School Begins Cartoon Analysis

“The Spanish-American War was the defining moment in modern U.S. history. It began the process by which the U.S. would establish itself as a world super power”.

The perception of history is often crafted by the information given and the information available, however, almost too often the facts accessible are warped by the viewpoints of others before they can be properly assessed. Differing outlooks thus explicate the controversial nature of historical events and why the motives and conclusions behind certain occurrences are called into question. The Mexican American war as many American historians would call it ushers a contrary tone in Mexico as their own historians would claim the “war” as United States invasion; the difference in referral is based on the different perceptions of the conflict. In the American viewpoint, the Mexican American War was driven by economic, social and political pressures to bolster United States territories, through the annexation of Texas. In the converse, it could be argued that Mexico did not declare a formal war against the United States but rather was interested in defending their country’s territorial integrity and resisting United State’s invasion. In a Mexican viewpoint then, the war was not a result of arrogance but a consequence of defending Mexican territory from United States invasion. Nonetheless the aftermath of the war produced immense repercussions, furthering American exceptionalism, slavery, and disregard for international borders prompting the inquiry of not only the unjust methods applied but the unjustified results.

The Spanish-American War of 1898 could be seen as the pivotal point in foreign policy as it marks America’s first engagement with a foreign enemy in the dawning age of modern warfare however, one could also argue that the idea had always existed in American politics.

As countries seek to avoid alliances that can lead to conflicts, noninterventionism has remained one of the most explored concepts in global politics. Having seen the impacts of the Revolutionary Wars on humanity and being home of people from different ethnic racial groups from Europe, the last 27th presidents of the United States have been adopting foreign policies that promote nationalism and internal growth rather than partnering with global powers. One of the approaches is isolationism, a policy that has always prevented the United States from involving itself in international conflicts. Since his reelection, President Woodrow Wilson has observed this tradition by maintaining neutrality for more than three years during the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia. However, the president should abandon this policy and adopt an approach that will protect humanity from the destructive war in Europe. As this paper seeks to discuss, joining the war offers more benefits to America and humanity than staying in isolation from world politics.

While one cannot simply deny America’s colonialist presuppositions in involving itself with the war, it is clear that the main driving force and motivation into the war was founded on the development of America 's national identity that held the nation as being just, democratic and humane.4 As such, America had a duty to protect the oppressed regardless of their nationality and race. America 's victory over Spain, and the restoration of peace among the Cuban people was an affirmation that America was a democratic and just nation. To a large extend, this victory placed America in the center of global power and control.

During the period of time between the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, America was going through major changes. After a revolution in Cuba against the Spanish, and America’s intervening to start the Spanish-American War, the Americans received a lot of land from their defeated opponent. America then started on the path to imperialism, gaining many more territories in a short amount of time. Such an expansion was a continuation of past United States expansionism, while also departing with past expansionism. The United States expansionism of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuries was a clear continuation of the social and cultural principles of the nation’s past expansionism; however, it was more of a departure

William Graham Summer, sociologist professor at Yale University, “The Conquest of the United States by Spain”, speech, (Doc 2), argues that America has always followed this doctrine that ‘all men are equal’ but when America lends a helping hand they always want something in return, in this case America wanted to spread democracy in the Philippines. “…told by all the imperialists that these people are not fit for liberty and self- government; … it is rebellion for them to resist our beneficence; … must send fleets and armies to kill them if they do it;… must devise a government for them and administer it ourselves.” Summer states that if America keeps dictating other countries government it will only lead us to where Spain is, powerless and non-profitable. On the contrary, Puck- a satirical magazine, (Doc 7), illustrates the expansion of imperialism by having a bold eagle protecting its territory- U.S, Puerto Rico, Panama, and Philippines. These countries that the eagle is protecting are the countries that are under democratic regime. The American flag in the eagle’s mouth is a representation of Democracy and the flags on the countries are subjugations of democracy. The picture is also sending a message of encouragement towards democracy, the boldness and warrior look in the eagle’s eyes and posture is embodying that

Also, Social Darwinism had been a huge influence to many Americans, which led them to believe that the United States had a responsiblity to bring industrialization and democracy to less developed nations. Many American leaders, such as Theodore Roosevelt, thought that the ticket and key tool for imperialism would be a powerful naval presence, his, “big stick” that would rival any great European power. Through necessity of resources and war with Spain, the United States would free Cuba, annex Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. Annexation had a pronounced affect on the citizens of those countries, more so in the Philippines. As we know the United States engaged in imperialism to promote their influence of democracy to new parts of the world. The United States believed they had a responsible to police the Western Hemisphere, but the United States’ decision to engage in imperialism was much more than

Exceptionalism, Expansionism, and Isolationism Throughout the United States’ history three key values has steered our foreign policy; these include exceptionalism, isolationism, and expansionism. These three connected principles fight against American morals and obligation but helped the United States become a superpower. In this paper, I will explain these three forces and how they interconnect, argue the belief that they helped shape America as a supreme power, and look back on these principles and how they led to the Mexican- American War, and provide a contemporary example.

At the time of the Spanish American War the United States went from relative isolation to increased global involvement because of 1. The spirit of the American people captured by the idea of the frontier and, 2. The belief it was the duty of America to maintain peace of all nations. The consequences of this increased global involvement on American Society was 3. The clashing views of the imperialist and anti-imperialist parties.

While there is no doubt that the Spanish-American War ushered the United States into imperialism there is a debate about the United States before the war. Traditionalists argue that the United States was largely isolationist before the Spanish-American War while revisionists, many of whom gained traction in the 1960s during widespread protest to the Vietnam War, argue that the United States has always been this imperialistic, even during the 19th century. This essay will examine whether foreign policy in the 19th century was largely isolationist with the Spanish-American war marking a significant shift in foreign policy, as the traditionalists maintain, or Spanish-American war

In Empire’s Workshop, Greg Grandin argues that the United States engineered a destructive domestic fusion of religious fundamentalism, hawkish neoconservatism, and nationalism - to justify it’s engagement in a jingoistic, self-serving foreign policy in Latin America. Furthermore, his work details the preemptive clash against perceived communist elements, and places the ideological disagreements regarding private-property, as the primary mover in US actions. By examining the Guatemalan coup of 1954, which Grandin describes as the Central Intelligence Agency’s “first full-scale covert operation” in Latin America, we can assess the prototypical reasoning behind US intervention. Moreover, the thorough assessment of the motivations of American

1) What perceptions of “others” are reflected attending Miss Columbia’s School House (Document 1)? How does Aguinaldo’s criticism of America’s policies towards the Philippines (Document 2) echo the 1894 political cartoon? What do these two documents suggest about the way America perceived conquered peoples and the likelihood that they would ever be fit for American citizenship and its liberties?

While the Cold War does not mark a significant distinction from US involvement in Latin America pre-Cold War, the inclusion of ideology in US foreign policy decisions did mark a change in attitudes and focus. While US policy can be described as rational to a certain point, the Cuban dilemma caused an irrational fear in US foreign policy makers to avoid a second-Cuba. The fear of a “second Cuba” can be seen in the various interventions by the US in Latin America during this period.

Today, in the 21st century, English has become one of the most used languages around the world. It is so widely used that linguists have considered it to be the new ‘lingua franca’. Along with its language the United States is one of the most influential countries around the globe. There is no denying its presence in everything from international politics to entertainment. In fact, it is thought to be the only country that rivals the world 's once-great empires in terms of its global impact. In an article written by Mclean, she proclaims, “the U.S dominates world politics by providing the language, ideas, and institutional frameworks around which much of the world turns” (2). However, the United States did not just become an imperial power over night. From the middle of the 19th century till present time the U.S has been intervening in foreign lands. One country that has been immensely influenced by English colonization, to present day, is the Island of the Philippines. Whether it was consciously or not, the control of the Philippines by U.S after the Spanish-American War was a small step towards world power. A brief look into Philippines’ history shows how much different the island would’ve been without English rule. Although the Philippines were not pleased with the transfer of power over to America in the Treaty of Paris, the short 50 year rule proves to have had a major impact on Philippine culture, customs, and politics today.