 1898. The Treaty of Paris ended the conflict, giving the United States Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. They did not gain Cuba until 1902.
   There is reason to believe that the Spanish-American War was not justified because the USA wanted to achieve foreign conquest. The conflict with Spain began when the Americans wanted to help the Cubans with their independence from Spain.
   The American economy soon took control of the Cuban island for their own benefits. The resources on the island were perfect for the United States. Huge forests with plenty of lumber and rich soil could perfect their own plantations. When the United States decided to help Cuba "gain their independence", Cuba could see to the United States as friends and wouldn't mind helping them out.
To Cuba's dismay, the United States Congress passed an amendment forbidding Cuba to be annexed into the Union.
The United States could not let all these resources go without being used, so instead the Congress passed the Platt Amendment, allowing American government to enter Cuba at any time.
   In my opinion, the United States used Cuba, without giving them much of a benefit in return. This was wrong in many ways, and should not have occured. If the United States had not entered Cuba and minded their own business..an argument with Spain wouldn't have happened either, making the Spanish-American War never happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_War

why did the us forbid the anexation of cuba, if cuba was so valuable?

Date: Feb 5, 2007

Kathryn wrote:

Is American an imperialist today?

I am not quite certain if America is an imperialist today. Right now the main question is over the War in Iraq. Many people feel as though America is in Iraq because we wish to instil democracy on the Iraq Government. President Bush has made several comments that do not hold any bit of imperialism, such as "I don't want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don't want to be the world's policeman; I want to be the world's peacemaker…"
However, others argue that we are only in Iraq for American self-interests... oil. Today a man named John Peterson writes about the issue of Iraq and whether it is imperialist. Talks about how President Bush blamed Iraq's dictator Suddam for weapons of mass destruction.... however Bush's assumption was ultimately wrong. Nonetheless, American troops searched the deserts of Iraq and found Suddam hiding underground. The Iraqy dictator was resently tried and exectuted.

My gut feeling tells me that this is a form of imperialsm, but not as aggressive as it was during the 1890s. After all, why else would we enter a foreign country, get engaged in their affairs, execute their leaders, and then put in our own form of government. If this is considered a form of imperialism, then it isnt as bad as it used to be because there are people in Iraq who do want a democracy. Only a portion (large portion) of people who dislike American presence in their country and do not wish to abide by their new government. However this differs greatly from the Philipine-American War, when America brutely killed hundreds of people because of their race....... or the Spanish-American war where we entered Cuba without giving any people on the island a say.

http://www.socialistappeal.org/antiwar/us_imperialism_and_the_war_on_ir.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/newz-j07.shtml

Nice job Katie, I just have one question for you: since in the end you agreed that America is being an imperialist today, do you agree that it should be?...(like in your example with the Iraq War, you said it was a form of imperialism, do you think we should be there helping them to get a "better" form of government, or do you think that being there is taking away the ways they've known, the country's decision on how to govern it's people?)

Date: Feb 6, 2007

AP US History 1                                                                                                                Curt J. SantosImperialism Assignment Option #1                                                                             4-310 2/1/06 A 2.) Images from the Philippine War          Frederick Funston was a General in the United States Army during the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War. This picture of Funston shows him at the time of the Philippine War were he would serve after his departure from Cuba a few years before. Here he would play a key role in capturing the Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, and would be seen as a national hero in the eyes of the Americans. He himself believed in the idea of Imperialism and actually was criticized by Mark Twain for his deeds.
         The picture relates to history because it is a picture of him before he went into the Philippines to fight against the Filipinos for their land. This picture reflects the views of the people who fought in the war and why they believed they were fighting in it. In the picture Funston looks determined and seems to be very strong, this was the look America was giving to these small countries which it wanted to own. That indeed shows the goal of the Americans which was to seize land for their own use. 3.) American Anti-Imperialistic League          In this document is shows the reason for the Anti-Imperialistic League’s creation. The group was made to express their views against the ideas of imperialism. People like Mark Twain seen this idea of imperialism as a hostile act of aggression by the U.S. to use its power to take control of little countries for its natural resources, land use and money. These people believed it was just a way of the U.S. showing its power and flashing it to other countries to get some recognition.         This little document pretty much bases it views on imperialism and the taking over of Puerto Rico and Hawaii as well as Cuba. These are the people who apposed war for expansion and those who refused to fight for the cause of expansion into other countries. They believed that this idea of expansion was against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The thing was though that it didn’t officially state anything about taking over countries for this use and the Americans believed the Declaration of Independence was void in this because they were trying to bring in these smaller countries into the bigger U.S. and to keep foreign powers out. 4.) Roosevelt and the Panama Canal          This site describes the reason for Roosevelt’s wish for a canal in South America to make it easier for American ships to get from the Atlantic to the Pacific and also to establish a power in both the oceans around the U.S. With this canal the U.S. could mobilize its forces to defend itself wherever it wished. The controversy over this was that America had established a treaty with the U.S. to build this canal but the United Stated couldn’t use force to build it or defend it. This idea of the treaty backfired and the U.S. did what it promised not to do. This caused a civil war between the Panamanians and the Columbians over this and the U.S. steps in to block any help from the Columbians to end the revolt.          This again is a proof of our idea of imperialism during this time. The U.S. was again only interested in its on wants and believed that this canal would allow advantages for trade and war if it ever happened. In result of our want we started a civil war within Panama and stepped in to make sure the Panamanians won so we could establish the canal. It’s a selfish idea just like the idea of taking over of Cuba and Puerto Rico. The U.S. tried to back up this idea with the British to make it seem like it wasn’t as bad as it seemed but the thing was that the Americans had actually went against the treaty and began protecting the canal from anything to destroy it and its idea.

5.) Anti-Annexation Documents from Hawaii          During the time of Imperialism one little province had much controversy in it over American rule and that would be Hawaii. Many business men in the area believed that Hawaii should become part of the United States because it would better improve trade in the Pacific and also give America a place in the Pacific to hold its navy. The queen of Hawaii just wished to use whatever power she had to keep her people under her rule. This ended up leading to revolution and eventually the annexation of Hawaii. Again these documents show how the people in the land feel about the idea of being under control of the United States which was supposed to be so much better. Many countries would did stand up started war and if not they would just be walked all over.

Date: Feb 6, 2007

I forgot to give you my works cited...

Works Cited

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_60_Notes.htm

http://www.socialistappeal.org/antiwar/us_imperialism_and_the_war_on_ir.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/newz-j07.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/toc.html

http://members.aol.com/TeacherNet/World.html

Date: Feb 6, 2007

Julia wrote:

Was the Spanish-American War justified?
   The Spanish-American War was a conflict between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States that took place in 1898. The Treaty of Paris ended the conflict, giving the United States Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. They did not gain Cuba until 1902.
   There is reason to believe that the Spanish-American War was not justified because the USA wanted to achieve foreign conquest. The conflict with Spain began when the Americans wanted to help the Cubans with their independence from Spain.
   The American economy soon took control of the Cuban island for their own benefits. The resources on the island were perfect for the United States. Huge forests with plenty of lumber and rich soil could perfect their own plantations. When the United States decided to help Cuba "gain their independence", Cuba could see to the United States as friends and wouldn't mind helping them out.
To Cuba's dismay, the United States Congress passed an amendment forbidding Cuba to be annexed into the Union.
The United States could not let all these resources go without being used, so instead the Congress passed the Platt Amendment, allowing American government to enter Cuba at any time.
   In my opinion, the United States used Cuba, without giving them much of a benefit in return. This was wrong in many ways, and should not have occured. If the United States had not entered Cuba and minded their own business..an argument with Spain wouldn't have happened either, making the Spanish-American War never happen.
-----------------------------------

What issues helped to increase tension between the US and Spain and what events eventually pushed the two contries over the edge into war?

Date: Feb 6, 2007

Tanya wrote:
Nice job Katie, I just have one question for you: since in the end you agreed that America is being an imperialist today, do you agree that it should be?...(like in your example with the Iraq War, you said it was a form of imperialism, do you think we should be there helping them to get a "better" form of government, or do you think that being there is taking away the ways they've known, the country's decision on how to govern it's people?)

---------------------------

Well... I somewhat agreed that today the US is imperialist. I guess I can't really make up my mind. Theres so many factors to be considered in order to classify America as an imperialist country. However.... i do feel as though the war in Iraq and the use of military power to control and replace their government is a form of imperialism, even though there are people living in Iraq who wish to live under a new Iraqy government.

I personally do not think that any the US should intervene with a foreign country's affairs and take control using the excuse that ... "it will help the people there". I personally believe that the US should not get involved with foreign affairs UNLESS it posses a threat to the American people. At first we entered Iraq because we thought there was weapons of mass destruction...an issue that could pose a threat in the future. However this was false. Yet we are still in Iraq, killing Iraq citizens and our own troops, executing their government, replacing it with our own democratic government.... and for what? to fight a war on terror? or is it for American self interest...oil??
It might be argued that the US is entering Iraq to help the citizens there. But is it our right to enter another country and decide what is best for people? I do not think this is right. Suddam was not a nice guy... i'll admit that... but its wrong to enter a country, get involved in their affairs, find their dictator, put him through trial, execute him, and then completely reconstruct their government. But hey... Its all up for questioning.

Date: Feb 6, 2007

TANYA WROTE:
Did the media create a war-frenzy in America?

The media did create a war-frenzy in America. The media influences its viewers, whether positively or negatively, either way it contributes to how people feel over certain issues. How they portray these issues, is how people’s reactions come about. The ‘New York Evening Journal’ printed a picture on May 5, 1902 titled, “Kill Every One Over Ten.” This pictures shows a line of soldiers getting ready to shoot four Filipino boys. People who view this picture will think of the United States as cruel for shooting little kids. There was a cartoon of Theodore Roosevelt upset by Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “A people which denies freedom to others cannot long itself of free.” This is making the government look like all they want to do is take over foreign places. Those who disagree with this idea could possibly join the American Anti-Imperialist League. In 1901, Lathrop Publishing in Boston also published reminders of Spanish cruelty. These reminders showed things such as hangings and lashings. These pictures would make Americans recall the cruel ways from previous wars they were involved in, and make them question the treatment of the Filipinos, since America claimed they wanted to help them. There were other pictures from battles in the Philippines which showed many Filipinos just lying on the ground. These pictures would make America seem like the bad guy since the Americans were the ones who killed the Filipinos. The media did create a war-frenzy in America because it made Americans realize how cruel their country was being to the Philippines. These pieces of media were leaning against the war efforts, so the way they portrayed images was in a way to try to get fellow Americans to oppose the war as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the media still have the power to get people aggressive for war? For example... does the newspapers today create a war-frenzy in America for the more resent wars... such as Vietnam or Iraq??

Date: Feb 6, 2007

kathryn wrote:

Does the media still have the power to get people aggressive for war? For example... does the newspapers today create a war-frenzy in America for the more resent wars... such as Vietnam or Iraq??

I do believe that the media still has the power to get people aggressive for war. The media allows it's audience to view what it wants, so they can shape how the people feel over things, such as wars. Like, newspapers print stuff about how many soldiers died and all the destruction that's going on, they put that as these huge headlines, but they don't say how America is building schools and the ways we're helping the people of Iraq (as in the Iraq War). This will make people upset over the fact that Americans are being killed over issues for another country. Also, when people see things in the newspaper about terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, they feel unsafe, and want to enter a war to put an end to it. The media greatly influences the ways people think, especially when it depends on which newspaper or news station you watch, because the author or newscaster you listen to could have a different opinion, and could try to persuade you to support a specific side. The media uses it's advantage of being able to reach lots of people, and portrays one side as the bad guys, and the others as the good guys, but they often don't give the whole stories. Umm, I don't really know that much about the Vietnam War, so I can't really use example of that, but yeah, that's how the media creates war-frenzies in America.

Date: Feb 6, 2007

s.bailey wrote:

why did the us forbid the anexation of cuba, if cuba was so valuable?

I researched that the reason the US did not want to annex Cuba was because they felt it would be stealing Cuba's independence, so instead they established a naval base and passed an amendment to be allowed into Cuba when necessary.

Date: Feb 6, 2007

http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/american_annexationism_and_imp.html

website I got that information from.

Date: Feb 6, 2007

kathryn wrote:

What issues helped to increase tension between the US and Spain and what events eventually pushed the two contries over the edge into war?

The United States wanted to help the Cubans gain their independence while they were still a Spanish colony. The Cubans had been forced into concentration camps because of the Spanish government not being able to deal with the revolts to gain freedom. The United States then wanted to step in to save the mass amounts of Cubans that were being killed. Because of this the Spanish got angry and felt that the United States were interfering

All in all, America declared war on Spain because they felt that Spain was not capable of keeping peace in Cuba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_War

http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/american_annexationism_and_imp.html

Date: Feb 7, 2007

Should Hawaii have been annexed?

Hawaii was annexed into the United States in 1898. The first American missionaries came into the islands during the 1820’s, and started converting natives to Christianity, they built schools and churches, and helped to develop a written form of the Hawaiian language. The missionaries sent messages back to the States describing the island’s favorable conditions. These descriptions sparked the interests of American merchants and businessmen. The Americans introduced wide-scale agriculture into the Hawaiian way of life. Soon huge plantations, mostly sugarcane crops, were springing up all over the island nation. Sugar cane and other crops soon became the center of Hawaiian economy, and American foreigners owned most of it. This put the Americans in control of the Hawaiian economy, and soon they were branching out into politics. Many American businessmen held seats in the Hawaiian legislature.

These officials soon created radical groups who pushed for the annexation of Hawaii into the United States. One such group was the Annexation Club, which succeeded in removing Queen Liliokulani from her throne. The Annexation Club set up a provisional government, who then sent over officials to the United States Congress, to see what the reaction was to the idea of annexation. The representatives found that Congress was open to the idea of annexation, and the legislature was started. During this time, there was an election, and the Presidency changed hands. Grover Cleveland, whose policies opposed imperialism, was suspicious of how the provisional government, lead by Sanford Dole, had come into power.

Cleveland sent delegates to Hawaii to inspect the reaction to the new government. Cleveland's men found that most native Hawaiians opposed the influence of the Americans, and they also learned how Dole had come into power. When the report was sent back to Cleveland, he demanded that the Queen be returned to power. Dole refused to return power, and Cleveland did nothing to enforce the surrender. Five years after the initala attempt, Hawaii was annexed into the United States.

I do not believe that Hawaii should have been annexed into the United States, because the process of acquiring the rule of Hawaii was not an attractive reflection on the United States. It made the U.S seem like a bully, and as if they were trying to build an empire. It did not reflect their values of democracy at all. Also, Americans disrupted a prosperous government and economy in Hawaii, which could have continued on very well without interference. Hawaii could have become its own strong nation if it had not been severely weakened politically and economically by American influence.

Is imperialism consistent with democracy?

I do not believe imperialism is consistent with democracy, because the process of imperialism does not reflect any of the values of a democratic nation. Imperialism is almost a forceable takeover of another country. Before a country is annexed, it is weakend severely both economically and politically, until it is dependant on another country for its well-being. This allows that other country to take over easily, because so many of their people are already in power in that country. An example of this is the annexation of Hawaii. Americans came over to Hawaii and set up agriculture, mostly sugar cane crops. Sugar soon became a staple crop in Hawaii, and then a tariff was placed on it by America. This put Hawaii into a difficult economic situation. Also, the men who owned most of the sugar plantations began to integrate themselves into Hawaii's government, which was headed by a monarchy. They eventually lead the rebellion against the Queen, and overthrew the established government in Hawaii. The weakened country then had no choice but to submit to annexation, since their government was run by Americans.

Is America an imperialist today?

I dont believe that America is as much an imperial nation as it was in the 1900's. This is largely because most countries are developed enough to withstand imperial takeover. Not very many countries are so undeveloped that America could introduce something new that would have a major impact on that country. This limits America's ability to move into an unstable country and take over.

Date: Feb 7, 2007

Tanya wrote:

I do believe that the media still has the power to get people aggressive for war. The media allows it's audience to view what it wants, so they can shape how the people feel over things, such as wars. Like, newspapers print stuff about how many soldiers died and all the destruction that's going on, they put that as these huge headlines, but they don't say how America is building schools and the ways we're helping the people of Iraq (as in the Iraq War). This will make people upset over the fact that Americans are being killed over issues for another country. Also, when people see things in the newspaper about terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, they feel unsafe, and want to enter a war to put an end to it. The media greatly influences the ways people think, especially when it depends on which newspaper or news station you watch, because the author or newscaster you listen to could have a different opinion, and could try to persuade you to support a specific side. The media uses it's advantage of being able to reach lots of people, and portrays one side as the bad guys, and the others as the good guys, but they often don't give the whole stories. Umm, I don't really know that much about the Vietnam War, so I can't really use example of that, but yeah, that's how the media creates war-frenzies in America.

Can we really concider it hiding the truth to only mention the death of soldiers if in the four years we have been in Iraq, more soliders have died than in the entirety of World War 2?

Not saying that we shouldnt hear more about what good our troops are doing over in Iraq, but it seems a little naive to say that no one reports on that. Since most of the stuff we're doing is getting blown to pieces every day anyway. So, most of the time there is nothing to report on.
(Sorry if this sounds bitter

)

Oh, and an aside to Kathryn's question:
I agree that the media did a LOT to antagonize Vietnam. This might be extremely off-topic, but take the show M*A*S*H for example.
Basically, the Grey's Anatomy of the 70's, and set in a military hospital camp.
My grandfather used to watch reruns of this show religiously, and I guess it helped him justify what was going on and what he had been fighting for? Watching those shows tried to give you a humorus picture of the war going on, to lighten up the craziness at home but most of the time it was just really morbid. At least to me at 11 years old. I can see now the effect that it probably had on the families of soldiers and military members. I know I cried most of the time when they couldn't save the good-looking twenty-something soldier who got blasted by a landmine. But then in the next scene you see a soldier walking around in a pink dress with his combat boots and helmet. (This was Klinger, he was trying to act insane to see if he'd get a discharge from the army. Just one example of the weird irony of the show.)
The media does the same to every war, mostly because every war is the same. There are good things going on, and awful things all at the same time. And sometimes the awful things have a heavier consequence than the good things, which is why the media focuses more on them.

If this was just a complete ramble, Im so sorry. But thank you for reading all of it. I feel better now. lol I guess I miss watching that show more than I thought I would.

Date: Feb 7, 2007

Was the Spanish-American War justified?
The Spanish-American War was a conflict between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain. It took place from April to August, 1898. The war ended in favor of the United States and has been marked the effective end of the Spanish empire. Spain had been declining as a great power over most of the previous century. The defeat postponed the civil war that had seemed imminent in 1898 and created a renaissance known as the Generation of 1898.
In my opinion the Spanish-American War was not justified, simply because the United States of America wanted nothing more then to achieve foreign conquest. The conflict began when the Americans wanted to help cubans with their independence from Spain. America felt that they needed to gain control of a vast imperial empire. The empire provided a market for goods, raw materials for factories and protection for commercial interests. The expansion was justified by the need for people to expand commercially and the social Darwinism idea. With this need they focused on Spain, without giving them much in return.

Is America an imperialist today?
We are facing a period that when we look back in five or ten years we will consider this to be a defining period of U.S. imperialism. The U.S. is the preeminent military and economic power in the world, and it wants to ensure that the future, over the next 40 to 50 years and longer, keeps looking the same way. That is the only way to explain why the Bush administration is leading the American ruling class toward war against Iraq, a move that, on the surface of it, has enraged allies from the Europeans to the Japanese, the Chinese to the Russians, and would enrage the Arab regimes themselves. They want to exploit the advantages they have today and ride them into the future. To understand the nature of this turn, all we have to do is examine what has happened to U.S. imperialism over the last 20 years.

Did the media create a war-frenzy in America?
Still to this very day, the media has manipulated people into feeling how they feel over certain issues and how they go about these issues is how people’s reactions come about. The media allows it's audience to view what it wants, shaping peoples opinions over things. The media frenzy during the Spanish-American war was no different. Politcal cartoons along with many other media scams, such as exagerated stories about the cruel mistreatment of Americans in cuba, were aimed at making spain look awful. The explosion of the U.S.S. Maine also helped to create this war frenzy. The media printed articles of how the spanish blew up the ship, while overwhelming evidence that the ship blew up due to hot coals being kept to close to the gun powder storage were in plain sight.

Date: Feb 7, 2007

sarah wrote:
Can we really concider it hiding the truth to only mention the death of soldiers if in the four years we have been in Iraq, more soliders have died than in the entirety of World War 2?

American casualties in World War 2 were 291,557 killed and 670,846 wounded. American casualties in Iraq so far are 3,103 killed and 22,834 wounded. [see http://icasualties.org/oif/]

Date: Feb 7, 2007

mre wrote:

sarah wrote:
Can we really concider it hiding the truth to only mention the death of soldiers if in the four years we have been in Iraq, more soliders have died than in the entirety of World War 2?
American casualties in World War 2 were 291,557 killed and 670,846 wounded. American casualties in Iraq so far are 3,103 killed and 22,834 wounded. [see http://icasualties.org/oif/]

....I meant Vietnam. I definitely had Vietnam in mind, but for some reason, WW2 was still in my head from reading the imperialism stuff, and...thats what got put.
Im so sorry.
lol...and then I go on about Vietnam and Mash. While still saying WW2.
that...was a bad one.

Date: Feb 8, 2007

Should Hawaii have been annexed?

Although it is said that the annexation of Hawaii was "a story of betrayal," I believe that Hawaii should have been annexed. I believe this because the annexation of Hawaii extended U.S. territory to the Pacific. If Britain or France would have taken over, they would have had a naval base closer to the United States to attack whenever they wanted. With gaining Hawaii, we gained security and some power over the ocean.

Date: Feb 9, 2007

1: First-hand account in the Spanish-American War:

Charles Alexander Hamilton wrote this letter in a letter to his father in February of 1898:

Hamilton is only seventeen aboard the USS Maine when he wrote this letter describing the tensions and activity that is taking place in Havana Harbor. He tells his father that the USS Maine is the first ship to be stationed in Havana in 6 years and that every gun on the vessel is loaded. He fears that there will be definite trouble before they leave because he can see the Spanish and rebel fighting taking place on land. The ship is landlocked and there are very few times when the crew feels safe then he sends his wishes but 10 days later the ship blows up in the harbor.

2. Images from the Philippine-American War:

Frederick N. Funston was an amazing military leader to the United States and also was a big supporter of the war in the Philippines. In each of his pictures he stands tall and brave, not afraid of the fighting and very much a powerful looking man,

The picture of the Filipino casualties is sickening and disturbing. Hundreds of native Filipinos lying dead in a ditch which would proably become a mass grave after what seems to be a horrendous battle. Besides the 20,000 military casualties of the Filipinos, it is estimated that between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Filipino civilians were also killed showing the destruction of the war.

3. A Historian's Accounts on Roosevelt's Acquisition of the Panama Canal

The United States had wanted to build a canal through central America so they could make a faster route to the pacific ocean for quite some time. Teddy Roosevelt thought that it was in the county’s best interest not only to build the canal but also have control of the canal. The United States and Great Britain came up with a treaty that allowed the U.S. to build the canal but not to defend it, however Roosevelt took a stand and made the US go over the treaty with Britain, allowing them to have full control over the canal. The Hay-Heran Treaty of 1903 gave America the rights to build the canal in Panama which help America in the imperialistic race.

4. Anti-annexation documents from Hawaii:

The bulk of the idea in the anti-annexation documents for Queen Liliookalani were pleads to the U.S. to just leave Hawaii alone and let her run her country. She isn’t the only person of authority that does not agree with the annexation of Hawaii as some of the U.S.’s powerful people turned away from the country during the imperialization period.

Date: Feb 9, 2007

sarah wrote:
Can we really concider it hiding the truth to only mention the death of soldiers if in the four years we have been in Iraq, more soliders have died than in the entirety of World War 2?

Not saying that we shouldnt hear more about what good our troops are doing over in Iraq, but it seems a little naive to say that no one reports on that. Since most of the stuff we're doing is getting blown to pieces every day anyway. So, most of the time there is nothing to report on.
(Sorry if this sounds bitter )

I wasn't saying that the media was hiding the truth, I was just saying that they usually tend to lean in one direction more than the other, focusing on the bad than usually the good. Every time you turn on the news or read the paper, there are stories of violence, people's houses catching fire, or someone being killed, there's rarely moments of any good that's going on that are shown. So in the case of Iraq, it's usually the death rate people hear of more than anything else. I was just mentioning it to show how the way the media displays their information has an impact on the people that read or see it. And as a side note, I wasn't agreeing that we should be in Iraq, I actually don't think we should be there...after I reread my post I realized that I sounded like I was agreeing with being there...and it's okay, I understand your viewpoint

Date: Feb 10, 2007

#1. Charles D. Sigsbee was the captain of the Maine, the American ship that mysteriously exploded off the coast of Spain during a time of international tension due to imperialism. Capt. Sigsbee recalls the moment of chaos after hearing “…a roar of immense volume, largely metallic in character.” The amount of chaos that would stem from this event, however, truly outweighs the confusion aboard the Maine that fateful day. American reporters spoke of Spanish soldiers walking up to the ship with a mine on a gruesome suicide mission, when in truth there had been a freak explosion involving gunpowder near the engines. The Spanish-American War broke out over it, and as a result, American troops ended up in Cuba and the Philippines (the latter compliments of Theodore Roosevelt).

http://www.spanamwar.com/mainelos.htm

( http://www.spanamwar.com/action.htm )

#2. The blatant slaughter displayed in this image, titled “Filipino casualties on the first day of war,” expresses the fact that America‘s military presence was not necessary in the Philippines. This picture shows that American troops far overpowered the Filipino resistance (under Emilio Aguinaldo). It also represents the idea that perhaps America was wrong to travel across two oceans from the original war in Spain (which was largely over a misunderstanding) to fight for the sake of Imperialism.

http://historicaltextarchive.com/images/wardead.jpg

( http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=479 )

#4. This article speaks of the intentions and actions of Vice President Roosevelt (soon to be President), especially regarding the Panama canal. To Roosevelt it was important as a safety precaution in case war broke out with an Eastern power (e.g. Russia, Japan, etc.) to get naval troops there fast enough. For Roosevelt to be willing to create an uprising in a foreign country is sad, yet this was the manner of the Imperialist. The canal was significant because it was yet another example of North America’s disrespect for Central America.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/26_t_roosevelt/

filmmore/ra_lafepana.html

#5. Yet another disheartening article is this copy of a letter from the Queen of Hawaii, Liliuokalani, to President Benjamin Harrison. She describes her frustration at the rejection of her leadership from a number of her subjects, along with the Americans. She asks the president for consideration of her side of the story, for it seems the American “ambassadors” have been talking with him about the future of Hawaii much more than she has. This is a classic example of an Imperialistic nation intruding a friendly, peaceful nation and overtaking it for “religious” and economic reasons. This letter represents how many small nations during the age of Imperialism must have felt.

http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/protest/liliu3.html

( http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/protest.html )

Date: Feb 10, 2007

Brandi wrote:

OPTION 1:
...
4) First Hand Accounts in the Spanish-American War

This website talks about the devastations of imperialism and the effects it caused on the different people who were caught up in the wars. Francisco Gomez wrote a letter to his mother, father, and brothers, saying that he did not want to abandon his general. He said that he did not fall into the hands of the enemy and was happy to be dying for the Cuban cause. He ended by saying he would wait for them in the other world. He was a noble fighter for his country that got caught up in the effects of imperialism. Other stories from people talked about the remembering of the destruction of the Battleship Maine. Different accounts talked of writing to family when they heard an explosion. Some talked about trying to escape out of the ship before it sank. Most accounts say that they will never forget what happened that day. General Joaquin Vara del Rey was the officer in charge of the Spanish defense of an advanced position at El Caney. He was shot in his leg and he had to hand over his position. People not only died during these wars but lived through the pain of having their joys taken away from them. One account talks about the conditions at Camp Wikoff. Twenty thousand soldiers in less than three weeks, many of them dying from disease, had to go to the fields of Montauk Point. 126 men died at Camp Wikoff. One doctor even wrote to an editor saying how bad the conditions were.Imperialism not only effecting the people directly involved with it, but also effected the lives of many who sadly suffered because of it.

Great job, Brandi!
Say... in what ways was the disaster on the Battleship Maine significant as far as it's effect on Spanish to American relations goes?
and
In what way(s) did Imperialism affect Americans that became Anti-Imperialists?

Date: Feb 10, 2007

Julia wrote:

Should Hawaii have been annexed?

Although it is said that the annexation of Hawaii was "a story of betrayal," I believe that Hawaii should have been annexed. I believe this because the annexation of Hawaii extended U.S. territory to the Pacific. If Britain or France would have taken over, they would have had a naval base closer to the United States to attack whenever they wanted. With gaining Hawaii, we gained security and some power over the ocean.

To this question I would've answered "no" simply because America could've remained friendly with the country and perhaps even have utilized it partialy as a military base while letting them rule themselves. America has more to offer than a "state status."

Date: Feb 10, 2007

Since the frontier was ‘closed’ was imperialism inevitable?

Imperialism was inevitable because Americans have always felt the need to expand. When the first settlers arrived in American until Manifest Destiny, Americans tried to take land away from the Native Americans. America used imperialism to continue these ideas of America’s need to acquire more land. Once America had expanded to the Pacific Ocean, Americans decided that it was time to take over more lands, which led to America’s interest in Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. These interests led to conflicts with Spain, but despite these conflicts and the view that the rest of the world had of it at the time, America still felt that it was necessary to acquire as much land as it could.

Did the media create a war-frenzy in America?

The media created a war-frenzy in America through the use of ‘yellow journalism’ by many newspapers throughout the country. The newspapers of William Randolph Hearst and John Pulitzer created stories that made Americans ready for war. Stories about violent Spanish men violating American women infuriated Americans. Americans were ready for war after such vulgar images of alleged Spanish brutality. Although these images were false, Americans believed these stories and felt that war with Spain was justified.

sources:
American Pageant text book

Is America an imperialist today?

America is still an imperialist country today. It has military bases in many other countries throughout the world. We use these bases to both protect these countries and our own national interests. Unlike the imperialism of the early 20th century however, America is using the countries that it occupies to fulfill its military needs rather than its feeling of the need just to expand by acquiring as much land as possible. One other difference between this kind of imperialism and the imperialism of the early 1900's is America has no intention of making any of the countries that it occupies part of the United States.

Date: Feb 14, 2007

sarah wrote:

mre wrote:

sarah wrote:
Can we really concider it hiding the truth to only mention the death of soldiers if in the four years we have been in Iraq, more soliders have died than in the entirety of World War 2?
American casualties in World War 2 were 291,557 killed and 670,846 wounded. American casualties in Iraq so far are 3,103 killed and 22,834 wounded. [see http://icasualties.org/oif/]

....I meant Vietnam. I definitely had Vietnam in mind, but for some reason, WW2 was still in my head from reading the imperialism stuff, and...thats what got put.
Im so sorry.
lol...and then I go on about Vietnam and Mash. While still saying WW2.
that...was a bad one.

It's ok. Actually, the MASH show was about the Korean War (1950-1953).

Date: Feb 14, 2007

Sadly, eleven of you did not turn in this assignment at all. Your averages are now damaged severely as a result. I strongly suggest turning in your work for (very) reduced credit rather than accepting a zero.

Date: Apr 1, 2007

Brittney Howell

Option #1:

1. First-hand accounts in the Spanish-American War

The Spanish American war was a conflict between Spain and the United States of America. The war took place from April to August 1898. The reason for the out bring of this war was because the United States demanded that Spain guarantee peace and stability in Cuba, which Spain was unable to do. Therefore the Untied States threatened Spain with war causing Spain to declared war on the United States. The war only lasted 10 weeks after the victories for the United States in both the Philippines and Cuba. The Treaty of Paris was signed, bringing an end to the conflict and giving ownership of the former Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam. The U.S. also took control of Cuba ending their instability and then were given independence in 1902.

During the war Dr. William Wallace Walker was reassigned to Camp Wikoff which was located on Long Islands Montauk Point, New York.Major General Wheeler, Commander of Camp Wikoff, said: "In the space of less than three weeks, twenty thousand soldiers, fully half of whom were suffering from diseases contracted in Cuba, were landed upon the barren fields of Montauk Point." During its operation one hundred twenty-six men died at Camp Wikoff. Needless to say, the conditions at the camp and the resulting deaths caused a national scandal. Dr. Walker was at Camp Wikoff when he wrote a letter to the editor of the Schulenburg Sticker (September 8, 1898 edition) stating that: "This is a terrible place and time, it makes my heart bleed to see so many of my countrymen and comrades dying for wan't [sic] of proper medicine and treatment and the gross negligence and heartlessness of the medical staff. Right here in 100 miles of New York I cannot get medicines for typhoid fever, or chlorinated soda to wash out the bowels in typhoid fever and dysentery [cases], the two principal diseases killing our boys. . . . There is gross mismanagement somewhere and it is costing many lives. Too many politicians and rich mens sons are appointed to office. It is 10 a.m. and some of the doctors have not yet visited their wards to prescribe for the sick. I was at work at 5:30 a.m. I can't tolerate this kind of work.

Basically during this time people were not willing to put there time and effort into helping the soldiers due to the fact that the war wasnt on American soil and didnt directly effect them.

2. The platform of the Anti-Imperialist League

The Anti-Imperialist League was founded in 1899, after The United States occupied Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippine Islands. With time Cuba became independent even though in 1934 the United States took the legal rights to intervene in Cuban domestic and foreign affairs. Puerto Rico and the Philippines then became American colonies. The Filipinos revolted in February 1899 and then were suppressed in 1902. Most Americans supported overseas expansion. Although some were against it so they founded the American Anti-Imperialist League in order to get their point across.

3. A Historians account of Roosevelts acquisition of the Panama Canal

Since the middle of the 19th century the United States was interested in building a canal across the isthmus in Central America. Being that Roosevelt believed strongly that the United States needed to build this canal as well as defend it. The United States then made a treaty with Great Britain which gave the United States the right to construct the canal but not to defend it Vice President at the time Roosevelt went against the treaty and forced the United States to renegotiate the treaty so that the United States would be absolutely free in dealing with the building of the canal. The canal was of great importance. In order to go from New York to San Francisco you had to go around the tip of South America, which was something like 13,600 miles. Also in order to more American fleets from the Atlantic to the Pacific in case of war with other countries it took extremely long amounts of time. With the canal it reduced the distance by about 5,000 miles.

People form the Panama Canal Company that was a French group who had an American lawyer, William Nelson Cromwell to represent them worked extremely hard to convince the United States Senate to build the canal through Panama. The reason for this was because there was about $40 million in it for them due to the fact that the United States would have to buy the rights for the canal from the Panama Canal Company. Roosevelt went along with this and then The Hay-Heran Treaty was given to the Colombian government and was to give the United States the right to build the canal in Panama. The Colombian government rejected the treaty because they did not like how the treaty gave the United States a large amount of power in Panama also that $40 million was being paid and Colombia was not getting any part of it.

The Panamanians were trying to remove themselves from Colombian power for quiet sometime, which made this the perfect time for them to revolt. The United States presence in the Panamanian isthmus was there to make sure that the Colombians could not put down this revolution. After the Panamanians had power and the Colombians were removed the United States made the treaty giving them present day Panama and giving them the rights to build the canal.

4. Anti-Annexation documents from Hawaii

I, Liliokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom. This I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.

This basically states that Hawaii does not want to become a state due to their constitutional beliefs and values and that the United States would take that away from them. It also says that the government would support Hawaiis government so only under that condition would annexation be considered under the Hawaiian government

Date: Apr 2, 2007

2. General Frederick Funston served in both the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War. Frederick Funston would served in the Philippine War only a few years after his departure from Cuba. His important role would be capturing Emilio Aguinaldo, the leader of the Filipinos and would become a national hero in the eyes of America. Funston himself seemed to be an Imperialist.In the picture of General Funston before he went to the Philippine war we can see that he looks very sturdy and determined. At the time America had also been very determined with expansion. Funston in his picture seems to reflect Americas idea and attitude toward the seizure and use of land for their benefit.5. (Second Document) Qeen Liliuokalani wrote a letter to Sandford Dole. In her letter she expresses her feeling of conflict with the United States government. She believes that a clash of the natives and the U.S. should be avoided especially to remain safe and even prevent the loss of her life. Liliuokalani handed over her authority of Hawaii to the United States for the federal governments use of the islands for what is mostly their own benefit. This particular document helps us understand the views of the people on the other end. You can almost feel some remorse for what was done to the people and they had no choice.4. The United States was stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was understood that a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific would benefit them greatly but where to put it was undecided. Panama and Nicaragua were the two ideal choices for where the canal should have gone. Roosevelt know it was in the countrys best interest to build the canal but also be able to defend it. The Hay-Heran Treaty of 1903 would be the document that allowed Great Britain to have full control over the Canal and for The United States to use it and occupy it. Without the canal Roosevelt thought it possible foreign policy would not settle the way it should. This is the epitome of Imperialism. The U.S. is able to get another government to hand over land for them to modify for something that is in mostly their interest.. Although it would benefit other countries the idea was to have it help America the most.3. The Anti- Imperialistic League was made to express their views against the ideas of imperialism. The idea of Imperialism was seen as a very aggressive and hostile act that the U.S. was using to take control of smaller countries for its natural resources and land to make a profit. Imperialism was seen more of an egotistical act rather than a necessity. The Anti Imperialistic leagues document shows that they believed the idea of expansion was against the Declaration of Independence and unconstitutional. The federal government turned around what they were doing and said that they were trying to bring smaller countries in and keep foreign powers out.