Teaching Imperialism: Incorporating Learning Activities and State Standards

Image
chromolithograph, The flag must "stay put", 1902 June 4, John S. Pughe, LOC
Question

I am a pre-service teacher in seventh grade social studies classroom in Arizona with struggling readers. I have never created a Unit Plan, and I am told by my instructors and mentor that I am unable to incorporate all of the State Standards for Imperialism and leading up to WWI into a unit. How do I as a teacher sort through Performance Objectives and decide what to cut out and what not to? Also, where can I find resources for activities for my students?

Answer

There are many factors to consider when planning instruction. It is great to see that you have your students in mind, as they are central to this process. Knowing your students’ range of skills and interests should help you select and prepare materials and design instruction and assessments.

When developing a unit of study, begin with determining what you want your students to know and be able to do. What are the key concepts, main ideas, and essential content related to 19th century imperialism? What are the skills students should develop? What central questions can help you organize these skills and content? How will you assess student learning? Some of this approach to unit planning, you may recognize as "backwards planning", Grant Wiggins’ useful approach.

Arizona’s state standards can help you get started in making these decisions. The four 7th grade performance objectives provide the following topics for study:

  • the causes of European imperialism;
  • the impact of European imperialism around the world;
  • the rise of Japan as an industrial power;
  • and the expansion of American foreign policy at the beginning of the twentieth century.

The standards also provide some guiding details to begin formulating objectives. These include:

  • a list of three primary causes of European imperialism, and details about:
  1. the impact of imperialism in Africa, India, China;
  2. America’s involvement in the Spanish-American War;
  3. the Boxer Rebellion;
  4. the Panama Canal, and
  5. the annexation of Hawaii.
It is better to choose fewer topics and to study them in depth, than simply cover all the material in a short period of time.

Arizona’s standards document can also help determine the types of skills you might focus on in this unit—for example, analyzing cause and effect, considering the reliability of primary sources, describing multiple perspectives on the same historical event, interpreting historical data, and constructing time-lines, charts, graphs, and narratives using historical data and evidence.

Wow, that is a lot! Your instructors seem to be on target with the idea that you will have to pick and choose your focus and content. It is better to choose fewer topics and to study them in depth, than simply cover all the material in a short period of time. Likewise, it is better to focus on a few skills so students get many opportunities to learn and practice those skills.

How to make these choices?

It is important to develop your own content knowledge in order to develop unit objectives. Expanding your own understanding of imperialism will help you prioritize which standards to focus on. Several on-line sources can help with this process. World History for Us All, for example, includes an excellent overview of Industrialization and Imperialism in its introduction to Big Era 7.

The American Historical Association provides a teaching module on imperialism with essential questions, concepts, events, people and links to primary source materials

Create assessments to help you make these difficult choices. Following a backwards design approach, after you have determined objectives, consider how students will demonstrate what you want them to learn. The skills described in the Arizona standards provide some suggestions here. Further, creating a final assessment for the unit, as well as formative assessments that are aligned with the unit objectives will help you organize instruction and stay focused on student learning. For the final assessment, students could write an essay in response to a central question that demands that they use the unit’s concepts and texts to make an argument. For formative assessments, think mini-quizzes, exit slips, free-writes, and homework assignments.

Working with struggling readers should not preclude using an array of thought provoking documents and activities.

Create a unit calendar once you have selected objectives and assessments. This is an iterative process that will include several drafts. Begin by organizing your learning objectives and assessments by days of instruction. To guide this work, consider how learning objectives relate and build off of each other. You can then fill out the calendar with materials and instructional activities. There are several places you can search on-line for primary documents related to imperialism. The Modern History Sourcebook’s imperialism page is a good place to get started. Consider a variety of approaches when developing lesson plans—for example, lectures, timeline activities, “opening up the textbook,” analyzing primary documents, historical inquiry, perhaps a structured academic controversy—and make sure your lessons clearly relate to the unit’s objectives. The National History Education Clearinghouse’s “Best Practices” tab contains helpful suggestions for each of these strategies.

When developing instructional strategies and materials, it is crucial to keep the interests and skills of your students in mind. Working with struggling readers should not preclude using an array of thought provoking documents and activities. These materials, however, need careful structuring and scaffolds; moreover, you will need to excerpt documents strategically and, in some instances, modify them so that they are accessible to the students in your classroom. For suggestions on adapting primary documents, see this NHEC teaching guide. The Historical Thinking Matters module on the Spanish American War provides a good example of using modified documents and structuring historical inquiry. See also, the Stanford History Education Group’s lessons on American Imperialism.

Finally, there are several units on imperialism posted on-line. Be wary as the quality of these materials varies wildly. However, you might check out the Age of Imperialism unit posted by the University of South Florida as a reference, for it includes many elements of unit design described here.

Good luck!

The Doctrine of Discovery, Native America, and the U.S. Constitution, Part Two

Description

How can U.S. citizens today view Native American history through a Constitutional lens? In answering that question, Bob Miller, Lewis & Clark Law School professor and Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, uncovers the history of Federal Indian Law. Professor Miller describes the Doctrine of Discovery's long reach, from the founding of the colonies through the writing of the Constitution all the way to Russia planting its flag on the Arctic seafloor in 2007.

Islam, Democracy, and the West

Description

Fawaz Gerges of Sarah Lawrence College and Barry Rubin of the Global Research in International Affairs Center explore the political turmoil currently taking place in the Middle East, including the rise to prominence of Islamists in politics. Gerges argues that the Islamist powers rise to fill a vacuum of legitimate political authority. Rubin emphasizes the importance of Arab nationalism in the region's internal and global politics and the staying power of some of the region's regimes.

Video and audio options are available.

The Spanish-American War and the Philippine War

Description

Brian McAllister Linn of Texas A & M University discusses the Spanish-American War and the Phillippine-American War, approaching them as wars often forgotten in coverage of U.S. history and frequently difficult for students to understand. This lecture was part of "What Students Need To Know About America’s Wars, Part I: 1622-1919: A History Institute for Teachers, held July 26-27, 2008 at the First Division Museum in Wheaton, IL, sponsored by the Foreign Policy Research Institute's Wachman Center and by the Cantigny First Division Foundation.

Audio and video options are available.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Making of American Imperialism Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 01/04/2008 - 14:04
Description

Professor William Wagner considers the actual significance of the Lewis and Clark Expedition to and in U.S. history. He seeks to remove the voyage from obscuring popular myths and into the realm of historical fact, while also looking at how popular understanding of the Expedition has changed over time.

Republicanism and Anti-imperialism

Description

Professor John Moser discusses U.S. foreign policy in the 1890s, when the U.S. acquired territories including the Philippines and Guam. He considers how anti-imperialists believed such territorial acquisitions would threaten the ideals of republicanism.

To listen to this lecture, scroll down to the Monday, July 12th, 7:30-9:30 pm session. Then click on the Real Audio link in the gray bar to the left of the main text.

America Abroad

field_image
Battleship USS Connecticut, 1906
Question

Was America's shift away from a predominantly isolationist foreign policy stance a historical inevitability or did Theodore Roosevelt and his persuasive image as a leader push us into the modern age of global interaction?

Answer

Political, social, economic, and cultural forces were at work at the time, but Roosevelt's actions, undertaken consciously and intentionally, had important consequences as well.

American Isolationism?

The conventional wisdom that America was generally "isolationist" until the end of the 19th century has some severe limits. It is only true if it means that the United States was reluctant to become involved in European politics (as opposed to European business, manufacturing, and trade relationships, which the U.S. was not so reluctant to engage in, despite the imposition of protectionist tariffs).

The reluctance derived from the fact that European immigrants to America, from the very beginning, had often fled to escape Europe. For them, America was a place apart, free of the "entangling alliances" (Jefferson's phrase) of entrenched interests, monarchies, and religious restrictions. The idea was fortified by geography, with oceans separating the Old World and the New.

The problem with the idea of "American isolationism," however, comes when it is taken to imply that the policy of the U.S. during this time was "peace with each other and all the world" (as President Polk said during his inaugural address) or that it was guided exclusively by the simple desire not to interfere with other peoples' lives. If the U.S. relationship with North American indigenous peoples is not evidence enough to the contrary, its relationship with Mexico throughout the 19th century—well before the Spanish-American War—should demonstrate that the U.S. did not refrain from interfering with other peoples' lives or other country's policies or from exercising military power over them.

Progressivism

The Northern victory in the U.S. Civil War and the consequent abolition of slavery, appeared to justify the use of state power to impose solutions to social problems, to demonstrate that social progress could be engineered by the state. This was the essence of "Progressivism," and, as a political or social philosophy, it was a departure from the deep-rooted American suspicion of, and aversion to, a strong central state power. Progressives sought first to uplift and re-order America, but then turned their view outward, especially with the emergence of a popular view that the valued American pioneer "spirit" would diminish as the westward settling of the continent reached the Pacific Ocean.

The Progressives contemplated doing unto other lands what they were already doing to their own; or, as Mark Twain sarcastically put it, "extending the blessings of civilization to our brother who sits in darkness."

The U.S. did not refrain from interfering with other peoples' lives or other country's policies or from exercising its military power over them.
American Action Abroad Dependent on Strengthening Naval Power

Nevertheless, if we limit ourselves to considering American actions overseas, then a sea change of sorts did occur toward the end of the 19th century. America deliberately fashioned itself into a formidable naval power. U.S. Naval officer Alfred Thayer Mahan encapsulated the rationale for this in his highly influential book, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, published in 1890.

Not surprisingly, America's overseas reach was made possible by a large effort to expand and modernize the U.S. Navy, which began under President Chester A. Arthur in 1882, 16 years before the Spanish-American War. President Arthur also negotiated with the Kingdom of Hawaii the right to use Pearl Harbor as a coaling station for U.S. Navy ships.

It was also in 1882 that young Theodore Roosevelt published his first historical book, The Naval War of 1812. He was friends with Mahan and shared his view of the need for the U.S. to develop its navy. President William McKinley appointed Roosevelt to the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897. He resigned the following year to fight in the Spanish-American War.

America's overseas reach was made possible by a large effort to expand and modernize the U.S. Navy
Foreign Trade

Counting the value of foreign commerce in the leading commercial nations from 1870 to 1890, the U.S. ranked 4th behind the United Kingdom, Germany, and France.

From 1850 to 1890, the dollar value of U.S. total imports and exports rose from $318 million to $1.3 billion, an increase of 400 percent. As America's own industries grew in the 2nd half of the 19th century, the percentage of manufactured goods (as opposed to raw materials) exported also grew.

Just as important, America's direct investment overseas increased, placing more American businesses in situations in which they operated within local conditions around the world. These businesses dealt directly with local foreign markets, governments, labor pools, and raw material suppliers.

Filibustering around the Americas

During this period, American business entrepreneurs in the Pacific and in Central and South America began to venture deeply into local political and even military affairs. Actions sometimes reached far beyond mere business activities, including the organization of "free lance" military expeditions called "filibusters" against governments in the Caribbean and Central and South America.

American companies, such as the United Fruit Company, came to own vast plantations in these countries and operated them as agricultural colonies. They often pressured the U.S., especially throughout the 1st half of the 20th century, to intervene militarily in countries such as Nicaragua, Honduras, and Haiti when their interests were threatened by local wars and revolutions.

America across the Pacific

The pattern of American commercial interests supported by American military power had already been set by the beginning of the 20th century. Hawaii was first annexed to the U.S. in February 1893, after immigrant businessmen and politicians from the U.S., including Sanford Dole (his cousin James would become the "Pineapple King") ousted the Hawaiian royalty, with the backing of U.S. diplomats and soldiers. The annexation was withdrawn, but was re-instituted under President McKinley in 1898, with an eye toward using Hawaii as a naval base in the Pacific to fight Spain in Guam and the Philippines.

In the Spanish-American War of 1898, naval power was decisive to the U.S. victory. Quasi-colonial competition between the U.S. and Spain was one factor in the war, as well as an ambivalent notion in the U.S. that it was expelling Old World domination (Catholic and monarchical) from the New World. This in theory helped to free the hemisphere for democratic revolution and republicanism, while at the same time advancing U.S. economic and political power over the same region.

The end of the war saw the U.S. emerge as a fully-fledged, although ideologically conflicted, colonial power. That ideological conflict regarding the destiny and direction of American foreign policy would continue through the 20th century. This new era of foreign involvement was underway before Theodore Roosevelt held any national elected office.

Roosevelt's Role

Practically speaking, of course, the U.S. had no way to become militarily entangled in Europe—even if it had wished to—until it had a navy and commercial fleet capable of protecting its own shores, but more importantly, capable of transporting troops and supplies across the Atlantic.

As the Republican Vice Presidential candidate in 1900 campaigning for McKinley's second term, Roosevelt publicly argued in favor of the annexation of the Philippines, contending that both the Philippines and the U.S. would benefit.

After McKinley was assassinated in 1901 and Roosevelt became President, he built the "Great White Fleet," four battleship squadrons of new naval ships. He then dispatched them around the world from 1907-1909 on a mission of friendship and goodwill, but with a subtext of demonstrating that the U.S. had come of age as an international naval power.

Roosevelt also strengthened and extended the Monroe Doctrine in his 1904 address to Congress. He claimed that the U.S. had the right to intervene—to exercise "international police power"—in the economic affairs of Central American and Caribbean nations in order to stabilize them. This claim became known as the "Roosevelt Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine.

Roosevelt had wide support in the U.S. for his foreign policy bullishness, although strong and significant opposition existed against actions that appeared to be at odds with the country's own republican ideals.

He quickly recognized the legitimacy of Panamanian rebels to separate from Columbia, and he committed the U.S. to protect their independence. But this (and the U.S.'s negotiated lease for the Canal Zone) suggested an action quite at odds with the country's refusal to allow states to secede from the Union during the Civil War.

Roosevelt, however, was convinced that a canal would be built across the Isthmus of Panama and that the U.S. must control it. During the war, American ships fought in the Atlantic and the Pacific. Transferring the fleets from one ocean to the other meant sending ships around Cape Horn, a difficult, expensive, and time-consuming operation. When the canal was finished, thought Roosevelt, only if American controlled it, could the U.S. ensure its ability to defend both of its own coasts.

All of Roosevelt's actions fortified the outward-looking expansive trend in U.S. foreign policy. Roosevelt's decisions, such as undertaking the Panama Canal project and strengthening the Navy, had long term consequences for the U.S.

Bibliography

Alfred Thayer Mahan. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1890.
Alfred Thayer Mahan. The Interest of America in Sea Power, Present and Future, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1898.

Theodore Roosevelt. The Naval War of 1812; or the History of the United States Navy during the Last War with Great Britain to Which Is Appended an Account of the Battle of New Orleans. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1882.
Mark Twain. "To the Person Sitting in Darkness," North American Review, Vol. 172, issue 531 (February, 1901): 161-176.

U. S. Treasury Department. Annual Report and Statements of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics on the Foreign Commerce and Navigation, Immigration, and Tonnage of the United States for the Year Ending June 30, 1890. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1891.

Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1905) at www.ourdocuments.gov. (Theodore Roosevelt's Annual Message to Congress for 1904; House Records HR 58-A-K2; Records of the U.S. House of Representatives; Record Group 233; Center for Legislative Archives; National Archives).

Robert Kagan. Dangerous Nation: America's Foreign Policy from Its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century. New York: Vintage Books, 2007.

Warren Zimmermann. First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002.

Howard K. Beale. Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1956.

James R. Holmes. Theodore Roosevelt and World Order: Police Power in International Relations. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2006.

David McCullough. The Path between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870–1914. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977.

Images:
Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt (front, center) at the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, circa 1897, with the college's faculty and class members. U.S. Naval Historical Center.

Battleship USS Connecticut, BB-18, running speed trials off the Maine coast, 1906. U.S. Naval Historical Center.