Talk:Jingoism

St. Gingolph

Italic text''' Not fdgfgdsure if this is pertinent, but the dict project mentions St. Gingoulph as another possible source.'

==weiner-Psychic crisis caused largely by great depression that started in 1893 and was still occurring -Depression alone would not cause such a crisis: -Populist movement (the free-silver agitation) campaign of 1890 was a radical movement caused by the depression and caused a "drastic social convulsion" -Maturation and bureaucratization of American business, the completion of its essential industrial plant, and the development of trusts on a scale that made it seem like the current era of economic opportunity was ending -The continent was filling up and the frontier line was [seemingly] gone -To people of 1890's, it seemed resources previously available were used up -Things looked bad to middle class citizens brought up thinking in terms of 19th century economics -Farmers had "gone mad over silver and Bryan" -Workers were stirring in bloody struggles (i.e. strikes) -Supply of new land seemed to be gone -Trusts threatened spirit of business enterprise -Civic corruption was high in cities -Huge numbers of immigrants formed slums -New tendencies in public thought fell into two basic moods -Intensification of protest and humanitarian reform -Populism, Utopianism, Christian Social gospel, the growing intellectual interest in Socialism, and protest in the realistic novel all express this mood. JUSTIN JUSTIN ? McKinley had said the he might be "obliged" to go to war as soon as he entered the presidency, and had expressed a preference that the Cuban crisis be settled between his election andinauguration. ? Wanted to have victory under his belt for next election ? Newspapers sympathized with Cubans and hated Spain -Propaganda aided in changing American public while viewing the Cuban situation--Spain portrayed as waging heartless and inhuman war, Cubans as the victims of this war -Sectional and political elements most enthusiastic about war--Bryan sections of the country, in the Democratic party, patrons of yellow journals -some thought people wanted a costly war in Cuba so we could return to free silver, press said those who did not support it were heartless -economic motives made by both sides -war was an outlet for aggressive impulses but also an idealistic and humanitarian crusade -American public did not want material gains in Cuba, nor did they think war would go to Philippines--yet war soon had imperialistic motives Movement for Imperialism ? Made up of mostly a small group of politicians, intellectuals & publicists ? Most of men in imperial movement were well-off financially ? Committed to expansion ? Wanted imperialism for fear of US losing militarily ? Strategic places were necessary for the US military ? Acquire naval basses in the Caribbean and the Pacific ? Annexation of Canada ? Interested in far east for trade investments ? Roosevelt responsible for the US entering into the Philippines ? 1st attempt at Philippines was a defensive action- protected the west coast from Spain ? The last step taken in controlling the Philippines was having the US military invade the rest of the Philippines from their stronghold of Manila ? Public opinion of the Filipino's attacking the Americans forced Congress to be biased in making a decision to go to war ? Business man began to side w/ the expansionist movement - Protestant clergy--seeking potential enlargement of missionaries - Business---Philippines become a possible gateway 2 markets of East Asia - 4 ways to fix Philippine problem o 1. Return islands to Spain o 2. Sell/alienate Philippines 2 another power (invited European war) o 3. America could leave the Philippines, giving independence 2 Aguinaldo's men o 4. American "colony" - Could be considered as a naval base - American public is not informed about Philippines o Literary Digest (leading Republican paper) writes about expansion o President McKinley: wanted public sentiment o Peace Commission negotiating treaty in Paris (asked 4 all Philippine Islands) - 2 Phases of Debates of Philippines o 1st-Decemner 1898 o 2nd ?February 1899 -American policy toward the Philippines becomes matter of general pubic discussion - Republicans were for expansion - Democrats were against expansion - America is geographically divided o South has a strong liking toward expansion - Decision for expansion is made by Theodore Roosevelt - Americans are divided in making a choice. -reasons for taking Philippines: -potential markets, White Man's Burden, struggle for existence, racial destiny, traditions of Expansion, dangers of war if left to Europeans, incapacity of Filopinos for self-gov't. -Duty and Destiny -to reject annexation = would be 2 fail fulfilling an obligation -expansion was inevitable and irresistable -God made whites organizers to establish systems where there was chaos

- Americans believed that the theme of destiny was similar to the theme of duty - Destiny always arrived and was believed to be in the "inexorable logic of events" - People believed that expansion had long been familiar to Americans - Albert Weinberg said that American expansion took on a new meaning in the nineties - Previously, when we "willed" expansion, nobody could resist us at all - During the nineties it was evident that Americans could not resist expansion themselves - President McKinley said that Duty determines Destiny - Duty meant that we had a moral obligation and destiny meant that we would certainly fulfill it - It is not surpising that the public was familiar with the concept of inevitable destiny when the United States involved itself with the fate of the Philippines - Senator Lodge wrote to Teddy Roosevelt saying that "the whole policy of annexation is growing rapidly under the irrestible pressure of events" - It was evident that the idea of destin was effective even on people that had grave doubts about the United States' occupation in the Philippines - Not only were high moral and metaphysical concepts employed in the imperialistic argument - Our right to hold the Philippines was the right of the conquerors -American imperialism in the 1890s should not be interpreted in terms of rational economic motives -Markets and investments were factors but not the only ones -The ideal of the war being a "newspaper's war" has some point but does not explain the war -The press is not powerful enough to impose a view on the public -Newspapers must work with preexisting predispositions -Not all newspapers were yellow journals -Newspapers themselves could not create public opinion -Newspapers decided they could increase sales by exploiting jingo sentiment -Newspapers cannot turn opinion into action -Complex political interests created action -Public opinion was affected by the depression, the closing of the frontier, trusts, and social conflict, and the defeat of Bryan -Statesmen ant publishers were worried by the growing imperialism of Russia, Germany, and Japan -Expansionists were upper middle-class conservative reformist -Psychological people tend to respond to frustration with aggression -Underdogs were more anxious for war with Spain than the upper class -Conservatives were indifferent so Cuban freedom but interested in Filipino markets -Anti-expansionists considered imperialism a betrayal of American ideals -Anti-imperialist did not have numbers, morale, or unity -No effort has been made to compare the war with other parallel expansion crises -Parallels can be found in other nation's histories in the role of the press in starting foreign crisis -Historians should study how our behavior compared -business--gigantic markets of East never materialized, value of Philippines is arguable--absorb only a little over one percent of all US investments abroad -1907--Philippines were strategical for the war b/c of positioning

The above text, posted by User:172.137.61.197 without explanation, was obviously pasted from some other work. (Non-Wiki formatting with special characters and truncated lines give it away.) This may be a copyright violation. — Jeff Q 08:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think he was taking notes on something and put those notes here fore some reason [Dwarf Kirlston] 15 Feb Middayish.

"jingo" in the American vernacular

Near the end of the article, it is stated that '"Jingoism" did not enter the U.S. vernacular until the 20th century.' However, Roosevelt used it in 1895, and stated outright that others did as well.

1895 T. Roosevelt in _N.Y. Times_ 24 Oct. 8: There is much
talk about "jingoism." If by "jingoism" they mean a policy in
pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common
sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign
powers, then we are "jingoes."

Sure, 1895 is close to the 20th century, but why not be accurate?

 -- Ben Rosengart <wikipedia.org@narcissus.net>

Two questions: Why is "jingoism" only applied to Yankees (British and Americans)? Didn't any other nationalities at the time have any "patriotic or expansionist, arrogant and belligerent" feelings and emotions? What about the "hot-blooded" Latin Spaniards and the Latin-gallic French (both proud peoples)? And, when South American nations fought it out, over territory and minerals, was there no national pride involved? Why isn't it called "jingoism" then? It's just like the history of the word "racism", which means "to apply any single statement or attitude to all the members of one 'race'"; seldom is it, if ever, applied to minorities, who are and were often every bit as racist as Anglo-Americans. Also, was there any truth to the "Black Legend"? Did the Spaniards not exploit the native American Indian populations under their control? (For example, in some Spanish territories, the native population practically disappeared, or became extinct.) Why not mention it then? Was there not any validity toward anti-Spanish feelings at the time? If so, then why is it called "yellow journalism". Who treated their colonists and subjugated peoples better, the United States, or Spain? Which one would you have rather lived under at the time? And, for that matter, what did the native American peoples do to the enemy tribes that they subjugated (often, this involved human sacrifice)? For instance, the Aztecs and the people that they defeated. Hundreds of these Aztec tributaries joined Hernando Cortez in his march on what became Mexico City. (Sept.)

Basque origin of Jingo

The basque world for God is "Jaun", and the particle -go or -ko behind usually means "belonging to" in a physical or territorial way. When referring to God in an exclamation, basques would say "Jauna!", where -a acts as a determinant. I assume that the word could anyway be a corrupted form, but does not sound plausible...

So... basically, Jingoism is Jesusism ;-)

Ad to article

Add to article: nations accused of Jingoism.