I don't know what it is, but something about this book seems . . . off. Maybe it's the dead-eyed lady on the cover, or the font size, or maybe the writing just sucks -- who knows? But reading this stuff makes me dizzy.
In this monograph, Alan Dawley argued that there was a link between progressive reforms in the U.S. and the country’s increased interaction in the world prior to WWI. (8) He interpreted the goals of progressives as a desire to “make the world safe for democracy.” To hammer this point home he argued that it was no accident that the two most progressive politicians lead the way: Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. (75)
For the most part I agreed with the general idea that that progressive reforms helped to shape U.S. policy. However there were a few concerns that I had along the way.
1. He ignores the miners’ response to the Ludlow Massacre. (28) In his defense, Andrews' book was not written yet. 2. The factors leading up to the WWI are not really examined in any depth. (35) 3. His coverage of how ethnic groups supported WWI was very generalized. (120, 131) For example, in the city of Buffalo the German community was very supportive of the war. At the opposite end of the spectrum, did all WASPs want to save the world? (128) 4. “The climactic moment finally arrived in early April. Speaking hastily to a hastily called joint session of Congress on April 2, 1917, Wilson summoned Americans to their destiny.” (135-6) My question here is do historians really believe in destiny or fate? 5. One of Dawley’s biggest claims was that Wilson was the last of the Founding Fathers. (184) I really took issue with this because of contradictions within Wilson’s own ideas about colonialism and self-determination of countries in places such as Africa and Asia. Also, some of the strictest laws on immigration and sedition were put in place during the war in America. (335) Granted, the reasons for the creation of the U.S. and the image of the Founding Fathers are not perfect, but I find the connection between Wilson to be poor.
Changing the World
ReplyDeleteIn this monograph, Alan Dawley argued that there was a link between progressive reforms in the U.S. and the country’s increased interaction in the world prior to WWI. (8) He interpreted the goals of progressives as a desire to “make the world safe for democracy.” To hammer this point home he argued that it was no accident that the two most progressive politicians lead the way: Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. (75)
For the most part I agreed with the general idea that that progressive reforms helped to shape U.S. policy. However there were a few concerns that I had along the way.
1. He ignores the miners’ response to the Ludlow Massacre. (28) In his defense, Andrews' book was not written yet.
2. The factors leading up to the WWI are not really examined in any depth. (35)
3. His coverage of how ethnic groups supported WWI was very generalized. (120, 131) For example, in the city of Buffalo the German community was very supportive of the war. At the opposite end of the spectrum, did all WASPs want to save the world? (128)
4. “The climactic moment finally arrived in early April. Speaking hastily to a hastily called joint session of Congress on April 2, 1917, Wilson summoned Americans to their destiny.” (135-6) My question here is do historians really believe in destiny or fate?
5. One of Dawley’s biggest claims was that Wilson was the last of the Founding Fathers. (184) I really took issue with this because of contradictions within Wilson’s own ideas about colonialism and self-determination of countries in places such as Africa and Asia. Also, some of the strictest laws on immigration and sedition were put in place during the war in America. (335) Granted, the reasons for the creation of the U.S. and the image of the Founding Fathers are not perfect, but I find the connection between Wilson to be poor.