Fueled by capitalism, nationalism, white supremacy, and sensationalized journalism, a drive for territorial expansion consumed the United States in the decades following the American Civil War. Imperialists set their sights on potential U.S. colonies in Latin America and Asia.After the United States won the Spanish-American War in 1898, Americans were bitterly divided over whether or not to annex the Philippines. The debates escalated after a vicious guerilla war erupted between Filipino rebels and U.S. soldiers. Albert J. Beveridge, a first-term Republican senator from Indiana, was one of the most ardent advocates of imperialism. Noted for his speaking abilities and fervent nationalism, Beveridge traveled to the Philippines in order to gather information. The voyage only intensified his belief that the United States should acquire a colonial empire. I would like you to read extract highlights of one of Beveridge’s speeches supporting annexation of the Philippines by clicking here (please read pgs. 23-26).
After reading the speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: Why does Beveridge think that the United States should annex the Philippines? Do you find his arguments convincing? Explain your answer. How does Beveridge describe Asian people? What is the meaning and significance of his use of terms like “civilization,” “Anglo-Saxon,” and “our race?” What legal justification does Beveridge use to justify imperialism? Compare Beveridge’s arguments to those of Mark Twain. How do their interpretations of imperialism differ? Whose arguments most closely resemble your view of imperialism? Why? Your thoughts…
12 comments:
glad to see that the americans are taking after the europeans by using god to justify imperialism. that's just dandy. well of course that is used, and like europe the other excuse, and i guess real reason for it, is profit. the u.s. wanted to phillipines for markets, specifically close to china. of course the way that this is obtained isn't mentioned, just that it's needed.
did imperialism have a positive or negative impact on women's rights? would it be good because feminism was like a form of nationalism?
actually women aligned themselves with socialists more so than nationalists.
He seems to be saying that it is our duty to help the people who cannot govern themselves. He gives lots of excuses about how trade will profit since it's so near China and that the United States have been delayed for such a long time to start this war even though it is their duty to help the "barbaric people". This is so condescending and he assumes that the Filipinos are really dumb and need "protection."
money money money!
like alina says the main rason for all of this is for profit. wow the US is just amazing people for using imperialism. we are as guilty as anyone else... no wonder people wanna attack us cuz they think we are greedy
i dont understand why someone uses religion to back up there actions when the bible clearly addresses equality and love of all man kind...yep that makes sense. is that why there are so many different denominations in religions? because we dont agree on some things like racism and what the bible is interpreted into? like the people at my specific church are strictly equality through all of man. but we have been on youth trips and conferences that some other people in my same denomination are against other races. is that where it started? like trying to use the bible to back up actions that were wrong?
Whenever he uses the words like 'our race' and 'civilization' i think he is truly set in the belief that the Americans are completely better in every way than the other groups mentioned. When he starts off with the numbers and talking about Chinese trade it seems to look like a great business investment but then when he starts talking about THEIR land is when i start to get a sour taste in my mouth. All he sees is the natural resources and wants to exploit them. He justifies doing all of this but by saying that they aren't capable of governing themselves. I know that this is the document i have to use to defend the American Imperialism but i don't even understand why we have a debate about this, it is literally impossible to see a positive side of this.
I used this document as further argument in the debate today. I realize that the ideas were good ones, in the eyes of Americans. Although I am against Imperialism, I would have to say that Beveridge makes a good point when he is talking about our ability to take the Philippines, and the economic profit we could get from it. I guess you could relate it to the monopolies that went on during the mid-1900s. We expanded our boundaries to gain more economic profit. However, 200,000 innocent deaths cannot be overlooked.
First let me say that this guy is an impressive speaker. Right at the begining he turns to the Contstitution for justification! Not to mention he gets pretty bold, admitting that we tricked Aguinaldo and insulting Spain. Beveridge thinks we should annex the Philipines mainly for straight access to China, but of course he also throws in racial justification, that the whites have a duty to other races, that sort if thing. If I were a senator listening to this speech I would have been very convinced. Beveridge is an incredible speaker. The way he describes the Philipines you can almost see the wealth, it makes you feel greedy just thinking about it. And then he gets into how we are doind an injustice to all of Americas hard workers be not trying harder to gain access to China. Beveridge even manages to justify it with back up from the Dec. of Ind. and the constitution, not just religious motives! Beveridge describes the Asian ppl as barbarians, which is a little contradictory after explaining the great wealth, but you really don't notice because by now that thought's in the back of your mind (again,wonderful speaker). He uses this description as saying that they need help in governing themselves, which is why he says the U.S. should move in. The only thing significant about the terms Beveridge uses is that he uses them interchangably, their race is the anglo-saxons, and they are a "Cilvilized" people. This helps keeping the speech from getting repetative.
Cameron- I agree with you that different denominations of religions probably had something to do with ppl trying to justify certain actions. Afeter all,sadly it is usually all about the money. There are probably a lot of other factors thought to, like influence from other cultures and certain religions.
obviously he thinks the americans are superior no doubt. if its our "duty" to govern these people since they cant do it themselves, how is that not thinking were better? and what makes us god's chosen people to lead when apparently all men are created equal? when it talks about China's foreign commerce and us only having less than 9 percent, and then it says "we ought to have 50 percent, and we will." for real? are we that mighty that we can just declare ourselves a certain amount? god. And then when it says "when the islands shall be developed, we can do ten times as well as Spain", it's just assuming that they're like a side project just to use and be done with only for our benefit. it kinda makes me mad to read stuff like this..
Beveridge sees the Philippines as a gateway to Pacific Ocean and East Asian trade. He believes that this area is where most profit from trade comes: China. If the Americas were able to control the Philippines, they would be able to control the world. Beveridge also mentions the idea of white racial supremacy. It's their duty to rule these barbarians who have no clue on how to rule. I find Beveridge's arguments pretty convincing. His descriptions of the endless resources, such as coal and gold, could definitely capture the attention of any Senator. Beveridge refers to these Malay Orientals as barbarians and uncivilized. Beveridge uses "civilization" and "Anglo-Saxon" to describe white people and their supremacy, once again. The belief of the "White Man's Burden" and whites having the highest morality and intelligence is used to defend his proposition of annexing the Philippines. Beveridge also refers to the Constitution as a legal justification, saying that it would be a shame for Americans to let the Philippines govern themselves using a Spanish type model. Beveridge also talks about religion and how God wants and chose the Americans/whites to fulfill His plan.
He thinks that we should annex PHilippines because of the raw materials it provides. Also, Philippines is close to CHina. Competetion plays equal role. He states that Britain and other European countries will be wanting Philippines. Also, its like WHite men's burden. he thinks Filipinos needs help and protection. These are really convincing because he speaks so optimistically, only stating pros of annexation.
Post a Comment