Acquisition of the Philippines and Resulting Imperialism Debates

Hey guys!

My week is coming up to post on the blog, so I decided to start a little early.

In Chapter 29, I found the opposing arguments regarding imperialism quite interesting. In the 1898, McKinley, made the decision to acquire the Philippines from Spain for $20 million dollars. This was not an easy decision for McKinley to make, and he spent a good deal of time thinking the possible outcomes of dealing with the Philippines through. McKinley did not think that the US could give back the Philippines to Spanish without looking bad after the US had just fought to free Cuba from Spain's misrule. At the same time, the US couldn't just leave the Filipinos to govern themselves, for it would be highly likely they would fall into anarchy. If this happened, another foreign power may swoop in and try to acquire them, which could lead to another war the US would be pulled into. In order for the US, and McKinley, to keep its honor, the best move to make would be to acquire the Philippines and grant the Filipinos their freedom at a later date.
The acquisition of the Philippines seemed to be what the public wanted as well. Protestant missionaries liked the idea of new converts, and Wall Street liked the idea of new markets and profits the Philippines would give to the US.

This decision to acquire the Philippines led to a heated debated over imperialism. The Anti-Imperialist League came about in protest of McKinley's expansionist policies. Anti-Imperialists were disgusted that the US had annexed the Philippines, who's people wanted freedom. This violated the idea of "consent of the governed" in the Declaration of Independence, since the Filipinos didn't want to be under another's rule in the first place. There was also an undertone of racism in the reasoning of this league, for they also disliked the idea that a distant land of foreign people would now be considered part of the US. Lastly, they were weary of the fact that the US was now forced to be involved in the political and military world of the Far East with this new gain in territory, which would only involve America in more conflicts.

Yet the expansionists had their own compelling arguments for the benefits of annexing the Philippines. They used the emotional appeal of the "White Man's Burden", in which it was America's duty to expand into the less fortunate world and help the people become civilized Americans. This evoked a racist spirit of the superiority of the US and the patriotism people should feel for these "philanthropic" efforts of America. Yet this idea of acquiring the Philippines to "help" the Filipinos wasn't entirely true. Unsurprisingly, the benefit of the Philippines was that the US could now exploit the islands and the people for their rich natural resources and trade profits.

As much as I would like to think I would be on the side of the Anti-Imperialists for not wanting to exploit the Filipinos, I feel that I may have in fact agreed with the pro-expansionists because of the profits it may bring me. This is not the first time we have encountered this idea of doing what is morally correct versus doing what is beneficial to ourselves this year. This debate mirrors what we talked about when learning about monopolists like Carnegie and Rockefeller in terms of the conflict between creating better working conditions and higher pay versus keeping up productivity and profits by exploiting the workers. Though it may seem like an easy question on the surface, when I really think about how I would have acted in that particular situation, I find I could easily be the type to compromise my morals for the sake of business.

What side do you think you would have taken: the stance of pro-expansionists or anti-imperialists?