Looking back over weeks 7-9, what in your view was
the 1) most common and 2) most effective strategy for American expansion abroad
in the period 1890-1920. Formal empire? Dollar diplomacy? Americanization? Or an
interplay of all three? (80-100 words, by 5pm Friday October 5)
The most common and the most effective strategy for American expansion between 1890-1920 was that of ‘dollar diplomacy’ and the creation of an informal empire. Whilst military conquest created an instantly recognizable and tangible empire, it could never be the chosen mode of American expansion due to its unpopularity. Secretary of State Elihu Root cautioned that the outright acquisition of colonies was undesirable, and rather the dissemination of economic and cultural influence would be preferable. ‘Dollar Diplomacy’ in the Dominican Republic had the advantage of yielding just as many economic advantages as an official protectorate, yet avoiding the criticism of US oppression of a foreign nation that accompanied an official annexation.
ReplyDeleteDollar diplomacy was the most common form of expansion during the 1890's-1920's most notably in the Carribean and Latin American countries. It was more effective than the more direct approach of Formal expansion because it was met with less resistance and negative responses from the countries involved. Formal control was more violent and was seen by native inhabitants as a direct attempt to take control of their country for the sake of increasing America's sphere of influence. On the other hand Economic control or setting up puppet governmnets was less noticable to the majority of the population as finnancial and moral support was seen as possitive and not as conquest.Americanisation i think was only a product of the Formal and Informal empiracle rule. By increasing economic, political and military ties by empire America was then able to spread its cultural influence through Her networks created by the Empire.
ReplyDelete-(Austin)
The most common and effective strategy for American expansion abroad between 1890 and 1920 was a combination of economic “informal” control and a diffusion of American culture, products and ideas throughout the areas they were trying to influence. Firstly, “dollar diplomacy” allowed the American government to seize effective control of a country’s economy under the pretence of “stabilising” or helping them, without having to expend the administrative or military resources needed to colonise a country completely. Furthermore, the assertion that such economic measures were for the benefit of both the other country and America allowed politicians to deflect any criticisms or accusations of creating a formal empire. Secondly, Americanisation through the exportation of American ideas, culture and products abroad encouraged other countries to accept America’s influence (economic or otherwise) as a positive and necessary measure to ensure their own progress. A key example is America’s interaction with the previously closed society of Japan, where a show of military and technological power in 1854 forced Japan to open up to American trade and commerce. This economic influence was followed by the introduction of American culture and ideas, resulting in Japan’s rapid Westernisation and modernisation under Emperor Meiji in the early 20th century.
ReplyDeleteThe vehement domestic opposition and the fact that it resulted in a brutal war seems to preclude the formal empire in the Philippines from being the most effective way for America to expand. In contrast, dollar diplomacy essentially allowed America to exert similar control over other nation’s governments without having to deal with the mess resulting from a formal empire. This obviously had a lot of benefits for the American economy (in that they were able to protect their businesses in these countries), and also strategically (for example, inciting the revolution in Panama so that America could build their canal). The success of Americanisation in American expansion is harder to measure because there were always elements of resistance (such as European quotas on films and rejection of American sports), and Americans were influenced in other areas by foreign countries (such as fashion by the French). So although the demonstrating and exporting of American goods and culture might have been the most common strategy for American expansion (after all mass consumption was a signifier of Americanisation), the most effective would have been dollar diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteThe most common and effective means of American expansion was a mix of cultural and material exports, or Americanization. Formal empire was only embraced fully in the Philippines where, after becoming engaged in a bloody fight to suppress independence fighters, US eagerness for territorial expansion fell away. Dollar diplomacy, while successful in controlling the economies of Latin American countries such as the Dominican Republic, did not have the resounding effect upon history that Americanization has. Coinciding with the proliferation of mass-produced American consumer goods, the US began to export its culture, symbolized initially in such events as Buffalo Bill’s travelling wild west show. Following aid to the allies in World War One, the US became the centre of world markets, and secured itself in a position to export its culture, and strengthen its economy for the remainder of the century.
ReplyDeleteIt is very difficult to pick one of these three strategies as being the most common and effective for American expansion abroad during 1890-1920. Each strategy was largely combined to different geographical areas, with the empire relating to the expansion in the Philippines, and dollar diplomacy being targeted at Latin America. The policy of dollar diplomacy was largely successful, as it prevented other countries from reaping any sort of financial gain, thus allowing the United States to greatly benefit. This gave the US the ability to further its influence abroad. Americanisation has arguably been the most effective because its influence can be seen in a contemporary context. American ideals have influenced many countries, including Australia, thus highlighting its greater reach compared to the other strategies.
ReplyDeleteOpposition towards formal empire (both domestically and abroad), means that this strategy cannot be considered as the most effective strategy for expansion. Instead, a combination of ‘dollar diplomacy’ and Americanization was the most common and effective form of American expansion. ‘Dollar diplomacy’ allowed America control over the economies of other countries, allowing her to reap economic benefits without the problems caused by implementation of a formal empire. Additionally, Americanization, through the exportation of American products, films etc. allowed for the dissemination of American values, ideas and culture. This placed America at the height of progress and encouraged other countries to emulate American culture, thus increasing America’s influence.
ReplyDeleteAll of the strategies employed by the US to facilitate their expansion were effective in some way. However, dolloar diplomacy seems to have been most successful in that it allowed the US to exert the same influence over the nations that it sought to utilise for expansion without establishing a formal empire and encountering the resistance from foreign nations that is attached to formal empire. That said, I believe that Americanisation was the most common strategy since America's desire to spread its ideals is apparent in all of their attempts to expand.
ReplyDeleteIt could be argued that dollar diplomacy intertwined with Americanisation was the most common and most effective strategy which America used to expand abroad in the period 1890-1920. Dollar diplomacy proved popular under President Taft to further Americas influence across Latin America and East Asia. Effectively ‘stabilising’ un-stable countries, through the use of economic, diplomatic and military power, the US believed they were saving these countries from the European super powers. In reality the US were able to assert direct and indirect influence over these nations through American culture, values and sport, ultimately ‘Americanising’ these nations. An example of this is in Japan and Latin America where baseball was used to breakdown cultural barriers. This enabled America to assert influence in commerce and trade ultimately leading to American business flourishing.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to pinpoint a single strategy that was the most effective in American expansion during 1890 to 1920. However, the "Dollar Diplomacy" system, instigated by President William Taft in 1909, was extremely effective in allowing America to exert influence over Latin America and Liberia, and enabled them to profit from trade. This economic expansion was furthered by Americanization, where the culture of America was spread to other nations through aspects of society such as cinema and sports. By expanding their influence culturally, America was able to introduce themselves as innovative inventors in the realm of technology, thus establishing their empire further throughout the early 20th century.
ReplyDeleteThe most common and most effective method of american expansion during this period is through informal empire, dollar diplomacy and Americanisation. While expansion through these methods is often met with resistance, it is nothing compared to the formal and brutal conflict in the Philippines, which was the result of America's dabbling in formal empire. Americanisation in particular, through the expansion of Hollywood and the exportation of american products and culture started a global trend that has positioned America as the worlds most dominant and most exported culture to this day. Dollar diplomacy was also extremely effective in securing America vital infrastructure such as the Panama canal, which aided its economic and cultural expansion.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that in this time period, a combination of 'dollar diplomacy' and Americanisation was both the most common and the most effective form of American expansion overseas. Attempts at formal empire, such as annexing the Phillipines, were less effective. By relying on less direct means of expansion, America was able to spread its power and influence further abroad with less resistance. Such indirect power was able to spread worldwide, but a direct, formal empire was limited to neighbouring countries and was met with more resistance.
ReplyDelete(That last comment was from me - Anneliese Raike)
ReplyDelete