For this assignment, we will examine how different analytical methods result in contrasting explanations for why the United States annexed and retained the Philippines following the defeat of Spain in 1898. For this exercise you have two tasks: Part 1: Compare the two secondary sources on why the United States annexed the Philippines. Part 2: Using primary sources, evaluate the arguments of the two secondary sources. Part 1: Comparing Secondary Sources

Debating the Annexation of the Philippines

Part 1: Comparing the Secondary sources

Question 1

According to Painter, the supporters of annexation had anticipated that the United Stated government could have made it possible the fostering exports since there was enormous production of both agricultural and industrial goods (pg. 147). It had seemed to the other states that they had run out of foodstuffs and thus America had had plenty of it and the need to export to the Philippines islands. This same point had paved the way to get into China.

This led to many expansionists viewing the island as already taken by the Americans due to the unavoidable capability of the machine age that was readily used in the united states. This mechanization was greater and even demanded raw materials and foreign markets which could be readily offered by the overseas colonies. This view of many factories ‘ success in accommodating numberless labor force without stopping made the annexation argument sure and very persuasive.

According to Hoganson, those who supported annexation had expected that the Americans could use the Filipinos in their weaker state to develop the ability to govern. This belief was even made stronger when the thought of the needs in the less expected annexation of strange dependencies to bring forth the governing faculty.

The low state stereotypes appealed to the colonialists because they echoed the Filipino’s incapacity for self-government and also enabled the imperialist’s government to make themselves civilizers and authoritative heads of the households.

Question 2

From the illustration, Painter has focused more on economic explanation as he emphasizes the development of the United States in both the industrial and agricultural sectors (pgs. 146–147). He further elaborates on the enormous absorption of the masses into the American factories, nonstop for production, and also the plentiful production of the foodstuffs which find their way in the outside country, for export and wide market for the great production.

On the other hand, Hoganson has written the article shedding more light on cultural explanations to give evidence of the imperialist support for annexation. The writer explains that the Filipinos, though lowly in the state, were used by the American men to develop the to ability in governing. This involved the unexpected annexation of strange dependencies which called forth for a government faculty.

Question 3

In my thoughts, the authors’ complementary. This is because the first author has his grounds on the economic factors to support the annexation of the Philipines, the second author has his points on the cultural inclination, majoring on the low state of the Philippines.

This translates to the result of independence in development either in agricultural or economic means and thus the Unites States gets a chance and chips to provide the economic dependency, through the supply of material food and other economical goods for the development of the economy.

Hence, because of the low state in the cultural standpoint, the Philipines were invaded also in the economic sector, hence the authors are complimentary.

Part 2: Using Primary Sources to Evaluate Secondary Sources

Question 1

McKinley argues that the land in which dwells the Philippines belongs to the US government and that they cannot abandon it. He further argues that if they let the island free, they will leave it to a state of lawlessness and barbarism, and thus they will not grant them an opportunity to have their independence. The speaker further argues that they will rebuild the desolate places and open up many social amenities and that the Filipinos should recognize the fact that it is a blessed land in the worldwide journey of their shores.

Lodge, believes to find it necessary to take the island to be part of American because of its great economic splendors. The speaker expresses the great value of the land and the great profit which the United States gets from it and hence becomes very difficult to let go of the Philipines lest they make tremendous losses.

The speaker foresees the potential importers as they form the greater part of the importers of the products from the United States through the island is entirely undeveloped. The further echoes on the Manila, magnificent bay which is determined as the price and the pearl of the east.

On the contrary, Beveridge critics the Filipinos as incapable of having self-government. He urges the senate to abandon them and count their blood and the treasure which has already been spent as a profitable loss rather than continuing to apply the academic arrangement of self-governance on them. The speaker furt