Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
HOW WAS THE MONROE DOCTRINE VIEWED BY THE WORLD? Evidence: D SOURCE: The following excerpt was published on the blogging website Demcraticunderground.com by Conn Hallinan in January of 2013. He titled this blog post: “The Shameful Legacy of the Monroe Doctrine.” CLOSE READING Q’s: Just based on the title of this, how does the author view the Monroe Doctrine? According to the author, how frequently did the US get involved with Latin American affairs after 1843? Reread the last sentence of the document: What did Porfirio Diaz mean by this statement? How reliable is this evidence? This past December marked the 190th anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine, the 1823 policy declaration by President James Monroe that essentially made Latin America the exclusive reserve of the United States. And if anyone has any doubts about what lay at the heart of that Doctrine, consider that since 1843 the U.S. has intervened in Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Uruguay, Granada, Bolivia, and Venezuela. In the case of Nicaragua, nine times, and Honduras, eight. Sometimes the intrusion was unadorned with diplomatic niceties: the U.S. infantry assaulting Chapultepec Castle outside Mexico City in 1847, Marines hunting down insurgents in Central America, or Gen. “Black Jack” Pershing pursuing Pancho Villa through Chihuahua in 1916. At other times the intervention was cloaked in shadow—a secret payoff, a nod and a wink to some generals, or strangling an economy because some government had the temerity to propose land reform or a re-distribution of wealth. For 150 years, the history of this region, that stretches across two hemispheres and ranges from frozen tundra to blazing deserts and steaming rainforests, was in large part determined by what happened in Washington. As the wily old Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz once put it, the great tragedy of Latin America is that it lay so far from God and so near to the United States. HOW WAS THE MONROE DOCTRINE VIEWED BY THE WORLD? Evidence: C SOURCE: The following excerpt was taken from Hyperhistory.net. Its an opinionated essay written by Rit Nosotro and its date of publication is unknown. The title of the essay was: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE CLOSE READING Q’s: According to the author, what did Latin America countries look to the US for help for? According to the author, how would Latin America be different if the Monroe Doctrine never was adopted? (List 2 ways) How reliable is this evidence? Why? When looking at the effects of the Monroe Doctrine, many times its results on the US are overlooked. Along with the Monroe Doctrine came a new role for the US. Since other countries were not allowed to come to the Americas, it was up to the US to be the "big brother" of this new world. As a result, US was the one looked to for mediation when there were disputes. For example, the US has intervened in Argentina, Chile, Haiti, Cuba, and many other Latin American countries in their various internal struggles and other disputes. Had the Monroe Doctrine not been adopted, Latin American as well as world history would have been very different from what it is now. The situation may have been similar to Africa in that Latin America would have been carved up by the European powers into small holdings causing many short and long term results. For example, Spanish would not be the main language spoken; there would also be German, French, English, and others. The current borders would also be very different. They would be divided according to the colonies that had been staked out. In conclusion, the Monroe Doctrine had effects on many countries when it was formed, but the greatest consequences took part in Latin America because this doctrine allowed it to develop without many foreign influences as the US played more of a protector role. HOW WAS THE MONROE DOCTRINE VIEWED BY THE WORLD? Evidence: B SOURCE: In 1823, prior to issuing the Monroe Doctrine, President Monroe sought the advice of former President Thomas Jefferson. In the following letter that Jefferson wrote to Monroe, Jefferson offered advice to Monroe about what type of foreign policy he should develop. CLOSE READING Q’s: What territories does Jefferson seem interested in acquiring? Why does Jefferson consider Florida valuable? What does Jefferson mean by saying that Florida’s independence is our “second interest?” What might Jefferson’s letter reveal about President Monroe’s motives? But we have first to ask ourselves a question. Do we wish to acquire to our own confederacy (nation) any one or more of the Spanish provinces? I candidly confess that I have…looked on Cuba as the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of states. The control which with Florida…would give us over the Gulf of Mexico and the countries, and the isthmus bordering on it, as well as all those whose waters flow into it, would fill up the measure of our political well-being. Yet, as I am sensible that this can never be obtained even with her (Florida) own consent (permission), but by war; and it's independence, which is our second interest. HOW WAS THE MONROE DOCTRINE VIEWED BY THE WORLD? Evidence: A SOURCE: The cartoon shown here was created by Victor Gilliam, a writer in the early 1900’s. It appeared in various newspapers. The caption at the bottom reads: “Coasting: The old horse was too slow for Uncle Sam” CLOSE READING Q’s: What appears to be happening in the cartoon? What objects or people are in the cartoon? What might they mean or symbolize? Does the artist appear to be approving or criticizing what the US is doing? How do you know? HOW WAS THE MONROE DOCTRINE VIEWED BY THE WORLD? Evidence: E SOURCE: The cartoon shown here was taken from the web from the site: Mindfully.org. Its date of creation and author are unknown. CLOSE READING Q’s: What appears to be happening in the cartoon? What objects or people are in the cartoon? What might they mean or symbolize? Does the artist appear to be approving or criticizing what the US is doing? How do you know?