Essays should be 3 pages in length, not including the works cited page. Your essay should be double spaced, with one inch margins and 12-point font . Put your name, class, and the date in the upper left hand corner of the paper. As this is a formal paper, use formal language. You will turn in your essay through Turnitin in Canvas.
Debating the Annexation of the Philippines
Historians use different analytical methods to make sense of the past. Some focus on social and economic issues, such as class conflict or who profits from a particular policy choice. Other historians focus more on culture to understand how ideas, values, and beliefs have shaped the actions of historical figures. 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
Two secondary sources from different analytical perspectives are included below. In Standing at Armageddon: The United States, 1877–1919, Nell Irvin Painter of Princeton University weaves together economic and foreign-policy concerns with the lives of ordinary Americans to explain the annexation of the Philippines. Kristin L. Hoganson of the University of Illinois, a gender historian, explores the question of why the United States annexed the Philippines in Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. While both works contain elements of economic and cultural history, each historian emphasizes a particular analytical methodology.
Compare the views of these two scholars by answering the following questions. Be sure to find specific examples in the selections to support your answers.
According to each author, what problems in society did supporters of annexation think American control of the Philippines would solve?
Which author focuses on economic explanations, and which author focuses on cultural explanations, to explain imperialist support for annexation?
Do you think the authors’ arguments are contradictory or complementary? In other words, can they both be correct?
