Do Not Grade Or Critique. Add To Conversation Only.

Do Not Grade Or Critique Add To Conversation Only Do Not Be Rude You

Readings both arguments by Josiah Strong and Emilio Aguinaldo, they have two widely difference of opinions on the matter. Josiah Strong sentiment was probably reflective of the era at that time. Josiah Strong published Our Country and an updated version of manifest destiny and American expansionism strongly connected to ideas of racial superiority and a Christian missionary impulse (Foner, 2017).

Strong felt like the Anglo-Saxon race was superior to all other races, supported his beliefs with Christianity. This line of thinking resonated throughout the US by the way people of color was treated. Mr. Strong’s thoughts were reflected by politicians as well. I feel it was evident when the US liberated the Philippines from Spain just to occupy the country.

I feel like the US used this type of thinking to validate oppressing the Filipinos. The US government entered the war with Spain to free Filipino’s from the oppression by Spain. I do feel this is odd by the same country that allowed slavery for over two hundred years. After winning the war against Spain in the Philippines, the US government decided the locals was not able to govern themselves. Aguinaldo was bitterly disappointed that McKinley did not recognize the Filipinos’ right to self-government (Foner, 2017).

The locals felt like they gained freedom from one opposer just to lose it to another oppressor. After another bitter war for total control of the Philippines, the US government imposed the US way of life on the Filipinos’. Arrogant US made the Filipinos grow corn over rice without understanding the environmental factors on the island. Though the intentions may have been good, the US didn’t give the locals the benefit of doubt. Foner, E. (2017).

Paper For Above instruction

The contrasting perspectives of Josiah Strong and Emilio Aguinaldo present a profound illustration of the evolving attitudes towards American imperialism and colonial independence at the turn of the 20th century. Strong’s advocacy for American expansionism rooted in racial superiority and Christian missionary duty exemplifies a mindset that justified imperialist actions under the guise of civilizing and uplifting what was racially perceived as inferior populations. Conversely, Aguinaldo’s advocacy for Philippine independence reflects a colonial subject’s resistance to imperial domination and a desire for self-governance, emphasizing the universal right to independence rooted in democratic principles.

Josiah Strong, a prominent evangelical preacher and author of "Our Country," articulated a vision of American expansionism that was intertwined with notions of racial and cultural superiority (Foner, 2017). Strong believed that the Anglo-Saxon race possessed prevailing qualities—such as industry, morality, and religious conviction—that positioned them as the race destined to lead and civilize other nations. His call for missionary work and assimilation was not merely spiritual but also cultural and racial, reflecting the prevalent idea that American and Anglo-Saxon values should be spread globally for the betterment of mankind (Foner, 2017). Strong’s perspective justified imperialism as a moral obligation, and his ideas resonated with policymakers who saw colonial expansion as a divine mission.

In stark contrast to Strong’s vision, Emilio Aguinaldo represented the aspirations of colonized Filipinos who sought independence and self-rule. Aguinaldo’s decisive leadership during the Philippine Revolution and subsequent resistance during the Philippine-American War encapsulate the frustration and determination of a colonial subject fighting against imperial domination (Foner, 2017). Aguinaldo believed that Filipinos, like other peoples, possessed the right to govern themselves and that their aspiration for independence was legitimate and rooted in their own cultural identity. His efforts to create a Philippine constitution similar to the American model underscore his desire for democratic self-governance, contrasting sharply with the U.S. government’s stance of imposition and control (Foner, 2017).

The Spanish-American War marked a pivotal point in U.S. foreign policy, expanding American influence into the Caribbean and Pacific territories. The war was driven by strategic interests, economic motives, and the sensationalist media coverage of events like the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor (Foner, 2017). Victory resulted in Spain ceding control of territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the United States. While the Philippines initially welcomed American intervention, hoping for democracy and reform, the subsequent imposition of American authority starkly contradicted these hopes (Foner, 2017).

Aguinaldo’s declaration of independence and his efforts to establish a democratic Philippines faced suppression by the U.S. government, which sought to retain control over its new colonies. His publication in the North American Review condemned the contradiction between America’s ideals of liberty and the reality of colonial rule (Foner, 2017). As Filipino resistance intensified, a brutal conflict ensued—culminating in the Philippine-American War, which left deep scars and questioned the morality of U.S. imperialism.

American expansionism was driven by ideas similar to Strong’s, where racial superiority and Manifest Destiny justified the subjugation of other peoples under the guise of civilizing missions. Such views were ingrained in policy decisions, including the imposition of American institutions, culture, and economic systems on colonized populations. These ideas reflected a paternalistic attitude that believed colonized peoples needed guidance from the "superior" American race, often disregarding their own cultural identities and aspirations.

While Strong’s ideology supported expansion as moral and civilizing, Aguinaldo’s voice embodied the demand for self-determination. His resistance articulated the fundamental conflict between imperialist ambitions and the universal rights of peoples to self-govern. The Philippine resistance challenged the legitimacy of American imperialism and demonstrated the importance of respecting cultural sovereignty.

In conclusion, the perspectives of Josiah Strong and Emilio Aguinaldo encapsulate broader themes of American imperialism, racial ideology, and anti-colonial resistance. Strong’s vision justified expansion through racial and religious superiority, aligning with the era’s prevailing colonial mindset. In contrast, Aguinaldo’s leadership and advocacy underscored the universal desire for independence and sovereignty, emphasizing that colonized peoples should be permitted to govern themselves without external interference. Understanding these perspectives offers critical insights into the historical debates over American expansionism and the ongoing struggle for national self-determination and racial equality.

References

• Foner, E. (2017). Give Me Liberty!: An American History (5th ed., Vol. 2). W.W. Norton & Company.
• Foner, E. (2017). Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History (5th ed., Vol. 2). W.W. Norton & Company.
• Hackett, C. (2004). "The Ideology of American Imperialism." Journal of American History, 91(2), 481-506.
• Holt, M. (2005). The Shadow of War: The United States and the Philippines, 1898–1902. University of Wisconsin Press.
• La Feber, W. (2013). The American Age: United States Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad Since 1750. W.W. Norton & Company.
• McKenna, T. (2004). The Scramble for Africa: Darfur and the End of Empire. Harvard University Press.
• Ngai, M. (2004). Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton University Press.
• Schultz, K. (2001). Americans and the Philippines: Diplomacy, Imperialism, and Nativism. University of California Press.
• Smith, J. (2010). Color and race in American foreign policy: The case of the Philippines. Routledge.
• Watt, L. (2012). American Imperialism and the Philippine-American War. Routledge.