{"id":2077,"date":"2021-11-15T15:28:50","date_gmt":"2021-11-15T15:28:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-ushistory2\/?post_type=chapter&p=2077"},"modified":"2024-09-04T18:42:37","modified_gmt":"2024-09-04T18:42:37","slug":"module-4-discussion-speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-ushistory2\/chapter\/module-4-discussion-speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick\/","title":{"raw":"Module 4 Discussion: Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick","rendered":"Module 4 Discussion: Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick"},"content":{"raw":"Theodore Roosevelt\u2019s foreign policy was supposedly based on his favorite African proverb: \u201cspeak softly and carry a big stick and you will go far.\u201d The meaning of this proverb has been debated, but in general, Roosevelt interpreted it to mean that the U.S. should use diplomatic tactics to achieve goals, but should also maintain and display a strong military (a \u201cbig stick\u201d) in order to demonstrate their capability to use force if necessary. On more than one occasion, the U.S. did end up using a show of military force, or actual military action, to resolve a foreign policy issue in a way that benefitted U.S. interests.\r\n\r\nIn this exercise, you will analyze and discuss events during America\u2019s Age of Empire and determine if U.S. actions constituted \u201cspeaking softly\u201d or using a \u201cbig stick.\u201d\r\n\r\nStep 1<\/strong>: Read the following list of late-19th and early-20th century events involving U.S. foreign policy that were covered in the reading. Decide if they fit into the category of \u201cspeaking softly\u201d (diplomacy or negotiations) or the category of \u201cbig stick\u201d (military display or use of military force). Some might be both if the U.S. employed both diplomacy and military displays or action to achieve the goal. You may do some independent research if needed to get more detail on the events. Create your own table similar to the one below.\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n

List of Events<\/h2>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

Categorization<\/h2>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

 \r\n
    \r\n \t
  • U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia<\/li>\r\n \t
  • U.S. annexation of Hawaii<\/li>\r\n \t
  • The Spanish-American War<\/li>\r\n \t
  • The Taft Commission<\/li>\r\n \t
  • The Foraker Act of 1900<\/li>\r\n \t
  • The Platt Amendment<\/li>\r\n \t
  • John Hay\u2019s \u201cOpen Door Notes\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Panama Canal negotiations<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Panamanian Revolution<\/li>\r\n \t
  • U.S. interventions in Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Roosevelt\u2019s Nobel Peace Prize for Russo-Japanese Treaty<\/li>\r\n \t
  • U.S. naval maneuvers in the Pacific Ocean (1907-1909)<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Taft\u2019s \u201cDollar Diplomacy\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
  • U.S. naval presence in Nicaragua<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Roosevelt Corollary<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Lodge Corollary<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n \r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n
Speak Softly<\/strong> (Diplomatic negotiations, treaties, requests, economic actions, etc.)\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Big Stick<\/strong> (Displays of military force, use of military force of any kind, or policies allowing military intervention)\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Combination<\/strong> (combination of diplomacy and military force, or one after the other)\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\nStep 2<\/strong>: Choose one<\/strong> of the events that you sorted in the last step and write a discussion post of 6-8 sentences explaining why you sorted it the way you did. Your post should include details such as:\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Which category you put the event in<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Which specific details of the event made you decide to categorize it that way<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. What foreign policy goal the U.S. was trying to achieve with these actions or decisions<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Whether or not the U.S. achieved the goal<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nBe sure to include the table that you created in Step 1 in your discussion post!\r\n\r\nStep 3<\/strong>: Respond in two separate posts to two classmates (in at least 75 words). Explicitly address their examples and try to extend, complicate, or redirect their points in a substantive, knowledge-demonstrating way. Be sure to cite relevant concepts and key terms from the reading.\r\n

    Discussion Grading Rubric<\/h2>\r\n
    \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
    Criteria\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\r\nExcellent<\/strong><\/td>\r\nSatisfactory<\/strong><\/td>\r\nDeveloping<\/strong><\/td>\r\nPoints\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Discussion post;\r\n\r\nOn topic,\r\n\r\nRelevant evidence,\r\n\r\nDemonstrates Critical Thinking Skills,\r\n\r\nRespectful,\r\n\r\nThoughtful analysis,\r\n\r\nMeets length requirement.<\/td>\r\nPost directly addresses prompt, contains all relevant information from course content, demonstrates sound analysis and critical thinking, offers well thought-out points, meets length requirement.<\/td>\r\nPost address prompt directly, but skips steps or questions, leaves out relevant information, or shows lack of critical thinking, may or may not meet length requirement.<\/td>\r\nPost is off topic or does not specifically address prompt, but does address general topic of content, does not meet length requirement.<\/td>\r\n__ \/ 4<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Supporting Evidence\/Sources;\r\n\r\nRelevant,\r\n\r\nWell-researched<\/td>\r\nAll points in post & comments are supported by relevant, well-researched evidence or sources.<\/td>\r\nPost & comments use relevant evidence for some points, but not for others; or information is missing.<\/td>\r\nPost & comments do not contain any sources or evidence to support points; or sources are off topic, poorly researched, and vague.<\/td>\r\n__ \/ 4<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Response comments;\r\n\r\nRelevant,\r\n\r\nRespectful,\r\n\r\nMeet length requirement<\/td>\r\nResponses meet length requirement, contain thoughtful feedback, well-researched evidence and relevant points, and use respectful language.<\/td>\r\nResponses may or may not meet length requirement, use respectful language, but are vague or slightly off topic, without evidence, or do not directly address the original poster\u2019s points.<\/td>\r\nResponses are off topic, only contain a few words or sentences, no meaningful contribution; or are disrespectful toward fellow students; ideas are not well developed or researched.<\/td>\r\n__ \/ 2<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<\/div>\r\n ","rendered":"

    Theodore Roosevelt\u2019s foreign policy was supposedly based on his favorite African proverb: \u201cspeak softly and carry a big stick and you will go far.\u201d The meaning of this proverb has been debated, but in general, Roosevelt interpreted it to mean that the U.S. should use diplomatic tactics to achieve goals, but should also maintain and display a strong military (a \u201cbig stick\u201d) in order to demonstrate their capability to use force if necessary. On more than one occasion, the U.S. did end up using a show of military force, or actual military action, to resolve a foreign policy issue in a way that benefitted U.S. interests.<\/p>\n

    In this exercise, you will analyze and discuss events during America\u2019s Age of Empire and determine if U.S. actions constituted \u201cspeaking softly\u201d or using a \u201cbig stick.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Step 1<\/strong>: Read the following list of late-19th and early-20th century events involving U.S. foreign policy that were covered in the reading. Decide if they fit into the category of \u201cspeaking softly\u201d (diplomacy or negotiations) or the category of \u201cbig stick\u201d (military display or use of military force). Some might be both if the U.S. employed both diplomacy and military displays or action to achieve the goal. You may do some independent research if needed to get more detail on the events. Create your own table similar to the one below.<\/p>\n

    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    \n

    List of Events<\/h2>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Categorization<\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

     <\/p>\n
      \n
    • U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia<\/li>\n
    • U.S. annexation of Hawaii<\/li>\n
    • The Spanish-American War<\/li>\n
    • The Taft Commission<\/li>\n
    • The Foraker Act of 1900<\/li>\n
    • The Platt Amendment<\/li>\n
    • John Hay\u2019s \u201cOpen Door Notes\u201d<\/li>\n
    • Panama Canal negotiations<\/li>\n
    • Panamanian Revolution<\/li>\n
    • U.S. interventions in Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic<\/li>\n
    • Roosevelt\u2019s Nobel Peace Prize for Russo-Japanese Treaty<\/li>\n
    • U.S. naval maneuvers in the Pacific Ocean (1907-1909)<\/li>\n
    • Taft\u2019s \u201cDollar Diplomacy\u201d<\/li>\n
    • U.S. naval presence in Nicaragua<\/li>\n
    • Roosevelt Corollary<\/li>\n
    • Lodge Corollary<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/td>\n

    		Speak Softly<\/strong> (Diplomatic negotiations, treaties, requests, economic actions, etc.)<\/p>\n

     <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Big Stick<\/strong> (Displays of military force, use of military force of any kind, or policies allowing military intervention)<\/p>\n

     <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Combination<\/strong> (combination of diplomacy and military force, or one after the other)<\/p>\n

     <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Step 2<\/strong>: Choose one<\/strong> of the events that you sorted in the last step and write a discussion post of 6-8 sentences explaining why you sorted it the way you did. Your post should include details such as:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n
    1. Which category you put the event in<\/li>\n
    2. Which specific details of the event made you decide to categorize it that way<\/li>\n
    3. What foreign policy goal the U.S. was trying to achieve with these actions or decisions<\/li>\n
    4. Whether or not the U.S. achieved the goal<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Be sure to include the table that you created in Step 1 in your discussion post!<\/p>\n

      Step 3<\/strong>: Respond in two separate posts to two classmates (in at least 75 words). Explicitly address their examples and try to extend, complicate, or redirect their points in a substantive, knowledge-demonstrating way. Be sure to cite relevant concepts and key terms from the reading.<\/p>\n

      Discussion Grading Rubric<\/h2>\n
      \n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Criteria\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nExcellent<\/strong><\/td>\nSatisfactory<\/strong><\/td>\nDeveloping<\/strong><\/td>\nPoints\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Discussion post;<\/p>\n

      On topic,<\/p>\n

      Relevant evidence,<\/p>\n

      Demonstrates Critical Thinking Skills,<\/p>\n

      Respectful,<\/p>\n

      Thoughtful analysis,<\/p>\n

      Meets length requirement.<\/td>\n

      		Post directly addresses prompt, contains all relevant information from course content, demonstrates sound analysis and critical thinking, offers well thought-out points, meets length requirement.<\/td>\nPost address prompt directly, but skips steps or questions, leaves out relevant information, or shows lack of critical thinking, may or may not meet length requirement.<\/td>\nPost is off topic or does not specifically address prompt, but does address general topic of content, does not meet length requirement.<\/td>\n__ \/ 4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Supporting Evidence\/Sources;<\/p>\n

      Relevant,<\/p>\n

      Well-researched<\/td>\n

      		All points in post & comments are supported by relevant, well-researched evidence or sources.<\/td>\nPost & comments use relevant evidence for some points, but not for others; or information is missing.<\/td>\nPost & comments do not contain any sources or evidence to support points; or sources are off topic, poorly researched, and vague.<\/td>\n__ \/ 4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Response comments;<\/p>\n

      Relevant,<\/p>\n

      Respectful,<\/p>\n

      Meet length requirement<\/td>\n

      		Responses meet length requirement, contain thoughtful feedback, well-researched evidence and relevant points, and use respectful language.<\/td>\nResponses may or may not meet length requirement, use respectful language, but are vague or slightly off topic, without evidence, or do not directly address the original poster\u2019s points.<\/td>\nResponses are off topic, only contain a few words or sentences, no meaningful contribution; or are disrespectful toward fellow students; ideas are not well developed or researched.<\/td>\n__ \/ 2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

       <\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

      \n\t\t\t

      Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
      CC licensed content, Original<\/div>