Spanish American War
Mr. Zucker argues…
Welcome back, JZ. Its been awhile.
The American story can be summarized as the follows. America is different or unique from the European countries in its treatment of foreign nations and cultures. Unlike Europe, America has the moral mission of democracy that allows it to interfere with other countries for good benefits. Basically, American motives are to spread democracy, free markets, and the virtues of a Christian civilization across the world. European imperialists tended to interfere in other countries for their own economic self-interest and to balance their power in the competition between European nations on the continent. However, America does not have the same baggage. So, she tends to act out of altruism. This doesn’t mean that self-interest is never involved. Rather, our interests tend to coincide with the overall desire to spread democracy and capitalism. So, yes, we benefit from our adventures; but, so do the countries that we influence. The benefits are never exactly equal but are proportional allowing both areas to grow according to their circumstances. Also, yes, we do mess up at times. But, this actually proves our innocence. If we had planned to take over areas for our own self-interest, one would think that our mistakes would be more minimal since our actions would be planned.
Okay, so this story would be…in technical terms…A LIE!!!
America in the late 1800s and the early 1900s demonstrates that all of these principles are basically false. Americans entered into the Spanish American War believing that they were trying to liberate Cubans from Spanish oppression. However, the stories that they were fed were generally exaggerated by the Yellow Press in America for the media’s desire to earn profit. The best example of this was the story on the explosion of the Maine that blamed the Spanish for the mining of the harbor. This story had no real research before it was printed. William Randolph Hearst, the owner of the newspaper, told his reporters to give him information and that he would give them a war. President McKinley was highly influenced by his advisor Mark Hannah who wanted to benefit Wall Street interests. Why would Cuba help in this? Well, they wouldn’t. But, by attacking Cuba, America could attack Spanish interests in the Philippines and this would open up China to American trade. Plus, Cuba was up for grabs by the farming community that wanted to lower tariffs and increase farm trade with the island.
Of course, JZ, you will argue that all this proves is that American interests coincided with democracy. However, at the beginning of the war, the American congress promised under the Teller Amendment that America would respect Cuban sovereignty at the end of the war. Then, at the end of the war, the American congress passed the Platt amendment that allowed the American government to intervene at any time if US interests were under threat. The US then went on to support Cuban dictators all the way up to the Cuban revolution in 1959. In the Philippines, the revolutionary leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, originally called for American help. However, after the US marines defeated the Spanish, the American president McKinley argued that the US needed to take care of the Philippines and remained. Aguinaldo led an insurrection against the US for democratic control of the Philippines. After 5 years, the US had killed well over 300,000 Filipinos.
The US is exactly like their European counterparts. The US has economic and political interests in regions of the world. The US government simply uses different techniques to dominate countries. Instead of direct control, US government will often provide aid to corrupt dictators who follow US interests. US negotiates, with the backing of its military force, to open countries to US based companies. These companies can then take advantage of the local populace through low wages and buying up the best land. In other words, the US is the new HEGEMON!!! (If you don’t know the word look it up.)
JZ responds…
Well, traitor…sorry, Mr. Zucker…let me respond (LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT)
Your analysis of American actions is close to a conspiratorial view of the US government. The US government is not like European kingdoms because the US lacks a centralized power system that makes unified decisions. Rather, the US is a system of checks and balances that does not allow for one faction or interest to dominate over the others. What may appear to be a unified decision or policy is really the accumulation of many different interests. What does tie everyone together is a base line belief in the institutions and virtues of democracy. This means that all factions are guided by the desire to protect checks and balances, civil liberties, separation of powers, economic competition, and a degree of laissez-faire government.
Your examples seem pretty well documented. The problem is that the different groups you show were not guided by the same interests. William Randolph Hearst was corrupted by the desire to gain profits through exaggerated stories. However, this does not mean that his stories determined the president’s decision to go to war or the Congress’ decision to agree to war. After the Maine incident, the president did not go to war but actually waited several months. The main incident that changed everything was the De Lome letter. This letter was intercepted from the Spanish ambassador. The letter basically said that the president of the US was spineless and could easily be negotiated into a false peace. Once the US would leave, the Spanish could dig in with their military and make it impossible to be removed. This forced McKinley’s hand into war because he needed to protect his office and the Cuban people from the lies of the Spanish empire.
The war with the Philippines was definitely a tragedy. But, it was inevitable. If it were not fought between the Filipinos and the Americans, it would have been fought with the Germans or Russians. The Germans and Russians also wanted the Philippines for a launching point into China for trade and military reasons. The Americans offered protection from this possibility. Also, unlike the German or Russian monarchies, the American imperialism spread the institutions and values of democracy over the long run.
True, American economic interests guided the war effort in both Cuba and the Philippines. But as you said in the overall narrative of American history, this provided for growth on both sides of the Pacific. This is the idea of comparative advantage. The Philippines worked hard at what they were good at during this period of history. They were good at farming while the US was moving to an industrial state. So, the Philippines sold farm goods to American and provided a way station for the American goods into China. America benefited from cheap farming goods and Filipinos benefited from the largest and strongest economic market in the world.
The two biggest problems in your argument, Zucker, are first that you assume similar motives of the American government and second that the only factor in decision making is American economic interests. The story is far more complicated. That is why my side of the schizophrenic personality is better with the ladies.
Welcome back, JZ. Its been awhile.
The American story can be summarized as the follows. America is different or unique from the European countries in its treatment of foreign nations and cultures. Unlike Europe, America has the moral mission of democracy that allows it to interfere with other countries for good benefits. Basically, American motives are to spread democracy, free markets, and the virtues of a Christian civilization across the world. European imperialists tended to interfere in other countries for their own economic self-interest and to balance their power in the competition between European nations on the continent. However, America does not have the same baggage. So, she tends to act out of altruism. This doesn’t mean that self-interest is never involved. Rather, our interests tend to coincide with the overall desire to spread democracy and capitalism. So, yes, we benefit from our adventures; but, so do the countries that we influence. The benefits are never exactly equal but are proportional allowing both areas to grow according to their circumstances. Also, yes, we do mess up at times. But, this actually proves our innocence. If we had planned to take over areas for our own self-interest, one would think that our mistakes would be more minimal since our actions would be planned.
Okay, so this story would be…in technical terms…A LIE!!!
America in the late 1800s and the early 1900s demonstrates that all of these principles are basically false. Americans entered into the Spanish American War believing that they were trying to liberate Cubans from Spanish oppression. However, the stories that they were fed were generally exaggerated by the Yellow Press in America for the media’s desire to earn profit. The best example of this was the story on the explosion of the Maine that blamed the Spanish for the mining of the harbor. This story had no real research before it was printed. William Randolph Hearst, the owner of the newspaper, told his reporters to give him information and that he would give them a war. President McKinley was highly influenced by his advisor Mark Hannah who wanted to benefit Wall Street interests. Why would Cuba help in this? Well, they wouldn’t. But, by attacking Cuba, America could attack Spanish interests in the Philippines and this would open up China to American trade. Plus, Cuba was up for grabs by the farming community that wanted to lower tariffs and increase farm trade with the island.
Of course, JZ, you will argue that all this proves is that American interests coincided with democracy. However, at the beginning of the war, the American congress promised under the Teller Amendment that America would respect Cuban sovereignty at the end of the war. Then, at the end of the war, the American congress passed the Platt amendment that allowed the American government to intervene at any time if US interests were under threat. The US then went on to support Cuban dictators all the way up to the Cuban revolution in 1959. In the Philippines, the revolutionary leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, originally called for American help. However, after the US marines defeated the Spanish, the American president McKinley argued that the US needed to take care of the Philippines and remained. Aguinaldo led an insurrection against the US for democratic control of the Philippines. After 5 years, the US had killed well over 300,000 Filipinos.
The US is exactly like their European counterparts. The US has economic and political interests in regions of the world. The US government simply uses different techniques to dominate countries. Instead of direct control, US government will often provide aid to corrupt dictators who follow US interests. US negotiates, with the backing of its military force, to open countries to US based companies. These companies can then take advantage of the local populace through low wages and buying up the best land. In other words, the US is the new HEGEMON!!! (If you don’t know the word look it up.)
JZ responds…
Well, traitor…sorry, Mr. Zucker…let me respond (LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT)
Your analysis of American actions is close to a conspiratorial view of the US government. The US government is not like European kingdoms because the US lacks a centralized power system that makes unified decisions. Rather, the US is a system of checks and balances that does not allow for one faction or interest to dominate over the others. What may appear to be a unified decision or policy is really the accumulation of many different interests. What does tie everyone together is a base line belief in the institutions and virtues of democracy. This means that all factions are guided by the desire to protect checks and balances, civil liberties, separation of powers, economic competition, and a degree of laissez-faire government.
Your examples seem pretty well documented. The problem is that the different groups you show were not guided by the same interests. William Randolph Hearst was corrupted by the desire to gain profits through exaggerated stories. However, this does not mean that his stories determined the president’s decision to go to war or the Congress’ decision to agree to war. After the Maine incident, the president did not go to war but actually waited several months. The main incident that changed everything was the De Lome letter. This letter was intercepted from the Spanish ambassador. The letter basically said that the president of the US was spineless and could easily be negotiated into a false peace. Once the US would leave, the Spanish could dig in with their military and make it impossible to be removed. This forced McKinley’s hand into war because he needed to protect his office and the Cuban people from the lies of the Spanish empire.
The war with the Philippines was definitely a tragedy. But, it was inevitable. If it were not fought between the Filipinos and the Americans, it would have been fought with the Germans or Russians. The Germans and Russians also wanted the Philippines for a launching point into China for trade and military reasons. The Americans offered protection from this possibility. Also, unlike the German or Russian monarchies, the American imperialism spread the institutions and values of democracy over the long run.
True, American economic interests guided the war effort in both Cuba and the Philippines. But as you said in the overall narrative of American history, this provided for growth on both sides of the Pacific. This is the idea of comparative advantage. The Philippines worked hard at what they were good at during this period of history. They were good at farming while the US was moving to an industrial state. So, the Philippines sold farm goods to American and provided a way station for the American goods into China. America benefited from cheap farming goods and Filipinos benefited from the largest and strongest economic market in the world.
The two biggest problems in your argument, Zucker, are first that you assume similar motives of the American government and second that the only factor in decision making is American economic interests. The story is far more complicated. That is why my side of the schizophrenic personality is better with the ladies.
posted by JZFormidableOpponent at 5:57 PM
67 Comments:
There are some things I agree with in your blog but I totally disagree with your idea that "So, yes, we benefit from our adventures; but, so do the countries that we influence." Sometimes the places we try to help either get worse or stay the same. A drastic example is Iraq. Iraq went form terrible violence to untolerable violence and then back to how it was before we entered Iraq, terrible violence.
Another thing I disagree with is your point about "The US government simply uses different techniques to dominate countries. " I really believe that when the U.S. is trying to help a country it is not trying to dominate instead. Furthermore, as a side note, I believe the U.S. should never enter a country in attempt to help unless it is in the interest of the United States problems or if the country asks for help. That is it.
Gregory London, Period 4 ABOVE
I definitely agree with Mr. Zucker on this one and I disagree with London's 2nd argument. America may use its whole lets spread democracy to everyone in the world and make it a better place card but whats really behind it are motives that motivate Europeans countries. America makes decisions that will benefit its investors and its economy in general. I mean look at Cuba as an example, the US intervened and kicked Spain out, why? because it wanted to help Cuba gain its independence? NO in order to gain a whole new market where the US could sell more of its good and gain cheap sugar, also as a prize with Spain gone the US would be the sole hegemony in the western hemisphere.
lorenzo alvarez
period 3
This comment has been removed by the author.
i agree with JZ that the US doesn't go into war just for economic profits. For example, today we didn't enter Iraq to make more money. It was because we needed to protect ourselves from potential weapons of mass destruction. It was necessary to go into war because our safety and protection in the US had become compromised, not because of economic interests.
Also I agree with the statement that, "This forced McKinley’s hand into war because he needed to protect his office and the Cuban people from the lies of the Spanish empire." Our main goal was not to take over trade routes in Cuba, but it was to safeguard McKinley's presidency.
I disagree with London's statement that "Sometimes the places we try to help either get worse or stay the same." Even though there is still violence in Iraq, we have still taken out many terrorists that brought grief to all of Iraq. We have also taken out Saddam Hussein who plagued their government for many years. Not to mention there has not been another foreign attack on US soil since 9/11. I'd say that the war in Iraq has benefited them and us, and it's only getting better.
Stephen Shigematsu Period 5
Overall I say I am split 50/50 between the two views. However, my opinion on the subject is that both motives are involved. There is no such thing in the real world (well, practically never) as a 100% majority, Especially in a country like the US where opinions are so (thankfully) varied. This makes it quite possible that both JZ and Mr. Zucker are correct. This is made possible in part by federal funding, and support from viewers like you. Seriously. See, Some people could go the noble route, as JZ suggests- but the opinion of few does little to change the minds of many, such that it is quite a possible scenario to have many Americans vying for Mr. Zuckers position. This makes sense seeing as how JZ's proposal does not take into account Yellow Press and other economic incentives which were blatantly taken advantage of during this time period. This is not to say that there were no souls of pure heart and body during this time, simply that both viewpoints could exist simultaneously at the same point in space and time. A paradox, yes?
John Gunderman
Period 2
London's second comment basically calls for current day isolationism. Now this would have been just fine and dandy a hundred years ago (assuming that the US never wanted to become a world power), but in the current day and age it would be ridiculous on the point of suicidal. Why, you may ask? Simple: we are currently maintainers of the peace, whether you like it or not. It's not really debatable. The threat of our nuclear armament generally acts as a depressant towards global or even regional warfare. If we decide to not to ever interfere with outside affairs we are either setting ourselves up for bad news or setting the rest of the world up for bad news. (or both) Anyway, you concede your own point when you say that "the U.S. should never enter a country in attempt to help unless it is in the interest of the United States problems or if the country asks for help." This covers 99% of foreign affairs issues in the US, so effectively your argument is null and void. When have you known the US to go into a foreign situation for something besides these two reasons? I doubt it's ever happened!
John Gunderman
Period 2
I agree with JZ in that many different interest groups in America favored going to war for various reasons, but most importantly to protect the presidency and the liberties of the Cuban people. Also, America's interest in war was not purely economic, and US influence helped the economies on both sides.
The United States did not enter this war solely on the promptings of false news reporting intended to urge on war. The system of checks and balances in the American government ensures that an important decision, such as going to war, is reached by gaining the approval of multiple branches of government. The decision to go to war was reached only after the US felt directly threatened by Spain, and the US decided to protect its interests by going to war with Spain.
Not only did the US protect its own interests, it also benefited the Cuban and Philippine people by instilling institutions of democracy and presenting economic opportunities. Both America and the Philippines benefited from an economic arrangement because America was primarily industrial while the Philippines were agricultural.
I disagree with Lorenzo's comment that the US intervened in Cuba for the sole reason of economic interests. America, by fighting the Spanish in Cuba, was protecting its own interests, both economically and nationally, and at the same time planting the seeds for democracy in the Cuban people.
Sean Smith, Period 1
I definitely have to agree with Mr. Zucker in this argument because the Americans did have many suspicious motives for entering the war such as yellow journalism, which exaggerated the misdeeds of the Spanish so everyone decided to back the notion of war. Also, I believe the U.S. main motive to enter in the war was for economic interests aided by naval exploits. U.S. wanted to implement a new navy in order to keep up with the various European powers, and the States wantetd to control the entire ocean . But with navy, you need naval bases, so U.S. wanted to expand and colonize various territories in order to establish naval bases to aid in the storing and supplying of ships. Another primary motive for war was influenced by the farming and sugar interests. Farmers believed that ejecting Spain from Cuba would open new markets for surplus production. So with this evidence, Americans did intervene to help Cuba and the Phillipines against Spain, but their primary motive was actually to use Cuba and the Phillipine islands to their advantage once Spain was ousted.
I disagree with Sean's statement implying that the U.S. sincerely wanted to help Cuba and the Phillipines because just take a look at the disregard of the Teller Amendment and the institution of the Platt Amendment. Like, mr. zucker said, the Teller Amendment ensured Cuban sovereignty after the war but when the war ended, the U.S. authorities restricted voting rights largely to propertied Cuban males. Also, the Platt amendment prohibited Cuba from making a treaty with another nation that might impair its independence; this meant that all treaties had to have U.S. approval. So in fact, Cuba became somewhat of a protecorate under the control of the U.S. government.
Finally, concerning the Phillipines, the main and possibly the only reason that the U.S. intervened on the side of the Phillipines was to gain a stepping-stone to aid in the trade and relations with booming China. Just look at how the Filipinos responded to U.S. intervention. They rebelled by staging hit-and-run guerrilla ambushes that were brutally effective. The U.S. didnt even look after the people as poor sanitation, starvation, and malaria and cholera killed several thousands of people. So I strongly disagree with sean's statement saying that the Phillipines benefited from U.S. intervention. Any country that reacts in such a manner obviously doesnt want that group there.
Justin Barnes
Period 1
P.S. its never good to use schizophrenia and ladies in the same sentence
This comment has been removed by the author.
I’m siding with Mr. Zucker on this issue because America’s motives were far removed from merely spreading democracy and capitalism. The U.S., like its European equivalents, was heavily invested economically and politically around the world and acted to secure more trading opportunities as well as naval bases for improved power projection to sustain its empire. I agree with Justin Barnes that yellow journalism, particularly in relation to the explosion of the Maine, is very sketchy. It was essentially propaganda in identifying the Spanish as an enemy to the American way and was used to justify the war. JZ argues that these articles did not determine the president’s decision, but he doesn’t assume the impact of the public and the pressure placed on Congress as a result of the public’s perception that there was so much bloodshed, disease, and starvation in Cuba. As policymakers, it would be impossible for them to ignore the pleas for action from the public without risking a huge backlash. The perception that the U.S. wouldn't act to help a suffering nation would demand a response from the president, especially when coupled with war-hawks' economic interests
JZ also doesn’t answer that the U.S.’s main motivation for war was to power its economy and to allow for new naval bases. The United States aimed to expand and establish colonies which would act as both as sources for farming and raw products as well as strategic naval ports for resupplying ships. Justin also makes the key argument that the farmers thought that if the Spanish were removed from the U.S. sphere of influence they would have a new market in Cuba for their surpluses. In the Philippines, control was especially sought because the contest for the balance of power that was happening in China. Control in the Philippines would ensure an inroad to China and its new emerging market which had only recently been made open to the West. This interaction was entirely based around its strategic importance, not on spreading democracy or genuinely helping the people of the Philippines. American influence on the government powered these interventions against Spain.
Nick Donlan
Period 1
P.S. Hegemon is my favorite Pokemon after Metapod.
This is my response to Stephen's blog. I disagree with Stephen that we have made strides and improved Iraq. "war in Iraq has benefited them and us, and it's only getting better." Obviously we have done some good things in Iraq but those good things are balanced out by worse. The amount of Iraq and American lives that have been lost is huge. We have created a war among the streets that people live in Iraq. At one point in the war the levels of violence were worse then before. Like JZ said in class, " Although the Russians won in WWII, out of the 30 mil people that died Russia lost 10 mil. I wouldn't call that a win."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Both arguments shed a ray of truth and reason, but JZ's argument that there was more reason than jsut economic power to conquering countries, is the most reasonable.
As for Cuba, it may seem we entered for solely economic reasons because of the passing of the Platt Amendment, but in reality that not only helped the United States economically, but also helped the United States put a strong check on the communist government. The United States did not want communism to filter into the United States and the Platt Amendment helped to protect America form incoming ideals, while also creating a prosperous trade relationship.
Mr. Zucker gives a faulty arguement saying that Yellow Journalism led to the war. This is false. Hearst was not interested in starting war, he was interested in his own money. Who wants to read boring news? Hearst wrote articles he knew would sell to the public. When you read today that there is some corrupt leader in some foreign country, your first reaction isnt "lets bomb that fool." It is probably a more moderate reaction. So to say Yellow Journalism created an war based on economics is outright false.
As for the Philippines, America did enter primarily for economic reasons, but that is not the only reason. They wanted to created strong relationships with eastern powers to creat credibility as a power and to establish non-corrupt governemnts. It is unfortunate that there had to be so many deaths in this take over of the philipines, but somebody was going to have to do the dirty work. Germany and Russia were also fighting for the area, so America took over and probably did the best job managing the situation. Who knows what would have happened if either of the other countries had the philipines as a station. The outcomes of WWI and WWII could have been way different.
All in all, JZ is right because he sees the complexity of the issue while also agreeing that economics was one of the key factors. I agree with Sean Smith that it is a very multifaceted issue.
Erik Stahlheber
Missile!
I agree with Mr. Zucker on this one. This is correct because Americans’ motives for entering the war with Spain were based on the economy and for foreign lands. This is true since Americans wanted Spain out of Cuba to allow for more American products to flow into Cuba thus giving Americans more markets to sell to. Also, the sugar from Cuba would now be cheaper in the US without Spain. The second main motive for entering the war was for foreign lands and access to even further lands. The war with Spain gave the United States an opportunity to gain land in the Philippines. This would allow for another land to export products to and give a launching pad for trading and commerce to commence with China and Japan. The facts of yellow journalism and the American idea of Manifest Destiny (similar to the European counterpart of the “white man’s burden”) only fueled Americans desire to expand and create more US lands under imperialism. The idea that the United States was spreading democracy and fair treatment to the people in Cuba and the Philippines was only used to have a “moral” justification for going to war with Spain. The United States, through the Teller Amendment, said that the US would not interfere with Cuban sovereignty. However, the US didn’t follow this once the war was over. In fact the US instituted the Platt Amendment, which stated that Cuba couldn’t make any treaties unless it was approved by the US. Lastly, I disagree with Erik because he states that the US wanted to protect the democracy of Cuba, and that is why the US had to interfere with Cuban sovereignty. The true reason was to protect the investments and economic ties that the US had with Cuba and not to prevent communism from spreading.
Ah, so here we are again, Zucker and JZ, caught in this consistent fight between JZ's idealistic view of US hegemony and Zucker's cynicism towards the subject. Both of you make excellent arguments and interpretations using evidence. However, while Zucker isn't entirely right, nor is JZ entirely wrong, I have to side with Mr. Zucker on this one. US hegemony is very similar to European. Regardless of whether the US was "attempting to spread democracy, " civilize "lesser nations," or act as an "international police force," as Theodore Roosevelt so put it, the US is still enforcing a western ideal that quite often does not coincide with traditions, customs, or culture upon which the United States force, I mean implement, said ideas. In going in and replacing old economic and political system, the United States heavily implies that, as a nation, it believes that its own culture is superior to those it supplants, essentially sounds more like an Imperialistic, abet Americanized, version of "White man's Burden."
Within the context of the Spanish American War, however, JZ is very wrong. Regardless of whether power is centralized like European Kingdoms or kept in checks and balances like within the USA, said power is still only internal, not external, force. What JZ's argument does not acknowledge is that the political and economic elite pulled a lot of the strings during this time frame when it came to US foreign policy. cosmopolitans like John Hay or Henry Adam, who envisioned an expansive market for American goods. Power and decision making was very often centralized within these elite, leaving the checks and balances argument nearly falls apart, but even with the remaining checks on the elite driving foreign policy the hive, I mean mob mindset that came about with sensationalist yellow journalism allows justification for war over the sinking of the Maine, which, as Mr. Zucker pointed out, had little to no substantial evidence to actually tie the sinking with the Spanish. Even though you do make a point with the De Lome Letter as being the diving point into the Spanish-American war, but even than said letter was published in the New York Journal, just so that it could act as propaganda to expand said exploits that Mr. Zucker brought up, a want for cheap sugar and new territory to roam. You even had to bring the Philippines into the argument, JZ? The US went in and merely supplanted the Spanish creating a large insurrection. The US Armed forces who put down the Filipinos guerillas regarded them as "niggers," fueled just as well by political rhetoric that described filipinos as "incapable of independence." Even more so, Muslim presence in the Philippines and a drive for steeping stones to secure Chinese trade overwhelmed and silenced any cries or after thoughts for a peaceful transfer to Filipino independence. Instead, it took burning villages, torturing captives, cutting off food supplies, and allowing disease to decimate thousands of people. If you can pass that off as "inevitable," than clearly you have no concern for the well being of the Philippines. If it were a conflict of interests, JZ, than why would have the US spent more on the Philippine-American war than the entire Spanish-American war if not for the sake of the market? If you can pass that off as "inevitable," than clearly you have no concern for the well being of the Philippines. Even more so, planting the seeds of democracy did not ensure that an inevitably independent Philippines would be free of hostile take over (Japan) or internal instability and corruption (communist and Muslim separatists, martial rule, etc.) later down the line. You are correct in arguing that economic interests are not the only driving forces, but while the issue is complex, economic hegemony was indeed one of the larger driving forces.
Now, Mr. Zucker, your point of view is perhaps the most correct in the argument, but not without is own faults. Kudos to you, I only find one fault with your argument. The situation with Cuba was a very nasty one, but US hegemony, while still hegemony, would be not simply be indirect control. This is more or less a self contradiction on your part, since, in the case of Cuba, the ability to intervene whenever (and quite often) basically is direct control. A clear example of direct take over was Hawaii, which had its queen arrested and made to surrender with no reason other than territorial expansion. The one things that I think you need to see, Mr. Zucker, within the context of said time period, is that some Americans by this point now believed in a blown up version of Manifest destiny, sounding more like the potential for direct control over the entire Western Hemisphere and using economic dominance as a precursor to achieving that goal. Now, onto Stephen Shigematsu's argument was counter towards Landon's, the former being that "Even though there is still violence in Iraq, we have still taken out many terrorists that brought grief to all of Iraq. We have also taken out Saddam Hussein who plagued their government for many years. Not to mention there has not been another foreign attack on US soil since 9/11." Such an argument for being pro Us-hegemony is cute, at best, but the reality is far grimmer. Saddam Hussein is in a long line of US supported dictators, the earliest example of which I can remember being Spain under Fransico Franco. Franco, while never dragging Spain directly into WWII, often indirectly supported Hitler and the Axis powers. His dictatorship lasted well into 1975 because of Franco's extreme anti-communism. Hussein on the other hand, came to power thanks to CIA backing, and maintained power during the Iran-Iraq war, in which the US, the Uk, and Western Germany provided intelligence, equipment, and direct help what was then " the lesser of the two evils." Of course, this was during the Cold War, so supporting a violent, anti-Semitic, anti-Iranian, oppressive regime was far better than allowing a marxist revolution from taking hold of Iran, right?
In the end, Zucker's argument holds because it accepts that as a country, it will be obligated to its own stability and interests before those of any other country.
Edgar Tejada, Period 2.
I'm definitely going to have to agree with Mr. Zucker on this one. America is no different than any other world power in Europe: we operate purely for self-interests. The stories that millions of Americans were reading about Spanish oppression of the Cubans was incredibly exagerated. William Hearst wanted to sell newspapers to make money.
The US also had China in mind. If America attacked Cuba, we could then attack Spanish interests in the Philippines. The Philippines are a crucial gateway to China, and China is the biggest market in the world. Also, America had interests in trade with Cuba, but the Spanish enforced tarrifs that made this trade less profitable for us.
I disagree with London's point that "when the U.S. is trying to help a country it is not trying to dominate instead." This is false because America constantly says that they will "help" or bring democracy to a country, only to go to war for their own self interests and leave the place a wreck. America still does this today, and the War in Iraq is proof of this. We entered the war on the basis that there were weapons of mass destruction. We never found any.
So, although both JZ and Mr. Zucker have excellent points, I will agree with Mr. Zucker here because America is motivated by self-interests, just like every other world power.
Brandon Alessini, Period 3
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. Zucker seems to be attacking the U.S. by saying it entered the war in Cuba for economic interests (sugar and another open market), that the US supported dictators and negotiated with the ones that supported US self-interest, by using military force to control local natives, and so on. JZ seems to argue that the US were justified in their actions in that the Spanish would build a larger, more stable military that could control Cuba and not be thrown out (De Lome letter.)
John G. makes an excellent point when he says that both sides are partially correct. I agree with this notion. However, I am going to lean more to MR. ZUCKER'S side. Even though the DeLome letter provided evidence of the Spanish's desire for complete control over Cuba with a strong military, the US also desired much more power. I believed the US had already planned to go to remove the Spanish as an impediment to their growing power in the market world. The DeLome letter fit nicely in this picture;this was the perfect kosher justification for going to war. I agree with NIck DOnlan. I think the public DID have some influence in the decision of the President to go to war. Yellow journalism's exaggerated articles and depictions of Spanish atrocities did not directly influence this, but its impact on the public caused much sentimental and nationalistic concerns and viewpoints that sparked a desire to go to war.
The US isn't as innocent as JZ makes it seem. We see this throughout history starting with manifest destiny within its own growing country. The US uses this notion to spread its dominance to practically the whole world! That sounds a little hegemonic to me doesn't it? The US wanted to civilize the "little brown people" in the Philippines in order to have dominance over them and have access to their market as well as China's.
-Jason Jeffrey, Period 2
JZ makes a couple of interesting points, particularly that the De Lome letter prompted McKinley to invade Cuba more than the Maine disaster, but ultimately I’m gonna have to side with Mr. Zucker, yoh.
The U.S. undoubtedly was motivated by economic interests in their endeavors in Cuba and the Philippines, but if she had altruistic goals at all in Cuba and the Philippines, she certainly did not show it. The U.S. involvement in the Philippines is an excellent example. After helping Aguinaldo and the Filipinos remove Spain from the Philippines, America exiled Aguinaldo and immediately tightened her hold on the Philippines. America promised to leave the Philippines eventually, but she stalled as long as possible to open up trade relations with China. The U.S. finally left the Philippines after World War II, but that was because she found a better potential ally in Japan. And the Philippines was hardly better off; the infrastructure was ravaged by WWII, and the country was left in the hands of corrupt rulers. America had done nothing to benefit the Philippines.
I also second the examples Justin Barnes offers. Manipulative yellow journalism and pressures from farmers seeking new markets led to war in Cuba. I particularly agree with Barnes’ argument of the navy. The U.S. built up a powerful steel navy, which served as useful intimidation against nations. For example, the Spanish wooden fleet was decimated by the American navy in the Battle of Manila Bay. Furthermore, the U.S. used the navy to scare Japan into diplomacy and into ending its Isolationist Policy.
I like to believe that America is indeed an altruistic nation, but in the Spanish-American War, America was—or at least, seemed—to be self-centered and driven by profit and imperialism.
Michael Mercurio
Period 2
I agree with Mr. Zucker because the main motives of the war were not truly to spread democracy. Like its European counterparts, the United States was predominantly focused on gaining international economic and political power. The U.S. also only aided countries because it would benefit them first. This can be seen foremost in the example of the Philippines. The United States was expanding their navy and developed a new “blue water” policy, which involved the exploration of the entire ocean, as opposed to the classic “brown water”— or coastal defense—policy; furthermore, with the Philippines, the United States had a new port center at which they could refuel their ships that traded to and from China. I also agree with NDon and JBarnes on the issue of yellow journalism and its propagandist effect. While JZ argues that this did not influence McKinley’s actions because he waited a few months, I maintain that this unforgettable yellow journalism significantly impacted his decision to enter the war.
I also disagree with Sean Smith when he says that the United States genuinely wanted to help Cuba. The United States primarily wanted to expand their markets in keeping with the Imperialist/ Manifest Destiny mindset; helping Cuba was only a secondary priority.
Matt Lee
Period 1
Dragon Kick!
Mr. Zucker has a more accurate (arguably more correct) perspective on the impetus for the Spanish-American War. While I would not go to the length of saying, "The US is exactly like their European counterparts," as Mr. Zucker did, America certainly had less than altruistic motives in its early 20th -century quest for empire.
Even with what was perhaps the earliest instance of forced American expansion outside of continental North America, the 1898 annexation of Hawaii, demonstrated that even a minor American political presence abroad can bring about an American form of colonization. Prominent Americans--who comprised just 2.1 percent of Hawaii's population strong-armed Hawaii into an era of American control. When they needed extra backing, these Americans cried out for military assistance from the U.S.S. Boston, Congress drafted a resolution, and voilà--America had annexed Hawaii, with no Hawaiian say in the matter.
When President Grover Cleveland moderated the dispute between Britain and Venezuela, he heavily favored British interests in the arbitration and almost entirely disregarded what Venezuelans wanted--small wonder a certain American today is "the devil" to Hugo Chavez. But enough of my political proselytizing--now to the Cuba issue.
Although Mr. Zucker creates in his argument the erroneous illusion that the war in Cuba immediately followed the Maine incident, he correctly captures the relatively unprovoked U.S. response. I might add that JZ alleges the De Lome letter, which called President McKinley a "cheap politician" did not immediately precede the war, either. Rather, the President declared war AFTER Madrid had accepted a U.S.-urged armistice, a clear example that the United States sought only to expand its sphere of influence abroad without any genuine motive of altruism. The darker, supposedly "ulterior" purposes were IN FACT the main reasons for the United States imperialism abroad.
Justin Barnes provides a clear, cogent, and convincing argument about the United States naval effort in the Philippines. The United States by no means sought to improve living conditions abroad. It wanted to become a "blue water" navy--one controlling the seven seas, protecting U.S. political interests abroad, rather than a defensive "brown water" navy.
More to follow.
Brendan Folan
Period 1
I agree with Mr. Zucker on this argument. The US got involved with the Spanish American War to satisfy its hunger of expansion. As Frederick Jackson Turner mentioned, the US needed to expand its influence over the newfound foreign frontier. This resulted in the exploitation of Cuba, the Philippines, and China. To appease character identity, as well as economic interests, the US would solidify its power via Monroe Doctrine, as Lorenzo Alvarez said, to maintain authority within the Western Hemisphere. Whether it was personal guidance or a group effort, expansion was a contributor to America's involvement in the war with Spain over essential footholds in the Carribean and Eastern World.
Jason Watkins
Period 2
I definitely have to agree with Mr. Zucker on this. It is apparent from the actions taken in the war and the primary motives that were expressed, that America’s reasons for going to war were far from spreading democracy. America was increasingly aiming to break away from their isolationists mindset in order to not only rake in more profits, but to also politically involve themselves with countries that needed “colonizing”—definitely not by democratic means.
As a nation, America wanted to become an international powerhouse, and their way of achieving this was making their foreign trade policies more efficient and establishing naval bases that could combat European advancement. The perfect places America felt would benefit their efforts were Hawaii, Cuba, and the Philippines. Controlling and influencing Spanish colonies in Cuba was a way for America to get Cubans to rebel against Spain and potentially assist them in their goal to take over the Philippines—a direct passage to China (the ultimate trading partner).
J.Z. claims Hearsts publication in the newspaper was insignificant and that the real issue was the De Lome letter, but I believe that the publication encompassed this letter. So in actuality, Hearst did directly influence McKinley’s decision for war—regardless of whether it was propaganda. In addition to this, economic influence is further evident in America’s decision to disregard their promise under the Teller Amendment (to respect Cuban sovereignty) at the end of the war. To further ensure its hold on Cuba, America also passed the Platt Amendment which kept Cuba from being involved with any other country without U.S permission—strengthening the argument that the war definitely had little democratic purpose.
Finally, I agree with Nick Donlan and Justin Barnes that with the U.S. disregarding of the Teller Amendment, the implementation of the Platt Amendment, and their most apparent motive of aligning themselves with the “up-and-coming” China for trade, that the U.S. definitely pursued the Spanish-American War for economically based reasons.
Jaleel Reed
Period 1
2/22/08
America clearly does not get involved with any ventures that will not benifit itself. No matter what claims we make of going to a foreign country to help them and bring them democracy the primary motive is to benifit America. This continues the trend of the Neutrality Proclamation and only getting involved with alliances that benifit America. The Spanish American War is a clear demonstration of this. American goes into Cuba and the Philippines for ports, agriculture, and a new market to export to, but justifies this by claiming to bring democracy and civilization to them. Just as often as not, the country we occupies situation gets worse because we pursue our own interests over the interests of the foreign country. I agree with lorenzo when he says "America makes decisions that will benefit its investors and its economy in general.
Jesse Gaddy
Period 1
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with JZ(Mr.Zucker A) in that many of America's actions are similar to those of our European counterparts in intention. For example, America preaches to the rest of the world the evils of subsidizing while our government is in fact subsidizing our farmers in order to take over agricultural markets in other countries. This does not help spread democracy, freedom, or free markets. Preaching free trade while at the same time putting checks on others is hypocritical and shows our self interest is our main interest.
Another example of dubious intent in america's recent past is the Iraq war. Though the public was originally told that there may be WMDs in Iraq, we have discovered that there never where any to begin with. That leaves oil as a very possible objective in the war, as iraq has large amounts and we have a shortage.
As to Mr.Zucker's(B) argument, though it is true that the Filipinos where offered protection from German and Russia, they had no choice but to accept or be killed. They where protected in self interest, America looking to benefit from the cheap farming and trade from china. The "institutions and values of democracy" spread by America are also implied to be the best institutions and values, making your argument seem very biased.
I agree with London in that sometimes we may help others with occupation, but many times our interference in events can deteriorate the situation. For example, our help in WWII was beneficial to the European continent, but we did not occupy them and impose ourselves as we would get nothing from it. Burma, Sudan, and many other places in the world could use our interferences, but we will not interfere in their buisness unless it would further our causes. Our interference with cuba, for example, is harming it because we want to impose our values on them.
- Christian Williams, Period 5.
JZ raises a good point in the true reason why President McKinley entered the Spanish-American war; however, JZ also agrees with Mr. Zucker’s argument that the war was fueled by economic interests and that the United States overstayed their visit in the Philippines. This is why I am going to agree with Mr. Zucker. The United States’ social Darwinist reasoning of bringing democracy to the Philippines acted as a cover for their true economic interests: China’s trade markets. After acquiring Hawaii from Queen Loli’uokalani (can’t spell her name =\ ), America’s next move was to pursue the Philippines in order to access China and the glorious trade markets. Along with Spain being in control of the Philippines at the time, Spain having high tariffs in Cuba, America’s local trade market, just gave the United States more reasons to take over the Philippines. Once America has control over the Philippines, they can easily access China and their market and use the Philippines as a refueling station for their naval fleet and other trading ships. I agree with Jaleel on the idea that the United States was trying to increase their international “street cred” through the expansion of foreign trade. I also agree with his idea that Cuba was an essential element to take over the Philippines because Spanish rebellions in Cuba would assist the United States in their take over of the Philippines. Overall, the United States was in it for their economic interests and their own expansion of power.
John Ora
Period 3
I agree with Mr. Zucker's argument on the issue of the Spanish-American War. JZ does make some valid points, especially the De Lome letter, but I think that it is quite obvious that the economic intrests outweighed the polotical or relegious intrests in the begginning of the Spanish-American War. First off, Cuba was most certaintly desired by many all over the country, especially farmers who needed to find a cheap, local trade partner to help aid their problems with overproduction. Cuba, who was certaintly close, was a prime candidate for this trade partner because most farmers within the country grew cash crops like sugar or tobacco. The situation seemed perfect, until the Spanish decided to raise the tariffs of the island nation and forced the US farmers to raise their prices to a level that most Cubans could not pay. US farmers desperatly wanted to get ride of these Spainards so that the tariff could be taken away and they could have a whole new market to trade with and help solve the problem of overproduction. One could say that this was just an added plus that came with the overall goal of spreading democracy to Cuba and relinquishing it from oppresive Spanish rule, but that person would be mistaken. First of all, the Spanish rule wasn't exactly oppresive was made to seem a lot worse then it really was by the Yellow Press, but more importantly, don't you think that if the US was just trying to spread democracy and help out a neighboring country that they would have given full govermental control to Cuba at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, which didn't happen. I think it's pretty clear that the spreading of democracy or the freeing of an "oppresed" people was just a veil over the real economic motivations that sparked the war. In the case of the Phillipenes it is even more obvious that the main underlying goals were strictly economic. During that time, trading outposts to China was the one thing all major powers accross North America and Europe were fighting for. The big prize the US had their eyes on was the Phillipenes. The Phillipenes provided a perfect area to set up a trading post with China and help the US economy grow even larger. Like in Cuba, however, the Spanish spolied the US plans and held control over the Phillipenes. Again the US pull out their stories and their justifictaions stating that they needed to invade the Phillipenes to help free it's people from the opprisive rule of the Spanish, and although the Filiponos did ask for US help in getting rid of the Spanish, they certaintly didn't intend for the US to fill the Spanish's role as oppresive occupiers. Once again, if the US really wanted to free the people of the Phillipenes, wouldn't they have given them their independence after the war was over and avodied a bloddy uprising against the US that led to the death of 30,000 Fillipinos? In addition to all of this, the US was searching for a reason to improve and advance it's navy. The US Naval Captain Alfred T. Mahan strongly believed in the notion that in order for a country to achieve stability and grow both economiclly and polotically that it needed a strong navy to control the seas and protect it's trade ships. Most people in power,including Presidents McKinely and Roosevelt, tended to believe in Mahan's notion and searced for an excuse to improve the navy. The Spanish-American War provided this reasoning and eventually the first US steel-hull ships were built in time for use in the Spanish-American war during the battles in the Phillipenes. For those who argue that although there were economic intrests in the war they were not the sole intrests of the people, I say that you are almost right. Yes many different people had many different reasons why they supported the war, but most people were ill-informed. The public was being fed exaggerated and overly dramatic stories against the Spanish from reporters simply looking to make a profit. The important thing to look at is what those with power and influence in the matter did. Presidents, congress, and other high goverment officals may have agreed with the public in order for them to back such a war, but the truth can be seen in the continued occupancy of the US in Cuba and The Phillipenes after the War had ended. The truth was that the main reasons the US entered into this war was to gain control over these contries for as long as possible in order to further inhance their economy.
Albert DiRocco Period 2 for diroccocub65@hotmail.com post above
JZ's argument is the most consistent with history: American Expansion is very different then European Expansion. First of all, the primary objective of the European Expansion was to gain more territory then their opposing neighbors in order to gain a favorable balance of power. In other words, the desire for Expansion in Europe was driven by the remains of mercantilism theory. In contrast, American Expansionism was driven by a primarily desire to spread American ideals, like democracy and captilism, to "primitive" people. Of course self intrest was involved. It is ordinary human nature to think "how will my actions serve myself." Another reason American Expansion was different was because it let Cuba be its own separate country, even tough it was highly influenced by the United States. Great Britain would never have given India independence after they kicked France out, and nor would Britain give up south Africa after they defeated the Dutch. American were more compassionate in this way.
I disagree with Justin's (Barnes) argument . It does not take into account the civilizing impulses that America had at the time. Also
the Philippines did benifit from American Occupation. It allowed many of them to easily immigrated to the US and have a better life.
It also opened up the Philippines to better American goods and products.
Nolan Welsh
Period 2
Overall, I agree with JZ in that the U.S. did not totally contradict its morals. I do feel however that there are times in which the U.S. does interevene in other coutries affairs for self-benefit. For example, i do believe that the U.S. did enter the Philippines as a stepping stone to China to boost our economy. A simple side effect was that the Filipinos benefited also from U.S. occupation. However, in Cuba we did have good intentions that sort of got warped at the end. But we did go in with good intentions. I also agree with Gregory London in that when we try to help some places, they either get better, stay the same, or get worse.
Daniel Angeles
Period 3
Mr. Zucker and JZ argue the exact opposite thing with no compromise. The real motivations and truth behind the United States expansion lies somewhere between udder greed from those in power and the completely altruistic goal of entering into a conflict just to better other countries. The Spanish American is the perfect example of congress’s good intentions for the world while still bettering the United States. Mr. Zucker says that the USA never tried to spread democracy, free markets, and the virtues of a Christian civilization across the world. He focuses on the Platt Amendment which enabled the US to interfere with Cuba when they deemed necessary. Yes, this was so that they could maintain a stable economy and bring more profits to the USA. However, you must look at what happened before. The US took a suppressive Spain, thousands of miles away, out of Cuba. The USA should be praised for their altruistic goal of bring democracy to Cuba. JZ is false when he claims that Randolph Hearst was “corrupted by the desire to gain profits…” Hearst was just a man trying to make money – like almost every other American.
Also, Hearst did not influence the Spanish American War with his propaganda. The Maine incident clearly did not spark war, but rather the COMPLETELY TRUE De Lome letter. I also have to disagree with J.Ora when he says that the Philippines were simply a way to get to China. If the altruistic Social Darwinism/Christian philosophy did not exist, then priests and missionaries would have not been sent.
W.Williamson
P.1
I have to agree with Mr. Zucker in that the United States motives for entering the Spanish American war were not just solely focused on the spread of democracy and capitalism. Like many of the other economic powers especially Europe, the United States hoped to expand their economic power across the Western Hemisphere. JZ argues that the need to dominate the Western Hemisphere had a direct relation to the expansion of democracy and capitalism. However, this idea is not true. For example, the United States found that Cuba was a good place to trade and get rid of some overproduced crops. Also, Cuba had good access to sugar cane resources showing a point of interest for the U.S. Mainly, The U.S. intervened in Cuba to gain access to the sugar cane and export over produced crop without having to pay the tariffs that the Spanish enforced. The agreements that JZ talks about that have Cuba as this independent states had vast subsets, which endorsed only male property voting and exclusive foreign activity with only the U.S. This is one instance of U.S. motives not being entirely altruistic. Also, the U.S. action in the Philippines did not show such altruism. The Philippines were just another access point for the U.S. to gain China. The U.S. didn’t want other countries such as Germany or Japan to access this nation because it could potentially lead to the taking of the U.S. Hawaii. JZ may argue that democracy came to the Philippines after, but Mr. Zucker brings up a good point in that the U.S. did kill many Filipinos leading to an insurrection against U.S. control. Ultimately, the U.S.’s main goal as an economic power was to gain access to China and be leader of the Western Hemisphere.
I have to disagree with Nolan welsh.
He says that the US did not look for the expansion of land. However, if we look at the example of Panama we find that this idea is not true. The US ultimately used Panama as a way to extend the US power by creating a canal. This rivals the canals built in Africa under the Europeans proving that the US were also in it for domination. Panama also brings a new point in that Britain stopped investing in Panama because they felt that the US had laid their claim there.
Stephen Obal
Period 3
I would have to say I agree with both arguements. No one can say we expand for all the right reasons, and no one can say we expand for all the wrong reasons because yes, america is single entity, but we have had different people who have all had different reasons and believe systems for why they chose to expand. Because of this, America at times has gone to a region with good intentions, and America has sometimes gone in with abd intentions. Sometimes the US is trying to help countries. Most of the time it benefits both parties. I don't agree with this policy but no one can deny the fact that having the US help you out of jam helps your country out. I also diagree tha the Us does not just use different techniquest o dominate countries. THey use different strategioes for situations that have different circumstances and therefore need to be looked at differently. I agree with London when he says that Iraq has been a very questionable subject and that we have yet to see any true sucess throughout all of this turmoil.
Drey LIautaud
PERIOD 2
I would have to say I agree with both arguements. No one can say we expand for all the right reasons, and no one can say we expand for all the wrong reasons because yes, america is single entity, but we have had different people who have all had different reasons and believe systems for why they chose to expand. Because of this, America at times has gone to a region with good intentions, and America has sometimes gone in with abd intentions. Sometimes the US is trying to help countries. Most of the time it benefits both parties. I don't agree with this policy but no one can deny the fact that having the US help you out of jam helps your country out. I also diagree tha the Us does not just use different techniquest o dominate countries. THey use different strategioes for situations that have different circumstances and therefore need to be looked at differently. I agree with London when he says that Iraq has been a very questionable subject and that we have yet to see any true sucess throughout all of this turmoil.
Drey LIautaud
PERIOD 2
I agree with JZ that the U.S. interests in the Spanish American War were purely a result of spreading democracy and helping inferior nations. Although i am not justifying Social Darwinism, the basic beliefs of the time were that primitive inferior nations such as the Philippines and Cuba were extremely weak and need modernization, democracy, and christianity to become a powerful and leading nation in the world. Thus, it was the United States goal to go out and conquer these inferior nations so that they could spread democracy. Moreover, the Spanish empire was controlling these colonies for purely economic standpoints. They treated the natives as America once treated blacks: chatel. Natives were forced to work in harsh conditions and the spanish economically destroyed these countries by placing high tarrifs that wouldnt allow the Cubans to receive any american goods at reasonable prices. Therefore, the Americans stepped in in order to kick out the Spanish, and instill order and democracy into these nations, and as a benefit, these countries were willing to trade with America and become fruitful colonies that became allies with America while still keeping their sovereignty.
I disagree with Justins statement that yellow journalism provoked and was one of the main notions for the start of the war. Although, yellow journalism falsified events, it could not have effectively start a war. The only man who can declare war is the President of the United States. He is only given the actual facts about what is going on so that he has a justified reason for starting a war. He would not let yellow journalism influence his decision in starting a war, merely because a couple of men looking to make money say something is true.
brian ulmer
per 3
I believe that both of these arguments hold some validity. The US was acting out in selfish reasons, but also by means of spreading democracy and "liberating" people. During this time, Social Darwinism mixed with Christianity to form an interesting ideology. The ideology briefly stated that it was the Americans' duty to "liberate" and "civilize" other inferior races. This can be applied to Yellow Journalism in that the Spanish were supposedly oppressing innocent people in Reconcentration camps--there was the example of the drawing we learned about in class today. However, there was no empirical evidence to prove this. Furthermore, the Spanish were putting tariffs on the Cuban sugar-growers, and they too viewed this as oppression. The Americans began to believe that they needed to "help out their little brown brothers," and spread democracy.
On the other hand, the US had some economic motivations for their decisions. One being that they wanted to connect trade up with China. The most strategic way to do this was to establish a trade post in the Philippine Islands. Also, American farmers wanted to trade with Cuban sugar growers to help break down competition and bring in more imports. Finally, Alfred T. Mahan advocated for the militarization of a stronger navy. His arguments being: faster maneuverability of troops, better control of maritime activities, "soft power" naval intimidation, and competition. These external reasons also compelled the US to do what they did.
I also agree with London's statement about Iraq. It is entirely questionable, and it is a very controversial topic. However, there haven't been very many noticeable successes. It seems like we have been there for a tad too long.
Sean Fitz-Gerald
Period 2
Dear Mr. Zucker,
Unfortunately, the American people were corrupted by their own ideas. Social Darwinism taught that certain ethnicities were considered inferior and should be left to die. When combined with Christian values, American missionaries decided to go out into the world to help the inferior races to become cultured and civilized in the white culture. This adaptation of the "white man's burden" was used by the Americans as a front for their real goals, expanding their economy and keeping their culture.
Fredrick Jackson Turner's ideas that the end of American expansion in the wilderness was part of the American culture, and in order to keep the culture, Americans had to continue to expand beyond their borders. Also, overproduction and interest in foreign businesses, which included bringing new business into China through the Open Door policy.
The expansionist goals to gain the Philippines and Hawaii to make trading with China easier and have a base of operations to house the American navy so that it could intimidate the Japanese to keeping China open to American trade were the real reasons behind the expansion, not taming the barbarians.
I agree with Iondon. He states that the Americans did what they did not only. The places that America conquers are usually changed to make way for the American way of life instead of actually trying to understand and adapt to the culture that the Americans are invading into. The US said that they used different techniques, but their goals and tactics have already been used by other powers.
Grant Ukropina
Period 2
Mr. Zucker has it right on this one. America has a myth that it spreads deomocracy and capitalism for the benefit of all its subjects. While this myth has its true sides, America really takes over other coutnries for its own economic/political benefits. In the Spanish American War, president Mckinley stated that America was colonizing the Philipines because God told him to. In reality, however, America wanted the Philipines to gain better acess to the Chinese market and have a strategic position over Europe in that region. Another example of American self-interest in the Spanish American war was in Cuba. The Yellow Press created a hatred for Spanish rule in Cuba and justified U.S. actions in Cuba. The government, however, wanted to take Cuba for a strategic position to mediate trade in South America. In the end, America's self-interest is exactly like every other imperialist country (e.g. France, England, Germany, etc.).
I also agree with Lorenzo's argument that America states that it works for the greater good, but it really is self-interested like every other imperialist country. In a way, however, every country justifies its own actions in the same way. Myths like these are used by practically every imperialist nation because no one wants to be the bad guy, but in the end, everyone is the bad guy of someone else.
I too have to agree with just about everybody on this one and take the side of Mr. Zucker. He is right in saying that Americans entered into the war based upon many different reasons. Yellow journalism helped influence the people's opinion on entering the war. As The Maine sank, Pulitzer and Hearst shifted the facts of the story to create a more intriguing story.
I agree with Justin Barnes in that I too belive that Americas main economic goals to enter into the war were to gain control of Cuba and the Philipines. although some people belived that they were going to these places to civilize and help "thier little brown brothers", the main reason behind this was economic. They hoped to create a more open trading relation ship with both the Phillipines and Cuba.
Tyler Ricci P-2
I definitely have to side with Mr. Zucker's claim. America did not enter the Spanish-American War for altruistic reasons. Let's be honest, if countries only acted for altruistic reasons, our society would be a very different place. The truth is America is a capitalistic society out for personal gain. Capitalism is based on competition. Why would America want to go out and help other countries become more stable and become a possible threat to the American economy? In reality, America "helps" other countries by making them unable to harm America and the country's economy.
America has held this sort of "divide and conquer" mentality for many centuries. The time during the Spanish-American War is the perfect example of how the US ignored the rights of foreign countries and did what needed to be done to further American interests. For example, the US only got involved in the Cuban Independence conflict in order to weaken Spain in the global competition and open the Cuban market to America. Also, as Daniel Russell said, the Philippines were "liberated" from Spanish control only to fall into the manipulative hands of America. The US wanted the Philippines solely for its strategic location near the highly desired, but slowly crumbling China. The final key example is the American disregard for a sovereign nation's rights as seen in the take over of Hawai'i. Hawai'i was an independent country, and when US settlers had an issue with the Hawaiian government, the US just went in and took control. America was not concerned about its US settlers. The US was really there in order to gain Hawaii because of its great location in the Pacific.
Though the country used the guise of "missionary" work intended to "civilize" foreign, inferior cultures. The reality was America only cared about making American civilization better. The ideas of Manifest Destiny did play a role in influencing the mindset of the leaders of this time; however, it only influenced them because it fortunately overlapped with the personal agenda of the country. America was not that different from its European counterparts. Substitute a president for a king and Social Darwinism/Christianity for Imperialism, and America can barely be distinguished from its neighbors across the Atlantic.
Clay Busia
Period 3
I agree with Mr. Zucker on his argument for various reasons for the US entering the Spanish-American War. It's definetly true that the US did not enter the war for altruistic reasons. What the US built upon over time was Washington's embarking speech about neutrality, and one in particular is that the US should enter short term alliances only if we gain benefits too, which one of them being economic in entering the war. One of the primary reasons for the war is the farmer and sugar interests. Farmers believed that opportunities in the foreign market would open if Spain lost control over Cuba's sugar plantation. America entered war with Spain for one of these reasons: to take advantage of Cuba's economy. Another reason was the Yellow Journalism, which exaggerated Spanish misdeeds; two of them were the Maine incident and the reconcentration camps. These overexaggerations prompted US with sensationalist ideas and partly influenced the US to go to war.
I agree with Justin Barnes in his argument against altruistic motives in the Philippines front. The US completely disregarded the Philippine residents who were dying from disease and starvation. The US' only motive was to capture the Phillippines as a stepping stone to China.
Thomas Yu
Period 3
I definitely agree with Mr. Zucker's stance on this issue. That is, the US was not much different from its European counterparts in that it went to war in hope of benefitting economically and idealogically. For one, many Americans were led to believe that the Spanish were carrying out great atrocities in Cuba (i.e. reconcentration camps, sinking of the Maine), when in reality nearly all Spanish actions were exagerrated by the Yellow Press. These exaggerations rallied the American masses behind the idea that the US was entering the war to liberate a group of people in desperate search of freedom, not for economic benefits. In reality, the true American motives for the war lay in the economy. HAving to deal with the problem of over production at home, many US leaders saw Cuba as a perfect local market for such surplus goods. Moreover, Cuba's lone key export, sugar, provided no competition to the Americans. Secondly, the US attacked and occupied the Phillipines for economic reasons as well. HAd they not had such motives, AMericans would have let Emiliano Aguinaldo set up his own free Filipino government. Instead, the US remained involved in the Phillipines, suppressed Auginaldo, and stationed the navy on the island as a way to put pressure on China to open its doors. Americans indeed saw the great opportunities that an extremely large market like China had to offer.
In essence, I agree with Justin Barnes, who writes, "Americans did intervene to help Cuba and the Phillipines against Spain, but their primary motive was actually to use Cuba and the Phillipine islands to their advantage once Spain was ousted."
Andrew Santana Period 3
Personally i agree with JZ because America is not ruled by a plotting governmental conspiracy. The system of checks an balances along with the egos of those on charge and the voting system, no matter how corrupt and faulty it may or may not be. JZ has the point about the 110% correct, the war was inevitable, the only question was whom the war would be with. The Philippines as a country that because of its proximity to china was very valuable to world powers. The fact that 300,000 had to die is an atrocity, but because in the end democracy spread and the nation now thrives it all worked out in the end.
I agree with stephen on this as well, we do to have to go into a war strictly because of economic reason, we can also do it to protect ourselves, or others from a threat. And since cuba had an emerging communist government, which the US deemed a threat, the US went to war to protect the citizens of the united states and their/its economic system.
Malcolm Wallace
Period 3
I have to agree with Mr. Zucker on this one. Throughout US history, regardless of what party is in power, the US has acted in pure self-interest (albeit with some altruistic consequences), dating back to Washington's Neutrality Proclamation, which said that the US should only get involved in short-term alliances in the country's self-interest.
The Spanish-American War was conducted entirely out of US interest, and one could argue that this event is the root cause of US foreign policy woes for the past two decades. I disagree with Sean Smith's point that the US interest in the Philippines ended up helping the Filipinos. Actually, there was a rather strong anti-American sediment building in the Philippines, which led to the Philippine-American War. This war was essentially an uprising against the American presence in the region, so it wouldn't really be correct to say that the Filipinos were helped.
JD Blank
Period 3
I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Zucker on this issue. After discussing the United States' role in the Spanish-American War (i.e. the many benefits that they "coincidentally" acquired after the war), I feel that the US did go into the war with economic motivations at heart. I mean, it was inevitable for a nation with a Capitalist economy like the US to begin competing for power in foreign lands after successfully competing in the local American market. As Mr. Zucker said, the US's desires to control the Cuban and Filipino trade market (especially the latter, in order to get to China) far outweighed the desire to "Christianize" and "civilize" the inhabitants of both places. In fact, Social Darwinism and Christianity were simply cover-ups for the true matter at hand - that is, the US's unquenchable desire to make more money. $_$
Cody Busia, Period 3
checking password
Bladimir Gonzalez, Period 1
Mr. Zucker,
I agree and disagree with you that America goes to war and into other countries to spread democracy and make a civilization with good Christian values that is socially just, but also is searching to expand its economy as well but the main reason is to make the country better. Things do not always work out when we go into other countries with this purpose sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. For instance, the conflicts in Vietnam, Somalia, and even currently in Iraq have not gone as planned. America went into these countries to help make them better and it also was a little for our benefit as well.
I also agree with Greg London when he disagrees with you in how the US government does not use different ways to dominate and take over other countries, but instead wants to help the country and make it better.
I believe that main reason for the US to enter into the Spanish American War was because it wanted the economic benefits present in both Cuba and the Philippines. However i also agree that the American's wanted to spread their ideals of democracy to all the countries under the hegemony. The combining of the Social Darwinist and Christian ideologies at this time period made the American's believe they could help the people under their care. This sets up a win-win situation for the Americans but doesn't work as well for the people falling the imperialism of the United states. The government was well aware of the many special interests that could be satisfied if the took these islands. Farmers and Industrialists alike would be pleased with the new markets opening in China and Cuba and all they needed was an excuse to invade these. The combination of the two aforementioned ideologies were just what they needed. They saw these weaker countries as inferior and played on the American's Christian virtues of helping the needy to give reasonable excuse to "liberate" these countries from a spiteful power. The sinking of the Maine and all the sensationalized media attention it received helped Spur the government into action.
I would have to agree with Cody Busia in that the US acted out of economic incentive and that even though they said they were there for the benefit of the occupied countries, the US interests came first and few benefits the occupied countries received were a by-product and given solely to cover up the true motives of the US.
ward forthmann
Period 1
Bladimir Gonzalez, Period 1
The winner of this debate is Mr. Zucker, because it’s the most convincing and it holds the most truth. No matter how the U.S government tried to paint it, they were more about trying to gain the economic wealth of the Philippines and Cuba instead of trying to bring Democracy. In Cuba, farmers saw an open market that could easily get rid of all the tariff problems in the U.S. another good example of the fact that the US wasn’t about democracy and letting Cuba make their own decisions was the Platt amendment, which allowed the US to intervene whenever it felt that Cuba was going to sign a treaty that wasn’t beneficial to the US. So how could it be viewed as if though the US wanted to bring democracy, when after the war, Cuba couldn’t make its own decisions? His most convincing and true argument was made by bringing up Yellow Journalism. With all of those exaggerated stories, how could people not be enraged and then start a war. These journalists were seen as the “tabloids,” of that era, as Brendan said in class. A perfect example was the story on the Maine exploding. Hearst’s magazine wrote that the ship exploded due to mines that were in the harbor planted by the Spanish, but in reality it was an internal explosion, coming from the ship itself. The way the story was written, it angered the American public, and it greatly influenced the US entry into the war. this was why Mr. Zucker gets the win.
I happen to agree with both Mr. Zucker and JZ on different points, but mostly i agree with Zucker. At this point in time America has one goal in mind and thats to make itself a better and more powerful nation. And fighting for Cuba in the Spanish American War does just that because in defending Cuba America is defending its economic interests. A lot of American investors happened to own or control major companies in Cuba at the time and if Cuba became under the control of Spain all those American investments would be hindered by spanish control of the economy. However, even though the US intentions were for the wrong reasons Cuba still benefits from being controlled by the United States because the US will soon gain the respect of all the nations. I agree with Ward in that Yellow Journalism is the source of nationalism that created the backing for the War, but this further proves that the US needed the media to spin a different version of the truth just so they could make it seem like they were doing something right and just. In the end its not about making other inferior nations like us and converting them to christianity, but its about how much money we can make by allying ourselves to these countries. Even George Washington said it when he stated what he believed his foreign policy to be he said that America should not make alliances unless there is something in it for them. And the betterment of humanity doesn't seem like it does anything for the United States.
Kevin Farina
Period 3
I agree with Mr. Zucker on this issue because the U.S.'s motives were not only to spread democracy, but also it was for personal gain. Yes, the U.S. wanted to rid the Cubans of the Spanish rule and gain them their freedom, but the US had some of their own motives, mainly economic. The US did not want to pay the Spanish tariff on sugar that Spain had put on Cuban sugar. So ridding Spain from Cuba would take away the tariff put on the US. Also, through yellow journalism, the situation that was going at the Reconcentration camps and the Spanish and the Spanish treatment of the Cubans was over exaggerated in order to make the US join the war. This was mainly done by Hearst and Pulitzer.
i agree with Mr. Zucker and Brandon Alessini's argument that the US is jsut like power hungry European powers that do something only if it benefits them.
Sean Grimditch
Period 2
test
Bladimir Gonzalez, Period 1
i will agree with Ward with his comment on social Darwinism being combined with Christianity to help convince people that they were trying to do the right thing. with that combination, the US saw itself as the nation that was going to make the whole world civilized and they eespeciallythe Philippiness and Cuba. i forgot to bring that up, but after reading WArd's comment, it seemed logical to add.
I have to say that JZ, although probably not good with the ladies as stated, is more accurate on his account of what happened between the Spanish, Cubans, and the Philippines. First off, for a country to enter a war there is always going to be a self-interest or why else would the country be willing to fight in the war, the difference with the US and Europe is their motives behind a war. In the ante-bellum years of the Spanish-American war the United States had been trading with Cuba and China peacefully and did not have any motives to enter a war. The US only wanted to have fair trade with the rest of the world, but this excuse was not enough to enter a war otherwise the war would have started at an earlier date. Zucker stated how the Yellow Press influenced the government with its stories and that is what started the war is also false because the US would have entered the war right after the destruction of the Maine. Santana also stated “many Americans were led to believe that the Spanish were carrying out great atrocities in Cuba (i.e. reconcentration camps, sinking of the Maine), when in reality nearly all Spanish actions were exaggerated by the Yellow Press,” although many Americans had this view the government did not have this view other wise as stated before the US would have entered the war immediately after the so called bombing. The problem with Zucker’s and Satana’s argument is they are looking at the ante-bellum years too simplistically and are accusing the Yellow press being the sole reason for war as if the Yellow Press all of a sudden overthrew the government and started making all the shots. Instead, it was a letter sent by the Spanish that finally triggered the war. This letter was a secret letter intercepted by the US threatening US sovereignty thus making an act of war. As soon as this happened the US government knew they had to intervene not only to protect Cuba and the Philippines but themselves. Statements like this, "Americans did intervene to help Cuba and the Philippines against Spain, but their primary motive was actually to use Cuba and the Philippine islands to their advantage once Spain was ousted" as stated by Justin Barnes is just way too judgmental and simplistic, what he fails to grasp or understand is the events that happened before the war and the time the US intervened. In essence the US intervened through the Spanish-American War after its sovereignty was violated not before, showing how their main interest was to protect their national reputation not their economic interests.
James Calix
Per. 4
I would say America's motives for expansionism into countries like Cuba and the Philippines are mixed. While I do believe we went in to serve our economic interests we implemented policies vastly different from those of the European imperialists.
Economically speaking, we installed laissez-faire markets in the Phillipines to allow unrestricted profit an growth for both the citizens and investors while the Europeans installed mercantilist systems in which they abused the resources of the nation they conquered and seized all the resources for themselves. An example of this is the Belgians in Congo who essentially enslaved the people to work in the diamond mines for the profit of Belgium, that is imperialism. I would hardly call a free market system imperialism.
Also, like Mr.Zucker said, instead of implementing an authoritarian style of government as the Europeans did in Africa and Asia America installed democratic institutions that benefited countries like the Philippines in the long run. Democracy and imperialism simply don't mix.
One could argue that we could have gone about promoting change economically and government wise without force, but I think it is ridiculous to call America a European style imperialist power. Yes, we did go into these countries for our own economic interests and solidify power, but we were radically different then the European imperialists in that we introduced free markets and free government rather then mercantilism and dictatorships.
Stephen Ceccon Per 2
Ps. Set up a new account
Bladimir, I think you proved in your last comment (whether you meant to or not) how incredibly different American Expansion was. Yes America did go in for its own interests(as Calix said it would be illogical to go to war if it wasn't in one's interest to), but they implemented a more Christian and compassionate approach to their style of expansionism. They believed unlike the Europeans they were not to economically or politically abuse these people, but instead it was their Christian duty to bring Democracy and free markets to these people. European's never held such an attitude.
Stephen Ceccon period 2
Mr. Zucker's argument in my opinion definitely lands on the more correct side of the spectrum. I do think, though, that many of his arguments-the idea that America is no different than the European powers in its policies, for example-may have been rather extreme. Overall I believe that Mr. Zucker's argument is based more on the facts and ideas of the time rather than JZ's illusion of a virtuous democracy-spreading country.
America's foreign policy in the late 1800's can be summarized by the desire for profit and trade expansion. First of all, the U.S. had desired greatly at this time for a way to gain a stepping stone to China. China's Open Door Policy allowed for all of the major western powers to trade with them without giving any one nation an edge. The U.S. saw China as the next largest market in the world to sell their industrial goods. The Philippines provided a perfect stepping stone to get to China. The only thing stopping the Americans was Spain.
I strongly agree with Zucker's demonstration of the Teller and Platt Amendments as evidence of American self interest. Though the Teller Amendment had originally promised Cuba its independence following the war. The Platt Amendment directly contradicted the idea that America sought to bring democracy to Cuba because it allowed the U.S. to step in at any time and led to America's support of Cuban dictators for sixty years.
One other piece of evidence that Zucker forgot to mention was the ideology of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinists believed that the people of the regions that America was interested in were not only inferior but also incapable of governing themselves. Followers of this mindset did not want to give these people independence which they could not handle. They instead believed that they could use these regions for self benefit under the principle that they needed our help. America now only had to gain the support of the people, a caused that was helped greatly by opportunistic Yellow Journalism.
I agree completely with Bladimir's arguments and I like his mentioning of the specific economic interests of America in Cuba and the Philippines. It is true that U.S. farmers saw Cuba as "an open market that could easily get rid of all the tariff problems in the U.S." I would also add that overproduction from both industry and agriculture in the U.S. led to the need to expand for surplus markets.
Wil Heintz
Period 1
First of all, I agree with Mr. Zucker. America was just like the European countries during the Age of Imperialism in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. They entered into the Spanish-American War for purely economic interests. Now, although Yellow Journalism had a part to play in the upstart of the war, Americans claimed that they were liberating Cubans from Spanish oppression. However, Americans only wanted to liberate Cuba, so farmers of America wouldn’t have to pay the Spanish sugar tariff on Cuban sugar. This is true because before Americans decided to liberate Cuba, farmers had to pay a sugar tariff to Spain for Cuba’s sugar. Also, farmers were losing money because they had to keep lowering prices to keep up with other farmers. It was a never-ending cycle. Also, because of China’s Open Door Policy, America was attracted to trade with China. At the time, China was pretty much the biggest trade market in the world. So, America decided to defeat the Spanish fleet around the Philippines Islands, so that they could take over the Philippines. However, America wouldn’t have been able to take over the Philippines if they wouldn’t have had a strong, steel navy. Thus, the money that was saved up from not paying the sugar tariff was used to build a strong navy because Alfred Mahan came up with the notion that a strong navy was the way to military dominance and success. Mahan was right because the American steel navy defeated the Spanish wooden navy around the Philippines Islands in less than one day. Furthermore, Mahan stressed that if a country wants to be dominant, it must continue to advance its technology. Lastly, JZ said in his argument that since America was becoming industrialized, it used the Philippines to provide agriculture. So, Americans would buy Philippines farm goods. However, this most likely didn’t happen. America wanted to save as much money as possible. So, since they took over the Philippines, they most likely received the farm goods for free.
Now, I would like to comment on Erik Stahlheber’s statement in which he said, “Mr. Zucker gives a faulty argument saying that Yellow Journalism led to the war. This is false.” Actually, Yellow Journalism did play a part in leading up to the war. True, the De Lome letter broke the straw on the came’s back, but it would be hard to believe that William McKinley didn’t look at the pictures drawn by Hearst. In one picture, there was a group of Spanish soldiers that were strip searching a white woman as she entered Cuba. Well, first of all, the picture was a drawing. Nevertheless, the American mindset frowned upon this because white Americans were very prejudice at the time. The thought of a colored Spaniard touching their white daughters sickened them. However, it was all a big misunderstanding because Cuban women strip searched women, and men strip searched men. Anyway, I’m sure that when McKinley saw this drawing, he was enraged. Thus, when he heard what was said in the De Lome letter, he felt he had no choice but to enter into a war.
Mario Mottley
Period 2
Umberto Marsella Period 2
I have to side with Mr. Zucker on this debate. I especially agree with his opinion of the whole American story and our inherent right to help people being covers to hide the fact that we are after economic gain. The only big thing that I do not agree with him on is when he says, "The US is exactly like their European counterparts. The US has economic and political interests in regions of the world. The US government simply uses different techniques to dominate countries." The US is very much like the imperialistic European powers of the yesteryear, but this statement Mr. Zucker makes, in my opinion, slightly contradicts itself. The reason why we are different from other countries is because we try to not blatantly do things for economic interests. Instead, we try to justify things and at least attempt to help the other country out. We try to be the "peacemakers" which gets us into a few sticky situations at the same time, because we make an effort out of not minding our own business.
I'm going to also have to agree with Gunderman, in that (just like with all things) there is no one perfect conclusion to this debate. It is an objective, relative, and opinion-based discussion, because it all depends on your viewpoint. The facts are that the media certainly exaggerates things to stir nationalism and that we benefit from our trying to help other nations. The execution might be different between European nations and us, but the end results are typically the same.
I agree with Mr. Zucker. The U.S. may be motivated toward spreading democracy and helping out other countries; however, if altruism was America's mission before the Spanish-American War, why did they invade Cuba and the Philippines? There were tons of countries of the time that didn't have democracy, so those 2 countries seem to be pretty arbitrary choices........ oh wait the U.S. had economic interests in both countries. Obviously those interest pushed the U.S. into military conflict with Spain and are more important than democracy. I also dislike the way that JZ says the 300,000 deaths in the Philippines were inevitable... that statement kinda justifies anything the U.S. would want to do... but that's beside the point. Another flaw in JZ's argument is that he says that the president went into Cuba to "protect his office and the Cuban people from the lies of the Spanish empire." That's total BS. *OMG THERE'S LIKE LIES AND STUFF SO WE NEED PROTECTION OMG!* The U.S. has been lied to in the past and has never gone to war, and the U.S. certainly is not willing to go to war to protect another nation from lies. That's just ridiculous. The huge Chinese market and profitable Cuban trade motivated the U.S. to enter the war.
I'd like to quote John Gunderman: "This is not to say that there were no souls of pure heart and body during this time, simply that both viewpoints could exist simultaneously at the same point in space and time. A paradox, yes?"
And now I'd like to say that no one in any circumstance should ever write like that, ever. wow.
In response to Nolan, I can agree that American expansion is different from European expansion, but I don't think the motivation for that expansion is any different. Both Amerians and Europeans are pushed by economic and political incentives. However, the effects of that expansion may be different since America is a democracy.
Michael Mezzatesta
Period 3
I agree with Mr. Zucker on this particular isue. I think that the US went into the Spanish American War and the Philipines almost solely for economic purposes. The US was getting cheap sugar from the Cubans, that is until the Spanish implemented a tariff that made the Cubans have to charge more for their product losing American purchasers. Also, the Phil;ipines were sought after because it was near China. The United States basically asserted through the Open Door Policy that they wanted everyone to share in the Chinese market. Ironically, the US wanted to implement this policy because they themselves didn't have their own sphere of infuence. The case with the annexation of Hawaii was purely economic because Hawaii had goods to sell and the US wanted them at domestic prices. Also, both Hawaii and the Philipines provided good ports to dock ships on their way to China.
I find that Sean Smiths arguement that various branches of the government chose to go to war therefore the war could not be economic is interesting. Ironically, someof the US's most powerful people are in the government chances are if these people chose to go a certain way then it is likely that everyone else would go the same way.
Eric Moyer
Period 2
I agree with Mr. Zucker on this particular isue. I think that the US went into the Spanish American War and the Philipines almost solely for economic purposes. The US was getting cheap sugar from the Cubans, that is until the Spanish implemented a tariff that made the Cubans have to charge more for their product losing American purchasers. Also, the Phil;ipines were sought after because it was near China. The United States basically asserted through the Open Door Policy that they wanted everyone to share in the Chinese market. Ironically, the US wanted to implement this policy because they themselves didn't have their own sphere of infuence. The case with the annexation of Hawaii was purely economic because Hawaii had goods to sell and the US wanted them at domestic prices. Also, both Hawaii and the Philipines provided good ports to dock ships on their way to China.
I find that Sean Smiths arguement that various branches of the government chose to go to war therefore the war could not be economic is interesting. Ironically, someof the US's most powerful people are in the government chances are if these people chose to go a certain way then it is likely that everyone else would go the same way.
Eric Moyer
Period 2
I agree with Mr. Zucker on this one. The United States government did not want to go out and spread democracy to everyone as some type of moral mission. they were most concerned with economic profit. Farmers were calling for a solution to the problems of overproduction that they faced. also, they were looking to compete with Europe and their successes on the world market. also, most of the stories about Cuba were blown out of proportion through Yellow Journalism in order for newpaper owners to make profit.
I agree with Eric Moyer when he says that The United States basically asserted through the Open Door Policy that they wanted everyone to share in the Chinese market. The United States was constantly concerned with profit and although they did want to spread democracy, they were most ocncerned with making money.
David Dukesherer
Period 2
Though JZ makes some good points, I have to agree with Mr. Zucker on this one. I believe that the U.S. was definitely motivated by economic interests when we went out to “liberate” other countries. As Michael Mercurio said, if the U.S. truly did have altruistic goals in the U.S. and Cuba, we did not show it. The involvement of the U.S. in the Philippines after they had already freed the Filipinos proves this. The U.S. exiled the Pilipino leader after freeing them from the Spanish. The U.S. had no reason to continue occupying the Philippines. The only reason we stayed there was because we wanted to establish trade with China. We knew that if we did not take advantage of the situation and establish trade, one of our European adversaries would. We finally left the Philippines after the country had been decimated by war and was in the most need of help. I also agree with Justin Barnes who said that the U.S. manipulated people with yellow journalism to gain support for economic centered wars. Also, the U.S. built a powerful steel navy which was capable of completely decimating wooden fleets and they used this navy to intimidate its opponents and arrange new trading agreements such as the Great White Fleet and its inspiration of the open door policy with Japan. Though American might have made is seem we were out to educate and civilize, we were truly out for our own economic interests.
Andrew Garcia
Period 2
Post a Comment
<< Home