In class we read Albert Beveridges famous speech, "March of the Flag." He offers the rationale that undergirds American Imperialism going as far as to argue that American movement into the affairs of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines would improve opportunity for the Natives of these territories. How convincing is his reply to the anti-imperialists' warnings against the annexation of noncontiguous territory and to their argument that no more land was needed?
21 comments:
Albert Beveridge almost manages to make imperialism seem like a noble cause in his speech.I don’t doubt that many of the people who heard his speech were probably convinced by his rhetoric language used. For example in the first paragraph, where he glorifies the country, he makes the concept of the country factual for his audience with a personification,“a land that can feed and clothe the world; a land whose coastlines would inclose half the countries of Europe”. But if we look closer into his words the true nature of imperialism is revealed.In his speech he proposes that it would be selfish of the American people to blow their political and military success by not spreading it to less successful nations, but in his devotion to the cause he shows the opposite to be true. In some parts of his speech, he exposes the selfishness that America declares in its pursuit of domination over smaller nations. “The American people cannot use a dishonest medium of exchange; it is ours to set the world its example of right and honor. We cannot fly from our world duties…” His description of America as the model that all other countries should strive to follow sticks out.
I think he is saying that there are no immigrants coming from Texas, Florida, California or other northwestern provinces. He's saying that America needs to connect with other pieces of land to make more employment. Albert Beveridge is saying that there are jobs on these islands and less jobs in America because many people were out of work for a while. the economy is doing well they just needed more jobs.
So does that give America the right to move into other nations?
Beveridge is convincing because unlike what anti-imperialists said about America not needing anymore land, they did. America needed extra land to help out with their crisis of lack of jobs, their economy and their congestion. Also, America taking over non-contiguous territories was in the best interest of those countries because some of them were facing "anarchy and tyranny," and America was saving them from that.
I think Beveridge is saying that the lands and oceans acquired from their fathers is no argument and the oceans or rivers does not separate them from their duty to take care and control their land.But also there is opposition everything they acquired they dont need and today they are raising more than they can consume and making more than they can use. In Beveridge's words "The Industrial society is congested"
I believe that Beveridge's ideals on imperialism are very convincing. If america takes over this non-contiguous states then it helps their economy and it could strengthen their international relations. I agree with Diana that Beveridge made America seem noble. Beveridge made it seem that America just wanted to share their achievements and use that power to help other nations.
Albert Beveridge argument was very convincing because not only the type of language, but also the words he used. The words made a difference because they were direct and the message came across clearly that expansion for America was necessary. His response to the "no more land being need", was that we disagreed with them because in his statement he talks about how that if america did expand then more jobs and for money to circulate. When the money circulates that shows that america is interested in competition.
I agree with Stephanie that his ideas were convincing. At the time, everyone was fighting to be the holder of the highest power. Diana mentioned how America would help other nations with the power they upheld, and with the non-contiguous territory, it will strengthen it. With that being said, the more land that America had, the more power will grow out of it.
I believe that Albert Beveridge seems to be very convincing in his argument which pertains to him saying that "America does not need any more land then they already have." I agree with Essence because if Americans needed more jobs and economy then of course the only possible solution would be to gain more land to strengthen America's international relations which Stephanie believed as well. I also agree with Jade since her agruement seemly means that America was entitled to anything they wanted as far as land and goods from other territories even Beveridge knew that America was little out of hand about wanting more and more things that they didnt even need inn order to live out their daily lives in peace.
Albert Beveridge's speech was extremely effective through the use of his wording. He convinced his readers by acknowledging the positive outcomes of imperialism. Similar to what the other girls said, not only did Beveridge wanted our nation to expand itself, but also to help other non-contiguous nations that were once in the same spot as America was. In addition, since the European’s economies were partially responsible for pressuring America, this will prove to them otherwise.
Albert Beveridge's ideals towards imperialism were convincing. Similar to what Diana said, he basically shined a positive spotlight on imperialism. He was able to contradict the beliefs of those against imperialism by stating why the America needed more land. There were more workers than there were job opportunities. If there were more land, that would cause America's economic status to rise (also making more jobs). America wanted to be on top with the most power. That meant competing with the best. The more land they had, they more power.
Interestingmhow convincing an argument can be when the other side is silent. Doesn't the best persuasion occur when you address the opposing argument...does Beveridge do this?
The best argument does not occur when the opposing force is silent because its relatively easy often to see how one-sided an argument is. One sided arguments are often redundant because relatively similar points are repeatedly mentioned and when a point is stated the opposition is called into question. Albert Beveridge's argument is double sided because he praises America as well as points to their flaws. Diana details this in her Blog above.
Beveridge's imperialist argumaent was very convincing and cogent because eventhough what he argued seemed to be expressing greed he made clear some very valid points. The opposing argument would be a silent moralistic idea, " is this really necessary, is america ready to over extend itself in such ways as claiming noncontiguous land" but Beveridgee made it seem necessary speaking of how it would benefit the economy and the way of life. Plus it was their(america's) "duty" to spread their way of life
I agree with Diana, I love the way Albert Bevridge represents our country.The language he uses is very convincing and persuasive. He explains how the United States should expand in order to gain resources and jobs. These are two vital things our country needed in order to become imperial...
Beveridge's speech flowed not only from the figurative language but also from the way Beveridge rooted both figurative and literal appeals to liberty, imperialism and civilization. He talked about the positive outcomes of imperialism, like the need for more land. There were more workers than there were job oppurtunities. With land, the problem would be solved because it wil strengthen the economy and international relations, causing more oppurtunites for jobs. Like what the other girls said, Beveridge wanted America to help other noncontiguous nations.
I definitely agree with Diana, it is not exactly what he said, but how he stated it. He uses America and its spirit as a whole to justify imperialism and make it seem as though it was the right thing to do and that the benefits of it were not just for america but also the native people of these lands. His own belief of what he is saying along with the examples he uses to make it up, is what makes his argument a strong and relevant one.
I agree with Diana. They way you say something and the language you use while saying it will definitely have an effect on the way people take it in. Beveridge makes a good point in his speech that annexing other smaller noncontiguous territories would be greatly beneficial, not only for the US but for the people of those territories as well. More land equals more opportunity for industry and agriculture with that comes more opportunities for jobs. But, because they annex another nation, it doesn't give them the right to strip them of their culture and language.
While America needs to exspand, imperialism is about building resources and thoes resources are not neccessarily the people, but land and raw materials as mr. Jobs said. Cultures cannont develope under American imperialism. Democracy or dictatorship? Cultures are being uprooted and taken over.
In Albert Beveridges speech "March of the Flag" he gives a very appealing comments on how America movement into the Philippines, Hawaii and Puerto Rico would not only benefit America but the nations nations. His speech is surely convincing to America needs such as expansion and economics increase (jobs). Hearing this would definitely spark a "let's do it!" movement in Americans heads. Even if that wasn't enough he also includes a religious outlook on things say that it is America "duty" to help such undeveloped nations. So Beveridges speech does give America the right to take initiative into the nations.
I believe Albert's argument was convincing because he believed America needed to expand and find new resources and imperialism did just that. Albert knew their economy would grow and job opportunities would grow.
Post a Comment