Hoganson's Views On The Annexation Of The Philippines

Both Nell Irvin Painter and Kristin L. Hoganson have two different prospective on the annexation of the Philippines. Painter’s approach of explaining the annexation was more of an economic view rather then Hoganson’s, which was a more sexiest view. An example of Painter’s view is when he said,” the culprit, it seemed, was agricultural and industrial overproduction” (Painter). He is saying the America simply produced too much, and they did not care. Business thought taking over The Philippines would help American gain access to trading with China. They saw it as the “perfect stepping-stones” trade with China and the rest of Asia. American business men felt it was necessary for the government to show some authority and capitalize on this opportunity. American saw Manila as their

On the other hand, Hoganson had a different outlook on the annexation of The Philippines. She saw the takeover as way of dictatorship. Hoganson said,” The savage, childlike, and feminine stereotypes appealed to imperialists because they not only suggested the Filipinos' incapacity for selfgovernment, but also enabled imperialists to cast themselves as civilizers and authoritative heads of household—that is, as men who wielded power” (Hoganson). American viewed the people of the Philippines as simple minded and easy to control. She interpreted the annexation as a way for white business men to feed their hunger of power. Hoganson’s approach of the annexation purely for cultural reasons rather Painter’s, which is more agricultural. She saw America taking over The Philippines as a way for The Philippines to mature. Even though both authors have two different perspectives on the annexation, they both still are complementary to each other. They both provide valid arguments for there reasoning of the takeover of The