Research paper on the Annexation of the Philippines
The Annexation of the Philippines is a debatable topic to historians. Some methods of analyzing the past though they may be different, can be used to explain the issues. There truly is not just one way to analyze the Annexation of Philippines. Why the United States wanted to use the Philippine territory can be both beneficial at least to about 80% of any argument. Though there are those who look at the topic from a more caring view versus those who find it a stern issue and belittle the Filipino’s and their strength. America whether from an economic view or cultural view both help the Philippines as well as America. But on the contrary whether America was money hungry or power crazed, both …show more content…
Hoganson from the University of Illinois is another historian who gives his perspective by using the “The National Manhood Metaphor”. He goes into the Cultural side for explanation. Hoganson compares the Filipinos to savages, feminine figures, and childlike, stereotypes. His emphases are based on the fact that their government and culture have a lot of work to do. It is emphasized that American white, Middle as well as upper class men would be considered “ideal citizens” and they would be better at running their government. The primary sources that would effectively back him up with his cultural view would be Albert Beveridge and William McKinley. President McKinley in his “Annual Message of the President to Congress” (December 5, 1899) says “The future government of the Philippines rest with the Congress of the United States…If we accept them in a spirit worthy of our race and our traditions, a great opportunity comes with them… If we desert them we leave them at once to anarchy and finally to barbarism.” Mckinley as well as Hoganson believed that they would survive better with the U.S. in charge. Along with Albert Beveridge who believes that “they are not yet capable of self-government.” (January
The Annexation of the Philippines is a debatable topic to historians. Some methods of analyzing the past though they may be different, can be used to explain the issues. There truly is not just one way to analyze the Annexation of Philippines. Why the United States wanted to use the Philippine territory can be both beneficial at least to about 80% of any argument. Though there are those who look at the topic from a more caring view versus those who find it a stern issue and belittle the Filipino’s and their strength. America whether from an economic view or cultural view both help the Philippines as well as America. But on the contrary whether America was money hungry or power crazed, both …show more content…
Hoganson from the University of Illinois is another historian who gives his perspective by using the “The National Manhood Metaphor”. He goes into the Cultural side for explanation. Hoganson compares the Filipinos to savages, feminine figures, and childlike, stereotypes. His emphases are based on the fact that their government and culture have a lot of work to do. It is emphasized that American white, Middle as well as upper class men would be considered “ideal citizens” and they would be better at running their government. The primary sources that would effectively back him up with his cultural view would be Albert Beveridge and William McKinley. President McKinley in his “Annual Message of the President to Congress” (December 5, 1899) says “The future government of the Philippines rest with the Congress of the United States…If we accept them in a spirit worthy of our race and our traditions, a great opportunity comes with them… If we desert them we leave them at once to anarchy and finally to barbarism.” Mckinley as well as Hoganson believed that they would survive better with the U.S. in charge. Along with Albert Beveridge who believes that “they are not yet capable of self-government.” (January