The Imperialistic Climate of the Late 19th and Early 20th Century US
The course of imperial expansion was the characteristic of the United States of America. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the United States used missionaries, who initially intended to convert people to Christianity. However, they found that people were more interested in the material goods that American missionaries brought (Henkin, 2014, p. 504). Accordingly, at the national level, a policy of assistance to African states and others where the population needed additional resources was launched. Thus, the United States could gradually expand its zone of influence and maintain an imperialistic climate under its leadership.
Meanwhile, at the end of the 19th century, the American government searched for markets for its goods, and the weakness of the Spanish Empire, which colonized Central and South America, permitted it to use its markets. Therefore, the United States was the primary importer in the region, which strengthened its power and enabled it to argue for establishing an “American Empire” (Henkin, 2014, p. 507). Consequently, American entrepreneurs opened many factories and businesses abroad, which increased America’s impact.
Furthermore, as the United States strengthened its economic presence outside the country, it needed to improve its navy and army to compete with the European empires. Hence, upon learning of the humanitarian crisis in Cuba, the Americans decided to intervene to show their influence in the region (Henkin, 2014, p. 511). As a result, the United States troops were deployed to protect the citizens of Cuba, and the result of this war was the acquisition of an island empire.
The next step for the United States was to expand its sphere of influence in the Philippines. As a result, it can be argued that the imperialist climate of the United States differed from the European one by its democratic principles (Henkin, 2014, p. 519). In this way, the state gained spheres of influence through humanitarian missions and aid.
Josiah Strong’s Justification for US Foreign Policy
It is crucial to examine how Josiah Strong justified an aggressive United States foreign policy toward small Caribbean and Asian countries. The author claimed that the Anglo-Saxons represent two important, closely connected ideas (Strong, 1891, p. 1). The first is civil freedom, which they try to demonstrate to other nations. As a result, the Anglo-Saxons have consistently recognized the rights of people and declared their government to be prerogative. Strong used this to explain US policy in other regions and argued that the Anglo-Saxons were trying to spread democratic principles (Strong, 1891, p. 1).
Moreover, the justification of aggressive policies is also explained by the missionary missions and church funding provided by the United States. For instance, the United States provided one dollar and thirty-seven cents per capita to foreign missions, while the German state provided only three-quarters of a cent for this purpose (Strong, 1891, p. 1). The author considers the United States’ policy justified by the noble goals of democracy and the development of religion. Therefore, the benefits that small countries in the Caribbean and Asia could receive were justified.
Consequences of 19th and 20th Century US Imperialism
Additionally, the ability of the United States to develop trade relations is a positive feature for dependent states. According to Strong, American citizens represent a perfect race that can accumulate resources to enrich their state and simultaneously support colonized peoples. The author also indicates that while the states where pagan religions and Catholicism are practiced are experiencing a decline in the power of religion in social life, the US government pays great attention to this (Strong, 1891, p. 3).
Therefore, the United States spread democratic and religious principles to other states through colonization, allowing them to develop. I believe that Strong’s arguments are not convincing because the author emphasizes the perfection of the Anglo-Saxon race rather than focusing on the mutual benefits of the US and the colonies. Thus, I think the rationale for US colonialism can be described based more on the basic tenets of societal development.
Relevance of US Imperialist and Jingoist Rhetoric to 21st Century US Territories
It is worth noting that the effects of US imperialism on US territories can be traced today. First, people living in the territories rather than in recognized states do not have the right to vote in presidential elections. Although these persons perform civic obligations to the state, they must serve in the military (AJ, 00:30-00:37). Accordingly, almost four million people face violations of their rights in a state that claims to fight for equal rights for all.
Furthermore, the inequality of rights can be seen in the case of the 2017 storm that hit Puerto Rico. The authorities theoretically asked for help, and then-President Trump replied that these people want Americans to provide everything for them (AJ, 01:00-02:10). However, in reality, the people of Puerto Rico are also Americans and need to be protected just like other citizens. This also demonstrates that today, the inhabitants of the territories are perceived as children of the US colonies, not full-fledged citizens.
Nevertheless, Puerto Rico does not pay a single US tax but does pay federal taxes such as Social Security, unemployment, and Medicare. However, after the storm in 2017, some residents of Puerto Rico did not have access to electricity and other benefits of civilization for a long time (AJ, 03-02:03:05). The US did not provide sufficient assistance to them, which once again demonstrated their unequal status.
Therefore, I believe that American imperialism, which flourished in the 19th and 20th centuries, has consequences today. Although the population of the territories is not exploited as it was before, they are still not recognized as integral parts of the US. Consequently, people who are US citizens and perform civic duties are experiencing unprecedented violations of their rights.
References
AJ+. (2018). How the U.S leaves behind its own American territories (example, citation) [Video]. YouTube. Web.
Henkin, D. (2014). Becoming America. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Strong, J. (1891). Our country: Its possible future and its present crisis. Baker & Taylor Company.