Pablo Navarro-Rivera, “The Imperial Enterprise and Educational Policies in Colonial Puerto Rico,” in Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State, accessed February 10, 2020, https://laus2020.voices.wooster.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/260/2020/01/Navarro-Rivera-The-Imperial-Enterprise-and-Educational-Politices-in-Coloinal-PR-from-The-Colonial-Crucible-163-174.pdf.

Author Pablo Navarro-Rivera writes about the educational policies in the United States territory of Puerto Rico and how those policies were designed to benefit the imperialist desires of the US. In order to make this argument he uses evidence such as the Foraker Act (passed in 1900) to demonstrate the United States’ desire to assimilate and “civilize” the people of their new territory. This article is useful because it helps build the idea of the lack of respect that the United States held towards indigenous culture and how willing the white man was to crush different cultures in order to benefit himself. This is an idea that is applicable to all United States territories, as well as those territories belong to the other European world powers during the age of imperialism.

Stuart McCook, “‘The World Was My Garden’ Tropical Botany and Cosmopolitanism in American Science, 1898-1935,” in Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State, accessed February 10, 2020, https://laus2020.voices.wooster.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/260/2020/01/McCook-The-World-Was-My-Garden-Tropical-Botany-and-Cosmopolitanism-in-American-Science-from-The-Colonial-Crucible-499-507.pdf.

History Professor Stuart McCook examines the rise of United States study of tropical plants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He argues that this sudden increase in interest in tropical botany is based on the fact that the United States suddenly acquired a lot of overseas territory around this time.  McCook discusses the effects of this new interest in tropical botany on the sudden availability of economic plants from the tropics, as well as the transplanting of those plants to the United States for agricultural purposes. This article is useful in the study of US and Latin American relations because it highlights a way in which the US tried to take advantage of the territories they gained possession of, and allows for a further in depth exploration of the exploitation and destruction of tropical natural resources than might be found in other texts.

The primary source that I chose to analyze was Colored Officers or No Colored Soldiers by Presley Holiday. Sargent Presley Holliday’s document was a response to Roosevelt’s attack on African American soldiers. The document is critical of Colonel Roosevelt’s criticism of black troops. Presley Holleyday claims he was there during the battle and that colored soldiers were fighting just as hard as white soldiers. Holliday states in his document that after Roosevelt threatened to shoot anyone who backed from the from, they all responded “We will stay with you, Colonel”(77) He then goes on to call the claims that Roosevelt made “uncalled for and uncharitable.” (77) He ends the document by explaining that it is not just to have white officers for black soldiers and once again criticized Roosevelt for his false accusations. This document shed light on the reality or at least gave a different perspective on the role that African American soldiers played. The altering of history is seen again and again and we can see that with this document. We see here that once again, colored soldiers were not only not getting the credit they deserve but were also made to be worse than they actually were.

For the primary source analysis I read document 20, by John Clifford Brown. This document consists of excerpts from Brown’s diary, which he kept while serving as a common soldier in the Army during the Filipino-American war. An interesting thing to note about this document is Brown’s background as a graduate of MIT. This is the not the work of an ordinary grunt who enlisted because the family farm was failing. This is the work of someone who was fairly privileged, and could easily have 1) stayed at home to personal profit or 2) gotten a commission.

Why then, did Brown enlist and serve as a common soldier in the Philippines? One part of the document that sheds light on this is under the entry for November 21, in which he wishes that the war was not ending and shows that he has thought of the whole experience as a grand adventure (79). He praises the climate and the physical activity, “the hardships, the excitement, the change” (79). He seems to think of it as like a grand Boy Scout outing. An experience that will take him, a college graduate with soft hands, and turn him into a grizzled man. This connects to contemporary trends of hyper-masculinity that were most famously being embodied by Teddy Roosevelt.

Another interesting thing to note is Brown’s racial attitudes. The later part of the document consists of Brown’s racist musings about Filipinos  and his comparison of them with African-Americans. He denigrates Filipino society as unable to support itself without the backing of whites, and Filipinos as “childish” (79). In the June 12 entry he compares a Filipino woman to a dog (80). In the June 25 entry, in comparing Filipinos with African-Americans he expresses the belief that they are at the same level of so-called “racial development”, but Filipinos have slightly more promise of advancement (80). These racist sentiments provide insight into the mindset of the broader American public at the time. Combined with his previously expressed masculinity, a picture of Brown’s motivations and broader ideological currents present at the turn of the century emerges.

Document 20 provides insight into the personal motivations behind the author’s service, as well as a look into broader ideological trends within American society at the end of the 19th century that shaped its interactions with the rest of the world.

I read Henry M. Teller’s The People of the Island of Cuba Are, and of Right Ought to Be, Free and Independent. The primary source is preceded by a bit of context that is helpful in understanding the contents and backstory of the primary source. Basically, the introduction states that President McKinley didn’t convince congress that Cubans were fighting for an independent republic. Supporters of Cuban independence were pacified by the ratification of the Teller Amendment. The primary source reveals that the U.S. was aware of the terrible environment that Cubans were living in, but failed to act until the U.S. battle ship The Maine was sunk. This is seen in The People of the Island of Cuba Are, and of Right Ought to Be, Free and Independent by “Whereas the abhorrent conditions which have existed for more than three years in the island of Cuba, so near our own borders, have shocked the moral sense of the people of the United States, have been a disgrace to civilization, culminating as they have in the destruction of a United States battle ship” (69). Essentially, the sinking of The Maine was the last straw for the U.S., and caused them to intervene in Cuba.

Congress decided four things: that the people of Cuba deserve independence, that the U.S. is obligated to to force Spain to renounce control, that the President is allowed to send in armed forces, and that the U.S. will prevent any intention to control Cuba. I think that the obligation aspect of this is particularly interesting, as it reminds me of The White Man’s Burden and the discussion we had in class how the U.S.  feels obligated to police and “improve” the world. Teller states “That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Government of the United States does hereby demand, that the Government of Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba” (69). This statement proves the existence of the mental attitude that the U.S. believes it has an obligation to better the world. However, the U.S.’s intentions might be more genuine this time around because they are enforcing Cuban sovereignty, although it did take the sinking of The Maine for it to happen.

Roosevelt wrote this piece in 1899, recalling his resignation from his position as the assistant secretary of the navy and leadership within the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, or as they were affectionately called, the Rough Riders.

He begins his piece by describing the Rough Riders and the group’s creation. Stating that he was so overwhelmed with applications, within two days they had raised enough men to raise a “brigade, or even a division” (Raising the Regiment, para. 1). However, he discussed that the real problem lay in “arming, equipping, mounting, and disciplining” the men (para. 1). Many of the men did not ask for commissions, and were drawn with the same impulse to serve akin to the “same impulse which once sent the Vikings over sea” (para. 2). This is reminiscent of the drive that has characterized the American military since its inception: a hunger to fight for their country and a burning patriotism.

Roosevelt describes the men who came to serve, the majority of whom were from “Mexico, Arizona… Oklahoma, [and].. Indian Territory” (para. 3). He recalls the resolve of these men, saying that they were “tall and sinewy, with resolute, weather-beaten faces, and the eyes that looked a man straight in the face without flinching” (para. 3). He says they were comprised of “the cow-boy, the hunger, and the mining prospector” (para. 3). These descriptions are also suggestive of the the ideals that captured the typical, hardened American, living as a cowboy and making his own way. These descriptions were extremely favoring the American soldiers, talking of their resolve and willingness to put their lives on the line in the name of freedom.

The section titled “The Cavalry at Santiago” details the assault on Kettle Hill, and Roosevelt spends a decent amount of time discussing the colored men serving in the cavalry. From saying they behaved better than all the others, he then says that this was because they were “peculiarly dependent upon their white officers” (The Cavalry at Santiago, para. 1). He states that while the white soldiers were calm and collected under the rain of “bullets, shells, and shrapnel (para. 2), the colored infantrymen began to worry, and slowly started making their way to the rear, making excuses such as attending to the wounded and wishing to find their own regiments (para. 2). Roosevelt recalled pulling a gun on them, and telling them that he did not wish to harm any of them, owing to their gallant fighting (para. 3). They eventually agreed to stay with him, and he continues to say that the biases and prejudices, on both the white and colored sides, were eventually resolved and they saw each other as equals (para. 4).

This piece, although short, did have development throughout that suggested the prejudice within Roosevelt’s regiment was truly resolved. I saw this through his description of the white Southwesterners and the fact that “there could be no better material for soldiers” (Raising the Regiment, para. 5), to his description that the colored soldiers, saying, “No troops could have behaved better than the colored soldiers had behaved so far” (The Cavalry, para. 1). By the end he said that the prejudice had disappeared and all the soldiers got along, which I see an example of how hardship and strife can bring different groups of people together to fight against one cause.

In an analysis of John M.Thurston’s We Must Act! I feel as if I can immediately tie this to a modern-day issue we unfortunately still find ourselves with. Thurston goes on to explain the issue of the Spanish forcing Cubans into concentration camps in order to draw out the guerrilla forces within the countryside. The Spanish soldier had not been receiving pay and this was a reactionary consequence. This gruesome claim an economy holds on our individuality really is baffling to think about, that we’d kill for profit, though not hard to believe. Today we still find thousands of immigrants, children and adults alike, herded into cages and camp, often only given the bare necessities on occasion. We constantly see news spears of how the incoming peoples seeking refuge are in fact terrible drug dealers or trying to steal U.S jobs when much like the situation of Cubans being stripped of their liberties, these people are given a false persona. They are attached to an image that brings with it fear and heartbreak to many but strikes fire in the eyes of those who are too driven protecting their assets of land and money to experience “the hopeless anguish in their despairing eyes.” (Thurston 63) As every day we live able to fight the system, is another they are deprived of.
I also can find a comparison in the way there is a hesitance at this time of whether or not to commit to U.S intervention and Angela Davis’ proposed philosophy of the feminist dilemma. Davis sees this notion of controversy as to when there are two parties, one with the ability to help the other, but tasked with the responsibility of deciding whether to do so or not. Intervening could help in the immediate stance, though may also lead to future consequences of unintentional imperialism. This is then compared to the other option of not imposing oneself as imperialistic, though having to stand by and watch the dismay of a people when you can knowingly offer the solution. This indecisiveness of the U.S to interview or not, and how so is essentially this same sentiment of whether or not to pass critical judgment on foreign affairs. Thurston offers that “Such a recognition on our part would have enabled the Cuban patriots to have achieved independence for themselves” securing independence of Cuba “without the cost or loss of blood or treasure to the people of the united states” (Thurston 64) I think that many a time we want to immediately act of our first impulsive decision when offering aid, though we must also acknowledge the fact the there can be consequences, not necessarily to us, but the people we extend our hand to when not thinking about cultural relation before we act.

The New England Woman Suffrage Association’s 1898 annual meeting record provides justification for American women’s suffrage rights in the 19th century. The record was written under the circumstance in which the United States was prepared to fight against Spain in Cuba. Given that women lacked the right to vote at that time, many wanted to prove their right to full citizenship by backing the U.S. in the war with Spain. Simultaneously, American suffragists were trying to challenge the idea that military services should preclude voting rights. From the association’s resolution at their annual meeting, it is easy to see some points that the New England suffragists raised which were contradictory with their yearning for equality. 

To begin, the suffragists were looking down on Cuban women despite their recognition that all people have the right to self-government. They explicitly claimed that “American women are better qualified for self-government by education than most of the Cubans” (66). This quote hinted that social Darwinism was still popular in the U.S. at the time. Many believed that the Anglo-Saxon race was superior to other races and held the stereotype that Cubans were less qualified for voting rights. 

Yet, the word “sisters” appeared later in the record (66). It showed that these American suffragists were situating themselves in unity with Cuban women. On top of that, Cuban women were praised for their efforts of fighting against the Spanish, and even used as an example to show that women can fight like men to strengthen the demand for voting rights for American women (66). They explicitly said that “in extreme circumstances, women can and do fight” (66). This appears contradictory to the inferior image of the Cuban women mentioned above, but American imperialism is behind this resolution. While the U.S.suffragists believed that they were more capable and civilized, they were not hesitant to use Cubans’ work to justify their own fight for voting equality. 

John M. Thurston’s speech, titled “We Must Act!” is a heart-wrenching cry for humanitarianism. Calling upon the spirit of his dead wife, who, one can only assume, died after interacting with the conditions of the internment camps in Cuba, Thurston pleads for the US to interfere in the Spanish-Cuban War. This document is interesting because, whereas others calling for action in Cuba inevitably make some mention of the economic gain that the US would benefit from, Thurston seems intent upon only relying on the narrative of human suffering that he has crafted. I say crafted – recounted, is perhaps a better word. He talks of men, women, and children who “stand silent, famishing with hunger… [who’s] only appeal comes from their sad eyes, through which one looks as through an open window into their agonizing souls”(Hoganson 64). Thurston’s call to action plays upon human morality in order to help those oppressed under Spanish rule.

However, Thurston’s argument in and of itself is not unique. Although he has the added advantage of being able to invoke his dead wife as a reminder of just how bad conditions in Cuba are, he is hardly the first white man to advocate for US interference in a “lesser” or “underdeveloped” country. The idea of humanitarians as a force to a) build a United States Empire and b) save “heathens” from their Godless ways is one that is explored at length, both in documents in this section and documents in other sections of Kristin L. Hoganson’s  book, American Empire at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.

The Wikipedia Article takes a pretty neutral stand, besides the fact that through the article there is a huge amount of criticism of Mexico and their involvement in the drug trade with the United States (which is a fair judgement) Nonetheless, there is not sufficient information on how the high demand of drugs in the United States is what fuels the drug trade in the first place. From the introductory paragraph, we can see that there is some diction and structure components to the article that might influence the reader towards a certain viewpoint. For example, the introductory paragraph ends with “The Mexican government has asserted that their primary focus is on dismantling the powerful drug cartels, rather than on preventing drug trafficking and demand, which is left to U.S. functionaries. ” It is common knowledge that most of the demand for drugs comes from the United States. Therefore, is the United States’ responsibility to fight the drug problem that have to diminish demand.
The Article is backed up with reliable sources. Some sources are from government agencies and others are from credible sources like news channels. All of the topics the articles covered were very interesting and relevant to the topic. Most of them also contained sufficient relatable information. Not everything in the article is neutral. Like I mentioned earlier with the example in the first paragraph, there is information and structural components that give some biases information towards a certain point of view.
The article did not really overrepresent any viewpoint, but it definitely underrepresented others. For example, there was only about three sentences throughout the article that talked about the part the United States’ demand for drugs plays in the drug war. There is also not enough information on the effect that the drug war has had in Mexico and the reasons why being in a drug cartel can be a tempting opportunity to a person living in poverty. After checking a few citations, the liks do work and they lead to reliable articles and journals. There was not any paraphrasing plagiarism that I could find throughout the article. All the facts that I checked seemed to have reliable and accurate sources.

I read the article “Latin America-United States Relations” on Wikipedia. Instead of presenting both the U.S. and Latin American perspectives, the article focuses on the actions and plans of the U.S. toward Latin America. This is supported by the fact that the U.S. is often used as the subject in the content, as well as the larger proportion on U.S. foreign policies.

Apart from its perspective, the fact included in the article is not always referenced with reliable sources. A good example of this is the “19th Century to World War I” section. While there are hyperlinks to specific people and issues, the description of the treaties and processes are not cited. Despite most of the sections in the article are related to Latin America-United States Relations, some of them like “Academic Research” are not directly related.

In terms of the neutrality of the article, I think it is okay in general. But some of the content might seem to be biased. For example, the article mentions that most of the 10 million illegal immigrants are of Hispanic origins and these immigrants would send money back home. Not only are the statistics not cited, but the remarks of immigrants sending money is also pretty biased.

When it comes to the sources, most of them are working well. But some of them are only linking to the author’s Wikipedia page but not the book. Some of the sentences also seemed to be closely paraphrased. For example, the sentence “Latin America is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and its fastest-growing trading partner, as well as the largest source of drugs.” is similar to the sentence “It is the United States’ fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs” from the original source. On top of that, the sources used are not really updated. Some of the books and journal articles cited are from the 90s. In addition, there is no message posted on the talk page of the article. So, it is hard to trace the conversations going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic. The article is also not in WikiProjects.