Scored Discussion #3, Spring 2019

11/5/2019

Use the reading selections, your take away's from the in-class discussion, and your knowledge of history to:

Post one original question or thought provoking statement with references to the reading or outside knowledge related to your post.
Reply with a question or thought provoking statement to at least 3 other original questions.

A reply to other's comments will only receive credit if it EXTENDS the discussion. Any "I agree, now let me say exactly what you just said or repeat what I said in my own original post again..." will not receive credit.

If you were absent you may post extra comments here to make up the in-class portion of the scored discussion. Each comment is worth 3 points AS LONG AS IT IS A NEW, ORIGINAL THOUGHT ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAN YOUR OTHER POSTS. You need to comment enough to earn the 15 points of in-class participation in addition to the required one original-three response posts.

H

Jake Park-Walters

11/5/2019 11:57:51 am

How did social Darwinist theories lead to imperialism? Did these theories lead to other schools of thought like Lebensraum?

Benson Chen

11/5/2019 04:16:00 pm

Social Darwinism surely was one of the theory that contributed to the practice of imperialism. Believing that other groups are inferior, the Imperialists justify their action by saying that inferior people are meant to be ruled by superior people. And taking that one step further, Hitler, with the idea of expanding the "lebensraum" of the Aryan race, attempted to wipe out the "inferior" Jews to make room for the "superior" German.

Lauren Boulia

11/6/2019 06:58:35 pm

I agree with this assertion, and would also like to add that I believe the use of Social Darwinism as a justification for racial superiority and wealth in America, like how it led to lebensraum in Germany, sparked the campaign of nativist, anti-immigrant movements in the U.S.

Devin Bhatt

11/5/2019 04:36:29 pm

I do believe that social Darwinist theories did lead imperialism because it was able to justified the acts committed by the US. People in America were able to justify imperialism through the idea that some countries have come to their natural end. These theories could have lead to the idea of Lebensraum because Hitler was able to justify Lebensraum through social Darwinism.

Joey Schifano

11/5/2019 04:57:03 pm

Social Darwinism supported imperialist policies in America's attemt not to lose their prominent position on the world stage.

Shubhangi Patel

11/5/2019 06:24:00 pm

I think that Social Darwinist theories could better be applied to the mindsets of the male citizens eligible to serve in the army. At the time, males were considered unfit if they had not served their country in some way. I think that people believed their lack of contribution to the American dream made them socially unfit, which explains their support for imperialism and to elevate their status in society by serving in the army in the war for America. I think that these imperialist ideals were also present in ideals like Lebensraum as it also dealt with expansion and more land for the Germans to expand as a country.

Femi Chiegil

11/11/2019 05:19:28 pm

I believe Social Darwinism led to imperialism. The main idea behind the Social Darwinism theory is that it called for superiority of certain groups or races against others, these groups believed that the White European men were superior to others. .

Aiden Hall

11/13/2019 09:23:52 am

Social Darwinist idea applied more to economic means but certainly the general idea was applied to native peoples to justify imperialism. They saw them as less fit to rule due to their poorer grasp on western technology, and justified imperialism by saying that if the natives couldn't beat them, then they should not rule themselves.

Arabella Cai

11/5/2019 01:51:10 pm

What is the significance of the title “Male Degeneracy and the Allure of the Philippines (1998)” and why do you guys think that Hoganson chose to use the specific word choice “allure”?

Rushil Sudunagunta

11/5/2019 04:48:26 pm

I believe that Hoganson chose the word "allure" because it described the value of the Philippines perfectly. The Philippines would open up more trade with Asia, and the tables show the value of exports to Asia increasing greatly from 1880 to 1900. In addition to this, many people including Beveridge believed that controlling the Pacific was the key to controlling the world. The Philippines had a location in the Pacific that would give the United States the ability to control a large portion of the ocean which was another reason why it was important.

Alexander Neiberger

11/5/2019 06:21:29 pm

The title is significant because it emphasizes how in the years leading up to and around the Philippine-American war men were weak, and effeminate. A war in the Philippines could revitalize the middle and upper class male populations in the US. The Philippines could also be seen as enticing because the US could create a base there, where they could create a stepping-stone in receiving shares of eastern profit.

Lauren Boulia

11/6/2019 07:01:03 pm

I love how you brought attention to Hoganson's word choice here- allure describes perfectly all of the aspects that made the Philippines desirable. "Allure" implies mystical, magicaly, and somewhat mysterious, like a siren bringing in sailors- many nations other than the U.S. had interest in the Philippines because of how moldable it was- while Spain had been there already, potential for colonies or industry was abundant. I believe her word choice is excellent for the endless possibilities seen in the Philippines by other countries.

Jake Park-Walters

11/7/2019 08:34:03 am

The first half of the title (Male Degeneracy) is important because it highlights the prominence of the mindset during the Spanish American War. By placing it in the title, we understand that the population–or at least some notable figures–thought of men as growing soft. Thus, their justifications stemmed from a desire to reverse this effect. The second half of the title (the Allure of the Philippines) is significant due to the plethora of other factors. Furthermore, it shows that the United States did not hold onto the Philippines for no reason, there were a multitude of perceived moral and economic purposes for the Islands.

Kara Musteikis

11/5/2019 03:45:35 pm

Senator McLaurin makes the case that “an imperialistic democracy is an impossible hybrid.” Do you agree with his view that you can have either democracy or imperialism? Or do you believe that it is possible to have an imperialistic democracy? Are there any instances of an imperialistic democracy in history or today?

Benson Chen

11/5/2019 04:23:45 pm

I think it is possible to have an imperialist democracy, if the definition of democracy is tweaked a little from the popular definition. Imperialism is about the growth of a country, expanding its power and influence through diplomacy and military. Democracy is about the governing of a country, allowing all members "of the state" to have a say in the government. Under such definition, an imperialistic democracy is possible. It will be a country constantly expanding, acquiring more territory through diplomacy or military. However, once the territory is conquered, the inhabitants of the land will be given the citizenship and be seen as members of the country. However, in practice, to achieve imperialistic democracy is difficult, because as new territory is conquered the inhabitants of the land will often be seen as inferior and be denied the full citizenship.

Joey Schifano

11/5/2019 04:54:29 pm

I think that democracy is a political system that occours internally, while imperialism is related to forgein affairs. Can a country influenced by imperial rule be a democracy? I think theoretically it is possible but not realistic, given that imperialism extend authority usually through millitary force. However, I dissagree with McLaurin's claim that martial opression will inevitably extend to the motherland.

Jake Park-Walters

11/7/2019 08:36:19 am

I believe that it is very possible to have a democratic imperialist nation because America itself displayed it. Though it comes down to the definition of democratic–either governance by the majority or the morals associated with freedom and independence–America nonetheless displayed an imperialistic stance and still maintained democracy. America still has possession of Puerto Rico today which is almost a last remnant of imperialism.

Hallie Salas

11/11/2019 12:05:13 pm

I understand Mclaurins statement about it being "an impossible hybrid". On paper the idea of an imperialistic democracy may sound good, but in reality I do not think an imperialistic democracy would work in an advanced Western society due in part to how the people of the state would react to that extent of rule.

Amay Patel

11/11/2019 01:13:52 pm

Imperialistic democracies are not impossible. If the majority of people want expansion and they eventually encorparate territories into democracy it is possible. However in modern times most imperialistic powers exculde territories and therefore are not full democracies.

Sprihaa Kolanukudur

11/12/2019 03:18:18 pm

I think that imperialism would barely ever be an option that the majority of people would choose. I think one would argue that very light supervision of a colony by the mother country would be something to be justified as imperialistic democracy but the people still don't have a say in the overarching structure

Nandana Pillai

11/14/2019 09:36:27 am

I do not think you can have an imperialistic democracy, because if a country is democratic then they promote ideas like freedom, in speech, right to vote, and multiple other things along with promoting other such unalienable rights, but imperialism is exactly the opposite. It promotes conquering peoples and oppression of ways of life that differ from the country who considers themselves superior. It is also a system of order and control that promotes concepts like social darwinism which is not what a true democracy represents or promulgates.

Hayley

11/5/2019 04:18:36 pm

Do you think that the President being an imperialist himself prompted the war efforts? Or would you argue that even if the President wasn't an imperialist, the American public would still have wanted a war over the Philippines for their own betterment?

Benson Chen

11/5/2019 04:27:12 pm

President Roosevelt, as an imperialist, surely did prompt war effort. But I believe that, even if Roosevelt was not an ardent imperialist, there were still politicians and makers of propaganda who supported imperialism and attempted to sway the the public. Plus, the President is not the determining factor for whether the war would start, that decision falls under the power of Congress.

Joey Schifano

11/5/2019 04:44:07 pm

I think Roosevelt himsef played an instumental role in America's imperial policies, prior to his presidency. In section 6 under the primary source section the text informs us that as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt ordered preperation to engage with the Spanish fleet in the Philipenes- prior to war. Additionally, McKinley-who was president during the Spanish-American War- was initially very hesitant to wadge war against spain. So no, I dont think the president's role was as signifigant in imperial policy, rather popular influence.

Devin Bhatt

11/5/2019 04:48:42 pm

I believe that the President did play a large role in prompting the war efforts, but it was through the public backing the war effort that allowed it to be less controversial. If the President was not an imperialist then it would much harder to start the war effort because the President would be unlikely to cooperate with the American public.

Jakub Kreuter

11/11/2019 10:07:12 am

I think that it was the governments support of imperialism in the Philippines that ultimately accounted for the annexation. While public support was mandatory to supply the man power in the conquest no action would have been precipitated if the powerful an elite didn't back it in government and provide funding for the endeavor..

Thien Do

11/5/2019 06:12:46 pm

I think that the President himself being an imperialist prompted the war efforts. Roosevelt had a very high position and emphasis on imperialism. However, I think that the American public would still have wanted a war over the Philippines even if the President wasn't an imperialist. For example, President McKinley was not an active imperialist, and he did not want war against Spain. However it happened anyways after popular opinion convinced him that it was necessary. Popular opinions such as newspaper and writers would push for the war over the Philippines whether the president would have liked it or not. I believe it was just an advantageous coincidence itself that Roosevelt was a strong imperialist, which pushed for the war efforts faster.

Dhruv Joshi

11/5/2019 08:36:29 pm

With the president being imperialist, it definitely had a major impact on the way our expansionist efforts played out. He was the main supporter to back up our actions and justify them to not only American citizens but to the rest of the globe. I feel even if he wasn't imperialist, we would've still wanted imperialist policies. With McKinley in power, he was much more reserved about the whole issue, but the general public still voted for the most part to expand our borders due to the many gains we would've experienced as an upcoming nation (economic, political, gender, overall sphere of influence, etc).

Lauren Boulia

11/6/2019 07:02:56 pm

I believe that the President, as well as the other wealthy elite politicians strategically encouraged public support of the war to bury their true political and economic motives in nationalism. Making it a war about "American power! Yeah America!" gains public support as well as isolating politicians from blame if the war were not won.

Siyona Shah

11/8/2019 09:53:49 am

I do think that due to the President being an imperialist himself prompted the war efforts. I don't think that the American public would still have wanted a war over the Philippines for their own betterment. The President made it seem that the American men weren't "manly" and this affected how the public thought.

“McKinley proffered the Philippines as a challenge with great potential, as “the mightiest test of American virtue and capacity.” Like a number of other imperialists, he concluded that aggressive Philippine policies would build character in American men.”

McKinley wanted to make sure that the American men didn't lose their status as the "dominant" one in the family. Due to the President feeling so strongly about being pro-war, it definitely prompted the war efforts.

Hallie Salas

11/11/2019 12:07:29 pm

Yes, I believe Roosevelt being an Imperialist surely prompted American motives to fight in the Philippines but I believe a war like this one had been brewing in American sentiments since the Mexican American War, and was almost inevitable because of American views.

Arabella Cai

11/11/2019 12:25:31 pm

I personally think that the President played a major role in prompting the war efforts because the reading document thoroughly explained that President Theodore Roosevelt was a proponent of the benefits of military service, feeling it built martial and manly character. Since he President believed that the American public could regain masculinity by annexing the Philippines, therefore, he highly prompted the war efforts.

Jenny Caputo

11/11/2019 03:02:08 pm

I think that the president being an imperialist definitely played a significant role in the war efforts. As mentioned in the secondary source, imperialists like the president believed that holding more colonies and having more land would be a solution to the civilizations way of making middle class men "soft, self seeking, and materialistic". It is said the imperialists wanted to build a manly character and holding colonies seemed to be their solution to this, and the president being an imperialist and having these same beliefs pushed the war for the Philippines.

Taewan Park

11/12/2019 05:51:10 pm

I think that you made a good critical point. However, I personally think that both president's proposal o idea off imperialism and the Americans' own belief system simultaneously motivated the imperialism towards Philippine. Although both factors were strong enough to be root of American imperialism, I think that they were more balanced than either one being fundamental motivation.

Crystal Gayle

11/12/2019 07:26:18 pm

I believe Roosevelt being an imperialist did play a big role to promote the war efforts, however, I think that the public's personal reasons to imperialize, such as racial superiority and economic benefit, would have made the war happen as long as there was a push for it.

Era Joshi

11/12/2019 08:06:58 pm

The article says that President McKinley at the time was not a strong advocate for expansion, but he went along with the ideas of Roosevelt, Beveridge, and Lodge and glorified the causes for expansion. I feel this prompted the war effort, since many Americans must have felt that if their own President was on board with expansion, they could be as well.

Connor Lauchengco

11/12/2019 09:43:20 pm

Because the U.S. is a republic, I believe that if the sitting government did not support imperialist views then there is a good chance that the American public also would not support imperialist views. The American public would elect representatives that hold similar not different views.

Aiden Hall

11/13/2019 09:28:16 am

Most of the presidents power lies in influence rather than direct power, Roosevelts being an imperialist certainly influenced the government and the american people towards a more imperialist direction. That being said, his influence alone did not cause the rise of imperialism, and it was a collective mindset that the american people had grown since the early days of manifest destiny that was the biggest influence.

Benson Chen

11/5/2019 04:31:00 pm

Roosevelt believed that if US did not take control of the Philippines, Spain, Britain, and France would still be after it, and the islands would still be under colonial control. Could it be that US colonizing the Philippines actually helped the Philippines in promoting their economy and technological advancement, provided a framework for their government, and protected them from possibly worse outcome had the Philippines been under other European control?

Devin Bhatt

11/5/2019 04:44:37 pm

The US government could have helped the Philippines in those ways but it important to realize what America truly wanted from Philippines. I believe that the US wanted the Philippines because it have them easier access to China, which was largely beneficial and convenient for American trade. Therefore, if America did successfully gain of the Philippines then it may have caused more disruption in terms of European control but improvement in framework for government as well as infrastructure. An efficient government and advanced infrastructure would help America have better and more efficient access to trade with China.

Logan Phinney

11/5/2019 09:38:18 pm

I would agree that in some ways, the U.S. annexation of the Philippines was a positive. In the modern era, The United States and the Republic of the Philippines have great relationships which are mutually beneficial. The U.S. gets an ally in Asia, which provides not only economic opportunity but military opportunity and a place to establish defenses against countries such as China. In return the Philippines gained the benefit of trade with the U.S. and eventually complete independence in the 1940's.

Leo Cheng

11/6/2019 04:00:59 pm

I believe that the US did help advance the economy of the Philippines, but I think that this would have occurred regardless of which power had taken control of the Philippines. All of the countries seeking the Philippines had similar motives in trying to get a way into the eastern market, which I believe would have created very similar outcomes

Jake Park-Walters

11/7/2019 08:39:30 am

I do believe that the Philippines "benefitted" in the long run as they have become an active nation in the world's economy, however, it is difficult to say whether other imperialistic nations would have led them through a different path. It is impossible to judge whether another nation would have exploited and changed the Philippines to the same or a lesser degree and thus we cannot say for sure. My personal opinion is that the possession of the Philippines by the United States resulted in the best outcome for the bourgeoning nation.

Juhi Chatterjee

11/8/2019 12:05:25 pm

While I believe that America definitely laid groundwork to getting the Philippines, their primary intention was not to actually help the Philippines. The US only saw the Philippines as an economic gain and helped them to get a government, although the Philippines did not want America’s help.

Gustav Cedergrund link

11/12/2019 09:50:41 am

I don't think that the US did much if at all to help the Philippines. Unlike former versions of land occupation such as colonialism, imperialism differed greatly in the sense that it didn't build up the occupied land. Instead, it was an exploitive system that did nothing but break down the domestic economy by placing the country in a place of subordination. This doesn't provide a framework for growth, but rather stunts growth for the supplementation of another power, that power being the US.

Hayley White

11/12/2019 07:07:12 pm

I believe that no matter which country had taken control of the Philippines, be it , the United States, Spain, Britain, or France, that the Philippines would have been positively impacted. I think their economy would have improved and their technology would have advanced no matter who the country was that colonized them, but also with that improvement would have come consequences. Overall, I do believe that the US, or any other country colonizing the Philippines would have benefitted the country as well as hurt the country. I think the US didn't protect the Philippines from other countries controls. it just took control and helped them while also helping itself.

Crystal Gayle

11/12/2019 08:45:43 pm

I believe the U.S. government could have helped the Philippines more by providing economic resources to them and helping them to build their government to become independent. I think if that had happened the Philippines would be a stronger country today and a notable ally to the U.S.

Kara Musteikis

11/12/2019 10:04:44 pm

I believe that the US colonizing the Philippines was more helpful to the Philippines rather than other colonial powers colonizing it because of the US location to the Philippines is a more direct, faster route to the Philippine than it was for the European colonial powers that wanted the Philippines. Since it was easier for the US to reach it also helped the US govern and keep control over the Philippines. While the Philippines could have been better off with a different colonial power, Roosevelt said in the strenuous life that they "drove Spanish tyranny from islands" and governed the islands and taught them christianity. So this quote shows that the US saw other powers and the islands unfit to govern there and that the US had to do it as their duty.

Devin Bhatt

11/5/2019 04:32:48 pm

Do you guys believe that it is healthy for a country to have a rise in imperialistic ideas?

Thien Do

11/5/2019 06:31:02 pm

I guess in a sense, it is healthy for a country to have a rise in imperialistic ideas. When a country has imperialistic ideas, it means that the country is expanding, and has enough power in order to maintain that expansion. Imperialistic ideas also tend to lead to a bolster of trade, in such instances as mercantilism, and the US aiming for a pathway to China. All in all, imperialistic ideas within a country show that the country is being involved not just within its own territory, but the world. I would say that a country having imperialistic ideas is healthy.

Dhruv Joshi

11/5/2019 08:42:37 pm

I'd say the implementation of imperialistic policies is healthy for a country to a certain extent. When a country is looking to expand it's influence on the globe, such as their economic concerns, political policies, views on global affairs, etc, it's generally accepted and even encouraged in order to maintain an active role on a global scale. When this country starts to take militaristic and territorial expansion ideals into account however, things can take a turn for the worst, as the country tries to extend its own power much more than necessary, negatively impacting other nations not just in the surrounding area, but across the globe.

Aryaman Bana

11/5/2019 10:15:11 pm

It is healthy in terms of economic growth and the world market. However, when it comes to territorial claims, as with the Mexican-American war and the Trail of Tears, it is not healthy, because it promotes violence and unnecessary bloodshed. Moreover, territorial imperialism is rather unnecessary because a country's development and power are more dependent on its leadership as opposed to the amount of land it has.

Mackenzie Adams

11/7/2019 09:10:48 pm

I think it is natural for growing countries to want more power which they could achieve through imperialism. The way that countries go about having imperialistic ideas is what makes it healthy or not for the country.

Amay Patel

11/11/2019 01:11:31 pm

It was healthy economically because they gained new territories and land to use. Also it strenghted the nation by weakening others and gaining foothds for the military. But in the long term it allowed other countries to villify America because of their imperialistic ideas and actions.

Dhairya Desai

11/11/2019 01:21:31 pm

It is both healthy and unhealthy at the same time. At a moderation and at a low level it is healthy but at the level US was imperialising, I think it is unhealthy. At that point a country is rocking their relationship with other nations and loosing support from their people as well. If US was to lower their strive and use less physical approaches then I believe it could have been healthy.

Ryan Xiao

11/12/2019 12:14:44 am

I believe that it is healthy for a country to have a rise in imperialistic ideas because they are motivated with the goal of bettering the country. It becomes unhealthy once the country starts taking over other countries with the goal of taking power and creating, effectively, an empire. This would establish an image of the country showing them as power hungry and unpopular to smaller countries.

Taewan Park

11/12/2019 06:00:41 pm

I think that the answer to this question would be strongly controversial depending on the perspective of imperialistic country or the country being imperialized . In aspect of country with rise in imperialistic ideas, I believe that it is beneficial to continue strengthening this idea with strong idea and execution for its benefits are essential to growing country. However, in aspect of country being imperialized by another, this means alert for great loss of culture, property, and tradition.

Joey Schifano

11/5/2019 04:34:14 pm

I thought it was weird how Roosevelt expressed concern about the "growth of luxury throughout the English-speaking world; and the gradual diminishing birth rate," as a result of industrialization. In reality, I think his "concerns" are indicative of American development.

Rushil Sudunagunta

11/5/2019 04:44:53 pm

What were some possible ways that the United States could have gotten the same benefits it wanted without going to war?

Thien Do

11/5/2019 06:22:03 pm

Well if you look at one of the ways the US has power today, it's through trade. Instead of going to war, the US could have instigated large amounts of trade, to the point where the Philippines or Cubans would be dependent upon them. They could then use this power to let them build ports and ships that would allow them to trade with China. Another thing they could have done was just let a lot of Americans move to the islands, that way Americans would soon be the majority and they would have taken control.

Alexander Neiberger

11/5/2019 06:49:09 pm

Specifically regarding President Roosevelt concerns over the decreasing birth rate, which is still something very relevant today considering that the United States has a birth rate below replacement rate, I think establishing pro-natalist policies could help alleviate this. These policies could reward families that have over 3 children with longer maternity leave and cash stipends, so the birth rate could increase to at least 2.1. We see programs like this across the world, such as Poland and Hungary.

Seokhee Kim

11/6/2019 05:32:42 pm

Some possible ways the U.S could have gotten the same benefits without going to war is by signing a peace treaty or some kind of treaty with the Cubans and the Philippines. It's always good to talk things out when there's a conflict between 2 country or people. They could make a treaty by trading with each other or letting Cuba and Philippines have their independence but U.S can take part of their land.

Yusuf Zayan

11/10/2019 03:17:01 pm

There were many possible ways that the United States could have gotten the same benefits it wanted without going to war. The main way would be to just create strong alliances with these countries. Alliances would allow you to trade resources and communicate with these countries. Creating an alliance would have prevented the need to go to war with them to their resources.

Hallie Salas

11/11/2019 12:13:59 pm

We talked in class about part of why the US wanted the Philippines was it's proximity to China and other trading routes they could access. There is a slight possibility if the US had forcefully taken over the islands from Spain there could have been peaceful negotiations about the US controlling certain parts of the territory or having claim to certain land.

Dhairya Desai

11/11/2019 01:17:56 pm

This is the same question as Varun Iyer, but US could have set up a base in other island or go stairght to China for their economic needs. They could have also made treaties with the other nations while also striving to push for their needs verbally rather than physically.

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru

11/12/2019 03:24:19 pm

It seems like a super idealistic solution but maybe diplomatic talks would have pushed the US to getting what they wanted. With the position of the philippines in the world, they might have most likely agreed to terms laid out.

Nandana Pillai

11/14/2019 09:53:01 am

I think the United States could have prevented going to war with the Philippines and still gotten the same benefits if they made an alliance that would benefit both countries. So, the Philippines could have asked to help promote education for all children, while the America could have benefited from a share in the raw materials produced by the Philippines. But, since during this time, the Americans considered to Philippines as savages and racially inferior such a mutual alliance would have been highly unlikely.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/17/2019 01:36:10 pm

I completely agree with your idea of an alliance because you're right, an alliance would definitely bring benefits to both sides. But I think that since America portrayed this image of Filipinos being savages, it contributed to a lot of their culture and country itself being considered as underdeveloped country at the time, and is what I believe factored into its status as a developing country today. If America had made alliances with not only the Philippines but other countries they called savages, these countries may even be on the level of America, they may have been completely developed by now. And even if they were completely developed countries now, America could still get materials like they get from other developed countries. It was this 'savage status' that America placed on the Philippines that led it to its status today in my opinion and their development didn't have to be put on pause like that; if America simply had made an alliance instead they would reap the same benefits and possibly even more benefits than we have in the present, but I guess we will never know.

Ashlyn Dumaw

11/5/2019 05:16:53 pm

Senator McLaurin believed that imperialism meant extending constitutional rights to people in territories and was comparable to the previous extension of rights to African Americans. He insisted that a homogeneous (white) population was desirable; therefore, imperialism was negative. Considering the different attitudes of the public and of senators like McLaurin, how do you think minority groups (African Americans, immigrants, etc) felt about imperialism?

Shubhangi Patel

11/5/2019 06:27:59 pm

I personally believe that immigrants and other minority groups in America felt no strong opinion towards either end of the argument on imperialism. I think that if they saw the economical benefit, as related to their business, that they would have supported the war effort; I think it might have been hard for them to see the struggle of the Filipinos as they underwent that struggle for equality just recently.

Jessica Xia

11/7/2019 04:52:04 pm

I believe most of them did not have a strong opinion about imperialism. As we mentioned in class, White Man’s Burden player a huge role, so I think they didn’t feel like they needed to do much.

Yusuf Zayan

11/10/2019 03:20:26 pm

I think that most minority groups felt very negatively about imperialism. Imperialism meant that the United States would go over to these other countries and essentially take control of them. Minority groups such as African Americans probably had a lot of sympathy for those countries that were imperialized.

Jakub Kreuter

11/11/2019 10:16:25 am

I think that apart from those Blacks and immigrants who were serving in segregated platoons in the army these groups were generally not concerned with foreign affairs. Many of them were still facing their own battles at home,fighting for equal pay in factories and desegregation and acceptance in the south.

Arabella Cai

11/11/2019 12:41:28 pm

Personally speaking, I believe that the minority groups might hold a neutral position of imperialism. As mentioned in both the primary and secondary sources, the primary purpose of annexing the Philippines was basically to renew the American manhood and keep the martial spirit of American males. Thus, it can be inferred that the annexation of the Philippines did not influence the minority groups that much because it only benefitted the whites. Also, based on the fact that the minority groups were still treated unfairly after the Philippine-American war, the annexation of the Philippines did not actually mitigate the discrimination. Therefore, I believe the minority groups felt neutral about imperialism.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/17/2019 01:58:18 pm

I think that at the time, minority groups wouldn't have understood what was going on since imperialism wasn't even a developed concept in that time. But I do believe that they would have understood that people wanted to rule over them and establish a new sort of ruling system, because it's not something a foreign government can do without anyone in the country realizing. I most certainly believe that minority groups would have been mad or upset to say the least; I mean they're minority groups who, as the name implies, are the minority. They're not going to have as man people backing them up as a majority group would. And I assume it would be difficult to live with the fact of knowing that your environment is being taken over and however much you try to make sure nothing happens, you have absolutely no control over, which is what I believe the minority groups would have felt about imperialism.

Shubhangi Patel

11/5/2019 06:19:10 pm

We discussed in class the reactions and involvement of multiple groups of Americans in the war for the Philippines, such as the availibility of new markets for growing businesses and the glorification of the male gender for the common man. What group people do you believe benefitted the most from the war: politicians, businesspeople, or the common men?

Logan Phinney

11/5/2019 09:56:28 pm

I believe that business people benefitted the most from American imperialism. New connections to trade in Asia especially with the growing Chinese market would have been very lucrative. The common man in this time would likely never have had any relation to the Philippines and politicians only started the war for economic gain in the first place.

Hannah Savariyar

11/6/2019 09:57:07 am

I believe that the politicians were able to benefit the most because with so many more trade routes and markets especially between China would gain a significant amount of economic benefits. This would have to go through the order of the politicians leading to a benefit for them. Politicians were also benefiting the most because they were able to take the land from Spain, who was one of their competitors with land. The gain of land led to a huge victory for American politicians

Jessica Xia

11/7/2019 04:53:45 pm

I believe business people benefitted the most because they acquired access to foreign markets and resources. They were able to expand their businesses and get richer.

Nadiya Patel

11/11/2019 07:13:40 pm

I believe that the group that found the most gain from the war were politicians such as President McKinley. The success that he found from the war gave him a substantial boost to his status and grew his popularity in America. In the text it said, "McKinley caught a mild dose of war fever. "What a wonderful experience," he said of the Spanish-American War. The success of the war and his own increased status made McKinley more receptive to taking and holding the Philippines." This proves that McKinley gained a great deal of glory from the war.

Meredith G Burns

11/12/2019 12:10:28 am

I think businesspeople benefitted the most because they had access to markets to China, which allowed them to grow their business. Businesspeople would have gained more access to new thing and more people which would have expanded their consumer pool.

Taewan Park

11/12/2019 06:10:44 pm

Although desire and protest for imperialism were strong on both politicians' and common men's side too, I believe that the business men benefited the most from imperializing Philippine. In one of the primary source, "In Support of an American Empire,", Albert J. Beveridge argues on a strong possible economical benefits from opening of trade route towards Asia. While politicians and common men's primary goal in Imperialism would result in indirect benefits, businessmen certainly received vivid, direct benefits from new opportunities which became available from imperialism.

Crystal Gayle

11/12/2019 09:37:26 pm

I believe that business people benefited the most from imperialism as they were able to gain more economic resources and enter the Asian trade market. Although, some common people may have felt that they benefited the most, I think the war mostly aided them in their self preservation of white supremacy.

Ameena Farooqui

11/12/2019 11:51:23 pm

I believe the group who benefited the most from the war were business people. The Philippines were located close to China's market and acquiring it would secure a share in eastern profits. Similarly politicians would gain from the economic motives and new markets. The common man would probably be hurt by the acquisition of the Philippines since it could be seen as competition.

Annie Pi

1/8/2020 12:27:57 pm

I believe motives included both business and political gain. The US must annex the Philippines because of its economic and power gain. If the US has the Philippines then access to China for trade will increase immensely. Having bases in the Pacific also brings in a great deal of power which is why the Philippines was the perfect spot to gain control of.

Jessica Xia

11/5/2019 06:21:54 pm

We mentioned briefly in class how imperialistic economic motives were seen in slavery. How are the imperialist motives involving the Philippines similar to other imperialist motives/events?

Alexander Neiberger

11/5/2019 06:36:55 pm

I think that we can draw a comparison to the imperialist motives involving the Philippines with the US establishing many military bases throughout the world. According to https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalmilitarism58.htm, the US has over 730 military bases in over 50 countries. This definitely is an act of displaying the United States's hegemony across the world, where the bases are established protect their own interests such as in the Middle East.

Austin Yao

11/7/2019 09:23:25 pm

Simply put, slavery was exploited as a means of free labor in order to maximize profits for plantation owners. This parallel can be drawn to the Philippines, where its climate also was well suited for the production of plantation crops such as bananas and cocoa. This was likely an economic motive, in addition to proximity to the Orient Market, that was considered when annexing the Philippines. Moreover, the Filipinos were also subjected to racism. As demonstrated by the general public at the time, Americans viewed Filipinos as degenerates and inferior to the white man.

Era Joshi

11/12/2019 08:15:14 pm

One major motive for expansion was the idea that women were becoming too strong of advocates for their political rights, and if men went to war they could learn how to govern the Philippines, and come back with the strength needed to reign in their women. I feel like we see this time and again in history, where women stand up for what they believe is their right (whether it be the right to vote, etc) and the men of the time don't listen to them. This can most strongly be seen, I think, in Abigail Adams' 'Remember the Ladies',. In this document, Adams advocates for women to have a role in politics, while her husband laughed in her face, saying politics wasn't a woman's place.

Alexander Neiberger

11/5/2019 06:27:16 pm

Do you guys think that Roosevelt was justified in stating that American men needed to be revitalized in a war, especially considering that many (men) were being increasingly materialistic and the birth rates were decreasing?

Shubhangi Patel

11/5/2019 06:48:14 pm

I do not think that the President's assertion in this case was justifiable or even based on anything viable. I think that the industrializing economy meant simpler lives for Americans in terms of material goods because of increased production, but the link between that and males needing to prove themselves in war is very weak in my opinion, and was just another excuse to execute the war in the first place.

Logan Phinney

11/5/2019 09:04:56 pm

I do not believe that Roosevelt was justified because of the simple fact that only a very small percentage of the American population actually served in the war. "Over 126,000 regular and volunteer soldiers served in the Philippines between 1899 and 1902." When compared with the total population at the time of around 75 million Roosevelt's statements are almost laughable. How does he reasonable expect 126,000 people to completely reverse the changing gender norms resulting from decades of development.

Yusuf Zayan

11/10/2019 03:23:19 pm

I think that Roosevelt was not justified in saying that American men needed to be revitalized in war. I think that is a terrible excuse for why a country should go to war. Just because American men needed to be revitalized, doesn't mean you should go out and join or start a war.

Nadiya Patel

11/11/2019 07:21:35 pm

I do not believe that Roosevelt was justified in saying that war was necessary to make men in society more virtuous. The increase in materialism and decreased birth rates were more closely related to the growing industrializing economy and the efficiency that came with it. In the text is stated, "... an estimated sixteen to twenty thousand Filipino soldiers and two hundred thousand civilians died in conflict." The bogus justification of the war caused the unnecessary death of many Filipinos. Even if American men needed to be "revitalized", there were many other means in which they could have accomplished that without killing people.

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru

11/12/2019 03:28:36 pm

I think roosevelt simply failed to contextualize societal developments and the change in birth rates. With regards to development, we would look at industrialization and rise in education to explain the changes but roosevelt didn't understand that, which shows a lack of proper justification.

Allan Gilsenan

11/5/2019 06:40:46 pm

Are Hoganson’s views on imperialism being linked to American masculinism exaggerated, or are they reasonable views on why America took control of the Philippines?

Ashley Cao

11/5/2019 10:46:17 pm

I think that Hoganson's views are very exaggerated, and I don't feel like a reasonable person would think to fight an entire war with many casualties just to gain masculinism back for the middle class white men. Although a few powerful politicians might have had the power to spread word about this alternative motive, most people went into this was to expand america's reach of its global empire.

Hannah Savariyar

11/6/2019 09:47:11 am

I do believe that Hoganson's views are exaggerated because she seemed to focus on only the idea that American masculinity is decreasing and through the war, American men are able to build up their superiority. For example, in her article, she mostly states the facts about the points that Roosevelt stated about how men are superior and they should build on it, but in the primary sources in "The Strenuous Life", it shows how Roosevelt wanted to help the Philippines in their government because they were struggling. If Hoganson was able to include multiple motivators with evidence, this source could have been much stronger and more effective for readers to understand the war.

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 07:46:14 pm

While I do believe Hoganson's views were exaggerated, I believe there is some merit to it all. During this time in America, opportunities are opening up for everyone and the white middle class man's stance is diminishing. Women are rallying for their own rights as are African Americans. I believe that American Imperialism had many factors and one of them being the nation's masculinity but combined with political efforts. I think that while it was exaggerated, it was some what reasonable because white supremacy, specifically white male supremacy, can almost always be seen as a number one cause of anything done in American history and I believe this is no different.

Nadiya Patel

11/11/2019 07:32:20 pm

I believe that Hoganson's justifications that imperialism was linked to creating a more masculine society is heavily exaggerated. Instead, I think that America's obsession to masculinity was a poor excuse to use imperialism around the country. I think this justification was a way for politicians to rationalize their decision to annex the Philippines and a way to justify their decision to other countries. In the text it said, "Imperialists like Roosevelt believed that holding colonies could prove to be a longer-term solution to modern civilization's seemingly dangerous tendency to make young, middle class, and wealthy men soft-seeking, and materialistic." This quote shows how the ideas of making American men more masculine largely came from politicians.

Manasvi Marthala

11/12/2019 05:46:01 pm

I believe that his views on the link between masculinism and imperialism are a bit exaggerated, becasue she only focused on the idea of masculinity and its effect on the war. It isn't very resonable that the whole war would be just to be seen as more masculne. There are more reasonavle views on why america took control such as economic benefits.

Yusuf Zayan

11/5/2019 06:44:13 pm

In the discussion today, we discussed many possible motives for imperialism. One motive we didn't discuss was that imperialists felt they had a religious duty to convert the Filipinos to Christianity. In one of the many primary sources, William McKinley on Annexation, the author states "and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died." This quote shows how many imperialists used religious reasons to justify imperialism. How big of a role do you really think Christianity played in imperialism?

Rushil Sudunagunta

11/5/2019 09:22:11 pm

I believe that Christianity was part of the reason used by many people to justify what they wanted to do in the Philippines. Similar to how some people believed they were racially superior and had the burden to prevent anarchy from taking hold in the Philippines, a similar argument could be drawn using Christianity.

Logan Talton

11/6/2019 07:07:15 pm

Personally, I don't think that Christianity had that much to do with it. It was more of the ideas that coincided with Christianity that had the greatest impact, ideas such as education, land ownership, and a civilized manner. In the cartoon, "Recommended by Hoar", Uncle Sam is feeding the baby Philippines "civilization and education" even though the baby doesn't like it. It wasn't so much Christianity that played a role in imperialism, but paternalism. The idea that we would take care of them and watch them grow. Paternalism is the main way they justified imperialism, and Christianity was definitely some part of that, but overall it wasn't the source that most people turned to to justify imperialism.

Jessica Xia

11/7/2019 04:56:08 pm

I think Christianity played a significant role in imperialism. The idea of manifest destiny involves Christianity and that it’s their god-given right to conquer the world. Also as seen one of the primary sources, Americans believed the Philippines was given to them by the gods.

Varun Iyer

11/11/2019 01:05:59 pm

I think Christianity played a role equivalent to that of racial superiority. The religious duty and racial superiority motives/justifications were intertwined, stemming from a belief that Filipinos were uneducated and uncivilized. People like McKinley believed that they needed to civilize and educated Filipinos because they were not Christians or white.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/17/2019 02:06:33 pm

I think Christianity definitely played a huge role in imperialism. Many imperialists used the religion to justify their actions and thought that if people weren't like them, then they were 'less than' or of low status. It's Christianity that defined the majority of people's beliefs because they believed that God knew what was best for them and others needed to know that too. And this was a thought that had run in the past as well, like the Crusades, where Christians believed their religion was the best, so it's no surprise that history would repeat itself to duplicate this mentality. In fact, this mentality proceeded to remain for years to come and I think it's only in the last 100 years or so did this ideology really die out. So, in short, religion, specifically Christianity, had a large role in imperialism.

Luna Hou

11/5/2019 07:21:53 pm

What similarities and differences do you notice between the motives people had for supporting/justifying American imperialism and the motives people had for supporting/justifying colonization, westward expansion, and slavery (the other main topics we’ve touched upon in previous scored discussions)?

Logan Phinney

11/5/2019 09:19:02 pm

A similarity between all of the previous discussion topics would be the motive of religion. Many colonizers sought religious freedom from European rulers. During westward expansion some groups of Native Americans were sent to schools to be 'reeducated' in the ways of christianity. Throughout slavery, enslavers used the certain passages from the Bible to justify their actions. Some differences between American imperialism and westward expansion for example would be the need for land. The Philippines were not annexed with the intent of having Americans move there to settle unlike westward expansion. All of the territories annexed during the war with spain were used primarily for economic gain.

Neha Malkar

11/6/2019 08:30:34 pm

I think one big similarity was the fact that America thought it had the "right" to control this are like it had the "right" to expand westward. They viewed themselves as superior to all the other people like the filipinos and the native Americans. They viewed what they were doing as a humanitarian obligation and that they had the duty to control them. In both situations they tried to assimilate the groups they ran into or completely remove them. The political cartoons from this discussion showed how they tried to push American ideals onto the Philippine people.

Uma Bhat

11/12/2019 04:28:40 pm

Definitely by falsifying "morality". Americans have justified nearly all of their "oppressing" endeavours via. citing "moral duties" and acting as saviors for others. For example, during slavery, slave-owners spoke about how conditions for African American men were better than in other countries, and how there was a mutual, friendly relationship between slaves/masters (food for work, how nice that sounds...).

Thien Do

11/5/2019 07:32:41 pm

I believe that even without the president, popular opinion would have kept imperialism going. People would have eventually pushed the country towards expanding imperialism. The anti-imperialists though, were the side that disagreed with them. Although there were quite a bit of anti-imperialists, why were their movement so unsuccessful in convincing others? Why did imperialists largely win and were more successful in their movement?

Rushil Sudunagunta

11/5/2019 09:25:16 pm

I think that the main reason the anti-imperialist movement was so unsuccessful was the number of high ranking political officials supporting imperialism and fighting against anti-imperialism. For example, President Roosevelt blamed those that were sitting in their homes peacefully for the lives lost in the Philippines, and anti-annexationists were considered effeminate and examples of what was happening to American men in society. Because of all this, it was difficult to argue against imperialists.

Christian Lauchengco

11/11/2019 03:45:58 pm

I believe that imperialism was more popular at the time because the US had just won the Spanish American war. I believe this led to many Americans being caught up in the national pride of the nation. This caused many Americans to favor policies that they believed were patriotic, such as imperialism.

John Bass

11/11/2019 08:41:59 pm

Imperialists were successful in their support of the war mainly because, as stated in the document, they were principally male, and therefore had more political power. This may be because the gender argument appealed more to them or they were more economically invested, as economic leadership was dominated by men.The anti-imperialists were likely unsuccessful simply because they had a higher percentage of women, especially because females being against the war fit with the narrative pushed in the gender argument of the imperialists.

Nandana Pillai

11/14/2019 10:05:58 am

I actually think that if the president and the government of the time hadn't promoted imperialsm, the people wouldn't have wanted it. I think that imperialstic ideas and the Philippines annexation gained so much momentum because of speeches made by imperialists like Roosevelt who said it was a way to "revitalize" the manliness in the country, making men feel like they needed to prove themselves as men and go to war. Along with this, I think the anti-imperialist movement was so unsuccessful because it had a largely female base leading it and any men associated with it were considered feminine and unmanly, which made the movement weak and not gain enough support to oppose the annexation.

Uma Bhat

11/5/2019 07:53:16 pm

In what ways has there been continuity in Americans justifying their actions taken (for war, economic purposes, etc.) by using moral arguments? For example, earlier this year we learned about slavery being justified by White men claiming it was their “duty” to take care of slaves. How is this similar to the Filipinos/Cubans situation?

Taralyn Neri

11/6/2019 07:40:21 am

In "In Support of an American Empire", Beveridge more or less states that the English- rather, the whites- were chosen by God, and it was their obligation to take care of the people in the Philippines, even if they didn't want the help. It's an idea that you see a lot throughout the Filipino/Cuban situation, with political cartoons such as "The White Mans Burden" and even a little in "The Filipinos First Bath". They way many of them saw it or explained it to others, they had an obligation to help and could not leave the Philippines to their own devices.

Elizabeth Jackson

11/11/2019 10:22:05 am

In "The Strenuous Life", Theodore Roosevelt says, "The Philippines offer a yet graver problem. heir population includes half-caste and native Christians, warlike Moslems, and wild pagans. Many of their people are utterly unfit for self-government, and show no signs of becoming fit." The Filipinos were seen as unfit and incapable to rule their government for themselves, thus making American entitled to help them.

Kailynn Roberts

11/11/2019 01:56:29 pm

There are several historical continuities throughout American history that are similar to the events in the Philippines and Cuba. The continuities happened with the Native Americans and with African American slaves. All three of these separate events had the concept of the white man's "duty" to better the societies of people of color.

Jamie Long

11/11/2019 06:42:22 pm

I think that race in moral arguments has been a big part of justification from America during instances like that of the Filipinos/ Cubans. In the "Image of Enemy and Ally" document we read during class, Linderman argues that America used the portrayal of Cubans and Filipinos within their 'moral arguments'. One example is when Americans first portrayed Cubans as white, and called on the 'duty' of the people to help out other whites, but then when Cubans began to seek independence, America shifted away from that view in order to excuse not giving Cuba independence.

Uma Bhat

11/5/2019 07:53:59 pm

Why was the urge to defeat “femininity” a greater motivator of the war than some of the economic incentives listed earlier (or was it in general)? Was it truly one of the largest priorities for America?

Aryaman Bana

11/5/2019 10:11:25 pm

I don't believe it was one of the largest priorities. Rather, it was used as a justification to conquer the Philippines for economic incentives. The underlying motive was to have a bigger role in the Oriental market.

Ashley Cao

11/5/2019 10:43:25 pm

i dont think that the defeat of femininity was actually a big motive for the Americans in the Philippine war. however, this was a perspective that emerged after the war was over, and because of the timing, i don't feel that majority of americans chose to fight in this war to gain their masculine characteristics back. I think that defeating femininity was a "side effect" that resulted in the economically driven Philippine war.

Hannah Savariyar

11/6/2019 09:37:11 am

I don't believe that defeating "femininity" was the greatest motivator of the war, but I do believe that it was one of many aspects that American citizens were given to use as motivation. It is known that the middle class was the main demographic since they were the ones predominantly fighting, and I believe that the motivation of racial hatred towards the Filipinos was a greater motivator. In the minds of wealthy elites, economic incentive was their greatest motivator because they were able to see how this would play out and how it would benefit themselves. While a factor of motivation of being a strong and superior man played a role, I don't believe that it was the greatest motivator.

Femi Chiegil

11/11/2019 07:21:28 pm

Although femininity brought great wealth, it was not a great motivator, there were other factors such as the economic factor which was intended to find new markets for trade, and various attempts to expand their rule over other countries or territories. The others include, masculinity, cultural, and political factors

Avni Arora

11/12/2019 05:33:23 pm

I feel like it was more of an excuse to wage war on the Philippines. The underlying cause was purely economic and allowed the U.S government to be closer to the growing east asians economies.

Manasvi Marthala

11/12/2019 06:23:55 pm

I don't think it was one of the largest priorities of Americs, but rather a way of justifying what had happened and what they are doing. It was a great motivater becasue of the societal norms at the time. Women were seen as weak and worse than men, and the Philipines were connected with being feminine. They wanted to take control of this feminine country and implement their own rules that would make it more masculine. By defeating the femininty and making it masculine they thought that they were making the country stronger, and that a feminine country would not be able to run properly.

Ameena Farooqui

11/12/2019 11:33:30 pm

Personally I do not believe it was the "largest" priority for America, rather the economic motives the Philippines posed such as access to China's market and share of eastern profits were one of the larger priorities. However I do believe women being a "threat to traditional male prerogatives" (Ferald) and the idea of degeneracy enforced and encouraged men to prove their masculinity and to assert dominance. Imperial polices acted as a solution to assert dominance.

Srinidhi Ekkurthi

11/13/2019 04:28:53 pm

I believe that achieving masculinity was more of a propaganda and justification rather than a large priority. The main goal was economic gain and increased wealth. However in order to insinuate the American public in the idea of imperialism, the propaganda of "masculinity" and "the White Man's Burden" played a major factor. The idea of Masculinity and urge to defeat femininity struck the American public more personally than other economic reasons and therefore was a greater motivator.

Jane Cho

11/13/2019 04:46:49 pm

I believe that the urge to defeat femininity was not one of the largest priorities for America when going into the war. I think it was more of an excuse or another reason to go into the war and to lessen the fact that America went into the war for economic reasons and motives. I don't think that the want to defeat femininity was a motivator of the war, it was just one of many that were used to "cover" the main motivators and reasons for the war which was economic.

Seokhee Kim

11/5/2019 08:23:22 pm

Masculinity was a big topic in this scored discussion. My question is why were American men so concerned about their manhood that they felt they needed to force a war to regain their masculinity?

Dhruv Joshi

11/5/2019 08:59:21 pm

I don't think it had so much to do with men actually wanting to go to war than them being socially pressured into doing so. One of the major reasons the US went into the war in the first place was for our own economic and political gains. I believe the US put social stress on the fact that many men would obtain effeminate qualities if they didn't go to war to get the social backing of their own citizens. Especially since only men who would actually be able to have an impact on US policies at the time (middle-upper class) would obtain these effeminate qualities, "modern civilization's seemingly dangerous tendency to make young, middle-class, and wealthy men soft, self-seeking, and materialistic," the government put social stresses on their own citizens in order to increase involvement in the war.

Aryaman Bana

11/5/2019 10:10:09 pm

Adding on to Dhruv's point, America was a deeply misogynistic at the time, and I feel like men didn't want to be ridiculed for doing what the majority wanted, which was to conquer the Philippines.

Brenna Hanson

11/6/2019 08:44:26 am

Along with the previous factors, I feel that a big reason men in leadership felt a need to regain American masculinity is due to large societal change at the time. Women's increased political activism threatened a lot of people who had more power in a traditional patriarchal system. Pursuing war gave men an opportunity to regain power and push women out of the political sphere. This is a really common historical theme- when societal change occurs, there is usually a big counter reaction as well.

Logan Talton

11/6/2019 06:57:44 pm

It seemed like the lifestyle of men in America was becoming less 'manly' in the respect that men and women were getting closer to economic equality than had ever existed in America before. In order to secure the superiority of a man, men must do the most manly thing, war. Men were not supposed to be especially manly, but higher on the physical and socioeconomic scale than women. As women went up this scale, it became critical that men would raise themselves even higher, not only to be superior, but to promote and increase the inequality that already existed.

Cynthia Yan

11/5/2019 08:44:01 pm

How were white supremacy/racism and masculinity related during the push for imperialism in the Philippines? What does this say about the role of White American women in upholding racist ideologies during this time period and other racist movements in the United States's history?

Ashlyn Dumaw

11/6/2019 07:28:36 pm

In Hoganson's document, she shows a clear connection between gender roles and the push for imperialism in the Philippines. She writes, "imperialists like Roosevelt believed that holding colonies could prove to be a longer-term solution to modern civilization's seemingly dangerous tendency to make young, middle-class, and wealthy men soft, self-seeking, and materialistic... the experience of holding colonies would.... prevent national and racial degeneracy." In other words, because of the strict expectations of genders at the time, men were supposed to be more assertive and courageous. They believed that the Philippine conflict would offer a solution by reinforcing societal structure. As for American women, I believe that they were in a position where they could not successfully combat racist ideologies. Women composed much of the Anti-Imperialist League, which actively advocated against imperialism. However, their activity only provided more support for the imperialists' argument that antis were "seemingly female" and lacked "manly character." In this way, they could not effectively lobby against imperialism and racist ideologies because any actions supported their opposers.

Jamie Long

11/11/2019 06:50:21 pm

I think that white supremacy and masculinity were kind of intertwined factors in the support for imperialism in America. White supremacy was a long-standing viewpoint of most Americans, as was the idea of the importance of masculinity and its role in society. Hoganson's argument directly addresses how gender roles played a part in imperialism, and from the articles we read in class, we saw that many of those people also shared the belief of racial superiority. Considering this, I think that white women, particularly in this case, didn't have the ability to sway the public view on race superiority that much. They experienced strong opposition from imperialists, so because white superiority and ideas of masculinity during this time went hand-in-hand, in large, so did the efforts and effects of those opposed to one or the other.

Dhruv Joshi

11/5/2019 09:08:19 pm

What do you believe played a larger role in getting American citizens involved in the war: social pressures (men gaining effeminate qualities) or nationalistic pride?

Ashley Cao

11/5/2019 10:40:29 pm

I think that the main drive for the lower class people who actually fought in the war was nationalistic pride. although economics played a big role as a main motive in this war, the economic advantages would mainly benefit the richer (the ones who don't have to fight). So i think that the rich used the lower-class's racism to their advantage, and had them fighting in the war for reasons they didn't quite understand.

Neha Malkar

11/6/2019 08:22:14 pm

I think social pressures played a larger role in American citizens getting involved in the war because if they didn't many were outcast as "soft" or as "aunties." This pushed men to get involved to show that they had a martial character. The article also mentioned that men needed to fight and show their roughness and prevent degeneracy of the American men and political system.

Lauren Humphlett

11/6/2019 09:24:23 pm

I believe social pressures played a very large part in getting American citizens involved in the war because in this time, the average American society was based off the idea that white men were of higher authority than everyone else so if those men became "soft" and "effeminate", they needed to do something to take their power back, hence, fighting in the war

Clare Whittelsey

11/7/2019 11:41:40 am

I think the main push for getting men to play a role in the war was the social pressures. Masculinity was a huge characteristic all men at this time strived for. There were many examples present in the text showing how men were "afraid" to be the slightest bit femmine. Due to that many men enrolled into the war to have the manliness attributes that came along with fighting.

Siyona Shah

11/8/2019 10:05:06 am

I believe social pressures, such as men gaining effeminate qualities, played a larger role in getting American citizens involved in the war.

“McKinley proffered the Philippines as a challenge with great potential, as “the mightiest test of American virtue and capacity.” Like a number of other imperialists, he concluded that aggressive Philippine policies would build character in American men.”

America was concerned with how their men were looking to the rest of the world and wanted to prove their dominance. This especially drove men to fight in the war to feel "manly".

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 08:02:29 pm

I believe social pressures played a larger role in getting citizens involved in the war. People who opposed the war or the annexation were often seen as effeminate or of having effeminate qualities. American (male) citizens were probably afraid of being seen that way because of the hatred passed on to those that were. This is probably also the reason there weren't many anti-imperialists because people were afraid to lose their titles and there reputations. In a political office, if most of the people were imperialist, someone who spoke out as anti-imperialist wouldn't be taken seriously or have many followers, especially if he was to run for president in an upcoming the year. This goes along with some of the views on voting privately and not letting others see your ballots, because when a politician votes in private, they don't do it based on what is right for the whole country, or some have said. The country being split imperialist/anti-imperialist led to a majority on one side because of the fear of being rejected in society.

Kailynn Roberts

11/11/2019 01:49:36 pm

I feel like nationalistic pride played a large role in American citizen involvement. The American people felt as if it was their duty to spread American ideals to other countries. The only reason the American populace would want to spread their ideals is because they have pride in their country. The entire concept of imperialism is rooted in nationalistic pride.

Jackson Pollard

11/13/2019 07:53:05 am

I think nationalistic pride played a larger role in getting Americans involved in the war because the social pressures on American men stemmed from that pride. Americans took pride in a more masculine image, and so when men were seen as becoming soft it led to that pride being damaged.

Logan Phinney

11/5/2019 09:39:17 pm

What caused the U.S. to go from fighting a war for liberty, to fighting a war for imperialism?

Taralyn Neri

11/6/2019 07:32:42 am

There are a ton of things that happened in between those two times, it'd be nearly impossible for someone to pinpoint an exact reason for this happening. It might be just because when the U.S was fighting for liberty, they were fighting for themselves- the white man, so to speak. Fighting a war for imperialism is still fighting it for the white man, because they've already gotten everything else they want and are beginning to stretch out their grasp further into other territories and areas. Americas people hadn't changed, they just had more opportunity later in the course of history.

Austin Yao

11/7/2019 09:25:53 pm

It was an easy ruse for the US to capture the Philippines and claim it to be in response to the war in Cuba. The annexation of the Philippines had no evident connection to the Cuban fight for freedom besides their shared mother countries. Thus, it was logical for the US to seize the Philippines, which contained high economic and militaristic benefits, under the rationale that it was in support/defense of Cuba during the Spanish-American War.

Annabelle Chang

11/8/2019 08:11:32 pm

Well, the US was in a different situation when it fought for liberty. Then, the US was the one being used, but later, the US was in a position of power. As far as the motives behind each war, the revolutionary war was fought for liberty, but the Philippine war was fought for economic gain among other things. Between the two wars, the US had gained a much stronger sense of nationalism and also expressed a desire to expand, as evidenced by westward expansion and manifest destiny. While by the time the US started the Philippine war, that desire for expansion had been largely quelled, people still wanted to expand in terms of political power and economics.

Logan Phinney

11/5/2019 09:40:01 pm

It sounds crazy that the U.S. started an entire war that killed over 200,000 Filipino civilians and over 20,000
Filipino soldiers because they were worried that men were becoming too soft and that women were going to ruin
society. If someone told me that out of nowhere, I would probably call them crazy. Although this wasn’t the only
reasoning behind the war, the author made it seem as if it was the main driving factor. I feel as if the strategic
importance of the Philippines in relation to China and the rest of Asia would be way more important than gender
norms changing at home.

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 08:09:32 pm

I also believe that there were many other factor to imperialism that were way more important in the war with the Philippines, but I do believe that masculinity was a part of the reason. Also while if someone might have said this to you now, you might call them crazy, but back in the late 1800s early 1900s, this could have easily been seen as a true testament as to why the Americans were fighting. Presentism is hard to avoid but should really try to be when analyzing historical arguments because putting yourself during that specific time in history can really help you see the different points people make about how and why certain things were done.

Aryaman Bana

11/5/2019 10:08:28 pm

Do you think American imperialists used gender as a justification to become a more prominent economic power, or were they two distinctly different goals?

Taralyn Neri

11/6/2019 07:29:59 am

In the articles we read for the discussion, a few of them mentioned how staying out of war was cowardly and almost feminine, that they needed the manliness of war to keep men from going soft and women from growing hard. Was it as big of a reason as some of the articles act like it was? Probably not. Nevertheless, it was still most likely a reason used by some as to why the war had to be fought.

Leo Cheng

11/6/2019 04:06:48 pm

I think that the answer to this question greatly varies depending on what demographic is looked at. I believe that masculinity and social roles played a large factor in the push for imperialism by normal men at the time. For the upper and elite class however, I think that they used gender to gain control over and use the common person to achieve their economic motives

Varun Iyer

11/11/2019 12:49:59 pm

I think that gender was a justification to become a more prominent power and to gain support among the public. The annexation of the Philippines and its preceding war would help society's men maintain their manliness, but the US would also gain economic power. The United States becoming more economically powerful would help the country as a whole, but the effect on society would not be as noticeable, so the gender justification was used to supplement the economic power motive.

Arabella Cai

11/11/2019 12:53:17 pm

I believe the American imperialists used gender as a justification to become a more prominent economic power. Based on the primary and secondary sources, some mentioned that through the use of machinery in most jobs, women gradually gained significant positions in professional areas like nurses and librarians since skilled labors were no longer considered important for these positions. Thus, with women gradually rising in social status, people saw the role of men in society considerably lowered. While more women beginning to amass job opportunities, men felt they were losing control and they thought it was the man’s responsibility to fend for the family and thus they felt less manly. So by annexing the Philippines, the American men thought they would succeed in restoring masculinity and the building of a powerful economic empire.

Kailynn Roberts

11/11/2019 01:41:46 pm

I feel that the two goals were separated from each other. There was no overlap between the two goals; with all the goals in consideration, the goal to secure masculinity was largely separate from any of the goals for the Philippine War.

Anisha Harkara

11/12/2019 09:51:39 pm

I believe that the two were separate, but important. I believe that Imperializing the Philippines was for pure economic power at first. I think you're right that the discussion about gender was trying to justify US actions. Saying the Filipinos were feminine and savage caused more to believe that it was the job of the US to try and "help" by governing them.

Ashley Cao

11/5/2019 10:37:46 pm

Was the main motive behind the Philippine War economics/other factors or truly about the male character of America? What role did social darwinism play in the war?

Taralyn Neri

11/6/2019 07:25:27 am

I don't think that the male character of America had as much to do with the Philippine War as Hoganson said it did, but it still definitely played a part. I believe a lot of the reason the war was fought was because of racial tension and white supremacy. In "In Support of an American Empire", Beveridge says; "It is racial. God has not been preparing the English- speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No!” In this he vocalizes that he thinks the whites- or the English- has a duty to take care of other, less people. It corresponds to Social Darwinism nicely, the way of thinking that they are naturally superior, which is something one can easily tell in the quote from the same article, which reads "And thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world."

leo cheng

11/6/2019 04:11:01 pm

I believe that gender roles and masculinity was the main motive behind the support of the Philippine war by the working class men, but not for the upper and elite class. I think that the people in power used this motive to achieve their own goals in the war, and did not necessarily think that gender roles was an important factor for going to war. This also ties in with social darwinism because the rich were able to use this opportunity to further expand the economic grasp of America, which would further their own wealth.

Neha Malkar

11/6/2019 08:19:29 pm

I think one of the main motives behind the Philippine War was the male character because that was one of the many reasons the population supported. Though gaining better access to Chinese markets was a goal, they did not really focus on this much. Instead, they were more focused on building the martial character and stopping degeneracy of the American system. Social darwinism also playing a big role in the sense that America saw itself as superior and that it had to support the Philippines. We can see this displayed in the political cartoons.

Clare Whittelsey

11/7/2019 11:38:43 am

I think the main motive was definitely the economic gain, I believe people at this time were super greedy and wanted as much as they could get. There was many examples in the article explaining that the Philippines were the base gateway for the US to gain more control over China, due to their amazing economy.

Jamie long

11/11/2019 07:28:57 pm

I think that masculinity definitely had a big impact on the Philippine war, but it was combined with several other factors, like economic benefits and racial motivation. Economic benefits were definitely a pull factor in imperialism, especially after the situation with Cuba. The Philippines were attractive because they were viewed as a way to become involved with other Asian markets. Racial views and masculinity were tied together as a cause because both were used to justify imperialist beliefs. This also relates to social Darwinism because similar to other views of superiority, many Americans thought the class divide was natural, and sought to widen it, in some ways through imperialism.

Austin Nguyen

11/11/2019 11:08:04 pm

I believe the main motive behind the Philippine war was economics and to breach the Asian market rather than about masculinity in America. The declining masculinity of men in America was just a reason to justify it and get more average Americans and those who weren't businessmen looking to benefit economically to support the cause and/or enlist.

Kishan Patel

11/12/2019 06:25:50 pm

I believe that the main motive behind the Philippine War was economics and other factors rather than the male character in America because they wanted to start to trade with Asia more and get better relationships with the world powers. Having these things would provide better safety and more and more money and goods coming in from the trades and these are a lot more important than having the males in America be the most powerful.

Taralyn Neri

11/6/2019 07:34:56 am

In the political cartoons we looked at for the discussion, almost all of them portrayed the Philippines as dirty and uncivilized, some kind half-human half-monkey hybrid in a lot of them. How effective do you think these cartoons were at arousing peoples involvement in the war?

Logan Talton

11/6/2019 06:38:17 pm

The effectiveness of these propaganda pictures was probably most effective on people who supported manifest destiny and the paternalism of America. #WhiteMansBurden. These pictures did implant the ideas that these people were inferior, as by the much noticed half-evolved perception of the Islanders. It was this view that allowed for the colonization of these islands under the impression that it was helping the native people become more civilized. In this respect, I conclude that these cartoons were very effective in shaping American perspective and arousing people to support the war.

Megan Gerlach

11/9/2019 02:07:30 pm

I also agree that these political cartoons heavily shaped and influenced American views on the war and their belief on whether or not the United States should've been involved in the war. However, I don't believe that this propaganda necessarily convinced all American citizens that they were helping the Philippines, but rather allowed them all to express an excuse as to why the United States should annex the Philippines to pursue their own interests. Along with portraying the Philippines as incapable of governing themselves, propaganda also illustrated the economic gains that the United States would experience if they were to annex the Philippines. These economic gains especially included the idea that there would be a more open and direct market within China because of the Philippines geographical location. This influenced many American citizens in their views of wanting to engage in the war in order to increase their own wealth as well as American prosperity.

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 08:19:08 pm

I believe that these cartoons were very effective in arousing involvement in the war for many different reasons. Newspaper articles and cartoons through each crisis fueled citizens perspectives. Because of the cartoons that were out at the time, many citizens had nothing but to agree with what they were reading and being surrounded by. They could have also used the cartoons as a justification for doing what they were doing or as a reason to do it because the Filipinos needed Americas help. I think that on many different levels, these cartoons helped fuel the imperialistic views of war.

Taralyn Neri

11/6/2019 07:36:27 am

Going with the last question I had, there had to have been tons of political cartoons about the war during this time period. Do you think that the average american was aware that they were most likely bias (as in they knew that Filipinos did not actually look like that), and if they did, did it matter to them at all?

Ashlyn Dumaw

11/6/2019 07:37:05 pm

I do not think that most Americans were aware of their bias. Influential figures like Roosevelt who advocated imperialism on the grounds of racial superiority coupled with media to promote this bias in the public. Those who spoke out against imperialism were cast aside and discredited, sometimes claimed as too "feminine" and not "manly" enough; opposers of imperialism did not have the same effect on the public that advocates of imperialism did. Considering these factors, it is likely that the Americans had underlying biases that they were not completely aware of.

Lauren Humphlett

11/6/2019 09:22:06 pm

I don't think Americans believed these political cartoons were biased because they only saw one side of the war, not the natives (in this war). They most likely believed that America was right and just in doing what they did because they lived in America and they didn't see what was happening to the Natives first handedly.

Kailynn Roberts link

11/11/2019 12:45:13 pm

The bias shown in the cartoons reflected the Filipinos as barbaric and pagan like people of color. Since the general view of the people was rooted in racist views, the bias shown enhanced their views and made the people more susceptible to wanting change for them. I do not think that the unfair representation of the Filipinos was of great concern to the American populace because the cartoons just reflected their hypothesis, given from media at the time, in physical form, which made them more accepting of the cartoons and less questioning.

Nandana Pillai

11/14/2019 10:21:46 am

No, i don't think that the average American understood there could have been any kind of bias, and even if they did know i don't think they considered it significant in forming an opinion. I think the anti-imperialists and African Americans may have seen it for what it actually was, but I think that the majority of people supporting imperialism and the annexation of the Philippines were more driven by the ideas being put forward with speeches and such political cartoons, like the men who were feminine are the ones who oppose the idea of annexation and such social pressures were probably more likely to influence their opinion.

Hannah

11/6/2019 09:28:37 am

If the Spanish-American War had a different outcome, as in if America didn’t win, would America still have gone to war with the Philippines?

Seokhee Kim

11/6/2019 05:22:34 pm

I don't think that America would've still gone to war with the Philippines if they lost the war with Spain. The Philippine American war broke out due to America winning the war, purchasing Philippines, Puerto Rico and several other islands from Spain. The Filipinos had been fighting and revolting against Spain and since they had no intention of becoming a colony of another imperialist power and by fighting back against the U.S, the war broke out. So at the end, if America didn't win and didn't purchase the land from Spain, America would not go to war with the Philippines.

Lauren Humphlett

11/6/2019 09:20:10 pm

I don't think America would have gone to war with the Philippines because they only went to war with them because America bought the Philippines after winning the Spanish-American war. Because America had control over the Philippines they began to Americanize the filipinos which led to the fighting between Filipinos and Americans.

Tanvi Musale

11/12/2019 03:59:17 pm

If Spain won the Spanish-American War, then America would not have gotten the Philippines as Spain probably didn't want to give up their colonies and their influence over different regions. If America didn't get the Philippines as a part of the treaty, then they wouldn't have had a reason to go to war with the Philippines because Spain would've still been there. If they went to war with Philippines then America would've gone to war with Spain once again.

Avni Arora

11/12/2019 05:35:57 pm

Yes, and the war would have been more aggressive and violent as the concept of "feminine American men" would become more apparent. I believe that the war would keep going until the U.S government had control over the Philippines.

Kishan Patel

11/12/2019 06:20:51 pm

If the Americans had lost the Spanish-American War I don't think that they would have still tried to go to wars with the Philippines. I believe this because if they had just lost a war, people within the military, and territories they would be really hesitant to jump into another war with the thought of just losing more in their heads. After losing a war coming back from it is very hard and the Americans would be more worried about rebuilding and such than jumping into another war.

Nandana Pillai

11/14/2019 10:25:56 am

No, I don't think America would have gone to war with the Philippines had they not won the Spanish-American war. This is mainly because if they hadn't won, then the Treaty of Paris wouldn't have allowed them to gain access to the Philippines and their commercial advantages. Also, if they were to go to war with them, this would also cause them to wage war with the other European power that the Philippines was being controlled by, which would not have been advantageous to America in any aspect.

Leo Cheng

11/6/2019 03:57:45 pm

As we know, there were many different claims as to why America was involved in imperialization at the time. Do you think that the motives behind this were heavily debate at the time? Did people in the government and general public have strong opinions as to why America was taking these actions?

Ashlyn Dumaw

11/6/2019 07:53:31 pm

In our discussion, we talked about the possible motives of new Asian markets, racial superiority, doubt of the US government, and reinforcement of gender roles. During the Age of Imperialism, I do not believe that the motives of imperialism were widely debated. We must consider this issue without presentism; for example, we now have the available resources to analyze many motivations behind imperialism, but people from the time did not have the same access. Without these resources, the average American citizen would not have given much thought to the motives behind imperialism. It was more important to know the immediate effects of imperialism on citizens' everyday lives and the future. Even if some people did take an interest in researching motivations, they would not have encountered many of the sources that we have today. Therefore, there was likely little debate.

Ryan Xiao

11/12/2019 12:25:15 am

I feel that the government tried to project the war as a cleansing of a country where they were civilizing the native people in the country. This was done through many posters and political cartoons, like the ones in the primary sources. However, I do not feel that this was the main motive. The government was projecting this motive to hide its real motive of the political and economic influence gained by colonizing a country in the east. While many Americans would be convinced and supportive of the supposed justification of the war, the underlying motive would be supported more by higher political officials.

Logan Talton

11/6/2019 06:12:21 pm

Should the US have tried to annex the Philippines? On a more modern note, should the US have territories today?

Allison Charney

11/7/2019 07:06:18 am

I do not believe that the US should’ve annexed the Philippines. America only took over the country because they were acting on racist preconceptions of how the country would run without white rule. And regarding today, I feel that America should no longer have territories. Although the US has turned into a slightly less racist country since it annexed it’s current territories, it still doesn’t make it right for us to hold onto separate countries.

Jakub Kreuter

11/7/2019 07:23:48 pm

The governance of territories today by the american government is highly beneficial to those nations. While Racism did play a role in the violence used to establish governance in the Philippines, todays holdings by the US provides significant benefits to those territories.

Chuhan Ouyang

11/7/2019 11:09:26 am

I think that US was desperate for accesss to markets in China and Japan. However, I do not believe that the US had to annex the Phillipines in order to access those markets. For instance, the US could have negotiated a trade treaty with China, then annextation of the Phillipines would be extraneous. On a modern note, the US should not have territory today because it infringed the governed people's democracy. While US celebrated ideals of self-government, we never seem to repsect those ideals when dealing with foreign policy.

Lauren Boulia

11/6/2019 07:04:15 pm

We see that the territories acquired by the US after the Spanish-American war, Guam and Puerto Rico, are still American Territories today- not states. What motivations do you believe exist in these territories to keep them from becoming states? Would Guam and Puerto Rico want to be states? Why or why not?

Benson Chen

11/6/2019 08:57:35 pm

I believe the reason lies within Congress that is keeping these territory from being states. Guam and Puerto Rico sure would want to be states because it only makes sense for the US citizens living there to be able to vote on the government by which they are governed. However, if these territories become states, their relatively overwhelming will definitely tip the scale in the Congress. For Republicans who see these territories generally influenced by Democrats, it is not to their interest to grant these territories statehood.

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 10:06:51 pm

I believe there are motivations in the territories' political committees that are preventing them from becoming states. I feel that many people in these territories may want to be states but because not all in their governments do they are kept from doing so. While the territories don't have all of the rights and privileges that the states do, they have many benefits that other places don't because of their association with the United States. I believe that because many of the people in power in these territories are okay with having certain amenities and not full privileges that would ultimately lead to drama and conflict, they want to stay being territories and not become states.

Jakub Kreuter link

11/6/2019 07:32:48 pm

I think an idea that wasn't focused on enough was how history showed abonomnet of a recovery country routinely leads to widespread corruption within the country. A optimal example is iraq Following the US removal of troops from 2007-2011 and any number of african countries in the years after WW2. US intervention on the philippine government was mandatory, but the ways in which ideals were enforced could have been amended greatly. It is unlikely this would ever occurred given common politics and racism of the time but instead to demonstrate how total non interference would have been detrimental to the Philippines.

Brandon Jeans

11/9/2019 11:28:54 am

While I understand and agree with your point that the Philippines would have saw more economic and technological success with the intervention of the Americans. I believe that one thing to note, is that just because the United States was seeing industrial and economic growth under their political system, does not necessarily mean that we should force it on everyone else, even if it does work. This is because the Filipino people might not have wanted to become an industrialized society, and just liked their society the way it was before. The United States has always been caught up in the belief that we should conquer a country in order to bring them into an industrial revolution and modernize their economy with our systems, but we never seem to wonder if that is even what the country wants.

Neha Malkar

11/6/2019 08:17:05 pm

Do you think the tie of martial character to war support was the main reason many men supported it?

Allison Charney

11/7/2019 07:03:08 am

I do think that the fact marital character was so connected to war support was a very influential reason that many men supported the war. If men did not support the war they were viewed as weak and less than other men because only women did not want to have war. Many of the older people at this time said that the younger generation were soft and feminine because they had experienced too much peace. Therefore, the tying together of marital character and war support trapped many men into supporting the war.

Soliha Norbekova

11/9/2019 10:56:48 am

I do agree that the tie of martial character was the main reason that many men supported the war. However, I would like to add on to say that it was a combination of pressure from the public and the manly character that society portrayed at that time was the motivation for many men. A clear dichotomy between gender roles were heavily prevalent during this time shown in Theodore Roosevelt's speech, "The Strenuous Life." In this speech, Roosevelt is very adamant about martial character. He states "The timid antis, he maintained, spoke of liberty and the consent of the governed merely to 'excuse themselves for their unwillingness to play the part of men." With the support of an influential leader, Theodore Roosevelt, assisted in heavily pressuring men to follow the ideals of society.

Anastasia Neff

11/19/2019 12:21:26 pm

Although i do believe that martial character was of influence to the support of the war, i do not think it was the main reason. The reasoning around this was more about politics and racism. The people who were using the idea of martial character were the important people, the rich, the powerful, those in government positions. It was the amount of power that these people had that caused the war, not the idea of martial character. This was just a way to reasonable suggest war over their real intentions and racist views.

Lauren Humphlett

11/6/2019 09:17:53 pm

How do you think the gender views of women affected people in this time?

Allison Charney

11/7/2019 06:59:10 am

I think that the way that people of this time viewed women greatly affected the people of the world. Much of society viewed women as weak and lesser than men. This lead to them not being able to contribute to political discussions and having their ideas and opinions ignored.

Chuhan Ouyang

11/7/2019 11:06:46 am

Gender views were definitely a driving factor of the war. Before the war, during the Progressive Movement, women rose to power under the leadership of Jane Addams and Alice Paul. Alice Paul even did a hunger strike to promote women suffrage. As women were gaining more political power, traditional men felt insecured and anxious. Therefore, they tried to prove their masculinity through wars.

Clare Whittelsey

11/7/2019 11:36:15 am

It heavily affected people, especially women. I remember reading that women were not taken seriously in political debates. Men were also " made fun of" when people called them effeminate. “Some men continued to be plagued by anxieties that an extended peace would lead to, as one au thor put it, effeminate tendencies in young men," foremost among them the middle- and upper-class white men who enjoyed the many comforts of industrial society.” This quote is extremely important to consider because it is a direct relation to how men feared and faced insecurity with becoming “effeminate”. This quote shows how men feared being called women like.

Siyona Shah

11/8/2019 09:59:20 am

The gender views of women affected people in this time by not paying much attention to their needs/wants.

“The man must be glad to do a man’s work, to dare and endure and to labor; to keep himself and to keep those dependent upon him. The woman must be the housewife, the helpmeet of the homemaker, the wise and fearless mother of many healthy children…”

In this quote, Roosevelt is sharing his thoughts that women were meant to stay home and raise the children while the men were supposed to be "dominant" and work for his country. People were very quick to dismiss women since they were "inferior" to the men.

Jenny Caputo

11/12/2019 09:21:03 pm

Women are viewed as having to be sheltered from the world for their well being. The secondary source mentions how the tendency of men is to be powerful and the tendency of women "toward tenderness, persuasion, and reward." Since women were not devoting themselves to men as they were expected to, they were competing with them and becoming more active in public life. This affected people because it supposedly threatened men and their character, causing them to want to hold more colonies to be seen as more powerful and masculine and improve their male character.

Shazia Muckram

11/13/2019 07:04:14 pm

At this point of time, women were looked down upon as not strong enough to participate in the war. Men feared that women were taking control and would eventually gain more political power, therefore they started showing more dominance. I think these gender views pushed women to gain their place in politics and it was a major stepping stone to many opportunities in the future. Most of the women were anti-imperialists as they mad various organizations to support this cause. Moreover, many of the political cartoons portrayed as anybody who were against imperialism as feminine and weak. For example, the cartoon, “Recommended by Hoar,”shows George Hoar dressed as a female because he was against the annexation of the Philippines. Moreover, the cartoon also reveals the American sentiment towards the Filipinos as incapable of running a civilized nature without the help of the United States; this is evident in the picture as it shows an American spoon feeding a baby who represents the Philippines.

Ryan Xiao

11/6/2019 10:03:17 pm

Based on the Hoganson's article, American men were put in a peculiar lose-lose situation. If they spoke out against the war, they would be used as an example of men becoming more effeminate. If they didn't, many would be placed in combat, which provided a high chance that they would be killed. As this is a reason why there were not as many men who spoke out against the war, what could men who disapproved of the war do to speak out against the war while also avoiding being denounced and fueling the imperialists' arguments?

Taralyn Neri

11/7/2019 04:07:37 pm

I don't believe there was much they can do in this situation, you worded it fairly accurately. Obviously, they could always go against others that called them feminine, as the chance of it doing any real damage is relatively slim. They could always go incognito, publish articles or create graffiti, and if they weren't caught then they'd be able to go without repercussions, but that's all I can really see as a valid option.

Cynthia Yan

11/8/2019 06:54:03 am

I agree that men wouldn't have been able to speak out against the war without facing these consequences, because America's support for the war was a result of deeply ingrained racism and sexism, where the belief that White Americans were superior to all other people, and that men were superior to women was accepted as a fact. As a result, to go against the belief that Americans needed to strengthen masculinity to preserve a superior race would go against core American values of the time.

Kailynn Roberts

11/11/2019 12:34:36 pm

They could have spread their ideals with stating that they were separate from the Anti- Imperialism front. The Anti- Imperialism front characterized men as weak and feminine, so by being separate from this movement, they would not be viewed in the same light. Also, another factor to be considered would by their social/ economic status. With higher status, in both regards, men would largely remain immune to the persecution in place.

Allison Charney

11/7/2019 06:56:19 am

Out of the reasons for Imperialism we discussed in class (masculinity, capitalism, racism, etc.) which one do you feel was the most influential in America’s need for expansion?

Chuhan Ouyang

11/7/2019 11:04:25 am

I believe that the economical interests were the most important reasons that motivate the war against the Phillipines. According to the graph provided in the document, the value of manufactured exports, the US exports value experienced a significant surge in the year 1898 to1900. While the overall trend is that the US had increasingly more exports each year, the greatest surge in the 1898-1900 suggests that the US really developed its overseas business in the transition years from 19th to 20th century. It was not until the “frontier was closed” that the US started to expand overseas. It was therefore no coincidence that the Philippines war precisely started at 1898. Access to eastern markets was the most practical benefit of the war.

Mackenzie Adams

11/7/2019 09:00:01 pm

Although masculinity, capitalism, and racism were all reasons for imperialism, capitalism and economics were definitely the most influential reason. America wanted to become globally influential and in order to do that they needed to have economic influence in different parts of the world, including Asia. Holding colonies in the Philippines was how they would get their economic influence.

Cynthia Yan

11/8/2019 07:17:17 am

I would agree that economics was the primary reason for America's need for expansion, with racism and masculinity serving as an excuse. At the time, the United States saw other European countries gaining global influence and wealth through imperialism, and followed their example so they wouldn't risk falling behind. Moreover, industrialization had greatly increased the United States's output and the viability of exporting products to another market, which also supports Zinn's belief that the war benefited primarily the elite, who used racism (and Hoganson's idea of masculinity) to spur the rest of the nation to action. Moreover, Americans had used racism as an excuse during other moments of expansionism, such as by driving Native Americans out of the country under the belief that they were racially superior. However, I think this is the first time masculinity was also widely utilized.

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 10:39:40 pm

I feel that racism was the most influential in America's need for expansion because it was used as a justification for almost all of the other reasons. Masculinity was a reason because the country needed a more masculine line of men, because they were becoming effeminate, and being effeminate can easily be related to being inferior which would lead to the men believing it was their duty to help the Philippines because they needed to believe, in order to regain masculinity, that the territory had a race of inferior people. Also from a political standpoint, racism was used as a way to try and govern the Filipinos because again they were seen as not being able to do it themselves, because of their inferiority and their darker skin. In the senatorial debates we read, Senator Caffery believed that the Tropics couldn't be states in the US without brutal force, because "no permanent sway can ever be held by the white man over the colored races of the Tropics." These are all reasons I believe racism was most influential; it was seen in all other reasons.

DJ Gill

11/12/2019 06:45:05 pm

I believe that out of all of these reasons the one that influenced Americas need for expansion the most was for economic reasons. It was stated in the article that they used the Philippines as a post or way point to do business with China.

Chuhan Ouyang link

11/7/2019 10:47:56 am

How does Frederck Turner’s Frontier thesis, which was established in 1893, contributed to the zeal for the war with the Philippines? The Frontier Thesis stated that the American frontier was closed because westward expansion was complete, so the next objective for America was to expand overseas to foreign markets?

Austin Yao

11/7/2019 09:20:17 pm

It is my understanding that the Frontier Thesis aligned with the idea of masculinity and gender roles, which was also encouraged by Theodore Roosevelt. Turner argued that there would be a major shift/loss in American Culture because America had finished expanding, and he feared for this change. Hoganson wrote about how worries about masculinity and the phasing out of gender roles also spurred the war in the Pacific, which I believe is a change that Turner was concerned about.

Cynthia Yan

11/8/2019 07:01:16 am

Turner's Frontier Thesis caused many Americans (especially politicians and the elite) to push for expansion through different means such as by taking over the Philippines and other territories through the Spanish-American war. Because the existence of the United States was based on expansionism, which was reinforced by the efforts of European countries to expand through imperialism in Asia and Africa, war with the Philippines was seen as a way to continue their belief in their expansionist destiny, under a guise of "civilizing" the Filipino people and protecting American culture and masculinity.

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 10:48:34 pm

The Frontier thesis was basically a justification for imperialism or a factor for its growth in America. The war with the Philippines was justified in this sense because according to the thesis they were supposed to expand outward overseas and this was a vital part in doing that.

clare whittelsey

11/7/2019 11:31:20 am

Do you think the Americans actually wanted to help the Filipino people or they just use them for their economic advantage?

Taralyn Neri

11/7/2019 03:58:53 pm

While there were absolutely people who wanted to help just because they thought it was the right thing to do, I believe most people who chose to assist weren't doing it with the best intentions. I get this from the quote in the treaty debate, which says"We found here a continent in the hands of Indians... who did not want us to come here, who did not want to be governed by us without their consent... we have, nevertheless, gone on and legislated for them and governed them"

Mackenzie Adams

11/7/2019 09:01:55 pm

I think that the Americans wanted to both help the Filipino people but also do it or economic gain. They heavily believed in the idea of the "White Man's Burden" and they believed that the Filipino people were unfit to govern themselves. However, they also wanted to hold colonies for economic influence in Asia.

Seokhee kim

11/7/2019 09:06:50 pm

There might've been some people that helped the Filipino people because they wanted to but I feel like the U.S "helped" the Filipino people in order to gain control of their land because of its geographically and commercially advantageous location near Asia. The war did start out because of the U.S government's quest for expansion and the desire to free the Filipino people so I guess it was both sides.

Juhi Chatterjee

11/8/2019 12:00:01 pm

I definitely think American only wanted the Philippines for personal gain. They saw it as an economic opportunity to be near China, and thought that the Philippines was a very strategic location.

Angela Xu

11/10/2019 05:54:39 pm

I personally believe that Americans annexed the Philippines mainly for their personal gain, not for the benefit of Filipinos. Americans saw the Philippines as an opportunity to strengthen their economic power on the world and as a chance to keep gender roles intact within the country. Many Americans believed that facing the challenge of annexing the Philippines would strengthen the manhood of the country and keep women from becoming more involved within society. Americans also wanted better access to China markets which would greatly benefit America's economic power. These are all things Americans believe would allow their country to thrive.

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 10:53:15 pm

I don't think that all Americans can be grouped in to this because that's generalizing, but I do believe that many of the people in power in America just saw the Filipino's as a means to justify an end. While their may have been many who did want to help, the ones who spoke out weren't enough to stop the war or to actually "help" the Filipino race. I believe that the crooked businessmen and corrupt politicians were the ones who wanted to just use the Filipinos for the economy.

Jenny Caputo

11/11/2019 03:18:01 pm

Based on some of the primary sources, specifically "In Support if an American Empire", it seems as though they just wanted to use the Philippines for their economic advantage because they were a "door to all the East". As shown in this source, trade with Asia was very important to the Americans and the Philippines provided this by opening opportunities with the East and helping America have the power of commerce.

Uma Bhat

11/12/2019 04:32:19 pm

Americans were using morality as justification for their efforts to take control of the country, which they in the first place wanted for economic incentives. They describe Filipinos as "savages" (racism) to justify how their control would help, but in reality that sort of justification makes it convenient for them to ignore their own wrongs and achieve their own goals.

Anisha Harkara

11/12/2019 09:57:40 pm

I believe that the more educated and higher class wanted to use the Philippines to their economic advantage, however, I believe that there were some who believed that the US helping the Philippines was the best solution. Some Americans were under the impression that Filipinos couldn't rule themselves without anarchy ensuing. Many thought of themselves as better and thought that helping would greatly benefit the Philippines. The upper class probably also felt the need to "help" (white man's burden), but also looked at the advantages that the Philippines could have on the economy.

Aiden Hall

11/13/2019 09:30:37 am

The occupation of the philippines was hotly contested by Filipino militants and was clearly not wanted by most of its people, it is very obvious that the Filipinos did not want the americans there and it definitely did not stabilize the country. This means that it was primarily for economic advantage.

Semeon Petros

11/7/2019 07:15:26 pm

Do you think expansion overseas to places like Cuba and the Philippines was caused by the closing of internal frontier and the end of expansion within American borders?

Brenna Hanson

11/8/2019 08:54:05 am

I think this was probably one of causes of imperialism. According to Hoganson, "... some men continued to be plagued by anxieties that an extended peace would lead to, as one author put it, 'effeminate tendencies in young men.'" While this is directly addressing the Spanish-American war, I think the same sentiment can also be applied to larger American expansion. For most of America's history up to this point, American identity had been distinctly defined by westward expansion. I think that a lot of leaders probably wanted to continue that policy and ideology even after the whole of the American mainland had been conquered, especially considering the economic possibility with such a plan.

Annabelle Chang

11/9/2019 05:50:21 pm

I think that the drive for expansion was more due to the economic opportunities and "manliness,"but I could also see the closing of the internal frontier as another factor. Much of America's history was focused on westward expansion up until that point, and given all the changes that industrialization brought, politicians were likely worried about the changes they saw in people as a result of this. But I feel like the humanitarian and economic reasons were more direct motivations while the internal border was more of a background factor with in the motivations.

Kailynn Roberts

11/11/2019 12:28:34 pm

The US by this time had reached its limit for exploration and expansion in the US itself, so with the opportunities, such as weak government and unfit rule by the people, presented by Cuba and the Philippines, the US seized the opportunity. In summarization, I do think the expansion overseas was caused by the end of expansion within American borders.

Mackenzie Adams

11/7/2019 09:07:45 pm

What are other ways that masculinity in America could have been changed at the time?

Taralyn Neri

11/8/2019 03:10:29 pm

I'm assuming you mean what events could have changed the way masculinity was viewed in this time period, if that's the case, then I think it has a lot to do with the women in this time period. If women began to change the stereotypes they were plagued with and the job of a woman in society, then the role of a man would change as well, making less things masculine and more things in a middle ground where it would be socially acceptable for both genders to partake in the same activities.

Rohan Das

11/9/2019 10:10:06 pm

The fact that, in this time period, there are numerous articles being written by women who are clearly well educated, enough so to point out problems in politics that were set in place by numerous men.

Hadley Seifert

11/11/2019 10:58:16 am

During this time, women began to fight for and gain more rights such as more education and joining the workforce. These changes caused changes in female stereotypes which also caused a shift in male stereotypes. As women began to do more tasks males typically did they were considered more masculine, and men were considered feminine and weak for letting it happen. These shifts resulted in an increase in insecurity of men in relation to their dominance which was one of the reasons they were so eager to involve themselves in the Philippines.

Austin Yao

11/7/2019 09:18:08 pm

One of the rationales for seizing the Philippines was its militaristic and economic importance. Regarding its military advantages, how has the acquisition of Philippines influenced American War History since the Spanish-American War?

Aditya Tripathi

11/11/2019 06:40:43 pm

The Spanish-American War and its aftermath postponed Philippine independence until after the Second World War, but formed a relationship within U.S. boundaries that fostered a significant Filipino community.With its new overseas acquisitions, the United States emerged as a powerful world power and embarked on a course that would influence its position in international affairs for the next century

John Bass

11/11/2019 08:36:19 pm

Previously, the first part of the Spanish-American War, in Cuba, let the US test their navy. The war for and victory in the Philippines tested it again and subsequently led the US government to engage in many more imperialistic struggles, eventually resulting in the United States having huge power and influence.

Tvisha Shete

11/7/2019 10:38:37 pm

Albert Beveridge argues in “In Support of an American Empire”, China’s markets, as well as other opportunities outside of the Philippines shouldn’t be abandoned, as it will soon be irretrievable. What courses of action were taken by those in Asia to prevent America from exploiting more economic power?

Christian Lauchengco

11/11/2019 03:42:08 pm

The boxer rebellion was a rebellion in China with the objective of pushing all foreign powers, including America, out of China. However, the rebellion ultimately failed and was put down.

Connor Lauchengco

11/12/2019 09:51:31 pm

By consolidating their own power in Asia many imperial powers such as Japan, Germany, and Russia hoped to muscle the U.S. out of China or prevent their access to the markets. This did not end up succeeding.

Siyona Shah

11/8/2019 09:55:12 am

“Imperialists’ comments on American men and American democracy indicate that they wanted to govern the Philippines not only because they doubted the Filipinos’ governing capacity, but, just as important, because they doubted their own.”

Was America truly trying to help the Filipinos by annexing the Philippines? Or was it a selfish move, as shown in the quote above?

Megan Gerlach

11/8/2019 10:40:18 am

I believe that the annexing of the Philippines was primarily because the United States saw it as an economic gain for themselves. It had stated in the article that the Philippines allowed for the United States to create a better market of exports to China. During this time period, many businesses were pushing to expand into Chinese markets, illustrating how the annexation of the Philippines would allow them to do this. Furthermore, as the quote emphasizes, many imperialists within the United States believed that they had "humanitarian obligations" towards the Philippines as they believed that they were not capable of governing themselves. This illustrates the belief many Americans had that they were superior to other countries, especially those that were not primarily white.

Juhi Chatterjee

11/8/2019 11:57:29 am

I do not think that American was trying to help the Philippines at all. They only saw it as a strategic location to improve their economy. “Economic motives certainly played a significant role in the decision to fight for the control of the Philippines, which were located close to the hotly contested and potentially lucrative China market. Those who believed the nation needed strategic bases to secure its share of eastern profits regarded the Philippines as a stepping stone.”

Hadley Seifert

11/11/2019 10:26:12 am

I believe that annexing the Philippines was primarily a selfish move by businessmen and politicians for better economic opportunities. These businessmen and politicians then used propaganda techniques to convince the common folk that the Filipinos could not govern themselves and that Americans would be helping. With the use of propaganda, many Americans didn't even realize the selfish intents behind the annexation, they only thought it was about helping the Philippines.

Jane Cho

11/12/2019 06:35:44 pm

I believe that America was not truly trying to help the Filipinos by annexing the Philippines but instead just saying and using the claim that they were "helping" the Filipinos in order to cover up or lessen their real reason for annexing the Philippines, economic gain. By saying that they were also annexing to help the Filipinos living there, it made it seem that their motive was not as selfish and made it seem that it was beneficial to both countries.

Megan Gerlach

11/8/2019 10:32:44 am

Although during our discussion we talked a lot about role that the fear of men gaining effeminate qualities had on the cause of the war, I was still wondering where this fear of these qualities were rooted from and if/why they believed that having these feminine qualities was worse than waging war.

Brandon Jeans

11/9/2019 11:24:11 am

I believe that many of these qualities originated from the Women's Rights Movements themselves. Many men were in fear of losing their power to the women, and they believed that if they were starting to become more effeminate it would mean the loss of power. So I believe one of the main causes was that men wanted to be able to keep their power by making themselves seem strong. However, another reason could be that the people in power tried to bring on this feeling before the war that it was an awful thing to be effeminate and one should be shunned for it, so many people started to believe that they should be more manly and join the war.

Annabelle Chang

11/9/2019 05:21:56 pm

As the politicians of the time stated, the comforts that industrialization brought made men "lazy" and "timid." They worried that men were taking an increased part in domestic life and that the women were gaining too much power. In their eyes, war was the best way to instill manliness in these increasingly effeminate men as it would shape their characters. They wanted them to be more manly because manliness was power. If they were effeminate or soft, they'd be seen as weak by other countries.

Rohan Das

11/9/2019 10:06:47 pm

I believe men at the time were simply afraid of change, specifically change in power. At this point in time, African Americans had gained more power, and women weren't far behind. I believe the spirit of war showed men truly superior over women in that particular aspect. I also believe these qualities were rooted within them by previous generations fighting in numerous conflicts.

Kara Musteikis

11/12/2019 10:20:23 pm

I believe that these effeminate qualities that played a part in the war against the Philippines was from the perception that if the US shied away from the war then they would be perceived as womanly and weak. These ideas of women being weak were stemmed from their domestic labor jobs with like Roosevelt said ”woman must be the housewife and care for their children." While these jobs weren't easy they weren't the same as the physical labor jobs that men did like laying down railroads which I think caused men to think that since women couldn't do manual labor they were weaker and Ferland mentioned in Hoganson's texts that women should be sheltered from the world for their moral well-being. Many thought these feminine qualities were worse than waging the war because it showed that the US was weak and that it wouldn't be able to become a global power if it didn't gain more land as well as assert dominance & not back away from conflict which gives a weak impression. So to keep the nation as a power it had to seem manly and the only way they saw to do that was by waging war.

Juhi Chatterjee

11/8/2019 11:53:07 am

Do you think racial superiority and looking down upon the Filipinos played the biggest part in American imperialists’ desire to annex the Philippines?

Taralyn Neri

11/8/2019 02:14:28 pm

Racial superiority definitely had a very big impact and was a very important reason as to why they wanted to annex the Philippines. I'm not sure if it's the most important one, but it is up there. You can see it in the way they both talk about these other people, describing them as "savage" and "wild", and- more accurately- the way they're depicted in political cartoons as almost human-monkey hybrids. I think that very clearly shows white superiority.

Allan Gilsenan

11/9/2019 12:10:32 pm

While I certainly think racial superiority was a part of the American imperialist’s desire to annex the Philippines, I think the true desire was economics. The wealthy businessmen and politicians who supported imperialism certainly thought of themselves as superior to Filipino people, but they wanted to take control of the Philippines for economic benefit. With control of the Philippines, America could have access to the booming Asian markets causing the rich to get richer and the American economy to boom. These wealthy businessmen and politicians knew that the economic benefit would not really affect the common American, only the elites, so they used the ideas of racism and racial superiority to win the American public over, and get the majority of the general public to support imperialism.

Angela Xu

11/10/2019 05:28:27 pm

I definitely feel that racial superiority played a major role as one of the motives for annexing the Philippines. Many Americans saw Filipinos as simply unfit to lead their own country and that they needed the help of outside powers to lead for them. Americans truly believed that chaos would break out within the Philippines if they were left alone to rule themselves. Although racial superiority was a very important motive, it was not the only one that pushed the annexation of the Philippines. Many other motives that were also very important include the benefit of America;s economy and greater gender roles.

Joey Caputo

11/11/2019 01:56:10 pm

In my class discussion, we went over this a few times, and each time we went over the same thing. Racial superiority, as someone in my class said, is a big continuity of America's expansion. America has always thought that they were better than everyone else. This however, was not the main reason that America wanted to gain control of the Philippines was to make men "more manly" because at this time, men were becoming less and less manly in the eyes of American population. Lots of people pushed for the U.S. to control of the Philippines so men can regain their manliness.

Sharan Sivakumar

11/12/2019 03:59:50 pm

I believe that racial superiority and looking down upon the Filipinos played the most critical role in American imperialists’ desire to annex the Philippines because racial superiority basically meant that the Americans said "we are better than you because we are American and you are not and because of this you should hand us your country for the better good". The way that looking down upon the Filipinos played a major role is that Americans viewed them as inferior and in need of major help by the superior Americans.

Gustav Cedergrund link

11/12/2019 04:11:23 pm

I don't think that racial superiority played a role at all for the imperialists' desire to annex the Philippines. I think that it was a justification used to get the support of civilians and Congresspeople by appealing to humanitarian causes, but it wasn't a desire. If it were a desire, America would have attempted to invade the entirety of the world that wasn't white, which they obviously didn't do. I do, however, think that the desire was split between economic availability through the Philippines and to flex the power of the US to other major nations to show toughness.

Avni Arora

11/12/2019 05:41:10 pm

Although racial superiority was one of the biggest justifications, the biggest reason why American imperialists wanted to annex the Philippines was because of the economic benefit it would bring the the American economy.

Kishan Patel

11/12/2019 06:17:16 pm

I do believe that the Americans looking down upon the Filipinos was a big part in the cause of the War, but I do not think that it was the biggest. I believe this because just because you look down on a place and think that you are superior isn't a good reason to try and take them over. The Americans had other reasons like trading in Asia and better relationships with world powers as the biggest reason to imperialism the Philippines.

Michael Herrera

11/12/2019 09:06:21 pm

Although I do believe that racial superiority played a big role America's want to annex the Phillipines because they viewed themselves as racial superior to them because they were seen as uncivilized, I also belive it's important to consider the fact that annexing the Phillipines was very good for America economically because the Phillipines could act as a trading port for them to help boost their economy.

Javairia Qadir

11/12/2019 10:15:07 pm

I definitely think racial superiority was one of the impacts, but there were many other motivations to the annexation such as expansionist views and the benefits of the Chinese markets to be able to excel in trade and control the economy.

Nandana Pillai

11/13/2019 07:57:07 pm

I think that, although the belief of racial superiority and white supremacy and looking down upon the Filipinos did play a big role in the imperialists desire to annex the Philippines, I think the biggest reason was the theory of Social Darwinism and the idea that if they did not annex the Philippines and thus cause progress of the nation, and instead gave up the Philippines to other countries when it has a huge commercial advantage as well, would lead to stagnation and death of the nation is what fueled their desire.

Annabelle Chang

11/8/2019 04:14:27 pm

I think that everyone agrees that there were numerous motives for the war, how many people supported each motive? Were there more people doing it for economic reasons than humanitarianism? What motive did the common folk vs. the wealthier class seem to follow?

Brandon Jeans

11/9/2019 11:20:16 am

I believe that most common folk fought in the war on the belief to preserve their manliness, or because they believed that they were a superior race that had to protect and rule the Philippines. I believe that the wealthy and political groups incited these beliefs, by making it seem as if these were the sole reasons for the war. However, I think that the wealthy and political elite, saw the war as an economic opportunity to expand into Asia, and just convinced the people to fight on terms of superiority and manliness.

Soliha Norbekova

11/9/2019 11:32:32 am

In my opinion, the number of people supporting the war for economic reasons were significantly less than the number of people supporting the war due to humanitarian obligation. The table on the last page shows that even if individuals supported the war due to economic incentives, the benefits that they would obtain from it was not going to be of any significance. Whereas, the ideological movement of humanitarian obligation seemed more plausible for many to support the war. Individuals such as William McKinley and Senator Albert J. Beveridge state "...that we could not leave them to themselves-they were unfit for self-government," and "My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed." Likewise, the wealthier class seemed to follow the war due to this reason of humanitarianism. As for the common folk, they seemed to follow the motive of martial character that society advocated for. As historian Kristin Hoganson stated "...some men continued to be plagued by anxieties that an extended peace would lead to, as one author put it, effeminate tendencies in young men." Majority of the common folk, mainly men, supported the war because of pressure from the public that encouraged them to be more warlike and masculine.

Rohan Das

11/9/2019 09:55:56 pm

I believe motives for the war can ultimately be separated into 3 group of people, those that fought for a humanistic belief, an economic incentive, and/or simply a way to show one's manhood and American spirit. I believe the wealthier class were in it due to having already invest so much money into bonds and war materials that they wanted to protect their investment while the middle/lower class were inspired to live up to the manly standards of generations before them.

Kailynn Roberts

11/11/2019 12:17:48 pm

I believe the entire country was united in the same motivation of economic reasons. The people largely racist, so they felt the Filipinos to be beneath them in every regard. The people could have wanted to, as their inherent right, to better the Filipino populace, but the greed of men will always take forethought. Greed and ambition does not belong to either middle class or the upper class but to both, hence the reason they would both be united in economic reasons.

Austin Nguyen

11/11/2019 11:13:23 pm

I think the common folk mainly supported the cause of the desire to become more manly while the wealthier class saw it as an economic opportunity and to gain control/influence over those they believed were racially inferior people.

Kara Musteikis

11/12/2019 10:29:39 pm

I think that many supported the idea that they needed the Philippines as a way to trade with China and for the fact that they were unfit to self-govern. While many did support the war as a way to prove the US's manliness like the imperialists like Roosevelt and many men there was also the anti-federalists that included many women who didn't support the war. Overall I think that more people agreed on the humanitarianism views of that the Philippines were unfit to govern themselves like which what Hoganson mentioned in her text that imperialists felt this way about the Filipinos. Those that supported the humanitarianism motives were more commoners because those that supported the economic reasons of controlling the Philippines wanted the islands as a "stepping-stone" to trade with China and was more of the weather merchants that wanted to trade with China and really didn't care about the Philippines as much.

Brandon Jeans

11/9/2019 11:17:24 am

Throughout Hoganson's document he talks about the main cause of the war being to preserve American society and manly characteristics. Then what do you guys believe would be the reason for the American's brutalizing the Filipinos during the war, even though this would not seem like a civilized, manly thing to do?

Soliha Norbekova

11/9/2019 11:53:38 am

I think when Hoganson was talking about manly characteristics and marital spirit she was referring to men becoming more warlike and soldierly. And although this may not seem like a "manly" thing to do, in my opinion, men wanted to be perceived during this time as warlike and brutal because that was what society was advocating for. Society did not want men to obtain "effeminate tendencies" in which they would be displayed as weak and frail. This contrasts with what society perceived men to act like in the past. Which was to be more civilized, humble and much like a leader per se. And as time passed, society further developed the leader aspect in masculinity to become more warlike and brutal, so that they would be able to assert their dominance in times of war such as this. Overall, I think that ideally men just wanted to prove themselves to their nation by brutalizing the Filipinos in this war. But the pressure from society in contrasting gender roles is what fueled the response.

Kailynn Roberts

11/11/2019 12:12:40 pm

I think the US brutalized Filipinos during the war because of the sheer total of death, disease, and lack of entertainment. With the amount of death, the US front would feel great hatred and spitefulness towards the Filipinos to cause their fellow men in arms to have perished. The rampant amount of disease that was spreading also factored in because it made the soldiers more uneasy, irritable, and weak. The soldiers then would want to use brutal force to prove, to themselves and there comrades, that they weren't weak. Lastly, the lack of entertainment during the time of war made men do cruel things in the sake of just refuting boredom.

Soliha Norbekova

11/9/2019 12:03:13 pm

Were the actions of the United States annexing the Philippines during the American-Philippines war considered to be benevolent assimilation? And benevolent assimilation is engaging people into new culture with the primary motive being that it is an act of kindness.

Megan Gerlach

11/9/2019 01:59:25 pm

I don't believe that the United States annexing the Philippines can be considered benevolent assimilation because the annexation of the Philippines seemed to be based off of the need for economic gain and American superiority. In the article it stated that American citizens believed that the Philippines would allow for a better market within China, something businesses had been trying to obtain for a while. I also believe that the United States wanted to illustrate their superiority by labeling Filipinos as childish, feminine and unable to govern themselves. With that being said, Americans seemed to use this statement as an excuse to control the Philippines, making it seem like they were partaking in benevolent assimilation, however their main motive for annexation was for economic and social gain within the United States.

Darren Chang

11/11/2019 06:45:44 pm

I don't believe that the actions of America in expansion were benevolent. There seemed to be a lot of conflict between Filipinos and Americans in the documents, and the propaganda used by the U.S. that featured civilizing and educating the Filipinos was mainly to support the expansionist movement. The Philippines were really assimilated into mainland American culture, as the goal of the territory was economic access to Asia.

Hadley Seifert

11/9/2019 09:14:33 pm

To what extent and in what ways was imperialism justified and acceptable? Do you believe imperialism and the war in the Philippines was justified?

Liz Aman

11/11/2019 11:01:12 am

I personally do not believe imperialism and the war in the Philippines was justified. However, many Americans justified the war by claiming that they were benefiting the Filipinos and that it was their moral obligation to intervene. For example, William McKinley stated, "there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them."

Angela Xu

11/11/2019 02:27:11 pm

Many Americans believed that the Philippines had to be annexed because Filipinos were simply incapable of ruling themselves. Filipinos were seen as savages, childish, and effeminate. Americans thought that they were doing the Philippines a favor for annexing them because if they didn't, the Philippines would supposedly fall into chaos is they were left to rule themselves. I personally feel that imperialism and war in the Philippines wasn't justified because much of the motives for wanting the annex the country was out of greed for the advantages that came with taking the Philippines.

Rohan Das

11/9/2019 09:46:30 pm

Do you believed the U.S. government used the ideal of rebuilding America's manhood for war propaganda, or do you believe the use of economic/humanistic reasoning was more effective?

Seokhee Kim

11/10/2019 11:28:41 pm

I believe that the ideal of rebuilding America's manhood for war was just a propaganda in order to motivate men to join the war. As men got less and less manly than before due to the approach of equality between women and men, they felt threaten by women that their place in society would be taken over. In order to show how superior they were than women, they were "forced" to do something that was manly which in this case, war.

Elizabeth Jackson

11/11/2019 10:52:12 am

I believe that the use humanistic reasoning was more effective. In "Support of an American Empire", Albert Beveridge says, "We will move forward to our work... with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength, and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people. henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world." Many like Beveridge, believed it was their responsibly and destiny as a Christian to help the "unfortunate" Filipinos. This view influenced many Christians to support the annexation of the Philippines.

Joey Caputo

11/11/2019 01:49:09 pm

I feel like it was the idea of rebuilding America's manhood for war and that type of propaganda was the most effective in going to war. At this time, many of the higher government officials were often saying that men were turning "soft" or "less of a man." And since these are higher officials saying this, they often have a large audience that they can get to agree with them. Furthermore, I think that since some of the only people that opposed the war were women who thought that men did not need to become more manly. Since women, at this time, were being treated unequally, their opinions were not taken into account and not considered, there weren't many who could stop them.

Angela Xu

11/10/2019 05:19:34 pm

Since about half of the Anti-Imperialist League consisted of women, do you think that the group would have still been seen as effeminate if the league was made up of primarily men?

Hadley Seifert

11/10/2019 11:28:17 pm

I believe that if the anti-imperialist league had more men in it, it would be considered less effeminate but still not as manly as being imperialist. This is because it was considered to be manly when you showed your dominance over an individual or nation, which anti-imperialists did not want to do. With more men in the group, I believe it would have become more widely accepted in society and eventually the definition of manliness and how to prove you were manly would change. Only after these changes do I think that the anti-imperialist league would be considered less effeminate.

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 11:29:48 pm

I don't think that the men would have still been seen as effeminate since the reasons for them being effeminate were primarily them siding with the women. I believe it would have been like a difference of sides in any other war, not having regard to masculinity just different views. It might have taken a more prominent political disagreement.

Teara Anderson

11/10/2019 11:42:50 pm

Theodore Roosevelt is seen as one of the most influential and modern presidents of the United States. Despite the praise he received during his presidency, do you believe there was any hatred or animosity toward him before and during his presidency because of the views he expressed in his essay "The Strenuous Life"? If so from who and why?

Elizabeth Jackson

11/11/2019 10:36:05 am

In "The Strenuous Life", Roosevelt states, "Who among you would teach your boys that ease, that peace is to be the first consideration in their eyes- to be the ultimate goal after which they strive?... We do not admire the man of timid peace. We admire the man who embodies victorious effort." Roosevelt is portraying anti-annexationists as timid, weak, and unmanly. This negative portrayal of anti-annexationists may have caused them to dislike Roosevelt and his views.

Liz Aman

11/11/2019 11:09:21 am

I think feminists and supporters of women's suffrage may have disliked him during this time due to their contradicting beliefs. He believed the women did not have a role in the political sphere and that they should stick to their traditional roles in society. For example, he stated, " The woman must be the housewife, the helpmeet of the homemaker, the wise and fearless mother of many healthy children."

Nandana Pillai

11/13/2019 07:50:02 pm

Yes, I think he was most likely disliked by women for saying that they should only serve domestic purposes and do not need to be a part of policy making and that manly husbands can control their wives from this activist "propoganda". I think, he may have also been disliked by some men for being forced to colonize or take part in foreign pursuits to display their manliness, even if they didn't really want to, and also by the men he considered feminine and unmanly for wanting peace. It's actually quite surprising to see how the narrative has been changed and rewritten and how many people today do not know about Theodore Roosevelt's controversial ideals and character.

Elizabeth Jackson

11/11/2019 10:29:03 am

How do you believe the way the Anti-Annexationists were portrayed in speeches and political cartoons impacted the opinions of the general public towards the annexation of the Philippines?

Liz Aman

11/11/2019 10:56:53 am

The anit-imperialists were depicted as women, which significantly weakened their argument. This statement is supported in the political cartoon “The Anti-Expansion Ticket for 1900” which shows senator George Hoar at the forefront of an anti-imperialist parade. He is depicted as feminine, as he is wearing a bow tie that reads Auntie Hoar, and is also wearing a long skirt. Imperialists argued that antis did not represent the founding fathers, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

Anushka Vaidya

11/12/2019 07:25:13 pm

In imperialist propaganda, anti-imperialists were depicted as feminine, which was frowned upon in men at the time. Hoganson writes, "Imperialists... thought that the experience of holding colonies would create the kind of martial character so valued in the nation's male citizens and political leaders." This quote shows how much feminine traits in men were disapproved of, and how the imperialists believed men could become 'more masculine'.

Anisha Harkara

11/12/2019 09:45:22 pm

Imperialists used images of savage, childish, and feminine Filipinos to justify the US's actions. They similarly viewed anti-imperialists in that fashion. At the time, being feminine was related to the inability to govern.

Liz Aman

11/11/2019 10:52:40 am

Kristen L. Hoganson strongly believed that the primary motive for the United States' involvement in the war was the desire for men to prove their manhood and martial character. For example she stated, "Imperialists wanted to build a manly character not only because they were concerned about American men's standing relative to other races and nations but also because they were worried about American men's position vis-a-vis women." How did the concept of manhood that derived from the Spanish-American War and the Philippine War impact future feminist movements such as women’s suffrage?

Aditya Tripathi

11/11/2019 06:57:35 pm

Roosevelt, Beveridge, and Lodge felt that governing foreign countries would give them the power to come home and ‘govern’ their households in the same manner, in effect quieting the women’s equality movement. We see that in this quote, "They believed that more authoritative men would dispel the pernicious ‘propaganda’ of women’s equality and cause women to return to their domestic pursuits...for they assumed that by teaching American men to wield authority, such policies would teach them to govern their household with a firm, though benevolent, hand.”

Kailynn Roberts

11/11/2019 11:43:30 am

Why do you think American society was so rooted in the cause of better people who were “less fortunate,” even though the US was resting in a time when the US needed more attention?

Varun Iyer

11/11/2019 12:09:26 pm

In what ways could the US have gotten the same imperial benefits while avoiding war?

Amay Patel

11/11/2019 01:08:28 pm

America could have formed trade organizations and treaties with other nations and strengthened their influence through diplomatic means.

Dhairya Desai

11/11/2019 01:14:59 pm

I don’t think there was a way to avoid war just because of the American views and how they always push for war. A way I think America could have gotten the same benefits without going to war was by either avoiding Philippines and going straight to China or rather setting up a small base on one of the islands rather then attacking Philippines.

Femi Chiegil

11/11/2019 06:09:11 pm

I don't think it would have been a good idea to avoid the war because that alone would cause a war regardless, however if the phillipines were kept out of sight from the Americans, then there would be no need for the imperilization

Varun Iyer

11/12/2019 07:59:05 am

disregard

Varun Iyer

11/11/2019 12:14:36 pm

What effects did American imperialism and its motivations have on the US in both the short term and long term?

Dhairya Desai

11/11/2019 01:06:49 pm

This isn’t a a long term effect of the war but other wars from the past, because of the wars from the past and the views in the past, America continues to attack and push first instead of thinking of alternatives. A long term effect from American Imperialism was the need for men to be people with more power and have masculinity.

Christian Lauchengco

11/11/2019 03:39:48 pm

In the short term, the United States secured trade routes to China and increased its status in the world. Another short term effect was that the US became involved in fighting more insurrections aimed at preventing their control of territories. In the long term, the US became much closer to the Philippines. In World War 2 the Japanese attacked the Philippines and the American soldiers there less than a week after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Femi Chiegil

11/11/2019 05:46:16 pm

The long term effects of imperialism was the need for more masculinity in this era and also people converting their religion while the short term effect of imperialism was the need for the US to gain economic and territorial power

Aman Kumar

11/14/2019 12:39:55 am

In the short term, I have a quote that says "American men made overseas colonies appear desirable not only for their economic and strategic beliefs but also for their character-building potential." An increase in patriotism and masculinity were an immediate effect of imperialism. In the long term, we built military bases in the Philippines which helped give them some level of defensive support.

Hallie Salas

11/11/2019 12:23:18 pm

Before this discussion I had never heard much about the Philippines War, and heard even less about the causes of the War. One cause that stood out to me was the growing viewpoint of feminine middle-class American men who needed to go to War and fight to regain "status". I had never heard of this before and found it highly amusing that this particular cause and the hierarchical view of men and women in society was what motivated a War.

Dhairya Desai

11/11/2019 12:57:17 pm

Did America go to war mainly to gain the Philippines or was it just because they wanted to use the Philippines so that they can gain economic power and territorial power? If so, was this a justified reason to go to war and could there have been an alternative to gaining these advancements?

Seokhee Kim

11/11/2019 01:28:40 pm

I feel like the America went to war mainly to use the land for their gain in economic power and territorial power. The Americans went to the Philippines in order to conduct business, trade, they wanted to become an empire and start to control land all over the world. I wouldn't say it's a justified reason to go to war and there could've been an alternative to gaining these advancements as in signing a treaty of some kind that benefits both sides of the country.

Joey Caputo

11/11/2019 01:42:10 pm

I feel like it was a mix of the want for economic power, territorial power and to make men more manly. The U.S. gained a lot from gaining control of the Philippines. In terms of territory, they have more of an edge on other imperial powers like Spain. They also have the extra land almost halfway across the globe, which can help them economically as well. They can have imports and exports easily sent and received from nations that are closer, making them have an easier access to new potential allies. This, in my opinion is not justified. There are usually alternative ways to do things, especially in terms of economic territorial power. The U.S. could've made peace with the Filipinos and maybe made an outpost in the Philippines.

Varun Iyer

11/11/2019 02:52:06 pm

Are you talking about the Philippine-American War or Spanish-American War? The US did not go to war with Spain to gain control of the Philippines, however, I think that the Philippine-American War occurred because the United States wanted to gain economic and territorial power, prevent male degeneracy, and used the "civilization of Filipinos" as a justification for their imperialist actions. I do not think their actions were justified; they could have created some sort of agreement in which the US could use Philippine ports to trade with the rest of Asia and gain access to those markets. This way, they could achieve the economic gain they wanted, and would be established as a world power and world economic force.

Dhairya Desai link

11/12/2019 06:11:37 pm

Yes

Ryan Xiao

11/12/2019 12:19:44 am

The main reason the US started the Philippine War was so that they could gain a stronger influence in the Eastern Hemisphere and have stronger trade and communication with Asian and Oceanic countries. It is not justifiable, however, as the US was not in need of colonizing the Philippines.They simply wanted it to spread their influence and supposed "white superiority". There weren't many alternatives as negotiations had previously already taken place with Spain, but to no avail. War was the quickest and easiest way to gain the Philippines.

Hayley White

11/12/2019 07:23:14 pm

America went to war to expand their power in the world and to boost their economical status. I think this was justified in the American perspective of the time, because other countries were becoming world leaders and American felt that they were falling behind. I think that there was other logical alternatives to war, but knowing the American feeling of the time regarding people of other races, they felt superior and that assimilation or acculturation would have only degraded their country, therefore it was more beneficial in their eyes to annex the Philippines and not mix it with their "pure" American population.

Amay Patel

11/11/2019 01:06:58 pm

Why did the author put so much emphasis on being "more manly" and starting conflict just to maintain masculinity. Do these reasons justify going to war? Are they even the main reasons for the start of the war?

Mia Ameen

11/11/2019 05:22:37 pm

The author's point was that going to war to maintain masculinity was not justified reasoning at all. She claimed that most American men became involved with the war because they were afraid of becoming "too feminine". However, we do not know if that really was a main reason of the start of the war. I believe that even though it may have played a role in motivating men to go to war, it was not a main reason, because not many leaders implicitly stated that the war had to be fought mainly to maintain mens' masculinity.

Sharan Sivakumar

11/12/2019 03:39:35 pm

The author put so much emphasis behind being more manly and starting conflict just to maintain masculinity because those were two of the main reasons as to why America went to war int the first place. These reasons do not justify going to war because being more masculine has nothing to do with the amount of political power a country has.

Uma Bhat

11/12/2019 04:25:10 pm

While I personally believe that masculinity was most definitely a reason that contributed to the ferocity of the war, it was more an underscoring motive than one that served as an overall catalyst. As the author mentioned, there were definitely other motivators as well -- economics, location, etc., and while the US wanted to cash in on those masculine dominance seemed to be portrayed as "just an added bonus".

Joey Caputo

11/11/2019 01:31:04 pm

If the Spanish-American War did not happen, it is safe to say that the U.S. wouldn't have pushed to gain control of the Philippines, how would the U.S. try to empower men then? Were there possible substitutions in which the U.S. did not exploit the Philippines?

Mia Ameen

11/11/2019 05:35:03 pm

If the Spanish-American War had not happened, the U.S. would've maintained mens' position of superiority the rest of population by continuing to discriminate against women, immigrants, and African Americans implementing unfair laws and denying minorities the right to vote.

Larry Tian

11/12/2019 05:59:07 pm

I believe that if the Spanish-American war never happened, the US wouldn't have pushed to control the Philippines. As the Philippines were originally controlled by the Spanish, and as a result of defeat, they had to give up this territory. If the Spanish-American war never happened, the Philippines would of most likely stayed under Spanish control. I believe that the empowerment of men was more of a drive for elites to advocate for the annexation of the Philippines. It allowed for other men to call people "cowards" if they had anti-imperialistic ideas and portray them as feminine. If the Philippines weren't on the table, I doubt they would try to "empower men".

Christian Lauchengco

11/11/2019 03:33:19 pm

If the United States had just let the Philippines rule themselves, do you believe that other countries like Japan, Germany, or Britain would have moved in to take control of the country as some Americans claimed? Or was this just used by US politicians to excuse American imperialism?

Mia Ameen

11/11/2019 05:38:04 pm

If the US had let the Philippines go, other countries, like Spain or other major European powers would've definitely attempted to annex the islands because they were also imperialist powers looking to gain a foothold in the Chinese trade market. Spain had already made advances on Cuba, another island in the US west coast, so it definitely would've attempted to make advances on the Philippines as well.

Gustav Cedergrund link

11/12/2019 12:45:01 pm

I don't think that European Powers would have attempted to take control of the country because of the awkward positioning. European would have to work around Malaysia and Indonesia to get there when there were easier roots available to China. One nation that would have capitalized on Filipino Independence in the future would be Japan, who later was an aggressor towards the Philippines during the Second World War. I think that it was mostly used as an excuse my politicians to endorse further movement in the Philippines.

Annie Hu

11/12/2019 09:11:50 pm

I think that if the United States had not made moves towards the Phillipines then another European power definitely would have moved in to take advantage of them. Other European powers like Great Britain and Spain had already imperialized in Africa and other places, so the Phillipines would just be another place in a long place of colonies for them. There was also a geographical advantage of the Phillipines in that it allowed access to Asia and more specifically China and its economic potential, something that all European powers would have wanted. However it is still imperialism, just done by Americans before other European powers.

Pratina Kandru

11/11/2019 04:44:35 pm

The US had many reasons for imperialism and expansion, two of these reasons being will to prove masculinity and economic interest, which of the two do you believe was more influential?

Darren Chang

11/11/2019 06:41:07 pm

I think that economic interest was either more influential or more of a priority for the U.S. at the time. While the idea of a strive for masculinity showed in many leaders and politicians calling for expansion, i believe economic interest was a bigger part of the war, as wealthier, more influential people in America would seek greater economic opportunity over "bettering" the American public.

Aditya Tripathi

11/11/2019 06:48:08 pm

I believe the economic interests were more influential as the US had desires to find new markets for trade. By extending colonial power throughout the world, the US would have new trading partners and markets. Furthermore, the US would be closer to new markets; when the US became a colonial power in the Philippines, it opened up trade with East Asia.

John Bass

11/11/2019 08:32:14 pm

The war was likely influenced far more by economics, as gaining the Philippines would have given the US a great advantage in the competition for Chinese markets, a priority shown diagram, "Value of U.S. Exports," which shows the export values in China and Japan rising at a faster rate than any other country.

DJ Gill

11/12/2019 04:19:56 pm

I believe that the US was more influenced by the economic interest and the economic value. The US pursued land in the Pacific to gain economic value and to have a post near China. They felt like the Philippines was the perfect place for this. I also think that the will to prove masculinity came from the idea of imperialism and economic expansion.

Kimberly Caputo

11/12/2019 04:35:50 pm

Although both motives were evident in the reading I feel as though that America want more of an economic standing to once again gain more power and to prove to other reputable countries that America can and wants to accomplish more and is not done expanding.

Morgan Kelley

11/12/2019 08:52:31 pm

Between the stated factors of masculinity and economics within the promotion of imperialism and expansion, I believe that economics played a greater role in combination with race relations and superiority. The Philippines acted as a middle ground for trade between Asia and the Americas, making it economically valuable. Additionally, the nation had been viewing the great riches that the European powers had gained within imperialism and wanted to share within the wealth.

Anastasia Neff

11/19/2019 01:05:50 pm

Economic interest was definitely more influential in terms of reasons for imperialism and expansion. The argument of it being to prove masculinity was really just an excuse and a reasoning behind their truly evil intentions. Even if you were to argue that it was to prove masculinity the real reason behind even that was to gain success since things in the US were falling apart, making it again more about economic interest.

Femi Chiegil

11/11/2019 05:29:20 pm

Do you think imperialism increased America's military power?, if yes, how? and if no, why do you think so?

Allan Gilsenan

11/11/2019 06:38:45 pm

I think that imperialism did increase America's military power. In relation with our discussion, when the US imperialized the Philippines, they gained a level of respect from other world powers. By taking control of the Philippines, the US proved that it was not afraid to use its military to get what it wanted. This inherently increased America's military power because other nations realized the threat of the US military, which made them more likely to submit to America's requests. In this way, the respect and fear held by foreign nations of the US military after the Spanish-American War increased American military might.

Austin Nguyen

11/11/2019 09:19:30 pm

I think imperialism definitely increased America's military power. Realistically, in order to conquer and control other lands, a country needs strong military might. The same goes for America and their imperialistic actions. In order to control the Philippines, they had to increase their military might greatly not only to take the land, but also to enforce their policies.

Tanvi Musale

11/12/2019 03:33:29 pm

Imperialism did increase America's military power. As America began to expand overseas such as into the Pacific Islands, they established military bases further away from their mainland. This resulted in them having a wider reach and influence, thus increasing their military power.

Kishan Patel

11/12/2019 06:11:18 pm

I do believe that imperialism increased America's military power because once they imperialized the Philippians they gained a certain amount of respect from other people around the world. Also after taking over the Philippians they gained their people and their troops making it so that the United States military power could grow and become stronger.

Regan Glass

11/12/2019 11:10:04 pm

I do believe that imperialism increased America's military power because it provided them with a more forceful way of achieving their goals. Before imperialistic power occurred, the US was already succeeding economically and politically, but when more power came into play, it just made them more forcefully stronger. This was a large gain for the US, but a bigger threat to other countries.

Mia Ameen

11/11/2019 05:42:09 pm

Hoganson makes a very specific argument with her article. What does her argument reveal about the status of women at the time of the war?

Tanvi Musale

11/12/2019 04:45:51 pm

Before the war and American men "regaining" their masculinity, women were not only involved in the politics at that time but also they worked outside of their homes. This would mean that the women were gaining influence and more women were joining the cause of equality between the sexes. At the time of the war, men began to push women down more. An example of this is Fernald and his opinion about how the women need to act more feminine and go back into the home and kitchen. The author's argument about how the war was about men and their masculinity reveals that in order for the men to get their status in society back, they would've to(and did) push the women back down to their former status.

Aditya Tripathi

11/11/2019 06:30:40 pm

“In this tract, Fernald said that ‘for high manly health,’ boys needed a ‘certain roughness and severity of exercise,’ but that women would be destroyed by such strenuous endeavors.” This quote shows not only the divide of men and women at the time but the idea that men were more intelligent than women and could handle the nation’s issues at this time.

Aditya Tripathi

11/11/2019 06:31:57 pm

^meant to be a reply to Mia Ameen's question about the status of women at the time of war

Aditya Tripathi

11/11/2019 06:53:36 pm

“The newspaper editor Henry Watterson conveyed this idea in his History of the Spanish-American War, ‘Above all it [the war] elevated, broadened, and vitalized the manhood of the rising generation of Americans.’” - One of the outcomes of the war was that America was internationally recognized as a powerful country, did this add to the pride Americans felt about their manliness?

Sharan Sivakumar

11/12/2019 03:17:51 pm

I believe that America's newfound place among the global powers of the world did contribute to a sense of American pride because in their eyes, it really showed how America as a country could make other countries better and if I was an American at the time, I would definitely feel pride in that my country is "helping" the world through imperialism.

Aman Kumar

11/14/2019 12:09:21 am

It did add to the pride of the Americans, in the text it says "There is not a man here who does not feel four hundred percent bigger in 1900 than he did in 1896." This proves that Americans felt more patriotic and manly as a result of America being a global power.

Jamie Long

11/11/2019 07:33:18 pm

During the discussion we talked about many different push and pull factors behind the Philippine war. To what extent do you think the class divide in America at this time played a role in the reasons why people were for/against imperialism? In what ways did class directly influence the views people had about imperialism?

Brenna Hanson

11/11/2019 09:45:34 pm

Class differences definitely influenced people's views on and motivations for imperialism. Focusing on the masculinity aspect, Hoganson writes, "Some men continued to be plagued by anxieties that an extended peace would lead to, as one author put it, 'effeminate tendencies in young men,' foremost among them the middle- and upper-class white men who enjoyed the many comforts of industrial society." For a lot of America (especially the lower class), the degeneration of the upcoming generation of men wasn't a motivation because they weren't seeing as dramatic changes in their lifestyle. It was the upper and middle class white men who were seeing their power being limited by women's activism and the effects of industrialization on a perceived "ideal" lifestyle, thus they responded by attempting to preserve their power and status.

Javairia Qadir

11/12/2019 10:09:29 pm

I think the class divide had a lot to do with imperialism because of the huge shift in roles and needs of all classes as more people began to move to the middle class. Social Darwinism plays a significant role in how classes influence the views on imperialism because of the upper class was participating in politics the most and had the upper hand in opinions and decisions based on their needs also the inequality still existed even when it was meant to be closed. The whole concept on how the rich will become richer and the poor will always be poor emphasized the different goals for each class.

Nadiya Patel

11/11/2019 07:37:09 pm

During the discussion, we predominantly talked about how the war correlated to the idea of making American men more masculine and virtuous. The war was known to make men less "soft" and "materialistic." However, what would have happened had America lost the war? Do you believe that there would have been such a great correlation between masculinity and the valorization of war?

Kimberly Caputo

11/12/2019 04:32:52 pm

If America had lost the war I felt it would have been a direct reflection on the government and the soldiers, they would also have been seen as less manly because they were defeated by a more feminine country , in their words. I also felt as though if America had lost , America would continue to try to fight another war and win to prove themselves as a strong country that can stand on its own.

John Bass

11/11/2019 08:27:32 pm

In the argument document, the author states, "Yet given the brutality of the war... such humanitarian assertions seem more a justification of imperialist policies than a reflection of a guiding spirit of altruism." Why do you think the author dismisses the claim that humanitarianism was the cause of the war but takes seriously the claim that it was the desire the increase masculinity?

Austin Nguyen

11/11/2019 09:15:38 pm

During the discussion we talked about how women's' rights were questioned and re-evaluated during the period along with Americans' perceptions of manliness. Did the increased suppression of women actually increase the amount of activity in the women's rights movement?

Seokhee Kim

11/12/2019 03:48:58 pm

I do believe that the increased suppression of women actually increased the amount of activity in the women's rights movement. As women suffrage and gender discrimination was still going on, with more suppression on women, more women stood up for themselves and increased the amount of activity in the women's rights movement.

Kimberly Caputo

11/12/2019 04:28:50 pm

Women's suppression, in my perspective was at a high point during this time, with the citizens seeing being a women as a weakness I feel it caused many woman suffragist to start laying a foundation to get more rights and involvement within the government. Also it was at this time that we see the word feminine as a derogatory term used to describe a country that was not seen as strong enough to hold itself together which I also believed encouraged women to become more involved with wanting rights in the government.

Darren Chang

11/12/2019 05:03:03 pm

I think that the increased movement towards masculinity at the time did lead to a stronger Women's Rights movement, but I also think that the ideas of masculinity were a response to a slowly increasing Women's Rights movement. A couple of the primary source documents showed how the men feared the "doom of society" as people were drifting from their pre established social norms. I think that the strive for masculinity discussed in the document was an attempt to reestablish social roles and it subsequently garnered an increase in Women's Rights and independence.

Hayley White

11/12/2019 07:16:15 pm

I believe that the suppression of women during/after the wartime did increase the activity in the women's rights movement, because women felt empowered when they filled in the prominently male jobs in the workforce when the war began and men left the homefront as soldiers, but when they returned, women felt that they were being deprived of something that they had proven to be fully capable of. Because of losing the jobs they had gained during the war, women were motivated to gain respect and rights to have jobs of their own outside of the house that proved their capabilities and their equality to men.

Semeon Petros

11/12/2019 11:15:03 pm

I think the increased suppression of women led to an increase of women right's activists and movements. This could be seen in the foundation that these activists created that would allow women to hold more positions of power.

Aman Kumar

11/14/2019 12:18:25 am

The increased suppression of women did increase the amount of activity in the women's rights movement because of the rise of the women's suffrage movement. Since politicians were unwilling to listen women reformers, they realized the only way to achieve reform was to get the right to vote.

Meredith G Burns

11/12/2019 12:13:40 am

In the Hoganson article, it talked about how the war could help prove a man's “manhood”, which helped promote the idea that women were less assertive and meant for the home. Do you think that this idea is still set forth in conflicts that are happening today?

I think that in a way this idea is still happening today. In society some people still see war as a "manly" thing and that women don't have a place there. Obviously I think that it has gotten better, but I still think the idea is present.

Meredith G Burns

11/12/2019 12:17:17 am

In the Hoganson article, one of the reasons that the imperialists used was that the Philippines were unable to get care of themselves and need the United States help. Do you think this is a valid reason, or reason enough to go through war?

I don't think in this case, this was a valid reason. I also think it wasn't the true reason. I think the true reasons was for the markets. I think that people wanted more reasons to start a war so they come up with the idea that the Philippines couldn't govern or take care of themselves. Then when they made this reason, white supremacy played a big part in helping the cause.

Nishka Mathew

11/13/2019 11:10:33 pm

I don’t believe that this is a valid reason because the view that the Philippines were unfit to take care of themselves is based purely on ethnocentrism. Americans were using their standards of civilization and education to judge the Philippines. I also agree that white supremacy played a huge role in the reason to go to war because Americans believed that only white people were capable/fit to govern. As a result of this war, the Filipinos had no say as to who was governing them and was forced to assimilate into American culture.

Meredith G Burns

11/12/2019 12:19:26 am

Imperialists discouraged “women’s growing political presence” as they gained more active roles in government. This threatened the authority of men and gave way to concern over the safety and protection of women as men sought to shelter them from political life, believing them more fit to maintain a household and raise children. This was used as a reason to start war.

Javairia Qadir

11/12/2019 10:02:53 pm

I believe gender roles played a huge role in this event because it challenges the rights women have already gained and also renews the old saying of how women belong working in the house and keeping the house like a family. They also used the term to represent weakness and also used it as a reason why women shouldn't be participating in politics.

Gustav Cedergrund link

11/12/2019 01:15:54 pm

Was American reasoning for going to war with the Philippines a continuation or change of the reasons for the Spanish American War? To what extent and in what ways?

Seokhee Kim

11/12/2019 03:37:43 pm

I believe that the reasoning for going to war with the Philippines is a change of reasons from the Spanish American War. The Americans went to war with Spain was in order to free Cubans from imperialism while they went to war with the Philippines, because the Philippines resisted the change in colonial rulers and they wanted independence.

DJ Gill

11/12/2019 06:28:51 pm

I believe that America going to war with the Philippines was a continuation to some extent. They still had a sense of Manifest Destiny and expansion and they were some what thirsty for land. But the part that differs is that in the Filippino war, they were thirsty for economic reasons while it was different for the Spanish American war.

Semeon Petros

11/12/2019 07:40:19 pm

It think the war with the Philippines was a continuation of the same ideas as seen in the Spanish American War. The main reasons, which was to expand the US territory and influence and the economic gain were present in both conflicts. The only notable difference was the addition of masculinity to the Philippine War.

Sharan Sivakumar

11/12/2019 03:12:45 pm

In the discussion we talked about some of the reasons for the war. One of them was the economy and politics at the time. To what extent did the American economy and politics at the time affect the decision to go to war with the Philippines?

Tvisha Shete

11/12/2019 05:20:46 pm

The American Economy at the time as in a state of economic crisis. The American Market at the time was described as being "cut off", with a lack of trade and production to support the economy. But with the appeal of China's markets to near the Philippines, which was seen as a base to secure eastern profits, it drove the desire to go to war.

Anushka Vaidya

11/12/2019 07:34:25 pm

The Philippines were seen as a "stepping stone" for America's "share of eastern profits," according to the Hoganson article. Because the Philippines were close to the China market, America saw that as an opportunity to participate in economic activity in the east. This helped the imperialist's argument for going to war.

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru

11/12/2019 03:29:47 pm

How would analyzing different points help the authors argument?

Kimberly Caputo

11/12/2019 04:20:53 pm

Why does the author describe the Philippines as "Feminine"? Do you believe that if America had lost the war, that American soldiers would have been seen as less than a man, if so why?

tyler schueller

11/12/2019 05:05:18 pm

they referred tho Filipinos as feminine because they were generally smaller than american men and it made americans look tougher. i also believe that if america lost the war we would have steam rolled over the philippines to assert our dominance.

Manasvi Marthala

11/12/2019 05:41:59 pm

The author describes the Philippines as feminine to show the resoning the Americnas had in taking control of the Philipines. They would be seen as less of a man if they had lost the war because in their mind the Philippines were feminine, to them meaning weak and not powerful. If they lost against the Philippines it would mean they lost to "women" and that means that they are weaker than females.

Pratina Kandru

11/12/2019 07:17:08 pm

I believe that the author describes the Philippines as feminine in a way to make them seem inferior compared to America which was seen as masculine. The author uses the word feminine with a negative connotation to make the Philippines appear less capable, weak, and dependent compared to America. This therefore is used as justification in order to annex the Philippines. I do not believe if they lost the war they would seem less as a man for the soldiers still fought bravely and risked their lives. If anything I believe that the loss would not be taken lightly and it would fuel America to work harder and achieve more manliness.

tyler schueller

11/12/2019 04:58:36 pm

Do you believe that the philippine war was actually caused by "toxic masculinity" or was it more of a culmination of multiple bigger things.

Larry Tian

11/12/2019 05:53:43 pm

I believe that "toxic masculinity" wasn't the sole cause, but it played somewhat of a role in causing the war. Each of the articles focused on a different topic, and the one we mainly focused on during the discussion blamed it heavily on masculinity. I believe that masculinity did have somewhat of a role, as many people wanted men to remain "manly" and for women to remain as housewives and such. On the other hand, I think economics had more of a role in the war, as the US wanted to expand their markets into Asian, especially into parts of China. The statistics in the reading even showed this expansion of trade with China due to the Philippines.

Kishan Patel

11/12/2019 06:07:52 pm

I believe that the Philippine war was somewhat caused by "toxic masculinity" but I don't think it was the complete reason for the war. I believe that the war was actually caused because the U.S wanted closer relations with world powers and wanted to expand their trading empire to Asia.

Hayley White

11/12/2019 07:11:19 pm

I believe that the war was caused by the desire for the betterment of manhood in the common class sector of the United States. I don't think that was the goal of the US government, but it does seem evident that they used it to their advantage by using to persuade people to join the war as soldiers. For the government other factors were more important in causing the war, such as a desire to expand world power, gain trade ports, and boost the economy of the US.

Pratina Kandru

11/12/2019 07:11:51 pm

I believe that masculinity was definitely used as motivation in order to get civilians to fight in the war but not necessarily the main reason. I feel like the main reason was more economical in order to expand territory and also an obligation fueled by the belief of white man’s burden and manifest destiny.

maddie girolimon

11/12/2019 07:45:46 pm

I think the reason imperialism spiked so much and became so important and relevant was because of toxic masculinity but I think that manifested into more economic reasons for starting the Philippine war even though the idea of superiority was still present in both gender and race.

Darren Chang

11/12/2019 04:58:51 pm

One thing I wanted to touch on was how the ideas of masculinity at the time influenced American society. To what extent do you think that the public as a whole supported this strive for manliness, and how do you think that affected the media and political atmosphere at the time?

Tvisha Shete

11/12/2019 05:28:48 pm

In this time period, the push for women's rights were rarely supported by men at the time, which most people saw as unnecessary and something that would "degrade" American values seen as masculine. Even the Anti-Imperialist leaders that were male did not fully believe in female empowerment, but rather used the movement as a way to gain support for their own cause. In other words, even though they allowed women to voice their opinions in the movement, it was still not taken without prejudice from the media and political leaders.

Tanvi Musale

11/12/2019 05:21:09 pm

In class we touched on this a bit but: does the fact that we don't have the perspectives of all of the parties involved(such as anti-imperialists, Filipinos, women) change your opinion/perspective about this topic?

Tvisha Shete

11/12/2019 05:38:14 pm

I do think that not having everyone's perspective is something that the author used to develop our opinions about the war, as the author may have intentionally left out or barely touched on the opinions of the Filipino people and anti-imperialists to lead the reader to support that the causes of the Philippine War in the perspective of Imperialists. If the author had discussed the opinions of women and anti-imperialists in detail, the focus of the topic the author is trying to convey would be blurred, and would take away from the causes of the war to the impact and opinions on the war. In summary, yes, I do believe that not having the perspective of other parties does change my perspective on the topic.

Pratina Kandru

11/12/2019 07:09:30 pm

It is very important that we have the whole story before making claims and assertions. Without the entire story we may be missing crucial information that may affect one’s opinion drastically. Leaving out viewpoints can also make one’s argument one sided. Therefore, I do believe that my perspective may change if we had all of the information.

maddie girolimon

11/12/2019 07:43:18 pm

I think because we are lacking such a broad spectrum of input in this annexation it makes these documents and the information gathered less credible. Because of this it makes it difficult to understand all stand points on the topic which in turn makes it difficult to be able to have a strongly supported stand point for any side other than that of the pro imperialists.

Anushka Vaidya

11/12/2019 07:52:48 pm

It is definitely important to have all sides of the topic before drawing a conclusion, so I do think it is possible for my perspective on this topic to change, if we were given the other parties points. There may be crucial information from another perspective that could be left out by the one taken by the article.

Morgan Kelley

11/12/2019 08:40:13 pm

Yes, I do believe that without having the complete input and views on a subject from all perspectives, it is not necessarily possible to get a comprehensive understanding of the subject or historical event. Beyond Imperialism, I believe that this idea extends into all matters of history. As mentioned in your questions, it must be noted during the discussion the lack of information of Anti-Imperialists, Filipinos, women, and African Americans, was detailed in our source with great support of the imperialistic agenda displayed.

Jeshelle Venancius

11/13/2019 09:26:56 am

Having primary sources would definitely influence the opinion of for or not as you could actually see the real evidence. The perspectives of those actually involved in this would be helpful in forming an opinion.

Jane Cho

11/13/2019 04:39:56 pm

I believe that if we had the perspectives of the different parties that were involved with this event, not only the imperialist perspective, we would have different opinions and ideas of this topic. Due to the fact that we only have one main perspective impacts how we see the event because we are seeing it from a biased perspective and don't know how the other parties felt during this time. This limits our view on the topic and how it impacted the different parties.

Manasvi Marthala

11/12/2019 05:40:10 pm

Is there a difference if a country rose on imperialistic ways vs. anti-imperialistic ways?

Avni Arora

11/12/2019 05:46:15 pm

Do you think the general American public believed that annexing the Philippines was for the good of the American economy or did they believe that Americans were racially superior and therefore had an obligation to "fix" the Filipino society.

Larry Tian

11/12/2019 06:02:59 pm

I believe it was mainly economics driving the annexation of the Philippines, as they wanted to expand trade and commerce into foreign markets and with China. Although, many people wanted to bring "civilization" and "fix" the Filipino society, I believe this was more of a justification to exploit the Philippines for their territory. Elites said they were "helping" so they could justify themselves and help to get more people to advocate for their opinion also, making themselves wealthier and more powerful.

maddie girolimon

11/12/2019 07:39:35 pm

I think that both of these are true. I believe the reason for annexing the Philippines was more for Americans economically benefiting but it think to gain support and to give justification of this act, it was sold as the idea that Americans were obligated to help because they were so much stronger and superior than the Philippines.

Srinidhi Ekkurthi

11/13/2019 04:22:21 pm

I believe that the main reason that drove Americans to annex the Philippines was the idea of "The White Man's Burden" and Social Darwinism. Therefore, from my understanding, Americans believed that they were racially superior and thought that they has a obligation to "fix" the filipino society. While economics played a role in the justification of imperialism, I strongly believe that the general public did not acknowledge this as the main reason.

Larry Tian

11/12/2019 05:51:27 pm

There were many conflicting viewpoints on the Philippines including one of the senators, disapproving of the annexation of the Philippines because he did not want other races in the US government. Do you think racial superiority played more of a role in helping to annex the Philippines or in discouraging the annexation of the Philippines?

Annie Hu

11/12/2019 08:42:08 pm

I think that the racial superiority played more of a role in discouraging the annexation of the Philippines because while the U.S. also gained new territory and power in the Philippines, they also did not want to give them any power. One senator in the primary sources even stated that they did not want other people on a different continent having a voice in the government because they did not see them as equals but as a people to be governed and ruled over.

Allen MacMillan

11/12/2019 09:04:30 pm

I think racial superiority played a significant role in annexing the Philippines. A view quite often expressed by white Europeans was that they were superior and needed to help the inferior savages build their territory and then use them for free labor.

Kishan Patel

11/12/2019 06:02:24 pm

How do you guys think the U.S would be different today if it didn't become an imperialist power back then?

Era Joshi

11/12/2019 08:25:49 pm

I feel like this war was one of the first America had to fight in after becoming an 'imperialist power'. The Spanish-American was important because it showed other world powers that America had what it took militarily to become a superpower, since at the time America had defeated the most powerful navy in the world. After this war, I feel like America was desperate to keep this title of 'imperialist power' which was one of the factors that caused us to expand into the Philippines. Today, America might not be as strong militarily if we weren't recognized as an imperialist force to be reckoned with, since we might not have had the motive to pursue expansion.

Taewan Park

11/12/2019 06:11:42 pm

After reading the primary sources and secondary sources, and analyzing them, how would you personally answer the question proposed at the very beginning of the secondary source: Why did the United States finish one war, waged in the name of liberty, only to start another, waged in behalf of empire?

Brenna Hanson

11/12/2019 06:21:20 pm

One thing I would like to point out is the continuation of Republican motherhood ideals into the 1900s. Roosevelt wrote, "The woman must be the housewife, the helpmeet of the homemaker, the wise and fearless mother of many healthy children..." How do you think the ideals of Republican motherhood and American masculinity were related, and how do you think that affected the Spanish-American war?

Anushka Vaidya

11/12/2019 07:11:25 pm

Hoganson writes, "Imperialists generally thought the Filipinos unfit for self-government." How much of a role does Manifest Destiny and white supremacy play in the causation of the war? Why is this important?

Lalitha Edupuganti

11/12/2019 07:41:12 pm

I think the idea of Manifest Destiny and white supremacy played a large role in the causation of the war because it was a "justification" by the Americans for their actions, saying that the ethnic groups needed help to govern and live. The idea of whites as superior and god's given land is important as it shows how American ideals throughout the expansion of America and trade has stood on the same ideas, from when Europeans first came to the Americas to the Mexican-American war and beyond. White supremacy is important to note because it is also guided by racism which was a prominent issue for most African Americans, Philippines, and Indians of the time. It is important to note that Americans were always driven by the ideals of superiority and power, though economic ideals and trade also contributed to their actions.

Lalitha Edupuganti

11/12/2019 07:42:23 pm

*Philippines should be Filipinos

Jane Cho

11/12/2019 07:19:01 pm

How did the beliefs of white supremacy affect how the US took action on the Philippines and treated Filipinos who lived there?

Annie Hu

11/12/2019 08:40:13 pm

There was some sense of white supremacy that played a role in the U.S.'s actions towards the Philippines because they believed that the Filipinos were uncivilized and needed the United States to govern them. However, this assumption was only one sided and the Filipinos were treated very poorly despite the United States trying to justify that they were helping them.

Lalitha Edupuganti

11/12/2019 09:35:49 pm

I think the idea of white supremacy found in the American-Philippines war can be also seen throughout the Mexican-American War. It was the repeated idea that whites were more civilized and were a higher authority compared to other ethnic groups. For this reason, both Philippines and Native Americans were treated as a lower class and many of their individual rights were taken away. This can be seen in the quote "“The Philippines offer a yet graver problem...Many of their people are utterly unfit for self-government, and show no signs of becoming fit…We have driven Spanish tyranny from the islands." The U.S. justified their actions for the Philippines by describing how they were saving the Filipinos from the Spanish tyranny. Many of these ethnic groups, Native Americans and Filipinos were used as labor because of their named status.

Regan Glass

11/12/2019 11:01:41 pm

The beliefs of white supremacy provided the US with unfair motives as to start war with the Philippines. It gave them the power to make decisions while many Filipinos did not want to be part of the US. Although they did not have much of a say, they continued to fight back for their freedom. The US continued to take advantage of the situation and try to profit off of the Philippines as much as possible with land and shipment of goods.

Isadora Siguenza

11/12/2019 11:11:39 pm

The idea of white supremacy was a factor within the US actions towards the Filipinos. Many of the men believed it was their duty to take action because the Filipinos were "incapable of self government" and "poorly civilized". They had justify the actions of bad treatment with the fact that they were simply helping.

maddie girolimon

11/12/2019 07:25:45 pm

Is there any voices that stand out against US imperialism involving the Philippines?

Lalitha Edupuganti

11/12/2019 08:29:27 pm

There were indeed voices that stood out against U.S. imperialism involving the Philippines, these groups were known as anti-imperialists. Women were seen to have strong roles in support to Anti-Imperialists, for example, in the Anti-Imperialist League, women were the majority contributors at meetings. Looking at a more specific example, some Americans were against imperialism in the Philippines because they believed it would harm American ideals and its homogeneity. This idea can be clearly described by Senator Mclaurin, "The great strength of our country is not merely its isolated position, washed on each side by the waters of a great ocean, but in a homogeneous population, speaking a common language, and with similar aspiration and ideas of liberty and civilization ...I believe the importance of the Philippines per se is greatly exaggerated."

maddie girolimon

11/12/2019 07:26:21 pm

What is the reason for imperialism of the Philippines truly about bettering Filipino civilization or what is it about bettering American economy and how so?

Evan Speelman

11/13/2019 09:11:21 pm

The imperialism of the Philippines was more about the American economy than being better than the Filipino civilization. While the United States did believe that they were ethnically superior to the Filipinos, the incentive of East Asian trade was a much larger factor in the annexation of the country. The Filipino takeover was very violent, with hundreds of thousands of civilians dying in the process. If the United States truly believed that they had to take over to protect and govern the Filipino people, the annexation would not have been nearly as militaristic and harmful to civilians.

maddie girolimon

11/12/2019 07:27:00 pm

In what ways did imperialism stem from and interconnect with the idea of manifest destiny?

Evan Speelman

11/13/2019 09:02:28 pm

Imperialism, like Manifest Destiny, promoted the idea that American expansion was justifiable and inevitable. Once America reached the western seaboard, the craving for expansion continued, and with all of the land in the continental United States belonging to the country, they set their sights on the islands of the pacific. While not being able to justify their pacific annexation under the guise of Manifest Destiny, the rise of imperialism was the obvious next step.

maddie girolimon

11/12/2019 07:30:03 pm

It was believed that taking the Filipino land was because it was given by God and it was their duty which ties into religion and also racial superiority. This is shown through a quote such as “ God has not been preparing the English speaking people for 1000 years for nothing but vain and idols self contemplation and self admiration“

maddie girolimon

11/12/2019 07:33:13 pm

There were the ideas that taking the land would help strengthen American economy in foreign trade and foreign relations. This idea is shown through a quote such as “ there’s much else involved here fast commercial and trade interest which I believe we have the right to guard and the duty to foster” which ties in with ideas such as through gaining the philipino territory America will become more economically stable and prosper more in world market in world trade.

maddie girolimon

11/12/2019 07:35:41 pm

There was an over arching idea that the Philippines could not govern themselves and they were not civilize or educated enough to do so, so in America not taking that land it would just go to waste. This idea was strongly shown through political cartoons such as the first one where the Philippines is represented as a scraggly monster with all these problems such as robbery and murder

Anushka Vaidya

11/12/2019 07:42:12 pm

In the Hoganson article, it states that James C. Fernald believed "the tendency of man is toward authority, command, and penalty," while he said, "women should be sheltered from the wider world for their moral well being." How does this belief play a role in justifying a reason for going to war? How much of an impact did this have on the war?

Nishka Mathew

11/13/2019 11:18:58 pm

The immense pressure of maintaining gender roles was a big reason that the older generation advocated for war. Many believed that men were becoming too "soft, self-seeking, and materialistic." They needed to prove their masculinity and distance themselves from effeminate characteristics by going to war. I think this also made men more ruthless when fighting because men couldn’t be seen as weak. This may have contributed to the many civilian casualties.

Anushka Vaidya

11/12/2019 07:56:30 pm

Would a different outcome of the war have changed the justifications of starting that war? If so, how? Would the ideas of gender roles, economic benefit, or racial superiority still be correlated is strongly? Why or why not?

Marta Chojkiewicz

11/13/2019 10:11:42 am

I think the war would be justified the same way, and be over justified, especially economic benefits. I think that if the US lost the war, officials would walk around and be like "We lost the war, but we started it to gain economic benefits." In other words, I think they would try to make excuses for why the war was started in the first place so that it wouldn't get a lot of hate.

Era Joshi

11/12/2019 07:58:22 pm

The article mostly talks about the viewpoint of the imperialists and their motives for expansion. Why do you think the motives of the anti-imperialists were left out and how does it contribute to the overall bias of the article?

Lalitha Edupuganti

11/12/2019 08:43:30 pm

I think the motives of the anti-imperialists were left out for the obvious reasons, the author's bias towards American imperialism of the time. This clearly contributes to the overall bias of the article as it shows that the author supports imperialism and the idea of masculinity. I also believe that in a way, anti-imperialists weren't left out rather their motives were shown as weaker or insignificant to those of imperialists. The author does describe anti-imperialists but he says how they were a blockade to Americans needed expansion of masculinity. So by showing the other group, anti-imperialists as feminine or bad, the imperialists strengthened their point like the author here.

Javairia Qadir

11/12/2019 09:59:39 pm

I think they left out the motives of the anti-imperialists were left out because of how the document focuses on the subject of imperialism and how it, itself had an impact on society that had a ripple affect. This article had mentioned only a few bits of information regarding anti-imperialism because of how imperialism was majority rule of the citizens.

Regan Glass

11/12/2019 10:55:10 pm

The views of anti-imperialists were left out most likely for equality reasons. Most anti-imperialists of the day were fighting for equal rights, and these groups included women and segregated races. Their views weren't very important because not all people wanted to provide them with those rights. It contributes to the bias of the article because it doesn't necessarily focus on the viewpoint of negative connotations and focuses more on why people believed the war was important.

Logan Siege link

11/22/2019 10:22:21 am

I think the main reason the ideals of the Anti-imperialists were left out might be because of the lack of impact they caused in the time period. There was obvious opposition to taking the Philippines but that did not stop the US from invading and taking control. This causes the article to lean towards supporting the ideals of imperialism in the United States, even if not completely intentional.

Morgan Kelley

11/12/2019 08:07:19 pm

Hodgson states that the definition of manhood switched during this time period. What do you believe caused this transition from “self-control” to “aggressive”?

Michael Herrera

11/12/2019 08:28:10 pm

Hoganson’s primary point throughout the article is that America got involved in the Phillipine War is because they wanted to preserve the idea of masculinity in the world because they felt that events like the Great Depression and the Feminist Movement created an environment that emasculated men. Thus leading to an environment that fed into the "aggressive" nature of men.

Michael Herrera

11/12/2019 08:10:41 pm

Why do you think Imperialists felt that men who opposed the war were feminine and didn’t have a proper manly and fatherly figure to raise them properly?

Morgan Kelley

11/12/2019 08:29:50 pm

Due to the transition in the idea of manhood within American society (from "self control" to "aggressive"), an idea of proving oneselves worth was created. Imperalits used this movement and transition to help push people further to their side by claiming you were not a "developed man" or "feminine" as a way to undermine them. They stated that the idea stemmed from being raised improperly or that there is something fundamentally wrong with their lack of support.

Isadora Siguenza

11/12/2019 10:49:04 pm

This is because at the time most men that had imperialistic motives and ideas were attempting to make a statement that they were aggressive in order to better the country. Men who did not support the war were referred to as soft and feminine because they did not contribute to the idea of "manliness" that would further prove the men's "strength". It is simply a depiction of the severe gender roles implemented on America at the time.

Jeshelle Venancius

11/13/2019 09:23:36 am

They believed that the men who thought that the men did not want to fight were too scared of dying or losing their family. This made them seem more feminine or scared

Annie Hu

11/12/2019 08:34:55 pm

In one of the primary sources, Senator John McLaurin says "An imperialistic democracy, like an atheistic religion is an impossible hybrid.” Do you believe that America's imperialist policies were a contradiction to the country as a democracy or not?

Michael Herrera

11/12/2019 09:12:01 pm

Yes, these policies do contradict the country's idea of being a democracy because the idea of seeing ourselves as racial superor is undemocratic. These policies also contradict the democracy as imperialism is the proccess of extending power without regard for others, which is undiplomatic and undemocratic.

Allen MacMillan

11/12/2019 09:24:57 pm

I don't think that Americas imperialist policies were in contradiction of the countries democracy, but it is hypocritical of the U.S. as a former colony to go and colonize a region. This was not on the other hand a contradiction to the countries democracy as the treaty was voted on by the U.S senate.

Allan Gilsenan

11/12/2019 09:21:40 pm

I definitely think that America’s imperialist policies contradict the country being a “democracy.’’ In the case of the Spanish-American War, the US taking over the Philippines was strictly a decision made by and mostly for the benefit of the upper-most of the American government and society, and more specifically made by Roosevelt. This is a blatant example of consolidation of political power in a central government and in the political and economic elite, which is not democratic by any measure. In this way, I agree with McLaurin that US imperialism contradicted the country’s democratic values.

Allen MacMillan

11/12/2019 08:54:19 pm

Do you believe that the thinking of the nations leaders that expanding the nation would prevent upper and middle class men from becoming effeminate played as big of a role in U.S. imperialism as portrayed by the author?

Joshua Rogers

11/12/2019 09:35:33 pm

In many ways it would prevent the middle class and upper class men form becoming effeminate. The war was seen as a adventure. To show how manly a person was. If you signed up and were sent to Cuba or the Philippine islands you were seen as a man. If you saw combat and killed a person you were seen as a man. In some cases men that didn’t get involved were ostracized from their community for being effeminate.

Jackson Pollard

11/13/2019 07:44:40 am

I think that this prevention of men from becoming effeminate didn't play as big a role in US imperialism as the author suggests. To me it seems that this was used as a justification for imperialism rather than a causation and it was often presented to the public rather than the potential economic and political benefits that the country could experience. This was the case because it was though that the justification of masculinity would be more well received by the American public, and so the role of this mode of thought was inflated by its public use.

Lalitha Edupuganti

11/12/2019 09:17:56 pm

Looking at the Mexican-American and the American-Philippines wars, in both, there were political officials that supported the outcomes of America, such as Polk and Theodore Roosevelt respectively. It is important to note that American actions such as violent expansion (Mexican war) and imperialism (Philippines) occurred to such an extent because of support of major politicians, which opposition groups didn't have. Opposition groups didn't do much to oppose the American ideals because they were pressurized by politicians. For example, going against America's actions was seen as feminine or rebellious. Looking at opposition groups throughout the wars America took part in, do you think that throughout the course of America's history, political power and influence had driven majority of Americans' actions or were their other reasons?

Joshua Rogers

11/12/2019 09:24:25 pm

If the US hadn’t taken the Philippine islands would they have remained independent, or would they have fallen to another imperial power like Japan, or The United Kingdom?

Connor Lauchengco

11/12/2019 09:39:11 pm

If the Philippine islands had been able to split away from Spain's rule I believe it is likely that another imperial power would have taken over the Philippines. Given Japan's drive to expand and their proximity to the Philippines they would be a likely suspect.

Allen MacMillan

11/12/2019 09:50:22 pm

If the U.S did not acquire the Philippines after the Spanish American war then the Spanish would have probably kept the territory and continued to use it as a colony.

Semeon Petros

11/13/2019 12:03:18 am

I think the Philippines would have been taken by imperial powers or a country that would use the people for economic gain. The Philippines had value to companies that traded in the area and was a stepping stone to the vast, widely-untapped Chinese market. Because of this, imperial powers would have fought over the land to ensure their economic success.

Evan Speelman

11/13/2019 09:50:20 pm

I believe that without United States interference, the Philippines would have fallen into the hands of a different powerful imperialist nation. At this time, Western powers and even some other Asian countries, like Japan, were exuding heavy imperial influence in Southeast Asia. While geographically the Philippines made the most sense for the United States to reach Asian trade, other countries would have also jumped on the chance for a large Pacific hold to increase their sphere of influence.

Anisha Harkara

11/12/2019 09:31:27 pm

The document discussed the idea of "manliness" during imperialism. Do you believe that this idea effected the Women's rights movement? If so, why?

Isadora Siguenza

11/12/2019 10:19:46 pm

Yes, the idea of "manliness" has originated as the ideology that man were become soft, and in order for the country to persevere new plans would have to be proposed and implemented as a way to help the country. Women's rising role in political activism as well as in the workforce played a major role within the arise of imperialism. As more women pushed for rights men's superiority led them to believe that imperialistic goals would fulfill their idea of "manliness".

Connor Lauchengco

11/12/2019 09:37:05 pm

Did the U.S. annexing and seizing territories violate fundamental U.S. beliefs in democracy and liberty?

Luna Hou

11/13/2019 07:29:33 am

I would argue that they did. Even though the U.S. claimed that they were annexing territories for those territories' own good, as they couldn't possibly effectively rule themselves, it was the right of the people living in those territories to decide how they wanted to be governed, and by trying to instill American values in these territories, the U.S. was really ironically depraving these people of their liberty.

Javairia Qadir

11/12/2019 09:49:39 pm

We did discuss the affects of imperialism on society including women and social Darwinism, but I wanted to know what you guys thought was the main reason why the citizens supported the annexation of the Latin lands? Was the U.S. itself stable enough to govern and integrate a whole other ethnicity into their country?

Crystal Gayle

11/12/2019 09:53:08 pm

Do you think that the Philippines would have eventually gained their independence from Spain if the U.S. never had a reason to go there leading to their imperialization?

Bryce Hagstrom

11/13/2019 10:02:14 am

Yes, because other successful rebellions occurred in this area and with Spain loosing its territories in Mexico I would have been a strategic time to rebel because of Spains weakness.

Isadora Siguenza

11/12/2019 10:12:29 pm

Do you think that in some ways presented in the article that one of the leading causes to imperialism was the rising activism of women?

Karen Jean

11/12/2019 11:13:00 pm

Yes for sure, they were beginning to take the men's role so something was needed to re assure the man's masculinity which ended up being war.

Noel Garcia

11/14/2019 09:19:17 pm

Women were fielding formerly male jobs during WWI, but the justification of war through reassurance of masculinity is puzzling. There were masculine ideals in the annexation of the Philippines (The stereotype that Filipino men were feminine), but to say that the US entered the WWI because of "Masculine motivations," completely ignores the attacks on the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegraph.

Ameena Farooqui

11/12/2019 11:40:22 pm

Yes the rising activism of women was one of the causes of imperialism. This is because imperialists themselves discouraged womens growing political presence as they gained more active roles in the government. This threatened the authority of men. Imperialists often used the idea of masculinity to strengthen their argument and those who opposed the war were condemned as being weak and unmanly.

Noel Garcia

11/14/2019 09:15:00 pm

I feel you've made it unclear. How does masculinity support that the rising activism of women was a cause of imperialism. The masculinity exhibited in imperialism correlates with the masculinity exhibited through anti-women's suffrage idea, that doesn't exactly lead to activism of women as a definitive cause of the United States imperialistic actions.

DJ Gill

11/12/2019 10:23:28 pm

How do you think anti-imperialist felt about the annexation of Philippines?

Karen Jean

11/12/2019 11:10:29 pm

Most likely angry because they saw all the harm and destruction that was done to the filipinos and thought it was immoral.

Jeshelle Venancius

11/13/2019 09:20:43 am

I believe that the anti-imperialists were angry about the annexation of the Phillippines as they saw the destruction and other work needing to be done

Marta Chojkiewicz

11/13/2019 10:03:26 am

Anti-imperialists were undoubtedly against the annexation. They advocated for using the resources going towards the Philippines to be used for the benefit of the US. They also formed an anti-imperialist league to argue against the annexation.

Emma Penel

11/13/2019 06:41:05 pm

Anti-imperialists opposed the annexation of Philippines, with one of their primary concerns being the idea that the "lesser" race of the Filipinos should not be incorporated into the U.S. Hoganson writes that they "drew on negative stereotypes of the Filipinos to argue that the United States should not admit the islands into the Republic." Because they felt that Filipinos were an inferior race, they did not want the Philippines to be annexed.

Shazia Muckram

11/13/2019 06:41:33 pm

Some who opposed the occupation were motivated by racism, fearful that annexation of the Philippines would lead to an influx of non-white immigrants. Like it says in the article, “representatives with a voice in directing the affairs of this country from another continent, speaking another language, different in race, religion, and civilization-a people with whom we have nothing in common.” This quote shows a mixture of both racism beliefs and anti-imperialist views as it puts other races down and considers them inferior to be part of the American government and in a way feared that people of other races would make some of the most important decisions of the nation.

Regan Glass

11/12/2019 10:49:57 pm

Do you believe that McKinley had valid reasons for taking control of the Philippines, or do you believe that he just had a desire for war?

Karen Jean

11/12/2019 11:12:05 pm

I don't think it was desire for war but more the desire of power, superiority and economic reasons. Having control of the Philippines gave them a lot more access to new resources.

Luna Hou

11/13/2019 07:32:55 am

I also definitely think that McKinley had more reasons for taking control of the Philippines than just because he wanted to go to war. Besides the resources that the Philippines could provide, many Americans also had an ingrained mindset of white superiority that arguably made them feel obligated to help the Philippines, or at least justified those actions in their minds. I believe that this is an important factor to consider when analyzing why there was so much support overall for the annexation of the Philippines.

Bryce Hagstrom

11/13/2019 10:00:29 am

McKinley had valid reason in his mind to take over the Philippines of the benefit of the US, but in reality these reason were racist views and I believe negotiations could have benefits both people instead of this disgusting war.

Shazia Muckram

11/13/2019 06:35:58 pm

I believe that McKinley had some valid reasons to go to war against the Philippines as he says in his speech, "And if the Dons were victorious they would likely cross the Pacific and ravage out Oregon and California coasts.” Imperialism was justified in his speech as the Americans had to go to war in self-defense from the Spanish and in order to protect their territory. However, some of McKinley's motives were not reasonable as he enjoyed the status and success that came with the war and still took over the Philippines even after knowing that they did not want another foreign power taking over them. McKinley believed that the Filipinos was incapable to govern themselves and that the America was compelled as a rising global power to guide the islanders.

Logan Siege

11/22/2019 10:18:24 am

I believe that McKinley had a more imperialistic view of the Philippines, as he wanted to gain resources and better trade relations with Asian countries. The desire was not as much for was as it was for power and gain.

Karen Jean

11/12/2019 11:09:37 pm

What could have been a possible compromise between America and the Philippines to avoid the conflict between them?

Luna Hou

11/13/2019 07:35:35 am

Perhaps if America was genuinely concerned about the well-being of the Philippines and their ability to rule themselves, they could simply have tried to work with the Filipino people rather than declaring war on them, providing them with resources and money to rebuild under certain circumstances. That way, America would still have influence over the Philippines (as that's what they desired, for various reasons), but wouldn't have to instigate bloodshed to achieve their goals in that regard.

Marta Chojkiewicz

11/13/2019 10:00:24 am

I think that America, like after the Spanish-American war, could have waited a few years to see what will happen. The lessons learned after that war clearly showed that it could have been avoided, just like this war with the Philippines. America could have peacefully negotiated a deal with the Philippines, that could have been more like a codeshare allie agreement, by exchanging resources. The Filipino would most likely enjoy the support of America, instead of a war that hurt both sides.

Ameena Farooqui

11/12/2019 11:20:50 pm

In the Hoganson article, imperialists claimed that the Philippines were unfit to govern themselves and were in need of United States intervention. Largely humanitarian obligations were used to justify this interventions. Was this "call to duty" idea a valid reason to go to war? And can this same idea be justified in today's current society?

Jackson Pollard

11/13/2019 07:38:14 am

At the time, this call to duty was considered valid, but in today's society this approach to intervention would likely receive more intense backlash. The "humanitarian" obligations used to justify American intervention were based upon the beliefs of racial superiority that most Americans have moved past in the modern world.

Bryce Hagstrom

11/13/2019 09:58:55 am

I don't believe this call of duty was a valid argument because for one nation to call another savage and unfit to govern is not valid just because the two nations have different political systems. Another reason for this call of duty was racism and race superiority that Americans felt towards the Filipinos which is morally wrong and unjust.

Noel Garcia

11/14/2019 09:11:50 pm

Although the class of the United States in this situation is questionable, that doesn't deny the fact that the Philippines economical status improved under United States jurisdiction.

Jackson Pollard

11/13/2019 07:25:52 am

How may the American public have responded differently if the annexation of the Philippines was presented first as an economic or political issue rather than a moral one? Would there have been less support this way?

Ashley Elliott

11/13/2019 07:27:36 pm

I think that there would have been even more support for the annexation if it was first justified as politically and economically motivated. Politics and the economy were larger motivations in the Westward Expansion which had just happened. After seeing the benefits it brought them, more people likely would have been interested in annexation. Then by also saying it was for moral reasons people would have felt like what they were doing was right and justified. Since moral reasons were presented first, more people likely realized that they were not justified in what they were doing.

Meghan Walker

11/13/2019 09:41:30 pm

I believe that in some ways it may have been harder to get some groups within America to support imperialism this way. Of course many people would be more inclined to support economic opportunity rather than the moral ideas presented, but if the Filipinos had not been shown as 'inferior' by the government, than I believe more people would have viewed what the government was doing as unjust or morally wrong.

Jeshelle Venancius

11/13/2019 09:18:32 am

This was not discussed during the seminar but what potential biases existed that could have portrayed the article as unfair and untrustworthy.

Ashley Elliott

11/13/2019 07:20:33 pm

In our seminar we talked about the idea that the articles were biased. They show the point of view of Americans and there is not any information from the point of view of people from the Philippines. The articles from the American point of view are also mostly just from the point of view of people in support of the colonization effort. Hearing from people who experienced colonization of the Philippines or hearing more from Americans against the colonization effort may have slightly changed our opinions on the situation even if we already believe it was not a good thing that they were forced into being colonized.

Meghan Walker

11/13/2019 09:39:20 pm

We discussed how the main article really only addressed the idea that colonization and imperialism was due to a need to express and instill 'manliness' back into American society. This completely ignores the multitude of other reasons such as economic opportunity or racism that fueled the ideas of imperialism.

Evan Speelman

11/13/2019 09:53:47 pm

Hoganson, the author of the secondary document about masculinity affecting the annexation, is a historian who has dedicated their studies to the history of the United States. While I don't believe her education leads her to have much bias in her stance on masculinity's effect on the annexation of the Philippines, I don't know that a male historian would have approached this topic in the same way, if at all. As a woman, I feel as though her lens looking into the motivations for this historical event are different than her male peers.

Aiden Hall

11/13/2019 09:33:55 am

During the occupation of the Philippines, the U.S. kept a few isolated bases and ports and left the rest of the country to pretty much govern itself, albeit only with their say so. This was done primarily to secure trade routes and resources. Is this any different from our military presence in countries like Iraq today where our primary motivation is securing oil in the region? Have we ever stopped being imperialist?

Marta Chojkiewicz

11/13/2019 09:42:45 am

This act of imperialism was commonly justified as an act of manliness. If the US were to execute a similar act today, what would historians justify the reasons as? Would it also be an act of manhood, or more focused on economic reasons, or something else?

Srinidhi Ekkurthi

11/13/2019 04:16:06 pm

If the US were to execute a similar act today, I strongly believe that historians and the United States would justify the reason as economic growth. The idea of achieving manhood is not as popular and driven as it was during that time period. Nowadays, relations with other countries are solely for economic or mutual gain and to imperialize would also fall under the same reasoning and justification

Isha Parikh

11/14/2019 05:11:56 pm

I agree that the United States would not use ideas of manhood to justify imperialism but rather ideas of economic growth. I think another reason they might give, which is similar to the reason they gave back then, is that they are helping the country by rebuilding it. Similar to how they justified it back then, people would think that the United States is genuinely helping this country or territory economically and/or politically.

Bryce Hagstrom

11/13/2019 09:56:27 am

Do you all believe this conflict could have been averted with negotiations and possibly Philippine independence?

Emma Penel

11/13/2019 06:10:27 pm

The Philippines might have been able to avoid conflict with the U.S. through negotiations, but even so, I don't think they would have gained independence entirely. McKinley writes, "we could not turn them over to France and Germany-our commercial rivals." This points to the idea that even if the Philippines had not fallen to U.S. control, other European imperial powers likely would have similarly exploited them for economic gain.

Evan Speelman

11/13/2019 08:53:19 pm

I don't believe this conflict could have been averted by negotiations. The US had their imperialist mindset locked down, and believed that if they didn't get to the Philippines, other European powers would. Any negotiations the US or the Philippines tried to initiate would have been overshadowed by America's fear of missing out on a stepping stone for East Asian trade in the Pacific.d

Srinidhi Ekkurthi

11/13/2019 04:10:52 pm

The author, Kristin Hoganson strongly asserted that the justification for imperialism by The United States was caused by a desire of manhood yet the primary documents manly focused on "The White Man's Burden" What do you think led to the Hoganson's conclusion?

Emma Penel

11/13/2019 06:01:51 pm

To what extent was the idea that the Filipinos could not govern themselves and needed the help of the U.S. to “civilize” them through education used to justify the annexation of the Philippines?

Ashley Elliott

11/13/2019 07:36:35 pm

The idea that Americans were providing "civilization" and education to Filipinos was a major factor in the annexation. It gave Americans a major reason why they "needed" to colonize the Philippines and why it would be "wrong" not to. The idea of "The White Man's Burden" was used justify their actions. It was likely a reason to make Americans feel better about the economic and political benefits they were gaining.

Nandana Pillai

11/13/2019 08:16:00 pm

The idea of white supremacy along with humanitarian ideals are mainly used to depict the idea that the Filipinos could not self-govern and needed to be civilized with education. This idea is depicted in various political cartoons of the time, portraying the Filipinos as savages and unmanly, whereas the Americans are large, strong and civilized-looking men. I think this justification was a very weak response to questions of why the annexation was necessary from anti-imperialists, even though, the real purposes like trade and revitalizing the manliness in the country are very thinly veiled with this answer.

Shazia Muckram

11/13/2019 06:07:28 pm

Like it is said in the article that one of the reasons for annexing Filipinos was because the Americans wanted to educate the them; but doesn’t that also give more power to by educating them which would cause them to build opinions and have their own points of view, and in this way they could rebel against the Americans? So why did they choose to educate the Filipinos even after knowing that it may give them more power?

Emma Penel

11/13/2019 06:25:00 pm

I think that the idea of educating the Filipinos was more so a way of assimilating them into American culture than an effort to build their opinions or give them power. Hoganson claims that Americans “employed images of savage, childish, and feminine Filipinos to argue that the United States had humanitarian obligations in the Philippines.” These obligations, according to imperialists, were to teach the Filipinos to have American ideals, as they were seen as unfit to govern themselves without this U.S. intervention.

Meghan Walker

11/13/2019 09:24:00 pm

I agree with Emma, but I also believe that the used education as an excuse in some ways. By going to the Philippines under the guise of education, they could convince more people to agree with the annexation of the Philippines. I believe that because they could be using education as a sort of front, they never intended to educate the Filipinos enough to give them power in Americans eyes.

Ashley Elliott

11/13/2019 07:06:46 pm

If the Westward expansion hadn't been finished at this time do you think the US would have still been as interested in colonizing the Philipines?

Evan Villani

11/13/2019 10:21:35 pm

I would argue that US wouldn't have been as interested in the Philippines if they felt more land was available to their direct west (emphasis on "as" interested). This is because the American Empire seemed to turn it's focus on island nation's once they gained as much territory as the could on the mainland. The idea of Western expansion was pretty unstoppable based on accounts we read in the second discussion from Ortiz. The Phillipines would likely still be attractive, though. Based on what we know about US territories and unorganized land of the time, was Western expansion truly complete?

Krista Lang

11/14/2019 10:04:59 am

I think if westward expansion had been finished, the United States wouldn't have been interested in colonizing the Philippines. If the Philippines belonged to another country or were their own country for a long period of time, the United States wouldn't bother the Philippines because that would most likely go against American democratic principals. The only reason they would have still colonized the Philippines if westward expansion was done would be to "liberate" them from the bad treatment of another colonizer.

Noel Garcia

11/14/2019 12:42:14 pm

No, I believe if we didn't finish Manifest Destiny we would've expelled all of our military resources towards Western expansion. The idea of a divine intervention would've been a much larger motivator than colonization of the Phillipines.

Nandana Pillai

11/13/2019 07:18:46 pm

We did not talk much about the role of African Americans around this time, how do you think they responded to the idea of annexing the Philippines and what roles do you think they played in the decision-making process?

Krista Lang

11/14/2019 10:01:48 am

I think that African Americans would have responded with deep sympathy for the Filipinos, considering they were also taken advantage of by Americans. I think if they were given the chance, they would have tried to help Filipinos and assure them that just because their culture and values differ, does not prove them to be inferior. They might also tell them to reject whatever "civilizing" education Americans offer.

Meghan Walker

11/13/2019 09:17:46 pm

In what ways was the idea of what constitutes masculinity driven by the ideas of the time?

Evan Villani

11/13/2019 10:14:06 pm

Thanks for the easy question :)
One way masculinity played a part in this conflict was President McKinley's belief that "aggressive Philippine policies would build character in American men". This was developed as a result of the belief that manhood mattered in American politics. How did Roosevelt, Beveridge, and Lodge use similar logic in support of the war for different purposes?

Nishka Mathew

11/13/2019 11:01:05 pm

The ideas of the time were greatly influenced by the Spanish-American War that had just occurred. The victory in the Spanish-American War had convinced people that men must be strong, and war was the only way to prove their strength. Many who had lived through the war thought that the new generation was too "soft, self-seeking, and materialistic." War was necessary to keep men from becoming “effeminate" and therefore strengthening the gender roles that were prevalent in society. Weakness was associated with females at the time so many believed that men must prove that they are not like women by fighting in the war. This is one of the reasons why many older generations supported the war and advocated for troops to occupy the Philippines.

Krista Lang

11/14/2019 09:59:19 am

American men, at the time, continued to find ways to separate themselves from groups who they believed were inferior. For example, the believe Filipinos were inferior, so it was justifiable to annihilate them to prove that they weren't effeminate/ inferior like the Filipinos. Additionally, they believed women were inferior, so they began to assert that knowledge in terms of fighting for imperialism and leaving women to take care of kids and their homes.

Evan Speelman

11/13/2019 09:56:02 pm

With how many hundreds of thousands of civilians were caught in the crossfire of the annexation, do you believe the US ever had an intent to prevent civilian casualties when possible or was it just an unfortunate side effect to their need for Asian influence?

Evan Villani

11/13/2019 10:26:21 pm

Based off of what we learned about past events, like the Mexican American war, civilian casualties were justified in Total War. Also, the sheer number of deaths of innocents and the relative lack of repercussions, it hardly seems like an accident. Would anyone argue that civilian casualties are an American war tactic?

Logan Siege

12/9/2019 10:03:35 am

I believe many of the civilian casualties could have been avoided, although the US might not have attempted to avoid such conflict and actions. There is a point to which the United States might have been following the ideals of total war (Sherman in Civil War)?

Evan Villani

11/13/2019 10:06:09 pm

We discussed how the author found that the war over the Phillipines was useful in American politics to "rejuvenate men". How would this event impact the change in internal politics in the future? What groups were disadvantaged and what did they have to leverage in their future movements?

Anastasia Neff

11/19/2019 12:15:45 pm

As we see with most American conflict the reasoning we had behind it only benefits the majority, or the group that is in power, in this case the government and businessmen of the US. Other groups inside the US, such as women, Native Americans, and Africans, saw little to no improvement in their personal lives as a result of this "rejuvenation." I think this event had little impact on on future internal policies because as seen throughout most and US history we think only of the majority and not about bettering the lives of the Minority groups within our country. Even the groups that benefited from this such as the Puerto Ricans gained no leverage within US political systems.

Nishka Mathew

11/13/2019 10:46:20 pm

I wanted to elaborate on the political cartoons and how America used them to convey a specific message. These political cartoons utilized stark characterization of the different people portrayed to convey a specific message. For example, “Recommended by Hoar” (1899) is used to support the idea that the Filipinos are unfit to take care of themselves and that Philippine independence is a crime. The Nurse represents the Philippine struggle for independence which is equated to criminal acts such as murder, felony, theft, piracy, and robbery. She is shown as a filthy woman who is impatiently waiting for Uncle Sam to give the Phillippines back to her. This is meant to indicate that the Filipinos are savages/barbarians, not capable of self-control, unfit to look after the Philippines, and not ready for independence. The Philippines is categorized as a baby indicating Americans view Filipinos as infants, incapable of providing for themselves. Uncle Sam represents America taking care of the Phillippines by feeding it with civilization and education. In contrast, he is represented as a calm, dignified man which indicates that America is fit to take care/nurture the Philippines. These characterizations greatly influence the American people and garner support for the annexation of the Philippines.

Aman Kumar

11/14/2019 12:45:31 am

To what extent has American imperialism and nationalism effect us today?

Noel Garcia

11/14/2019 12:43:53 pm

In brevity, the connection we have to territories as Puerto Rico and the U.S Virgin Islands effects through our country's demographics and the nationalism exhibited in imperialism is shown through the influence of the American flag on our territories.

Noel Garcia

11/14/2019 08:58:20 pm

EDIT- Use affect instead of effect. Affect is a verb and effect is a noun so it would be appropriate to say, "To what extent has American imperialism and nationalism affect us today?"

Om Surkund

11/21/2019 08:03:00 pm

American nationalism affects us in many ways today. For example, American citizens usually have an enhanced sense of national identity. The phrase "proud to be an American" is used a lot when taking about ones pride for this country. Its also interesting how every single morning we pledge our allegiance to to the country in a versed "scripture" that we are expected to memorize and recite...

Krista Lang

11/14/2019 09:54:18 am

Social darwinism is seen in the following quote from the article: “American men must embrace rigorous overseas challenges lest they lose their privileged position in a Darwinian world.” I believe that white men saw that women were trying to work outside of the home/ get involved in politics and that African Americans were trying to fight for equality. Because of this, they felt like their superiority was being questioned, and they were falling behind in society. In order to not fall behind, imperialism was necessary in their eyes.

Isha Parikh

11/14/2019 04:59:26 pm

I agree with this, I think the white men wanted to appear superior and thought imperialism was the best way to do it. There's another quote in the text that reinforces this "Imperialists wanted to build manly character not only because they were concerned about American men’s standing relative to other races and nations but also because they were worried about American men’s position vis-à-vis women.” The quote also showed how not only were they intimidated by women trying to work, they were trying to appear superior to them.

Noel Garcia

11/14/2019 12:40:04 pm

In the seminar, we brushed over the idea of misoginy as a cause of Imperialism, but what did the misoginy originate from?

Isha Parikh

11/14/2019 05:06:42 pm

I think the misogyny originated from years and years of cultural separation between men and women. The idea that men were superior to women was an idea that was passed down for generations. Most white men at the time grew up thinking they were better than most because that's what they were taught. So, when this manhood was threatened, by women starting to work or other racial groups gaining freedoms, they turned to imperialism as a way to get it back.

Om Surkund

11/21/2019 07:56:49 pm

For a long period of time, the only accepted roles for women were to take part in Republican Motherhood and simply do domestic labor and teach the children. This would have been seen inferior to the work of men at the time so the misogyny was installed in the society. This can be seen various times throughout society, one example being the attempts of Abigail Adams to get her husband to treat women with respect. However, his reply was in a humorous tone and he even claimed that he laughed.

Isha Parikh

11/14/2019 05:02:07 pm

The texts is centered around the feelings of men and how they want to appear superior to both women and other countries and how they thought imperialism was the way to do that. But, the text doesn't necessarily specify what kind of men thought this. Do you think it was a specific group of men, such as the wealthy, white men, or was this a common mindset all men had?

Noel Garcia

11/14/2019 08:56:59 pm

Based on the leaders of the US at the time, the subject is clearly written towards white men of prominence at the time. That demographic was the largest at the time in the U.S Congress (And still is).

Anastasia Neff

11/19/2019 12:09:53 pm

One thing that i was not able to bring up in class was something i had noticed in one of the cartoons. In the Cartoon "The Filipinos First Bath" a white man, probably depicting the president, is bathing a Filipino. In the back of this cartoon there is pictured a Cuban and Puerto Rican man that are willing putting on American clothes. Although i do not know very much about these topics i would assume that the other countries did not willingly turn hands over to the Americans. Why do you think that the Filipinos specifically were portrayed differently than other groups under American Imperialist rule? Did they do something differently?

Om Surkund

11/21/2019 07:52:35 pm

The Philippine character in this cartoon was portrayed as a small which may represent its perceived immaturity and naiveness from the US perspective. The Philippines could have also been seen this way because the US wanted to take control and install new government and systems much like a parent raised their child and teaches them everything.

Om Surkund

11/21/2019 07:19:35 pm

Senator Caffery mentioned that the only way to take control over the Philippines was to hold a monarchy over them. Do you think that this would have been approved or seen as similar to Britains rule over colonial America as a parent country?

Logan Siege

11/22/2019 10:16:26 am

One thing we had not discussed fully in our seminar that I was curious about was how did the belief of “manhood” cause the US to move forward and/or backwards in social reforms, economic progress, etc?

Annie PI

1/8/2020 12:28:36 pm

Did protests within the Philippines possibly make the country less economically attractive to the United States since it would cause conflicts that could affect access to China markets?

Comments are closed.

Scored Discussion #3, Spring 2019

Scored Discussion #3

Archives

Categories