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)
During the period of 1890 to 1920 America exerted varying degrees of both hard and soft power and with varying degrees of success. I would have to say, however, that it was through soft power, namely, AmericaniZation, that the United States was able to achieve its most pervasive and long-lasting strategy for influencing foreign nations. America grew wary of taxing military expansion and the inherent difficulties involved with forcibly subjugating peoples, and looked to capitalize upon its attractive New World economics and culture. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, it was a self-righteous and unwavering belief in their superior political ideology (and free way of life) that fueled the successful penetration of American influence. Americanization was becoming a modern synonym for ‘Manifest Destiny’, as the United States evolved from its self-appointed mandate of ‘civilizing’ to its modern day mission of ‘democratizing’.
ReplyDeleteWhile America had briefly flirted with the creation of formal empires in the 1890s, the burdensome nature of structurally reforming societies such as the Philippines coupled with its lack of success contributed to a shift in America’s foreign policy towards the reliance on “soft power” as a means of establishing an informal empire. Soft power encapsulated the utilization of both dollar diplomacy and cultural exportation (Americanisation) to exert American influence over other countries. Gradually, this became the prominent means of exerting influence over Latin America and ultimately over many other parts of the world, particularly as the economic power of America and its products flooded international markets. This became a much more effective means of exporting American values internationally as it enabled the US to broaden their scope of influence at a lesser cost that had incurred in its attempts at formal empire. Arguably, the widespread utilization of these forms of soft power was substantially effective and is probably the reason why American has retained its seeminly unwavering international influence today.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the period 1890 to 1920 America adopted a range of strategies aimed at increasing their influence abroad. In the Philippines, the United States effectively adopted similar policies to the European Empires by creating a colony abroad. However, American expansion was more commonly achieved through the use of soft-power. At the turn of the twentieth century, America exerted significant influence over Latin America through dollar diplomacy. By utilising its superior economy and stable government, America was able to incite enormous political and financial changes upon their neighbours. Moreover, the flood of American products into foreign markets, known as the 'Americanization' of the world, allowed the United States to exert great cultural and commercial influence abroad. These 'soft power' methods of expansion should be seen as more effective as they were less divisive, came at a lesser cost to America and allowed the nation to exert an immeasurable amount of indirect power abroad.
ReplyDeleteDefining success is difficult. There were a multitude of positives to formal empire. It allowed the United States to maintain direct control without competition from foreign powers being possible. A territory like the Philippines, so far removed from the continent and so close to European colonies with interests in Far East trade, may have been hard to control with soft power. However repeated attempts at formal empire would have proven politically unsustainable, most likely, and the territory came with an introspective shock to the United States. Soft power, although often problematic, allows the United States to avoid compromising its own ideals too overtly. Dollar diplomacy was probably more cost effective than formal empire and the effects of Americanization would be hard to calculate. Largely Americanization would have resulted in more support for what may have originally been American ideas, or ideas with a strong benefit to the United States, but how much that has helped, how much that was maybe organic development is questionable. The cost of Americanization is often resentment for American culture and norms due to a backlash by those who feel their own culture is under attack.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is no doubt that formal empire played a role in American expansionism, the significant domestic opposition that it garnered and the brutal war that it led to against Philippine insurgents concludes that it was not the most effective strategy for American expansion abroad. On the other hand, the informal method of dollar diplomacy was an effective method of American expansionism. Dollar diplomacy allowed the US to exert influence internationally without the emergence of the major political issues and crises that occurred through the process of formal empire. Another successful means for American expansion during the period of 1890-1920 was Americanisation. The success of American consumer and cultural exports became distinct as products such as Kodak and Coca-Cola infiltrated the globe. I would argue that Americanisation was the most effective and common method of American expansionism; it promoted American expansionism not just in a concentrated area but on a global scale and it’s informal nature saw it accepted and even invited by other states. Moreover, it still plays a vital role in spreading American influence in today’s globalised world.
ReplyDeleteAmerica’s annexation of the Philippines and their attempt at a formal empire in the late 19th century was a direct and highly evasive approach to US expansion. Although there were some benefits to this, its effectiveness is questioned when you analyse the various difficulties involved in the process of conquering and civilising a group of peoples, such as violent retaliation and growing lack of support. In my opinion, Americanisation was vastly becoming a more common and more effective form of expansion in the wake of the 20th century; especially when you take into account the Stead’s ideology of ‘Empire by invitation’. America’s cultural and economic expansion (1890-1930) largely occurred through the selling American products abroad, surplus capital and the setting up US companies and factories around the world and US exportation of mass culture and thus accounts for the most influential strategies of American expansion during this era.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the the period from 1890-1920 there has been evidence of interplay of formal empire, Americanisation and dollar diplomacy, which all had a diverse range of successes. However, the most prominent and most successful from the three strategies would have to be the soft powers, particularly Americanisation. Due to the long and drawn-out nature of many of the US's military expenditures, the strategy of US expansion through formal empire had become far to costly and ineffective. Thus, the focus turned to soft strategies and the US looked to capitalise upon its emerging economics and culture. Americanisation allowed the US to exert influence over many markets on an international scale. This strategy was seen as more successful and less costly, and whilst, the other strategies were used to some extent, I would argue that Americanisation was the most common and most effective.
ReplyDeleteThe period of 1890 - 1920 proved formal empire to be an ineffective method to spread American influence and control, as demonstrated through American actions in the Philippines. While formal empire allowed for the acquisition of land, the economic and political benefits were no greater than could be achieved through an informal empire, created through the 'soft power' of Americanization. In this way, America could dominate the foreign markets through exports, without requiring the kinds of military actions that the creation of an empire necessitated. The development of America’s ‘soft power’ during this period paved the way for the dominant international power we see today, and once again highlighted the inherent belief in American exceptionalism, as Americanizaion was justified through the ideas of 'manifest destiny', if not through the exact language.
ReplyDeleteIn The period 1890-1920, America attempted to expand its influence abroad by use of three main methods; Formal Empire, Dollar Diplomacy and Americanization. Of the three, Formal Empire was America's briefest policy. After the American-Philippine war of 1899, America came to realise that formally incorporating a territory into itself was a costly and difficult undertaking. This lead to the U.S shifting away from hard power, to soft power, which is to say that it began influencing foreign countries via economic control, rather than direct rule. This policy of Dollar Diplomacy came to a head under President Theodore Roosevelt with his Roosevelt Corollary. Dollar Diplomacy was used often to try and control Latin American states through dominance over their economies. Lastly we come to what is perhaps the most effective method of influence that America used. Americanization refers to the export of American culture, ideals and products to other nations and societies. The large emerging economy of the U.S allowed it to begin exerting influence on many markets all over the world. While Formal Empire and Dollar Diplomacy were effective in their time, it is clearly Americanization that was the most common and effective of the three. Indeed, Americanization was so effective that it is still used today, with American culture and products being prevalent throughout the world.
ReplyDelete