American History Homework Nine Answers - Student Four

KaraH

1. The election that resembles this election in the major landslide of electoral votes was the election of 1816. James Monroe was going up against Rufus King, and beat him out by a massive 183 to 34 electoral votes, similar to Barack Obama's landslide win of 365 to John McCain's 162 electoral votes.

There have been many landslides far greater than Obama's in presidential elections, and the significance of a landslide means little when the candidate did not run on a specific agenda. I don't see much similarity between Obama and Monroe. But you're entitled to draw your own comparisons!

2. In my opinion, imperialism is 70% bad, 30% good. People should have no right to invade other people's land and call it their own, for starters. Asides from the power they would gain, or the status they would reach, there's nearly no important reason why this land should be taken. America had finally expanded from "sea to shining sea," which is massive. It really had no need for more land.

However, if there is a neighboring country that is struggling, the country who has more power should do what they can to help them, just as it said in the Bible to feed those who are hungry, give drink to those who thirst, invite in strangers, clothe those who need clothes, and look after the sick in prison, for whatever we do for the least of these we do for Christ. That does not mean butt in with no request for help, or sticking our noses where they do not belong. But if people are seeking help from us, then we should do all we could to help. And if this country wishes to become a part of our own, by all means, we should invite them in with open arms.

Very good answer.

3. The progressive movement is paved with good intentions, intentions on making government "better," but who's definition of "better?" There are nearly always two views of life in the United States, if not more. Only one can be appeased at once without contradicting the other. The list of things that were the goal of the progressive movement are all pretty good. From my point of view, so in my view it did make a better government. But in the view of those who don't agree with the things on the list, it was not any better then any other politician.

Good, when there are two differing views, isn't one superior to the other? It can't be that every opinion is equally valid. An opinion to impose communism, for example, is not just as valid an opinion to allow free enterprise to grow. So I'm not sure the question depends on whose (note spelling) definition of "better."

4. I think this cartoon represents the time right after the Spanish minister wrote the "low politician" letter to William McKinley, but before the war broke out. Since it was so hugely publisized by newspapers many people knew about this and was waiting for McKinley's reaction. Would he simply leave Cuba for Spain to rule, or would he fight to take Cuba from them? Judging by how McKinley's depiction looks as if he's about to throw a Spaniard down "To Spain," I would say with relative confidence that the artist believes McKinley should just ignore the personal attack and leave Cuba to Spain.

Not quite. The cartoon is after the war and concerns the Philippines. But you're close. (Minus 1). See model answers.

H2) Yellow journalism was definitly present suring the 2008 election. Rarely would one see something against Obama on the news, no matter how little experience he has in some rather important areas, or his controversial standings. However, there were plenty of things against McCain, even though he had much more experience then Obama. The problem was, McCain was no different from any other presidential candidate. Obama was, simply because of the color of his skin. He also was much younger then his opponent, something that was pointed out many times in new articles. Because of these things, there may have been just a bit of prejeduce in the voting.

Right, with good analysis to support your view. (note: "prejudice", not "prejeduce").

H3) As horrible as it sounds, I don't believe that America wanted other countries for business interests, but instead for the power that Americans still to this day tend to crave. We have notoriously stuck our noses again and again where they do not belong, but sometimes I admit there were good reasons. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not exactly an act of Imperialism, but we still don't really belong there. We do in some ways since certain people groups of the countries have repeatedly threatened neighboring countries and ourselves, though. As if we somehow have to prove ourselves in doing something for the "better" of other countries.

But for other places, like in the 1800s the Philippines and Cuba, the only reason it seems we were there was for the power we would gain, not for business.

Superb analysis.

Excellent work! Score: 59/60. Well done!--Aschlafly 19:45, 15 November 2008 (EST)