Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is an open forum for CCHS AP US History students. There will be an official posting each week for each student to respond. However, you may also post other information and questions you have concerning AP US History or CCHS.
Blog Archive
About Me
- Mrs. Vince
- This is my 7th year teaching AP US History and our third year to blog. Please put forth your best effort and hopefully it will be beneficial for everyone!!!
18 comments:
I do not believe that imperialism was at all justified. We were unrightfully taking countries without their will. One might argue that we were helping countries such as the Panama gain their independence, but did that require us to take over? We were trying to take over just for the sole purpose of greed. Our motive was to make ourselves stronger. In the Philippines, we took over to supposedly help the people. Instead, when they begged for independence, we said no. If our main objective was to assist the people, why would we not allow the people their freedom if they felt they were ready. Obviously when a group of people you are governing plead for freedom they no longer want your assistance. For the most part our imperialist views were purely selvish.
I would have to agree with Cathy and say that imperalism was not justified during this time. We used our own power to take over poor countries that were to weak to fight back and had no say at all in what we then did after taking the rule over the country. For example the Philliphines were not given any rights at all to their own country after we came in a took control. I think that they should have had a say in what went on becouse it was their country originally and not ours to take. They desired to have independence and we refused to give them that.
casey:)
I do not believe that imperialism was anywhere close to being justified in the 1890s. The United States was intensions were to find cheap resources, better markets, and more land. They saw the tension between Cuba and Spain as an oppertunity to gain what they wanted, yet in the process they also got the Phillipines. Their justified their actions by saying they were helping them gain independence, but they just ended up becoming an imperialistic country to the Fillipinoes. For years later the Fillipinos thought wished to gain independence and become a citizen of the US, but unfortuantly they were only ruled. They also intervened between Columbia and the Panama people and helped them gain their independence, but in exchange they took a piece of land in order to create the Panama Canal, wanting to make a short cut from the Atlantic to Pacific ocean. The United States also wanted to take parts of China(open door policy), saying they opened China up for trade, but fortunatly China rebelled, wishing to be left alone. Obiviously the Us only wanted to gain more power, and they did that similar to how counrties such as Britain and later Germany would, by gaining control of weaker countires.
i'll be the blacksheep on this one because i think it was justified. the contry was rebounding off of a civil war and needed a new focus on its attentions. gaining territory and getting raw materials helped build a stranger nation. with the take over of HI we not only got a whole new economic area we also got a strategic military area. it was a place to reload and stock up making the nation even more dominat in naval ways. the panama helped our economy by cutting off travel time to get from coast to coast. and we made money off the tax to get across the panama.
when we fought in the spanish american war we were united in our efforts to liborate cuba from spanish rulers. yes it was blown out of preportion but both northa nd south came together to help fight a common cause.
at the time we made money off of our territorys and became stronger as we gathered more land resourses and laborers so yes i think the nation did what ever it could to be more united and stronger and is therefore justified.
Kaila
I also agree with Cathy when saying imperialism was not justified during the 1890s. The United States were taking countries that did not belong to us. When another country was in need we went in to help but took control afterwards for example the Phillipines and the Pananma Canal, these were not ours to take. We also took control over pieces of China through the Open Dooor Policy which allowed us free trade with China against their will. Thats when the Boxer Rebellion took place and China won closing the door on trade. But as for Pananma and the Phillipines we controlled them for a long time before we let go of the control and gave them their Independence. Some would say that this was a bad idea, we should have just kept what we were doing, but these places were not to keep and if we hadn't had given them back it would have just caused more war and conflict with the U.S and these areas. Our main purpose was to help so we should have done that then left these places alone but instead we just kept on controlling.
I have to agree with Cathy also. Imperialism was not at all justified. When is it ever right to take someone elses property right from under them? This was definetly a low point for the U.S. one example would be the panama canal, we helped them but then we turned around and told them that we controlled them. It was just ery unfair. Another Example is the Bpxer Rebellion in China. We were trying to force China to trade with us as a open door policy, but they did not want to do this, so with their martial arts fighting they defeated us. Much like the cartoon in classs today Uncle sam was just wanting to take a bite off of everything there was on the nemu. He wanted to try and take control of everything.
During the 1890s the U.S. was becoming an overdominate, selfish, greedy country. As a country we were trying to expand and get in our grasps as much land, resources, and cheap labor as possible. The U.S. was using excuses such as giving the people of 3rd world countries liberation or Christianizing them, when really all we wanted to was to take over and get thier resources and to control the people. Uncle Sam was corrupt and unjust in stealing land and culture form native people in Hawaii. We wrongfully took away their culture and beliefs, we dethroned their queen and treated the people like slaves. The U.S. also took over the Philipines and denied them their independence which they begged for, we just took over to make ourselves stronger. Uncle Sam also wrongfully against their will opened the doors of China for trade which led to the Boxer Rebellion. The U.S. intervened between even Columbia and the Panama people, saying we were just going to help the people gain their independence; well we did what we said but then in return we asked for land to build the Panama Canal. I think that this request showed our true bad side, we didn't really care about the people we just wanted everything in our control. Like when we fought for Cuba against Spain in the treaty we demanded that Cuba always do what the U.S. said, which shows just how money minded we where. In conclusion imperialism was not justified we were just plain greedy.
Maynard
The United States wasnt really justified in their dealings with imperialism. Most of the time we did this just to make ourselves look stronger and to become an empire like the Spanish and Great Britain. Even though that may seem like a good reason for conquering another country we did not even try to give the conquered countries that we 'saved' what they really wanted. For instance, we 'saved' Phillipines from Spain, but we didnt give them the freedom that they so desired. in conclusion, there is no justification in a stronger and ever growing country to conquer one that cant even defend itself...robbing the poor to benefit the rich
Imperialism was justified in a couple cases where we helped them, then gave them their independence later, or continued to benefit them. What we did in the Philippines was just nonsense, we went in and 'saved' them from their rulers, but then just stepped in as their new ruler. However, in Panama, we 'saved' them, and got the Panama Canal built. This helped most of the world, who could now use this canal, and we eventually gave it back to Panama, so they could then reap the benefits of it.
Imperialism is never justified. It will never be fair to go in and take over a country under false pretenses of giving them their independence or helping them. Often times we said we were helping out, like Cathy said, in places like Panama, but really we were only liberating them from their previous governments and putting them beneath ours, much the way we do today in places like the Middle east. Big powers, the united states in cluded, will forever take advantage of those smaller and weaker than them, always saying its for the greater good but never actually doing more than taking over.
I don't think that imperialism was justified whatsoever. We would make excuses like, "we are helping them gain independence (Panama)" but yet all we really wanted was the canal so that it would be easier to get to the other side of our country. We wanted to be the most powerful country in the world, and we worked our way there. The United States was very selfish, and still is, but therefore all we care about is what will make us better. We don't care if the other countries are suffering under our rule, we just care that we own them and that we have all power over them!
I don't think that imperialism was justified during this time period at all. It isn't fair to take over weaker countries just to make ourselves or our country stronger than others. For example, we gained the Phillipines as well as Cuba whenever Cuba and Spain were having problems. Even though we said we were helping them gain their independence, we also became very imperalistic to their country as we decided to gain more and more control of them. We should have just helped them instead of taking over and controlling them.
Yes, i think imperialism was justified. It may suck for those who they are taking over, but in order for a country to have extreem power it must control others. A powerful counrty must show its superiority over others in order to become more powerful and that is exactly what America was doing at this time. An example of this would be america taking over Hawaii. The natives had the bad end of the deal but it gave America a useful port in the Pasific ocean, therfore giving America more power.
No, imperialism was not then and will never be justified. Imperialism is based off of greed and money. Lies were spread about helping the people and making a better life for them, but in all truth, things were made worse. Cultures were destroyed, such as in Hawaii, and the people were forced to act like Americans and follow American rule while being a supposed "independent" country. Imperliaist nations only want more land to gain more money and more power.
I do agree with the black sheep. Imperialism was justified because we were the only country that was big but without a lot of power. So in turn if we didn't take over the places we would have lost power. We might have even been taken over by another power. Or would the United States be as it is today if we hadn't. So to me it was justified.
thanks Dillon
we have another random commeter lol
- btw this is kaila
i belive that imperialism was justified be cause it did alot of good for the third world countrys that we freed because we helped give the people more rights and the portection of the US and after they were set in there new ways and could be self sufficant we gave the lad back to its native people like we did with Panama we went in and built the panama canal which helped alot of people. then we gave it back to panama so that they could use it
Post a Comment