They kept paying money. They kept running through
Until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
Whether this one was that one . . . or that one was this one
Or which one was what one . . . or what one was who.
from The Sneetches and Other Stories
written and illustrated by Dr. Seuss
Random House, 1989
When they were growing up, one of my younger daughter’s favorite stories was “The Sneetches” by Dr. Seuss. She loved it so much that I renewed it until I was embarrassed. I ordered a copy from our local bookstore and told my daughter that we’d need to take the library’s copy back so another child could read the story and love it as much as she did.
When her own copy of the book arrived, we continued reading it over and over.
The story, whether it was Dr. Seuss’s intent or not, is about fairness, control, and the sanctity of a space. Both types of Sneetch wanted to be the best on the beach. Their disagreement failed to escalate, though, when both groups decided the best way to live well is to live well together. Neither type of Sneetch was best. Each group had something to offer the other, and each individual, too, while maintaining their own identity. Most learned they are all happier when everyone decides to work for the betterment of the group.
No, Seuss did not say that. I did. And I’m not sure that’s exactly what he had in mind when he wrote his story about made-up animals one-upping each other on a fictional piece of land. But it helps me get to the next point.
By 1820, the War of 1812 had ended in a military draw and both sides claimed some victories, proving to the rest of the world that the United States was truly a country that could defend itself by standing up to European powers.
The United States was coming out of a widespread depression. James Madison was finishing up his last moments as our fourth president.
In 1820, our fifth president was elected without the need of a two-party system. Imagine most Americans agreeing on something as crucial as that!
Maine and Missouri entered the Union with a Compromise that “kicked the slavery can” down the road about 30 years, and the beginning of James Monroe’s presidency was nicknamed “The Era of Good Feelings.”
Our fifth president believed firmly in the American Experiment. His strength, though, was on the international stage. In South and Latin America between 1821 and 1822, ten Spanish colonies declared their independence. With the counsel of his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, Monroe prepared a talk to Congress to clarify his position regarding the American relationships he envisioned.
Although purporting to dissuade colonialism, Monroe’s well-thought-out doctrine announced to Europe that the Western Hemisphere was closed to any further colonization. He promised the United States would not interfere in European affairs or with existing colonies in the Americas. He declared that if any European nation tried to interfere with the United States, it would be viewed as a hostile act.
In essence, if the United States were to gain any more territory, that territory would become part of the United States.
Monroe did not say what would happen if Europe decided to see how serious the declaration was. (Probably nothing much could happen to retaliate and probably, most of Europe knew that.) Through this foreign policy statement, though, Monroe sent diplomats to the new South American and Latin American countries to form alliances with them.
Eventually, both the European nations and the United States did interfere with the new countries. But in the 1820’s, the United States, by enforcing the Monroe Doctrine, was able to play the upper hand in the Western Hemisphere.
During the Banana Wars, (reports ResponsibleStatecraft.org in a Jan. 9, 2026 article), “from 1890 through the early 1930’s, the US interfered in seven Latin American countries. Several presidents used military force to protect American agricultural interests.” The article continues that by the mid-1920s, a diverse group of Americans “from religious pacifists on one end, to xenophobic populists on the other,” saw these actions as blatant imperialism. They called the military action “wasteful, pointless, and morally abhorrent.”
In the 1930s, during FDR’s Good Neighbor policy, the US turned toward mutual respect and economic engagement, encouraging neighborliness.
The Monroe Doctrine has never been without controversy. It’s been interpreted and reinterpreted. Through the years it’s been called outdated and irrelevant, but now it’s been claimed vital by the current president.
Just looking at the words and the intent of the original, I extrapolate. I see the Monroe Doctrine as a document that seeks to inhibit colonization and dominance of one country over another while maintaining an attitude of co-operation, if not benevolence, and still putting the interests of the United States in the forefront.
To use it for any other purpose, like blowing up fishing boats and killing their captains and crew, kidnapping a head of state of another country and appropriating their oil and the money it brings, and claiming to be “Acting President,” of Venezuela (Time.com 1/13/26) seems to me, a gross overstep and just plain wrong.
I’ll have a book review next time!
-—Be curious! (and respect each other)
Until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
Whether this one was that one . . . or that one was this one
Or which one was what one . . . or what one was who.
from The Sneetches and Other Stories
written and illustrated by Dr. Seuss
Random House, 1989
When they were growing up, one of my younger daughter’s favorite stories was “The Sneetches” by Dr. Seuss. She loved it so much that I renewed it until I was embarrassed. I ordered a copy from our local bookstore and told my daughter that we’d need to take the library’s copy back so another child could read the story and love it as much as she did.
When her own copy of the book arrived, we continued reading it over and over.
The story, whether it was Dr. Seuss’s intent or not, is about fairness, control, and the sanctity of a space. Both types of Sneetch wanted to be the best on the beach. Their disagreement failed to escalate, though, when both groups decided the best way to live well is to live well together. Neither type of Sneetch was best. Each group had something to offer the other, and each individual, too, while maintaining their own identity. Most learned they are all happier when everyone decides to work for the betterment of the group.
No, Seuss did not say that. I did. And I’m not sure that’s exactly what he had in mind when he wrote his story about made-up animals one-upping each other on a fictional piece of land. But it helps me get to the next point.
By 1820, the War of 1812 had ended in a military draw and both sides claimed some victories, proving to the rest of the world that the United States was truly a country that could defend itself by standing up to European powers.
The United States was coming out of a widespread depression. James Madison was finishing up his last moments as our fourth president.
In 1820, our fifth president was elected without the need of a two-party system. Imagine most Americans agreeing on something as crucial as that!
Maine and Missouri entered the Union with a Compromise that “kicked the slavery can” down the road about 30 years, and the beginning of James Monroe’s presidency was nicknamed “The Era of Good Feelings.”
Our fifth president believed firmly in the American Experiment. His strength, though, was on the international stage. In South and Latin America between 1821 and 1822, ten Spanish colonies declared their independence. With the counsel of his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, Monroe prepared a talk to Congress to clarify his position regarding the American relationships he envisioned.
Although purporting to dissuade colonialism, Monroe’s well-thought-out doctrine announced to Europe that the Western Hemisphere was closed to any further colonization. He promised the United States would not interfere in European affairs or with existing colonies in the Americas. He declared that if any European nation tried to interfere with the United States, it would be viewed as a hostile act.
In essence, if the United States were to gain any more territory, that territory would become part of the United States.
Monroe did not say what would happen if Europe decided to see how serious the declaration was. (Probably nothing much could happen to retaliate and probably, most of Europe knew that.) Through this foreign policy statement, though, Monroe sent diplomats to the new South American and Latin American countries to form alliances with them.
Eventually, both the European nations and the United States did interfere with the new countries. But in the 1820’s, the United States, by enforcing the Monroe Doctrine, was able to play the upper hand in the Western Hemisphere.
During the Banana Wars, (reports ResponsibleStatecraft.org in a Jan. 9, 2026 article), “from 1890 through the early 1930’s, the US interfered in seven Latin American countries. Several presidents used military force to protect American agricultural interests.” The article continues that by the mid-1920s, a diverse group of Americans “from religious pacifists on one end, to xenophobic populists on the other,” saw these actions as blatant imperialism. They called the military action “wasteful, pointless, and morally abhorrent.”
In the 1930s, during FDR’s Good Neighbor policy, the US turned toward mutual respect and economic engagement, encouraging neighborliness.
The Monroe Doctrine has never been without controversy. It’s been interpreted and reinterpreted. Through the years it’s been called outdated and irrelevant, but now it’s been claimed vital by the current president.
Just looking at the words and the intent of the original, I extrapolate. I see the Monroe Doctrine as a document that seeks to inhibit colonization and dominance of one country over another while maintaining an attitude of co-operation, if not benevolence, and still putting the interests of the United States in the forefront.
To use it for any other purpose, like blowing up fishing boats and killing their captains and crew, kidnapping a head of state of another country and appropriating their oil and the money it brings, and claiming to be “Acting President,” of Venezuela (Time.com 1/13/26) seems to me, a gross overstep and just plain wrong.
I’ll have a book review next time!
-—Be curious! (and respect each other)
RSS Feed