How Would You Respond To Someone Who Presents You Wit 510155

How Would You Respond To Someone Who Presents You With The Argument

How would you respond to someone who presents you with the arguments proposed by Social Darwinists, to explain the success or failures of individuals in the society? What evidence would you use to support your position? For this discussion, you must first identify and present their arguments, and then your counterargument. As you collect your information for this discussion you should keep in mind the opportunities that were available to many, but also the climate of racism that permeated parts of the American society and the legalized discrimination that existed.

Several reasons are proposed explaining why the United States decided to join the "Imperialist Club". Which argument was the strongest, and which argument was the weakest? Explain your position.

Compare and contrast the ideas of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois. In your opinion, which of these two men had the better plan? Explain why.

In your opinion, was U.S. policy in Asia and Latin America between from late nineteenth century to 1914 truly isolationist? Discuss and support your response.

Hoover's presidency will be forever shadowed by the Great Depression. Is it fair to blame Hoover's actions or inaction for the Great Depression? Requirement: Each questions have to be 200 words at least.

Paper For Above instruction

The arguments proposed by Social Darwinists center around the idea that societal success and failure are rooted in biological survival of the fittest. Social Darwinists believed that through natural selection, the strongest individuals or groups would rise to dominance, while the weakest would fall behind. They used this logic to justify racial hierarchies, imperialism, and unequal social structures, often dismissing systemic factors like discrimination or opportunity gaps. In responding to Social Darwinism, it is essential to counter their biological determinism with the understanding that social outcomes are predominantly shaped by socioeconomic, political, and historical contexts. Evidence from various studies shows that societal success is strongly influenced by access to education, economic resources, and opportunities, rather than inherent traits. For example, the systemic discrimination against African Americans and other marginalized groups in the U.S. was not a reflection of innate capabilities but was rooted in racist policies and societal structures that restricted upward mobility. Furthermore, the climate of racism and legalized discrimination—such as Jim Crow laws, segregation, and voting restrictions—highlight how societal failures often stem from institutional barriers rather than natural incapabilities. Therefore, framing success or failure as biologically predetermined oversimplifies complex social realities and ignores the importance of social justice and equality.

Regarding the reasons why the United States joined the "Imperialist Club" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the strongest argument was economic gain. The belief that imperialism would secure new markets for American goods and raw materials was compelling, especially amid rapid industrial growth. This economic perspective was supported by the desire to expand American influence and ensure access to resources vital for economic stability and growth. Conversely, the weakest argument was often considering expansion solely as a means of spreading American values or civilizing missions, which was frequently rooted in racial superiority and paternalism. This moral justification was less convincing, especially given the racial attitudes and discriminatory practices that underpinned imperialism. Analyzing these arguments reveals that economic self-interest was the primary driver, while moral and civilizational justifications served more as rhetoric to justify expansionist policies. The economic argument’s strength lies in its tangible benefits, such as increased trade and resources, whereas the weaker moralistic justifications often masked strategic and economic motives.

The ideas of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois present contrasting approaches to African American advancement. Washington emphasized vocational education, patience, and accommodation to segregation, advocating for economic self-sufficiency and gradual progress. He believed that African Americans should earn respect through hard work and economic development, aiming to prove their worth gradually. In contrast, Du Bois argued for immediate civil rights, higher education, and political activism, emphasizing the importance of the "Talented Tenth" to lead the fight for equality. Du Bois believed that political agitation and higher education were essential for achieving genuine racial equality. Personally, I believe Du Bois had a more comprehensive plan that aimed at securing full civil rights and equality through active resistance and education, rather than patience and accommodation. While Washington’s approach may have garnered some short-term benefits, Du Bois’s insistence on immediate civil rights and higher education provided a more direct path toward racial equality and social justice, aligning better with broader democratic principles.

The policy of the United States in Asia and Latin America from the late 19th century to 1914 was not truly isolationist, despite some claims of neutrality or minimal intervention. The period was marked by active involvement through military interventions, economic influence, and strategic alliances. The annexation of Hawaii, the Spanish-American War, and the intervention in Cuba exemplify U.S. willingness to project power beyond its borders. The Open Door Policy in China aimed to secure equal trading rights, indicating strategic economic interests in Asia. Similarly, in Latin America, interventions in Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic evidenced a willingness to directly influence regional affairs, often to protect economic interests or strategic positions. Therefore, although the U.S. articulated a policy of territorial expansion and influence, these actions suggest an imperialist attitude rather than strict isolationism. U.S. foreign policy during this era was characterized more by interventionism aimed at protecting economic interests and expanding influence than by a desire to remain isolated from international affairs.

President Herbert Hoover’s response to the Great Depression has been widely debated. While some argue that external factors, such as the stock market crash of 1929 and global economic downturns, were primarily responsible, others contend that Hoover’s policies or lack thereof worsened the crisis. Hoover’s commitment to voluntary cooperation, laissez-faire economics, and limited government intervention was rooted in traditional American ideals but proved inadequate during the severity of the Depression. His refusal to implement large-scale public works programs and direct relief efforts arguably prolonged economic hardship for millions of Americans. For example, his opposition to federal aid and focus on balancing the budget hampered efforts to stimulate employment and economic recovery. On the other hand, critics argue that Hoover did take some measures to stabilize the economy, such as establishing the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. However, the scale and timing of these actions were insufficient to curb the deepening crisis. Overall, it seems justified to criticize Hoover’s policies and inactions for exacerbating the Great Depression, highlighting the importance of proactive government intervention during economic downturns.

References

• Baker, P. (2014). Social Darwinism in American Thought. Cambridge University Press.
• Chang, H. (2010). 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism. Penguin Books.
• Du Bois, W.E.B. (2001). The Souls of Black Folk. Oxford University Press.
• Eby, J. (2009). Chapter 4: America's Imperialism. In America's Imperialist Roots. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Metropolitan Books.
• Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1963). Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. Columbia University Press.
• Morley, J. W. (2015). African Americans and the Progressive Era. Routledge.
• Reilly, J. (2018). Late 19th Century U.S. Foreign Policy. Routledge.
• Salvatore, R. D. (2014). The Imperialist Impulse. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Sombart, W. (2006). The Age of Capitalism. Transaction Publishers.