Carregue numa fotografia para ir para os Livros Google.
A carregar... Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Warspor Kristin L. Hoganson
Nenhum(a) A carregar...
Adira ao LibraryThing para descobrir se irá gostar deste livro. Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro. sem críticas | adicionar uma crítica
Pertence a Série
This groundbreaking book blends international relations and gender history to provide a new understanding of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars. Kristin L. Hoganson shows how gendered ideas about citizenship and political leadership influenced jingoist political leaders` desire to wage these conflicts, and she traces how they manipulated ideas about gender to embroil the nation in war. She argues that racial beliefs were only part of the cultural framework that undergirded U.S. martial policies at the turn of the century. Gender beliefs, also affected the rise and fall of the nation`s imperialist impulse.Drawing on an extensive range of sources, including congressional debates, campaign speeches, political tracts, newspapers, magazines, political cartoons, and the papers of politicians, soldiers, suffragists, and other political activists, Hoganson discusses how concerns about manhood affected debates over war and empire. She demonstrates that jingoist political leaders, distressed by the passing of the Civil War generation and by women`s incursions into electoral politics, embraced war as an opportunity to promote a political vision in which soldiers were venerated as model citizens and women remained on the fringes of political life. These gender concerns not only played an important role in the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars, they have echoes in later time periods, says the author, and recognizing their significance has powerful ramifications for the way we view international relations.Yale Historical Publications Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas. |
Current DiscussionsNenhum(a)
Google Books — A carregar... GénerosSistema Decimal de Melvil (DDC)973.8History and Geography North America United States 1865-1901Classificação da Biblioteca do Congresso dos EUA (LCC)AvaliaçãoMédia:
É você?Torne-se num Autor LibraryThing. Yale University Press2 edições deste livro foram publicadas por Yale University Press. Edições: 0300085540, 0300071817 |
Examining the debate over the arbitration treaty between the U.S. and Britain, Hoganson writes, “Arbitration opponents were not necessarily jingoes, and jingoes were not necessarily treaty opponents, but jingoes and arbitration opponents generally shared certain assumptions about male character and government. Just as jingoes believed that the nation’s foreign policy should rest on demonstrations of force and militant standards of honor, many arbitration opponents hoped to prevent arbitrationists’ seemingly feminine values from triumphing in politics” (pg. 20-21). Turning to Cuba, Hoganson writes, “The key to the Cubans’ appeal can be found in the numerous press accounts that treated them and their cause sympathetically: many of these portrayed the Cuban revolutionaries in chivalric terms…Nineteenth-century Americans often viewed Cuba metaphorically, as a maiden longing to be rescued by a gallant knight” (pg. 44).
Hoganson writes of the inciting incidents of the war, “Assertions that men from various walks of life valued honor as a standard for individual and national behavior made it clear that a man who denied that honor was at stake or who hesitated to defend it would no longer represent American men” (pg. 82). She continues, “The certitude that honor was at stake made it politically foolish to argue that a naval accident of uncertain provenance was insufficient grounds for war, because honor made the issue seem essential to the preservation of American manhood and the American political system” (pg. 84). Further, “The coercive use of gender ideals in political debate made war seem imperative to the reluctant congressmen who joined their jingoist fellows in voting unanimously for war” (pg. 87). Explaining the change in American attitudes toward Cuba, Hoganson writes, “The shift in public opinion can be explained by American men’s disappointment with the martial capacities of the Cuban revolutionaries, regardless of their race or class status. Lacking familiarity with the guerilla warfare that Cuban men had been waging, American soldiers concluded that the Cuban insurrectos were cowardly and dishonorable” (pg. 109). In this way, “the Spanish-American War had fostered a climate in which political capacity seemed even more closely connected to military prowess than it had been at the start of the war” (pg. 117).
To understand the decision to hold the Philippines as a colony, Hoganson writes, “The desire to take and govern the Philippines, it is necessary to turn the spotlight from perceptions of the Filipinos to American self-perceptions. Imperialists’ comments on American men and American democracy indicate that they wanted to govern the Philippines not only because they doubted the Filipinos’ governing capacity, but, just as important, because they doubted their own” (pg. 138). Hoganson relates this to Roosevelt’s call for strenuous living, writing, “Most strenuous of all was war, and close behind lay empire” (pg. 144). This was not an easy task, however. Hoganson writes, “During the course of the Philippine-American War, it began to appear that imperial policies were not, as the imperialists had pledged, building American manhood. To the contrary, a growing number of Americans began to believe that imperial policies were undermining the character of American men” (pg. 180). Both imperialists and anti-imperialists invoked manhood. Hoganson writes, “Whereas imperialists often reasoned that the nation needed to build martial virtues in American men because government rested ultimately on force, anti-imperialists stressed that the nation needed to foster intelligence and civic virtue because governments rested on those qualities” (pg. 193). ( )