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 period of 1890-1920 saw a number of different methods of American expansion.
ReplyDeleteAmericanization must be seen as the most common method for expansion as it
occurred across the world rather than in just one particular geographical area. Formal
empire existed only in the Philippines and a few Caribbean nations, while dollar
diplomacy was a method of infiltration used in only Central and South America.
In terms of effectiveness though Americanization was only able to influence culture
around the world to a certain extent, as quite often hybridisation would occur with the local
cultures encountered. Dollar diplomacy was best at gaining important and long lasting influence, as it occurred in a much less accountable way then formal empire.
While formal empire did mean the control of particular countries, including the Philippines, these were often of
little consequence economically or in broader power terms, despite being acquired for
such reasons. Most importantly all three were occurring and interacting with one another at the same time and so the interaction and thus means that no single one can be defined as the most effective method.
Strategically it was the use of varied concepts that aided American expansion between 1890-1920. Most commonly, particularly upon entrance to the 20th century, was both Americanization and dollar diplomacy. Americanization expanded the nation culturally while dollar diplomacy secured economic expansion abroad. Both concepts had very broad influence internationally and were therefore most common compared to the existence of formal empires which existed only very specifically within the Philippines and the Caribbean. Formal empires, however, were very effective in securing American expansion as they were regions most tightly controlled by America which generally served the nation's best economic and cultural interests. Americanization, though of broad influence internationally, was a less controlled concept by America and thus less effective in expanding American culturally. All three concepts were crucial in this period of American expansion with varied levels of effectivity.
ReplyDeleteI think Americanization was both the most common and the most effective strategy used for American expansion during the period 1890-1920.
ReplyDeleteThe limited expansion by formal empire, such as in the Philippines and Caribbean, had to deal with great opposition both at home and in the countries being subjugated. This opposition prevented the expansion from being overly effective, and the impermanent nature of US control in both the Philippines and Caribbean illustrates this.
Dollar diplomacy, particularly in Latin America, was effective to a point, but often required additional formal involvement of the US in the area, such as the involvement of military forces in Nicaragua and Cuba.
In contrast, Americanization was a worldwide phenomenon, which was able to create influence both close to American shores, in Cuba and the Caribbean, and on the other side of the world in Europe and Asia. This Americanization was less likely to face strong opposition from locals than military intervention or US involvement in national economics, and much more permanent than formal control over small Islands in the Pacific and Caribbean. Thus, Americanization was the most effective strategy for American expansion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
In the period of 1890-1920, while Formal Empire and Dollar Diplomacy to some extent facilitated and influenced Americanisation, it was this which was arguably both the most effective and common strategy utilised for American expansion abroad during this period. The strategy of ‘empire by invitation’ worked in many spheres such as the transportation of American entertainment, cuisine, and economics. The result was quite effective in that it occurred exponentially, although resistance and hybridisation did occur which shows that it was not a simple and fully successful venture. Arguably it was the subtlety of this expansion in its influence of ideas and products which caused it to be so accepted and incorporated internationally. This certainly seems to be the situation in comparison with formal empire and dollar diplomacy which were successful to some extent, but never to the degree that Americanisation was able to achieve during this period.
ReplyDeleteThe most effective strategy for American expansion at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century was Americanization. As well as being effective it was also the most common method of disseminating American culture and ideals throughout the world. Americanization also created numerous economic benefits as a result of American products being sold and used around the world. This inflow in wealth allowed to a lesser extent the U.S to expand through Formal Empire by acquiring the Philippines and territory within Latin America. Americanization provided the U.S with the capital to expand through Dollar Diplomacy by exploiting Latin American states with their economic power. This clearly highlights that Americanization was the most effective and common method of expansion in this era.
ReplyDeleteThe Americanization of the world was both the most common, and most effective strategy for American Expansion. Although strong cases can be made for the successes of both Dollar Diplomacy and Formal Empire, their flaws hampered the growth of American expansion. Expansion by formal empire was limited by geographical constraints, not to mention the fierce domestic and international public opposition garnered by the subjugation of countries like the Philippines and those in the Caribbean. This weakened America's attempts to exert control over her overseas interests. Dollar Diplomacy, although a clever initiative in attempting to create stability through finance abroad to protect U.S. interests, failed to counteract both the inherent economic instabilities, and curb the tides of revolution in places like Mexico, the Dominican Republic, China and Nicaragua. Americanization therefore, was the most effective strategy expansion in that it allowed American culture and ideals to permeate international communities. Unlike physical and financial means, culture and ideals are not as easily contained by external factors, and the sweeping American cultural phenomenon was the catalyst for rapid American expansion in the period 1890-1920.
ReplyDeleteAmericanisation was the most common strategy used for American expansion in the period 1890-1920. Being a cultural phenomenon, Americanisation was more easily spread and implemented than formal empire or dollar diplomacy and it was evident across the globe, notably in the Caribbean and Asia. Today, with the aid of globalisation, Americanisation is the most effective strategy for US expansion, given how it can permeate international borders seamlessly. However, in the period of 1890-1920, dollar diplomacy was more effective. This strategy, especially evident in Latin American, achieved financial dividends for the US, but because it was not a formal empire it did not give the countries it was taking advantage of a clear enemy to rebel against. Dollar diplomacy succeeded in reaping economic benefit without incurring the clear and direct rebellious wrath that has met formal empires.
ReplyDeleteThe most frequently used and effective method of American expansion abroad between 1890-1920 was Americanisation. That isn’t to say America did not rely on either formal empire or dollar diplomacy. As demonstrated by the Spanish-American War over Cuba, USA was not above using military power if necessary to wield influence over its neighbouring countries. But such efforts always resulted in great opposition both at home and in the occupied nation, particularly since it reeked of the colonialism and imperialism they decried in Britain and France. Under William Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt, dollar diplomacy became a central part of America’s foreign policy, particularly towards Latin American states, and the Philippines, thus furthering American commercial interests beyond their backyard. Through dollar diplomacy, America undertook the dissemination of their culture, values and traditions, and thus expanded their sphere of influence, in a manner that was more efficient, more popular at home, and unlikely to result in the intense opposition created by American military presence in foreign countries.
ReplyDeleteAmericanization was the most common form of American expansion abroad in the period 1890-1920. However, the most effective approach to expansion in this period was in fact a strategic combination of Americanization with dollar diplomacy. The spread of not only American culture and ideals opened the way for an interest in American products, thus encouraging economic investments and trade. Although America exercised great control over countries such as the Philippines in this period, this form of expansion was limited to the few territories in which America experimented with ‘formal empire’ and was not effective in a global sense. Further, although dollar diplomacy was very effective in promoting America’s commercial interests in the international arena, without the cultural fascination promoted by Americanization, it would not have been as effective as it was.
ReplyDeleteIn the period 1890-1920 Americanization was, arguably, the most common form of American expansion because it allowed the spread of American culture across the globe rather than being limited to certain countries or regions and still continues in some form today. Formal empire was limited to the Philippines and in the Caribbean and dollar diplomacy, as a government policy, only existed for a short period stemming from the Roosevelt Corollary in 1904 until being publically repudiated by Woodrow Wilson in 1913 which illustrates why Americanization was the most common over this period.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of effectiveness, I believe Americanization was also the most effective strategy over this period as it allowed America to spread its culture, sports, music, business strategies, products etc. across the globe and it continues to have influence today. Dollar diplomacy was also effective but without formal intervention it was unable to really change the underlying instabilities and issues that each of the countries faced and, consequently, was rather unsuccessful. Formal Empire was probably the least effective strategy as it was met with strong resistance in the countries being invaded which resulted in it becoming, arguably, the most violent and devastating form of expansion with no real long-lasting gains for American expansion. Therefore, in my opinion Americanization was both the most common and effective strategy for American Expansion in the period 1890-1920.
In my opinion formal empire, dollar diplomacy, and Americanization were all employed as effective strategies for American expansion abroad from 1890-1920. Formal empire can be identified in the American annexation of the Philippines, dollar diplomacy in Theodore Roosevelts acquisition of Panama, and Americanization in the spread of American trade goods and popular culture. Arguably dollar diplomacy was most common and the most effective as a tool of expansion, used extensively by the USA in Central and South America.
ReplyDeleteA mixture of dollar diplomacy, formal empire and Americanization dominated America's approach to expansion between 1890 and 1920. Formal empire was a key part of the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, with the annexation of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. However, Dollar Diplomacy was also a key part of American strategy, such as with President Roosevelt’s Panama Canal. However, along with these direct strategies, American culture continued to emanate world wide, helping to spread American influence far beyond its own borders. To understand American expansion through this period, one must look to all of these elements.
ReplyDeleteRather than identifying one single strategy as the most effective means for American expansion from 1890-1920, I would argue that this period proved to be so successful in expanding America’s sphere of influence simply because it did not rely on one consistent means of expansion, rather the means were adaptable and frequently changing to suit the regions, figures and circumstances involved. From the formal empire in the Philippines, to dollar diplomacy in Latin America and the less quantifiable but equally as influential ‘Americanization’ of foreign cultures through their contact with American products and values, a pattern of adaptation of means to fit certain situations can be seen to emerge; patterns which were certainly influenced not only by the personalities of the leaders involved, but also by the wider context of popular sentiment at home. If American leaders had exclusively pursued a policy of formal empire, or relied solely on economic interventions, American expansion over this period would not have proved to be as effective as it was.
ReplyDeleteIt cannot be said that the only one strategy was effective, but rather each strategy: formal empire, americanisation as well as dollar diplomacy was effect concerning the era that it was carried out in and the issues that arose from that era. However, I believe that Americanisation was most effective in that it was able to reach to many parts of the globe. Additionally, it sought to educated people about the cultures, sport and politics of America as well as influence which proves to be a powerful notion in itself.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of influence, Americanisation had the most significant impact as a strategy for expansion abroad as it brought the US into contact with other European nations in a way dollar diplomacy and formal empire had not. Dollar diplomacy and formal empire were only used in very restricted spheres and as a result their overall, though certainly not local effectiveness was likewise hindered. Americanisation suited the US, too, as it did not raise such furious opposition as had formal empire in the Philippines. It allowed America to affirm its view of itself; as a leader of the democratic world without the complicated questions of whether they had a right to demand the obedience of a people, or to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation. However, each technique of expansion was suited to its purpose and it cannot be said that dollar diplomacy nor formal empire failed to achieve their intended objectives when they were applied.
ReplyDelete