In class we learned that historians have conflicting viewpoints than that of Frederick Jackson Turner's "Significance of the Frontier on US History". It is important also to point out that the idea of Manifest Destiny and US economic/geopolitical expansion had a very important role in the Spanish-American war of 1898 and the Presidentcy of Theodore Roosevelt.
This is jumping ahead of the time period that we are covering in class, but it is important to remember that the idea of manifest destiny and US expansion did not stop with the closing of the frontier. Some historians believe that this idea carried into the Spanish-American war and the lesser known Phillipene War which was immediately after. The US role in Cuban independence and especially the Phillipene war is less than honorable. Approximately 200K+ Phillipinos were killed during their uprising against us and the fight against the Spanish in Cuba was a complete lopsided route that could have probably been avoided. This time period is a black eye on the history of the US and there is a credible argument that this was the beginning of US "Imperialism". Some people today feel that the US is the "world police" and should drawback our "unnecessary" global influence that started after the Spanish-American war.
This supposed US "imperialsim" comes up any time that US involvement (or non-involvement) in a foreign conflict becomes difficult. We are called imperialists if we liberate a country in which a brutal dictator killed 300K+ of his own people and we are told that we did not do enough if we standby while a genocide in Rwanda or Darfur happens. Which is it? Can it be both?
The answer is simple. Does the good outweigh the bad when it comes to US foreign affairs? The US donates 80% of all the worlds foreign aid and charitable donations. Germany (which took four years to have its first democratic vote) and Japan (which took 7) are now our allies. South Korea was virtually taken over before Gen. MacArthur invaded Inchon. Women are now going to school in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bosnia and Kosovo are now stable and free from ethnic cleansing. The worlds sea trading routes are kept open and free by the US Navy at a cost of $0 to anyone else in the world.
Yes, the US has had it's fare share of foreign affairs debacles. However, I believe that the good outweighs the bad and evenmore there is no going back to isolationism, the world is too small now. The original idea of manifest destiny was wrong. However, what I am arguing is that is has evolved into the realization that the US has been blessed as the strongest country on earth and now it is our responsibility to intervene when evil rears its ugly head. Maybe we can make amends for all the misdeeds against Native Americans by intervening against evil when it is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
it is true that American donates loads and loads of international aid...but it's not like that money is going to North Korea or Cuba or something. I think the concept of a "political economy" is something that looms over America.
Why are we in Iraq, and not in Darfur? There are some obvious political and economical reasons besides intervention for the greater good.
I like your last sentence. I'm all for that.
The Spanish-American war and its links to the Phillipine War are something that in a HIST 129 class are definitely important events, and arguments of imperialism are difficult to ignore when discussing them.
It seems the real question on "intervening against evil" revolves around who decides what is evil? And what are the other factors that might influence US officials in getting involved in international events?
Post a Comment