1. What made the Filipino insurrection "far different than any conflict in which Americans had previously fought"?
In the Philippines, the American soldiers were facing a completely different challenge than any other war. There were generally rules followed by both sides on a battle field to keep things remotely civilized during war. During the insurrection, these rules were completely ignored, as we were not facing on unified organized army. It was many different guerilla attack forces that would move quickly in and out, killing as many as possible. This was really American troops’ first encounter with these kinds of tactics, so they had to adjust their tactics as well. Both sides became brutal to the enemy, using torture and execution methods that were unheard of before.
In the Philippines, the American soldiers were facing a completely different challenge than any other war. There were generally rules followed by both sides on a battle field to keep things remotely civilized during war. During the insurrection, these rules were completely ignored, as we were not facing on unified organized army. It was many different guerilla attack forces that would move quickly in and out, killing as many as possible. This was really American troops’ first encounter with these kinds of tactics, so they had to adjust their tactics as well. Both sides became brutal to the enemy, using torture and execution methods that were unheard of before.
2. Why were African-Americans among the strongest critics of the war against the Filipino nationalists?
Many African-Americans were critics against the war due to the racial attitudes behind America’s occupation. We thought of Filipino as lesser people, as we did blacks, hence they needed our help. This was made evident by most of the whites in the army referring to Filipinos as “niggers”. The war also reminded the black troops of the discrimination they experienced in America, the very discrimination that were trying to curb by joining the military, as there were restaurants and public services only for whites all over the Philippines. The Filipinos reminded them of this racism as well, distributing posters addressed to the “Colored American Soldier”, which encouraged the backlash against the war even further, in some cases even encouraging desertion.
3. Why did the United States lose its appetite for imperialism in the early 1900s?
Even after the insurrection was quashed in the Philippines, the Filipinos continued fighting for their independence in different ways. After it was ruled that they were not granted protection under U.S. law as a colony of America, many Filipinos were especially unhappy. The tensions were far too high for America to maintain full rule over the nation, so high that even champions of imperialism like Theodore Roosevelt admitted that the cost of an empire was too high. The realization of the true cost of an empire as well as increasing apathy towards the situation led America to a rather quick decline in its appetite for imperialism.
4. How did the United States contribute to the development of Cuba and Puerto Rico?
The United States made Puerto Rico a U.S. territory, hence granting all Puerto Ricans citizenship. Being a territory, however, they were still able to establish their own government, ultimately being controlled by America. Cuba remained under military occupation until they were granted independence under certain restrictions in 1901. While America had control of these territories, we helped to improve infrastructure and bring new technology into the region. If it was only to help American businesses in the region, it ended up also helping to improve the region’s overall way of life.
Many African-Americans were critics against the war due to the racial attitudes behind America’s occupation. We thought of Filipino as lesser people, as we did blacks, hence they needed our help. This was made evident by most of the whites in the army referring to Filipinos as “niggers”. The war also reminded the black troops of the discrimination they experienced in America, the very discrimination that were trying to curb by joining the military, as there were restaurants and public services only for whites all over the Philippines. The Filipinos reminded them of this racism as well, distributing posters addressed to the “Colored American Soldier”, which encouraged the backlash against the war even further, in some cases even encouraging desertion.
3. Why did the United States lose its appetite for imperialism in the early 1900s?
Even after the insurrection was quashed in the Philippines, the Filipinos continued fighting for their independence in different ways. After it was ruled that they were not granted protection under U.S. law as a colony of America, many Filipinos were especially unhappy. The tensions were far too high for America to maintain full rule over the nation, so high that even champions of imperialism like Theodore Roosevelt admitted that the cost of an empire was too high. The realization of the true cost of an empire as well as increasing apathy towards the situation led America to a rather quick decline in its appetite for imperialism.
4. How did the United States contribute to the development of Cuba and Puerto Rico?
The United States made Puerto Rico a U.S. territory, hence granting all Puerto Ricans citizenship. Being a territory, however, they were still able to establish their own government, ultimately being controlled by America. Cuba remained under military occupation until they were granted independence under certain restrictions in 1901. While America had control of these territories, we helped to improve infrastructure and bring new technology into the region. If it was only to help American businesses in the region, it ended up also helping to improve the region’s overall way of life.
5. Why did many Cubans come to resent the U.S. presence on their island?
In order for the U.S. to give Cuba its independence, McKinley gave a set of rules that the Cubans must follow. These were outlined in the Platt Amendment to the independence treaty proposed, and chief among them were U.S. control over the Cuban economy and U.S. veto power for Cuban foreign policy. When Cuba reluctantly agreed to these provisions, American businessman took control over the Cuban sugar industry and began making huge profits. They set up deals with Cuban plantation owners that were simply terrible for the owner. Cubans were having trouble finding work in the economy controlled by America as well as Spanish immigrants, which led to a slow buildup of tension against the United States that would last for years until a revolt broke out.
6. Do you believe the United States was imperialist? Why or why not?
Yes and no. I believe the United States began on its journey for more territory overseas with imperialist intentions, but ended up being sort of an economic imperialist. Rather than capturing nations and taking complete control, which they would have done if it didn’t cost so many lives and cause so much tension, the U.S. took control over the central economy of many nations around the world. A purely imperialist country would take nations for the sake of being a powerful nation with territory. The U.S.A., on the other hand, created an economic empire for itself, an empire that maximized profit, not power.
In order for the U.S. to give Cuba its independence, McKinley gave a set of rules that the Cubans must follow. These were outlined in the Platt Amendment to the independence treaty proposed, and chief among them were U.S. control over the Cuban economy and U.S. veto power for Cuban foreign policy. When Cuba reluctantly agreed to these provisions, American businessman took control over the Cuban sugar industry and began making huge profits. They set up deals with Cuban plantation owners that were simply terrible for the owner. Cubans were having trouble finding work in the economy controlled by America as well as Spanish immigrants, which led to a slow buildup of tension against the United States that would last for years until a revolt broke out.
6. Do you believe the United States was imperialist? Why or why not?
Yes and no. I believe the United States began on its journey for more territory overseas with imperialist intentions, but ended up being sort of an economic imperialist. Rather than capturing nations and taking complete control, which they would have done if it didn’t cost so many lives and cause so much tension, the U.S. took control over the central economy of many nations around the world. A purely imperialist country would take nations for the sake of being a powerful nation with territory. The U.S.A., on the other hand, created an economic empire for itself, an empire that maximized profit, not power.
No comments:
Post a Comment