I do not think the U.S.should have become invloved in those Latin American affairs because the U.S. only had so much power - it was silly to try and spread themselves all around the world (China->Colombia) and everything just ended upin a huge mess with a binch of little mini-wars.
The Roosevelt Corollary DID have pretty positive results for the U.S. because we got control of Nicaragua's railroads and its national bank. But, I still don't think it was worth it because of all the effort involved to put down the revolts, ect. The dollar diplomacy was often used to keep European countries out of the Caribbean (p.569), so I guess that was positive too, but that's a responsibility to GUARENTEE loans, and we'll see if it comes into play later... The implication of Wilson's diplomacy was that Americans would NOT tolerate bad, hostile governments, which gave the U.S. a lot of power and responsibility.
This "evidence" of America's involvement seems to be a positive thing for the U.S. but I still think they should not have gotten involved because they didn't really end up with any long lasting, significant benefits (besides the Panama Canal), and it cost a lot of effort and money to keep sending troops down there and fighting mini wars.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
ch.18 sct.4 CT #3
Roosevelt's Big Stick policy and Wilson's missionary diplomacy had similarities and differences.
Roosevelt did not want European countries to come to Latin America and "help" those countries with debts, ect. Roosevelt liked the West African proverb that said, "Speak softly and carry a a big stick." He just reminded the European countries of the Monroe Doctrine, and spoke about the "possibility" of America having to use force to protect its interests in Latin America. This policy was applied several times in the next decade in order to excercise its police force. ->(p.568)
The goal of Wilson's missionary diplomacy was to put a moral side on the Monroe Doctrine and not allow recognition of governments they deemed oppressive, undemocratic, or hostile to U.S. interests (p.569). They would deny recognition to those countries, and that was all it (the diplomacy) said. When Huerta controlled the government in Mexico, the U.S. "watched" Mexico closely until trying to shut down Huerta's government, refusing to recognise the government that had come to power through violence.
Both Roosevelt's and Wilson's policies were meant to keep governments hostile to U.S. interests either out of Latin America or out of power. The policies both made U.S. intervention seem only "possible" if MAYBE it was necessary. And both policies were applied to involve America more deeply than they seemed to say.
The differences were that the two policies were used in 2 different cases, so they each had a different SPECIFIC goal, definition and application.
Roosevelt did not want European countries to come to Latin America and "help" those countries with debts, ect. Roosevelt liked the West African proverb that said, "Speak softly and carry a a big stick." He just reminded the European countries of the Monroe Doctrine, and spoke about the "possibility" of America having to use force to protect its interests in Latin America. This policy was applied several times in the next decade in order to excercise its police force. ->(p.568)
The goal of Wilson's missionary diplomacy was to put a moral side on the Monroe Doctrine and not allow recognition of governments they deemed oppressive, undemocratic, or hostile to U.S. interests (p.569). They would deny recognition to those countries, and that was all it (the diplomacy) said. When Huerta controlled the government in Mexico, the U.S. "watched" Mexico closely until trying to shut down Huerta's government, refusing to recognise the government that had come to power through violence.
Both Roosevelt's and Wilson's policies were meant to keep governments hostile to U.S. interests either out of Latin America or out of power. The policies both made U.S. intervention seem only "possible" if MAYBE it was necessary. And both policies were applied to involve America more deeply than they seemed to say.
The differences were that the two policies were used in 2 different cases, so they each had a different SPECIFIC goal, definition and application.
ch.18 sct.3 CT #4
U.S. policy toward China was rather "open." America didn't claim China as a territory or anything, they just tried to have an influence in it, an economic opening for trade (p.562). They made a deal with the other countries in China to share trading rights with the Americans.
In the Philippines, America played the role Spain had in Cuba. They claimed the Philippines as their territory and put rebels in areas like concentration camps, starting a little war with the Philippines.
I think America acted different with China than with the Philippines because China was A) too large for Americans to control by themselves, B) being inhabited by other powerful countries, and C) not exactly what America was looking for in terms of a little colony that they could own but could govern itself and just provide a trade post for American products; China was a different, bigger deal.
In the Philippines, America played the role Spain had in Cuba. They claimed the Philippines as their territory and put rebels in areas like concentration camps, starting a little war with the Philippines.
I think America acted different with China than with the Philippines because China was A) too large for Americans to control by themselves, B) being inhabited by other powerful countries, and C) not exactly what America was looking for in terms of a little colony that they could own but could govern itself and just provide a trade post for American products; China was a different, bigger deal.
ch.18 sct.3 CT #3
American rule of Puerto Rico harmed the Purto Ricans by keeping Spanish officials in office and punishing Cuban protestors (p.558). America also reserved many rights to Cuba, including handling many of its military and economic affairs in the Platt Amendment (p.560).
The Puerto Ricans were helped by the American government supplying food and clothing, improving sanitation and medical research, restoring farm land, and organizing elementary schools (p.559). While they were basically in charge of Cuba, which many Cubans did not like, America was also protecting Cuba from other countries such as Spain that might try and "abuse" Cuba...
I think the benefits outweighed the harmful effects because even though the Cubans didn't like it that America was in control of a lot of their country, the Americans weren't putting them in concentration camps or destroying their land; in fact, the Americans restored their land, gave them food and clothing (which to me is more essential than political rights), and let them elect (eventually) both houses of their legislature (p.559). I think it was better to be controlled by the Americans than to suffer the "atrocities" of the Spanish.
The Puerto Ricans were helped by the American government supplying food and clothing, improving sanitation and medical research, restoring farm land, and organizing elementary schools (p.559). While they were basically in charge of Cuba, which many Cubans did not like, America was also protecting Cuba from other countries such as Spain that might try and "abuse" Cuba...
I think the benefits outweighed the harmful effects because even though the Cubans didn't like it that America was in control of a lot of their country, the Americans weren't putting them in concentration camps or destroying their land; in fact, the Americans restored their land, gave them food and clothing (which to me is more essential than political rights), and let them elect (eventually) both houses of their legislature (p.559). I think it was better to be controlled by the Americans than to suffer the "atrocities" of the Spanish.
ch.18 sct.2 CT #3
The unstated editorial policies of yellow journalism were basically just to be as exaggerated and entertaining as possible, in order to win attention and popoularity from readers. It was like a war between newspaper companies, and truth got burried in the competition. Journalists would basically take a seed of truth and blow it up for entertainment (p.553).
James Creelman exaggerated the stories he covered of Spanish atrocities committed against the Cubans. Doing this, he aroused sympathy and American intervention in Cuba, as well as boosting newspaper sales (p.552). People who saw the stories more realistically, such as Remington, were silenced by publishers (p.553). The newspaper's headline about the blown up battle ship immediately put the blame on the Spanish and blew the story up into something it was not (p.554), a cause for war.
The basic unstated editorial policy of yellow journalism was to be the "best" by exaggerating stories in such a way that would arouse sympathy and wishes for intervention in Americans and boost newspaper sales.
James Creelman exaggerated the stories he covered of Spanish atrocities committed against the Cubans. Doing this, he aroused sympathy and American intervention in Cuba, as well as boosting newspaper sales (p.552). People who saw the stories more realistically, such as Remington, were silenced by publishers (p.553). The newspaper's headline about the blown up battle ship immediately put the blame on the Spanish and blew the story up into something it was not (p.554), a cause for war.
The basic unstated editorial policy of yellow journalism was to be the "best" by exaggerating stories in such a way that would arouse sympathy and wishes for intervention in Americans and boost newspaper sales.
ch.18 sct.1 CT #5
Beveridge says the U.S. needs (that is their destiny) to basically control world trade, and they can do that by establishing trade posts in colonies all around the world. The colonies supposedly will govern themselves and be great, trading with us and distributing American products. So, according to Beveridge, America needs to acquire new territories in order to control world trade through setting up trade posts in colonies.
ch.18 sct.1 CT #3
In the first half of the 19th century, Americans claimed Western lands and moved west towards the Pacific, corresponding with their ideas of Manifest Destiny, God's plan for them to inhabit the land. After they had moved west, fixed up their political system, and made a few reforms ("progressivism"), Americans felt they had the need (or at least want), and now the power to expand elsewhere. Many American leaders in the 1880's were convinced that the U.S. should join the imperialist powers of Europe and establish colonies overseas (p.548). Their beliefs in Manifest Destiny had eventually led them to follow the trend of rushing and competing to aquire lands and colonies all over the world, mainly to create trading posts for their country all over the world.
Monday, October 22, 2007
current events summary oct. 22
What a surprise! Almost all the countries in East Africa are still pretty poor, they don't have enough aid, and their economies are doing poorly...
Kenya’s rigid employment regulations are becoming obstacles to creating jobs as well as making businesses less willing to hire employees because of all the “rules” they have to follow. This is slowing down the potential growth of the economy. I think they should just loosen up the regulations so more people can actually have jobs and the workforce (and thus the economy) can grow some.
Uganda's president has pledged $57,000 to assist victims of the heaviest rains in 3 decades, and has said that the people of Uganda will not starve when that government is in charge. Uganda and other countries are still suffering from damage done to homes, crops, and basically countries caused by the torrential rains a couple of months ago. Many people have been helped but many more still are in great need, and there is not exactly an endless amount of aid (/money for aid) available. The promises that Western countries made to double foreign aid in Africa have not (yet) been met, which is a contributing factor to the extreme poverty of several East African countries. The UN says Africa is not likely to meet any goals for poverty-busting (at least not soon), in part due to those unmet promises of aid from Western countries. I think they should use some of the collected tax money in countries such as America to support aid in suffering nations, instead of less-neede projects for our own benefit.
Wars in Africa are also draining several countries’ limited money supply... buying arms, training and supporting troops, ect. costs a lot of money. This is yet another reason to strive for world peace... too bad there's human nature and power hunger to get in the way!
So, the poverty prevailing in the economic, and thus social realms of East African countries is mainly being caused by natural disaster, lack of will to fix the damage from those disasters (on the part of OTHER countries - that HAVE the money), not so wise descisions such as rigid employment regulations, and the lack of an ability to install peace, therefore eliminating the expenses of war.
Presumably, this poverty will effect other economic realms such as opportunities for trade, technology, general advancement, ect.
Kenya’s rigid employment regulations are becoming obstacles to creating jobs as well as making businesses less willing to hire employees because of all the “rules” they have to follow. This is slowing down the potential growth of the economy. I think they should just loosen up the regulations so more people can actually have jobs and the workforce (and thus the economy) can grow some.
Uganda's president has pledged $57,000 to assist victims of the heaviest rains in 3 decades, and has said that the people of Uganda will not starve when that government is in charge. Uganda and other countries are still suffering from damage done to homes, crops, and basically countries caused by the torrential rains a couple of months ago. Many people have been helped but many more still are in great need, and there is not exactly an endless amount of aid (/money for aid) available. The promises that Western countries made to double foreign aid in Africa have not (yet) been met, which is a contributing factor to the extreme poverty of several East African countries. The UN says Africa is not likely to meet any goals for poverty-busting (at least not soon), in part due to those unmet promises of aid from Western countries. I think they should use some of the collected tax money in countries such as America to support aid in suffering nations, instead of less-neede projects for our own benefit.
Wars in Africa are also draining several countries’ limited money supply... buying arms, training and supporting troops, ect. costs a lot of money. This is yet another reason to strive for world peace... too bad there's human nature and power hunger to get in the way!
So, the poverty prevailing in the economic, and thus social realms of East African countries is mainly being caused by natural disaster, lack of will to fix the damage from those disasters (on the part of OTHER countries - that HAVE the money), not so wise descisions such as rigid employment regulations, and the lack of an ability to install peace, therefore eliminating the expenses of war.
Presumably, this poverty will effect other economic realms such as opportunities for trade, technology, general advancement, ect.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
17-5-#4 CONTINUED
Wilson, like the presidents before him, Roosevelt and Taft, had won the support of civil rights groups by acting very supportive during campaigning, but once in office, he slacked off in his support of their causes. Wilson even placed segragationists in charge of federal agencies, which expanded racial segragation and dissapointed/angered some of Wilson's former supporters.
ch.17 sct.5 C.T.#4
Wilson failed to push for equality for African Americans despite his progressive reforms because of his backround (which affected his personality) and the primary group of people the reforms targeted.
Wilson grew up in a strict household in the South during the Civil War and Reconsrudtion (p.539), so he was accostumed to the southern view of blacks and probably had a pretty weakened resolve to help them. He was also a person who could be very uncertain in his support, such as when he "cautiously supported suffrage" (p.538).
Progressive reforms targeted the big businesses and governments and such that had a hold on the people and were creating "unfair" conditions for individual people. By making reforms of/to these things, the people would (in most cases) obtain more rights. Wilson was very obsessed with breaking down trusts and their power (i.e. by taxes) that were "strangling" the "free market"... Since Wilson focused so much on these economic reforms, he was less strong in his push for African American equality.
Wilson grew up in a strict household in the South during the Civil War and Reconsrudtion (p.539), so he was accostumed to the southern view of blacks and probably had a pretty weakened resolve to help them. He was also a person who could be very uncertain in his support, such as when he "cautiously supported suffrage" (p.538).
Progressive reforms targeted the big businesses and governments and such that had a hold on the people and were creating "unfair" conditions for individual people. By making reforms of/to these things, the people would (in most cases) obtain more rights. Wilson was very obsessed with breaking down trusts and their power (i.e. by taxes) that were "strangling" the "free market"... Since Wilson focused so much on these economic reforms, he was less strong in his push for African American equality.
ch.17 sct.3 C.T.#5
W.E.B. Du Bois opposed Booker T. Washington's views on racial discrimination because Washington accomodated segregationists, blamed black poverty on blacks and urged them to accept discrimination, whereas Bois demanded immediate social and economic equality for blacks (p.531). So basically, Washington was like "Its our own fault we live bad lives and are poor. Suck it up!" whereas Bois believed all men were equal and should be TREATED that way. So Bois was probabaly mad that Washington could let whites just walk over them and even agree with them.
ch.17 sct.2 C.T.#5
If I were a woman during the progressive era, in order to recruit women to support the many different causes, such as improving education, housing reform, food and drug laws, and the right to vote, I would stress the problems that needed fixing and explain how the movement was trying to remedy those problems. I would then explain how women benefited from each cause.
For example, womens' education was in need of some major repairs. Many colleges did not accept women and those that did probabaly didn't offer many choices to women for education. If I wanted a woman tojoin the cause to improve womens' education, I would remind them of how women were being discriminated against in colleges and given inferior (or no) educations to women. I would point out that with better educations available to women, they had more options. They no longer had to rely only on marriage (p.521) and could be independent, following their own dreams as far as careers go.
Another example is the cause to win womens' right to vote. All male citizens were allowed to vote, but not females. This meant women had no voice in politics. If women supported the cause for suffrage and they got a breakthrough, they would have a voice in politics, (possibly) be able to put an end to things such as alcohol ("issues") and be able to have a say in work conditions, ect. This sis what I would tell a woman back then to get her to join the cause. (p. 521-2)
For example, womens' education was in need of some major repairs. Many colleges did not accept women and those that did probabaly didn't offer many choices to women for education. If I wanted a woman tojoin the cause to improve womens' education, I would remind them of how women were being discriminated against in colleges and given inferior (or no) educations to women. I would point out that with better educations available to women, they had more options. They no longer had to rely only on marriage (p.521) and could be independent, following their own dreams as far as careers go.
Another example is the cause to win womens' right to vote. All male citizens were allowed to vote, but not females. This meant women had no voice in politics. If women supported the cause for suffrage and they got a breakthrough, they would have a voice in politics, (possibly) be able to put an end to things such as alcohol ("issues") and be able to have a say in work conditions, ect. This sis what I would tell a woman back then to get her to join the cause. (p. 521-2)
Thursday, October 4, 2007
ch.17 sct.1 C.T.#3
Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon can be considered trailblazers in progressive reform.
States such as Oregon made legislative and electoral reforms that gave the people more of a voice in matters, such as "initiative," "referendum," and "recall" (p.518). These reforms (initiative, ect.) were the results of the work of William S. U'ren, who also prompted his state of Oregon to adopt the secret ballot, which would help less scandals take place with threats, bribery, ect.
Robert La Follette also led in political reforms. He was governor for 3 terms and then went into the U.S. senate. He worked to drive big bussinesses "out of poitics, and then to treat them exactly the same as other people are treated," and focused on railroad companies (p.516).
In Illinois, Florence Kelley worked to improve the lives of women and children, and was appointed chief inspector of Illinois factories. Prior to that, she had helped to win passage of the Illinois Factory Act in 1893, which prohibited child labor and limited women's working hours. This soon became a model for other states.
Illinois helped trailblaze the progressive path of improving personal rights, and Oregon led in electoral and legislative reforms. These states caused many others to follow their examples, and could be considered trailblazers in progressive reform.
States such as Oregon made legislative and electoral reforms that gave the people more of a voice in matters, such as "initiative," "referendum," and "recall" (p.518). These reforms (initiative, ect.) were the results of the work of William S. U'ren, who also prompted his state of Oregon to adopt the secret ballot, which would help less scandals take place with threats, bribery, ect.
Robert La Follette also led in political reforms. He was governor for 3 terms and then went into the U.S. senate. He worked to drive big bussinesses "out of poitics, and then to treat them exactly the same as other people are treated," and focused on railroad companies (p.516).
In Illinois, Florence Kelley worked to improve the lives of women and children, and was appointed chief inspector of Illinois factories. Prior to that, she had helped to win passage of the Illinois Factory Act in 1893, which prohibited child labor and limited women's working hours. This soon became a model for other states.
Illinois helped trailblaze the progressive path of improving personal rights, and Oregon led in electoral and legislative reforms. These states caused many others to follow their examples, and could be considered trailblazers in progressive reform.
ch.17 sct.1 C.T.#4
I think the artist of the cartoon had an unfavorable opinion of Carry Nation, revealed in the way they portray the scene in the painting. Carry looks very fat and big-headed, which could represent the way the artist felt about her (negatively). The men in the bar all look like scared, helpless victims, rather innocent. The bar lays in complete destruction and there is no sign of moral improvement or even victory... just destruction. The way this scene is depicted so negatively implies that the artist had a very unfavorale opinion of the prohibitionist, Carry Nation.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Current Events Summary 2
About a month ago, there was some big flooding in Africa. In east africa, it was most felt in Uganda, Ethiopia, and Sudan. In some parts of the land, it floods most years, but the people were still surprised this time at the rapidness of the rising rainwaters. Thousands of people lost their homes, and hudreds their lives. This will be a negative affect on their economies because the rains destroyed many peoples crops, which is a large part of income. Many of these East African countries do not really have enough money to repair all the damage and bring help to their suffering countries. The UN is lending a hand, but many more are needed. UN agencies are seeking $43 million for Uganda alone... Now the African countries will be using their money to help fix this issue, instead of using it for other economic plans they may have had. (This connects to the theme that geography affects history.)
But according to Takatoshi Kato, sub-Saharan countries are doing great economy wise. He says East Africa has grown economically (related to the merging of world markets/companies or something), and growth is expected to continue increasing in the next few years. The growth is due in part to oil-exporting countries, but non-oil-exporting countries are assisting as well. There are risks for the future though, such as the fact that "aid flow from international donors has not yet fully materialized." So, for the most part (according to this guy), East African economies are growing rapidly and gaining stability, but there are a few economic dangers.
Kenya has rigid employment regulations that are apparently becoming obstacles to creating jobs. The IFC says that this rigidity produces "less job creation, smaller company size... and longer spells of unemployment... -all of which may reduce productivity growth." They warn that this is not in the long term interest of workers and businesses.
In Sudan, there are people still in bondage of slavery, but since it costs money to free them, the government and other countries have lost motivation to free the people. The slave owners had originally taken them because of ethnic rivalry, but are probably keeping them today because the slaves get them more MONEY. The government has a hard time funding programs to free the slaves because the government doesn't have "enough" money. (talk about priorities!)
So, basically, right now East African countries are suffering economically from things ranging from flooding to employment regulations. But according to some people, their economies are doing great, growing and stabilizing.
But according to Takatoshi Kato, sub-Saharan countries are doing great economy wise. He says East Africa has grown economically (related to the merging of world markets/companies or something), and growth is expected to continue increasing in the next few years. The growth is due in part to oil-exporting countries, but non-oil-exporting countries are assisting as well. There are risks for the future though, such as the fact that "aid flow from international donors has not yet fully materialized." So, for the most part (according to this guy), East African economies are growing rapidly and gaining stability, but there are a few economic dangers.
Kenya has rigid employment regulations that are apparently becoming obstacles to creating jobs. The IFC says that this rigidity produces "less job creation, smaller company size... and longer spells of unemployment... -all of which may reduce productivity growth." They warn that this is not in the long term interest of workers and businesses.
In Sudan, there are people still in bondage of slavery, but since it costs money to free them, the government and other countries have lost motivation to free the people. The slave owners had originally taken them because of ethnic rivalry, but are probably keeping them today because the slaves get them more MONEY. The government has a hard time funding programs to free the slaves because the government doesn't have "enough" money. (talk about priorities!)
So, basically, right now East African countries are suffering economically from things ranging from flooding to employment regulations. But according to some people, their economies are doing great, growing and stabilizing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)