A BLOG ABOUT HISTORY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE PROBLEMS OF HUMAN DOMINION
Monday, February 7, 2011
HIST300F: Fighting for American Manhood
So were a bunch of insecure men, looking to play war, responsible for the War of 1898 and subsequent American imperialism? Did you find Hoganson's evidence convincing?
Popular culture during that time suggested that American manhood was at stake. Men were expected to be assertive. This assertiveness would have appeared to other countries as a strong American foreign policy. Hoganson’s argument is convincing. She also brought to light the changing role of women. Women could not vote but they made their presence known in the political arena regarding arbitration over war. This suggests a shift that would be expressed in future policy. I wonder if the USS Maine incident had not happened if manhood would have been enough to go to war for?
As I read this reading, Hoganson's evidence was definitely convincing because her stance is clearly expressed in chapter 2. Her main idea was based on the chivalric paradigm between the Cuban Men and Women and the Spanish. Her idea of chivalry is very similar to the Knights in the medieval period because honor is a big part of their lives. Hoganson believed that the Cubans were fearless because they fought by honor and they treat woman as human beings. "Like true knights, the Cuban men depicted in favorable American publications often drew their inspiration from women." (pg.47). Unlike the Cubans, the Spaniards treated women like animals because they raped them just for the fun of it. I strongly agree that the Hoganson called the Spanish weak and cowardly because their actions of raping and killing women definitely proved that. Hoganson stated that the Spanish not only lacked chivalrous character, but also cowardice, as well. Her interpretations on Chivalry proved that American manhood was definitely at stake during the Spanish-American War.
Hoganson starts out in the introduction that she is specifically focusing on gender convictions, which is the idea about appropriate male female roles that defined the contours of the 19th century political culture pg. 3. So right away you know that she is focusing particularly on the gender roles that caused the Spanish American War. From the evidence that is provided through out the chapters, I would support her argument, however, I believe that the yellow journalism during this time also was a big factor and Hoganson seemed to over look it. She did provided some cartoons from the time; however, I think the argument would have been stronger if she added in some more analysis of the cartoons. The evidence that she provides of men trying to assert their manliness and honor were convincing. Also, she addresses the issue of race with the Cubans in chapter 2. Americans were able to provide sympathy to the Cuban cause because of the “chivalric terms”. I think Hoganson does an excellent job describing why the Americans were able to related to the Cuban cause despite the racial arena that was going on in America during this time. Another part of the book I found interesting was what the public thought of McKinley during this time. They described him as “not having a backbone”. It brings into question, if he wasn’t president during this time of needing to assert manliness would the public still have thought this, and thought he was doing the right thing by examining the evidence.
Although it is convincing that gender played an important role in politics during the late nineteenth century, I do not think that a bunch of insecure men were responsible for the War of 1898. I still support the traditional explanations for why the United States went to war in 1898 but I agree with Hoganson that in order to understand the traditional explanations, it is important to understand the ”common gender assumptions” of the time. Some of the traditional explanations, such as economic ambitions or a desire to avenge the Maine, do not seem to be related. Hoganson makes a valid point that her cultural approach looks for links between motives that can answer the question of why the U.S. entered the war.
I do think that the men used the War of 1898 as a way to show off their manliness in order to protect American government and the manly ideal of politics. I thought that the most convincing reason why men, specifically the jingoes, were obsessed with manhood was because they were threatened by the women who were trying to gain more political power (I think the fact that a women was writing about American manhood made her argument about women stronger). Before this time, men did not really have to worry about women trying to become actively involved in politics. By the end of the war, political capacity seemed even more closely related to military ability which was a sign that the men who shared an enthusiasm for war were successful. On the other hand, women’s role in politics did not change even for those who supported the war by aiding the military.
Hoganson's suggests that manhood is the premise of President McKinley’s personality and leadership. It was the driving force that intensified engagements in a war that was culturally and politically confounding. I also found interesting, like the post before mine, the part of the book of what the public thought of McKinley during this time. Culturally, the changing role of women in American society added some of the most concern which was making young men hopes for a war, one that would reassert their sense of manliness. The fact that women were fighting for suffrage, were all over the place, and very vocal, in all sorts of reform movements which were challenging men's privileges in what were traditionally men's own rights. This was a major cause for even further concern. Feeling the pressure from the public, I can’t blame McKinley for going to war with the motives he had.
Hoganson uses manhood as the reasons behind the Spanish-American and Philippine Insurrection of 1898 and 1900's. The notion that Hoganson puts forth that because it seemed to be a way of showing of your manhood in some way the U.S entered into war with Spain. The use of the Civil War to support her thesis is key to understanding the national feeling of honor and chivalry into war all characteristics of masculinity. I Think it is these ideals that seem to come about during the late 1890's and that a way to prove the strength and manhood of America was through war. That seems to be the case as Hoganson tells us that there were so many people enlisting that the army had to turn them away.
I do believe these factors did play a role in the events of the late 19th and early 20th century and I do find her arguments interesting. I do not fault President McKinley for going to war, and I understand that the US seemed to looking for war, I wish the time had been taken to examine all the factors before rushing to war.
I also found Hoganson’s argument convincing, but I do not think that the main reason for going to war in 1898. Think that it was many different factors that all culminated in a declaration of war. One of the arguments I found very interesting was the idea that men were felling emasculated by women entering the political sphere and the idea that politics needed to be a job for men. And then combined with the yellow journalism that portrayed Cuban women as victims to the brutal Spanish soldiers and the idea that they needed to be saved by strong, men American men. I agree with Hoganson that in order to fully understand the decisions of McKinley and the popularity of the war with Spain have to understand the ideas of masculinity that were being perpetuated by politics and popular culture.
"...a nation in which assertive "New Women" were encroaching on men's traditional prerogatives and audiences were gathering to watch men prove their courage and martial capacity in death-defying and, in some cases, deadly acts" (1). In the thirty years that followed the Civil War, America had maintained a state of peace. However, a movement was stirring in the nation that would soon bring about significant changes for the American people. Hoganson explains the ways in which culture and gender have significantly affected political affairs and ultimately led America into the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. Men began placing a great emphasis on the importance of manliness. "To win political authority, men had to appear manly" (23). During this period, women began asserting their interests in politics. Women's political activism created an uneasiness among traditionalists who grew concerned that politics would become feminized. "Politics is a modified war. In politics there is struggle, strife, contention, bitterness, heart-burning, excitement, agitation, everything which is adverse to the true character of women" (23). When women began to threaten men's political sphere, since political power was associated with manhood, it began placing a pressure on men to "appear manly in order to maintain their political legitimacy" (3). Thus, men began looking for ways in which to exert their manly character. "War, they believed, would return the nation to a political order in which strong men governed and homebound women proved their patriotism by raising heroic sons" (11). Women comprised a large portion of the arbitrationists who believed in avoiding war while settling international disputes. Jingoes argued, however, that war would be beneficial to the nation and without asserting that manliness the nation would, in the words of T. Roosevelt, "inevitably decay." Fighting for American manhood and the belief that war was crucial to maintaining a strong nation became such a large part of American culture during this time that even political leaders faced pressure to appear manly in order to maintain popularity among the people. "Confronted by admonitions to act like men, McKinley and peaceable members of Congress realized that they would lose political credibility if they did not adopt a more militant posture" (10).
I do believe that the nation's insecure men were responsible for the war in 1898. Cuba's close distance to Florida sparked an interest among the American people. The press gained American sympathy for Cuba by presenting Spain as a ruthless dictator reaking havoc in Cuba and Cuba as a helpless victim. The sinking of the Maine appears to be a mere exuse for war. "More men tried to volunteer than the armed forces could accept; contemporary observers exulted that the war had "brought us a higher manhood" and "compelled admiration for American valor on land and sea" (6).
I think that Hoganson presented a valid and credible argument for gender being the key component that led America into war at the turn of the century. The fact that there was a lack of evidence supporting the Spanish being responsible for the sinking of the Maine, the propaganda presented to the American people in defense of the Cubans, the attitudes among men involving the fight for manhood, and for the first time in history greater emphasis being placed on gender rather than race are all appeals that contributed to Hogansons claim that the Jingoist desire for war and manly ideal of politics did, in fact, lead America into the War of 1898 and the subsequent American imperialism.
I found Hoganson's evidence convincing that men believed the only way to defend their manliness was to engage in war. War was seen as having redeeming social implications and would further enforce the fading social gender roles. I feel the ideas of "chivalry" and "honor", which the jingoes based their argument for going to war on, were romanticized by yellow journalism. The anti-interventionists toned it down by explaining honor could still be achieved with "moderation and firmness" rather than "bustle and bravado."
American men did not want to appear weak amongst their peers or on an international level. A quote that stuck out to me is "Arbitration could lead to conciliation, but it could not reinstate the insulted party before his peers. To the contrary, it would undercut his position by implying that he was unable to settle his own affairs without assistance (73)." After the U.S.S. Maine exploded, jingoes felt their response must be as bold, rather than through quiet arbitration.
I agree with Hoganson that men desirous for war were influential enough to achieve their aims and further American imperialism by claiming that "humanitarian aid or limited political reforms were inadequate to settle the Cuban issue (55)"
On a side note, the Great Lives speaker last night on Joseph Pulitzer mentioned briefly the War of 1898/the sinking of the Maine and our lust for war and the emergence of yellow journalism. He seemed to agree it was the start of American imperialism.
I agree with Hoganson to some degree that men were eager for war and exerted their masculinity but I don’t buy the argument that it is out of insecurity. I feel war held a more romanticized view back then and following the Victorian era men wanted to display their barbarity like argued from TR. I thought it was interesting the comparisons made between McKinley not wanting women to vote so he opted for war I cant help but see this as some sort of feminist revisionist history. Although noble the suffragettes were not as dominant of a force that Hoganson makes them seem. I think the US utilized Spain’s weak position in global power and wanted to display to the world our military mite and modernity. I think this could have been improved with more counter arguments.
@mhimes: I think the question you ask at the end of your post is really important. "if the USS Maine incident had not happened if manhood would have been enough to go to war for?" Obviously, the only valid answer to that question "we'll never know" but I think it raises some more important questions. Mainly, to what degree did the issue of masculine insecurity encourage aggressive foreign policy. I ask "to what degree" because I think it is absolutely clear that the concept of American manhood played a role in foreign policy during the late 19th century. However, I too wonder exactly how critical maintaining masculinity was to policy makers. Personally, I would say it played an enormous role, and Hoganson provides lots of evidence to support that. However, I think there is still plenty of room to argue that other factors were much more critical to the decision-making process, like economic factors. So I suppose the question is, was maintaining masculinity simply justification for policy, or the actual REASON for the policy
@npuryear87: I think its important to recognize that Hoganson probably doesn't actually believe the Spanish were weak and cowardly. The point is that American men of the time painted that image of the Spanish in order to evoke a response from the American people, not that the image was necessarily true, or that it is the historian's job to judge about character. I think the argument was that American claims of Spanish brutality were heavily exaggerated to achieve a political goal.
I agree with Hoganson that jingoism and manliness were very important reasons for the Spanish-American War. But, I think that Hoganson should have emphasized the significance of the economic depression that began in 1893 more. Sure, her main premise is based on gender-roles that were destabilizing during the 1890s, and she proved that traditional gender-roles certainly were threatened during this time. But I feel that she puts too much emphasis on jingoist desires to go to war and not enough on the effects of economic crises on nations.
Economic crises in history have always been followed by societal witch-hunts for possible scapegoats. In the 1870s in Germany, you have an up swelling of German Nationalism that specifically targeted outside ethnic groups as the cause of the economic plight. Many jews, who had considered themselves German Nationalists until the 1870s suddenly outcast, leading to the zionist movement.
I buy that American perceptions of masculinity had a big part to play in the Spanish-American War. What I'm not sold on is that this was primarily a result of a fading Civil War generation and organized women's movements. Instead, I believe these are two sources of anxiety that propelled jingoism to national prevalence but only because American's were looking to understand their economic plight by means of a scapegoat. While I agree that the scapegoat they found was a lack of masculinity, I think that it was only because of economic factors that American men were even searching.
Hoganson certainly isn't wrong, and she does take note of the economic panic that occurred in the 1890s, I just think that the panic was more important than unstable gender-roles in the course of events that led to the Spanish-American War.
According to the evidence that Hoganson provides to assert her claim, she does a good job arguing that during the late nineteenth century, American’s felt the need to prove their manliness and strength so they provoked the Spanish American War. However, I agree with Abbey’s post, and I don’t know that I necessarily believe that a group of insecure men got together and decided to wage war against the Spanish. It is my opinion that typically the United States makes political and foreign policy decisions based on whatever is in the best interest for the American people. With regards to Cuba, this island nation lies about 90 miles off the coast of Florida. It would be beneficial for Cuba to become a separate territory (or a U.S. territory) away from Spain for the simple fact of more security for the U.S. When analyzing the events that took place during the time of the Cuban revolutionary uprising and the involvement of the U.S. in the Spanish American War, it is important to look at all of the factors that led up to this point. Leading up to and even shortly after the American Civil War, America was a nation divided. Even during Reconstruction, many Southerners resented the Northerners and their losing battle against the “Lost Cause”. I believe that this loss and the tension that still existed between the North and South helped to maybe provide unity once again for American men into joining together and fighting for the same cause versus on separate grounds. Another important factor to take into consideration during this time was the uprising of the women’s rights movement. Many women were fighting for women’s suffrage and beginning to become involved in the political world, which was always considered a man’s domain. I believe that this factor helped lead to the uprising of the jingoist ideal of manliness because they may have felt threatened by these women. By entering a war, they were entering into something that women would not have been allowed to participate in.
The relatively feminized Victorian period in the US was abruptly followed by the rapid growth of emphasis placed on masculine qualities following the Civil War, most aptly illustrated in the Lost Cause rhetoric in the South. The reasons for this are numerous, as Hoganson demonstrates in Fighting for American Manhood. Increased industrialization, prominence of women in the public sphere, the ideas of Social Darwinism, and economic swings that threatened men’s primary role as provider are some of the many cultural factors that had the odd effect of increasing an overall expression of masculine virtues. These ideas were articulated in the arbitration debate, while the romantic notions of chivalry and honor were invoked in the arguments for war against Spain. The quick and neat victory in the Spanish-American war served as ample fodder to assist in the further attempts reassert a consolidated white male hegemony, as “military heroes, dudes, and southern white men strove to enhance their political standing by citing their military capacities (125).”
I agree with Hoganson’s argument. During a period of such rapid social and cultural change, there was a large section of the population, both male and female, that looked to a reassertion of traditional gender roles as a mitigator. It stands to reason that this would be reflected in policymaking, and most illustratively, in the heightened jingoism of the period.
Hoganson highlights the American man's insecurities as one of the primary factors which lead the U.S. to "reclaim" its masculinity through war. She spends a good amount of time discussing McKinley's political appearance (how he was criticized as weak), how support for the war increased several politician's political clout and how several social and ethnic groups did not receive due credit for their part in the war after it was over.
All these points are important and worth discussing, though I find what she states about Cuba after the war more interesting. Americans had once depicted Cubans as heroic figures fighting oppression, only to go right back to treating them like inferiors right after the war was won and their "honor" restored. It really highlights how America was (and still is, in many ways) a slave to the moment. At one point it there to liberate a nation from oppression and to show off its military prowess. Then as soon as thats done it can begin forming its own empire out of what it now has.
I think that Hoganson makes an intresting argument concering gender as a provoking element for the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. I could understand her argument how a new generation sought to show their manhood through war with the decline of the Civil War generation. I also agree that men may have been threatened by women gaining a more prominent role in society than in previouse years. I think the argument she makes is acceptable and has evidence to back it up.I do not think that it alone was the sole reason for the start of the wars. It along with economic and political factors had a strong influence in the start of the wars.
The Hoganson’s conception of gender as a cultural manifestation that had deep implications which greatly influenced American political, societal and foreign policy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is an extremely provocative argument. Examples such as how the Jingoist sympathies for Cuban revolutionaries based their favorable view of the imagined chivalric qualities of Cuban men, greatly exhibited the virility of her thesis. The most intriguing aspect of her thesis, or rather the aspect that I appreciated the most, was how the country was continually paralleled with having manly qualities in itself and being personified through “Uncle Sam.” I think her ability to infuse illustrations into her explanations of the gendered view of American society at the time and how it applied to our foreign policy was extremely relevant because I think it still applies to how many in the U.S. view our mission globally today (Toby Kieth’s hit song “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue”). I think her ability to use Uncle Sam greatly increased the potency of her argument especially as to how the general jingoist mindset toward foreign policy and how they utilized the principle of honor as it applied to personified countries (such as the U.S. personified by Uncle Sam) to spread their policies nationwide.
Hoganson presents a pretty strong argument for her thesis, especially considering the post civil war fervor to fight and the vanishing frontier, Hoganson argues well that America's politicians masculinity was rooted so deep, that "physically soft" president McKinley was strong armed into the Spanish and Philippine American Wars by Jingoists in Congress. Though I think that emasculated politicians were influenced by the manly urge to go out and conquer, it is not the reason that they did so. Other unaddressed issues such as the need for ports on trade routs to meet the needs of the emerging American industrial economy, or the need for harbors on foreign shores for America's new Navy. Hoganson's argument undoubtably influenced the decision making in Washington at the time, but most likely did not completely determine the imperialist policy.
I found Hoganson’s argument to be extremely convincing. The point is supported by her discussion on the international arbitration treaty between the US and Great Britain on page 15, Hoganson lays the first layer of how jingoism managed to become significant in the late 1890s. The treaty would have allowed for 5 years of arbitration, yet the jingoists of that era were disinterested in avoiding fighting, as it would only emasculate honor. As we discussed in class, men felt they were becoming too civilized, so the best thing for them to do was go to the frontier and once again connect with the roots of manhood.
Following the vetoing of the treaty, the jingoist tide was overtaking American men. “Chivalry”, a new concept, emerged ready to stomp on the idea of the Strong Woman and also destroy all others deemed stronger. The Cuban man was romantic and chivalrous, but was being beaten by Strong Spain. Jingoists aching for a fight saw this situation and began forming a bond with their Cuban brethren.
Dishonor would be the result of not entering the fight, especially after the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine. This is where I believe the strength of Hoganson’s argument emerges. Politics had become intertwined with the presumed manliness that was necessary. McKinley was seen as a goody two shoes (p 91) because he did not declare war.
As well, Hoganson’s discussion of how active women were disliked stemming from how they would feminize politics was interesting. The new sort or moral patriotism they had was different than that held by the jingoists and it endangered everything men and politics stood for.
Even thought I totally fell asleep in front of my computer last night and did not hit the submit button... Hoganson's suggests that manhood was directly because of President McKinley’s persona and leadership. While it is clear that Manhood has almost remained consistent through the past century. This however, fueled the bloodshed and feelings of war in the nation. The issue of public opinion was a different story. While women were arguing they should have equal rights, men were asserting that they were stronger, faster and (certainly) more wild. What is odd in my opinion was that Chivalry didn’t stick around. The notion could be born by the premise that women are inferior, but does “manhood” mean putting women down? Or is the iconic picture of Uncle Sam, barreled chested and brave the only image of American Manhood at the turn of the century? Going to war was caving to peer pressure… and not manly at all.
Popular culture during that time suggested that American manhood was at stake. Men were expected to be assertive. This assertiveness would have appeared to other countries as a strong American foreign policy. Hoganson’s argument is convincing. She also brought to light the changing role of women. Women could not vote but they made their presence known in the political arena regarding arbitration over war. This suggests a shift that would be expressed in future policy. I wonder if the USS Maine incident had not happened if manhood would have been enough to go to war for?
ReplyDeleteAs I read this reading, Hoganson's evidence was definitely convincing because her stance is clearly expressed in chapter 2. Her main idea was based on the chivalric paradigm between the Cuban Men and Women and the Spanish. Her idea of chivalry is very similar to the Knights in the medieval period because honor is a big part of their lives. Hoganson believed that the Cubans were fearless because they fought by honor and they treat woman as human beings. "Like true knights, the Cuban men depicted in favorable American publications often drew their inspiration from women." (pg.47). Unlike the Cubans, the Spaniards treated women like animals because they raped them just for the fun of it. I strongly agree that the Hoganson called the Spanish weak and cowardly because their actions of raping and killing women definitely proved that. Hoganson stated that the Spanish not only lacked chivalrous character, but also cowardice, as well. Her interpretations on Chivalry proved that American manhood was definitely at stake during the Spanish-American War.
ReplyDeleteHoganson starts out in the introduction that she is specifically focusing on gender convictions, which is the idea about appropriate male female roles that defined the contours of the 19th century political culture pg. 3. So right away you know that she is focusing particularly on the gender roles that caused the Spanish American War. From the evidence that is provided through out the chapters, I would support her argument, however, I believe that the yellow journalism during this time also was a big factor and Hoganson seemed to over look it. She did provided some cartoons from the time; however, I think the argument would have been stronger if she added in some more analysis of the cartoons. The evidence that she provides of men trying to assert their manliness and honor were convincing. Also, she addresses the issue of race with the Cubans in chapter 2. Americans were able to provide sympathy to the Cuban cause because of the “chivalric terms”. I think Hoganson does an excellent job describing why the Americans were able to related to the Cuban cause despite the racial arena that was going on in America during this time. Another part of the book I found interesting was what the public thought of McKinley during this time. They described him as “not having a backbone”. It brings into question, if he wasn’t president during this time of needing to assert manliness would the public still have thought this, and thought he was doing the right thing by examining the evidence.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is convincing that gender played an important role in politics during the late nineteenth century, I do not think that a bunch of insecure men were responsible for the War of 1898. I still support the traditional explanations for why the United States went to war in 1898 but I agree with Hoganson that in order to understand the traditional explanations, it is important to understand the ”common gender assumptions” of the time. Some of the traditional explanations, such as economic ambitions or a desire to avenge the Maine, do not seem to be related. Hoganson makes a valid point that her cultural approach looks for links between motives that can answer the question of why the U.S. entered the war.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the men used the War of 1898 as a way to show off their manliness in order to protect American government and the manly ideal of politics. I thought that the most convincing reason why men, specifically the jingoes, were obsessed with manhood was because they were threatened by the women who were trying to gain more political power (I think the fact that a women was writing about American manhood made her argument about women stronger). Before this time, men did not really have to worry about women trying to become actively involved in politics. By the end of the war, political capacity seemed even more closely related to military ability which was a sign that the men who shared an enthusiasm for war were successful. On the other hand, women’s role in politics did not change even for those who supported the war by aiding the military.
Hoganson's suggests that manhood is the premise of President McKinley’s personality and leadership. It was the driving force that intensified engagements in a war that was culturally and politically confounding. I also found interesting, like the post before mine, the part of the book of what the public thought of McKinley during this time. Culturally, the changing role of women in American society added some of the most concern which was making young men hopes for a war, one that would reassert their sense of manliness. The fact that women were fighting for suffrage, were all over the place, and very vocal, in all sorts of reform movements which were challenging men's privileges in what were traditionally men's own rights. This was a major cause for even further concern. Feeling the pressure from the public, I can’t blame McKinley for going to war with the motives he had.
ReplyDeleteHoganson uses manhood as the reasons behind the Spanish-American and Philippine Insurrection of 1898 and 1900's. The notion that Hoganson puts forth that because it seemed to be a way of showing of your manhood in some way the U.S entered into war with Spain. The use of the Civil War to support her thesis is key to understanding the national feeling of honor and chivalry into war all characteristics of masculinity. I Think it is these ideals that seem to come about during the late 1890's and that a way to prove the strength and manhood of America was through war. That seems to be the case as Hoganson tells us that there were so many people enlisting that the army had to turn them away.
ReplyDeleteI do believe these factors did play a role in the events of the late 19th and early 20th century and I do find her arguments interesting. I do not fault President McKinley for going to war, and I understand that the US seemed to looking for war, I wish the time had been taken to examine all the factors before rushing to war.
I also found Hoganson’s argument convincing, but I do not think that the main reason for going to war in 1898. Think that it was many different factors that all culminated in a declaration of war. One of the arguments I found very interesting was the idea that men were felling emasculated by women entering the political sphere and the idea that politics needed to be a job for men. And then combined with the yellow journalism that portrayed Cuban women as victims to the brutal Spanish soldiers and the idea that they needed to be saved by strong, men American men. I agree with Hoganson that in order to fully understand the decisions of McKinley and the popularity of the war with Spain have to understand the ideas of masculinity that were being perpetuated by politics and popular culture.
ReplyDelete"...a nation in which assertive "New Women" were encroaching on men's traditional prerogatives and audiences were gathering to watch men prove their courage and martial capacity in death-defying and, in some cases, deadly acts" (1). In the thirty years that followed the Civil War, America had maintained a state of peace. However, a movement was stirring in the nation that would soon bring about significant changes for the American people. Hoganson explains the ways in which culture and gender have significantly affected political affairs and ultimately led America into the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. Men began placing a great emphasis on the importance of manliness. "To win political authority, men had to appear manly" (23). During this period, women began asserting their interests in politics. Women's political activism created an uneasiness among traditionalists who grew concerned that politics would become feminized. "Politics is a modified war. In politics there is struggle, strife, contention, bitterness, heart-burning, excitement, agitation, everything which is adverse to the true character of women" (23). When women began to threaten men's political sphere, since political power was associated with manhood, it began placing a pressure on men to "appear manly in order to maintain their political legitimacy" (3). Thus, men began looking for ways in which to exert their manly character. "War, they believed, would return the nation to a political order in which strong men governed and homebound women proved their patriotism by raising heroic sons" (11). Women comprised a large portion of the arbitrationists who believed in avoiding war while settling international disputes. Jingoes argued, however, that war would be beneficial to the nation and without asserting that manliness the nation would, in the words of T. Roosevelt, "inevitably decay." Fighting for American manhood and the belief that war was crucial to maintaining a strong nation became such a large part of American culture during this time that even political leaders faced pressure to appear manly in order to maintain popularity among the people. "Confronted by admonitions to act like men, McKinley and peaceable members of Congress realized that they would lose political credibility if they did not adopt a more militant posture" (10).
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the nation's insecure men were responsible for the war in 1898. Cuba's close distance to Florida sparked an interest among the American people. The press gained American sympathy for Cuba by presenting Spain as a ruthless dictator reaking havoc in Cuba and Cuba as a helpless victim. The sinking of the Maine appears to be a mere exuse for war. "More men tried to volunteer than the armed forces could accept; contemporary observers exulted that the war had "brought us a higher manhood" and "compelled admiration for American valor on land and sea" (6).
I think that Hoganson presented a valid and credible argument for gender being the key component that led America into war at the turn of the century. The fact that there was a lack of evidence supporting the Spanish being responsible for the sinking of the Maine, the propaganda presented to the American people in defense of the Cubans, the attitudes among men involving the fight for manhood, and for the first time in history greater emphasis being placed on gender rather than race are all appeals that contributed to Hogansons claim that the Jingoist desire for war and manly ideal of politics did, in fact, lead America into the War of 1898 and the subsequent American imperialism.
I found Hoganson's evidence convincing that men believed the only way to defend their manliness was to engage in war. War was seen as having redeeming social implications and would further enforce the fading social gender roles. I feel the ideas of "chivalry" and "honor", which the jingoes based their argument for going to war on, were romanticized by yellow journalism. The anti-interventionists toned it down by explaining honor could still be achieved with "moderation and firmness" rather than "bustle and bravado."
ReplyDeleteAmerican men did not want to appear weak amongst their peers or on an international level. A quote that stuck out to me is "Arbitration could lead to conciliation, but it could not reinstate the insulted party before his peers. To the contrary, it would undercut his position by implying that he was unable to settle his own affairs without assistance (73)." After the U.S.S. Maine exploded, jingoes felt their response must be as bold, rather than through quiet arbitration.
I agree with Hoganson that men desirous for war were influential enough to achieve their aims and further American imperialism by claiming that "humanitarian aid or limited political reforms were inadequate to settle the Cuban issue (55)"
On a side note, the Great Lives speaker last night on Joseph Pulitzer mentioned briefly the War of 1898/the sinking of the Maine and our lust for war and the emergence of yellow journalism. He seemed to agree it was the start of American imperialism.
I agree with Hoganson to some degree that men were eager for war and exerted their masculinity but I don’t buy the argument that it is out of insecurity. I feel war held a more romanticized view back then and following the Victorian era men wanted to display their barbarity like argued from TR. I thought it was interesting the comparisons made between McKinley not wanting women to vote so he opted for war I cant help but see this as some sort of feminist revisionist history. Although noble the suffragettes were not as dominant of a force that Hoganson makes them seem. I think the US utilized Spain’s weak position in global power and wanted to display to the world our military mite and modernity. I think this could have been improved with more counter arguments.
ReplyDelete@mhimes: I think the question you ask at the end of your post is really important. "if the USS Maine incident had not happened if manhood would have been enough to go to war for?" Obviously, the only valid answer to that question "we'll never know" but I think it raises some more important questions. Mainly, to what degree did the issue of masculine insecurity encourage aggressive foreign policy. I ask "to what degree" because I think it is absolutely clear that the concept of American manhood played a role in foreign policy during the late 19th century. However, I too wonder exactly how critical maintaining masculinity was to policy makers. Personally, I would say it played an enormous role, and Hoganson provides lots of evidence to support that. However, I think there is still plenty of room to argue that other factors were much more critical to the decision-making process, like economic factors. So I suppose the question is, was maintaining masculinity simply justification for policy, or the actual REASON for the policy
ReplyDelete@npuryear87: I think its important to recognize that Hoganson probably doesn't actually believe the Spanish were weak and cowardly. The point is that American men of the time painted that image of the Spanish in order to evoke a response from the American people, not that the image was necessarily true, or that it is the historian's job to judge about character. I think the argument was that American claims of Spanish brutality were heavily exaggerated to achieve a political goal.
I agree with Hoganson that jingoism and manliness were very important reasons for the Spanish-American War. But, I think that Hoganson should have emphasized the significance of the economic depression that began in 1893 more. Sure, her main premise is based on gender-roles that were destabilizing during the 1890s, and she proved that traditional gender-roles certainly were threatened during this time. But I feel that she puts too much emphasis on jingoist desires to go to war and not enough on the effects of economic crises on nations.
ReplyDeleteEconomic crises in history have always been followed by societal witch-hunts for possible scapegoats. In the 1870s in Germany, you have an up swelling of German Nationalism that specifically targeted outside ethnic groups as the cause of the economic plight. Many jews, who had considered themselves German Nationalists until the 1870s suddenly outcast, leading to the zionist movement.
I buy that American perceptions of masculinity had a big part to play in the Spanish-American War. What I'm not sold on is that this was primarily a result of a fading Civil War generation and organized women's movements. Instead, I believe these are two sources of anxiety that propelled jingoism to national prevalence but only because American's were looking to understand their economic plight by means of a scapegoat. While I agree that the scapegoat they found was a lack of masculinity, I think that it was only because of economic factors that American men were even searching.
Hoganson certainly isn't wrong, and she does take note of the economic panic that occurred in the 1890s, I just think that the panic was more important than unstable gender-roles in the course of events that led to the Spanish-American War.
According to the evidence that Hoganson provides to assert her claim, she does a good job arguing that during the late nineteenth century, American’s felt the need to prove their manliness and strength so they provoked the Spanish American War. However, I agree with Abbey’s post, and I don’t know that I necessarily believe that a group of insecure men got together and decided to wage war against the Spanish. It is my opinion that typically the United States makes political and foreign policy decisions based on whatever is in the best interest for the American people. With regards to Cuba, this island nation lies about 90 miles off the coast of Florida. It would be beneficial for Cuba to become a separate territory (or a U.S. territory) away from Spain for the simple fact of more security for the U.S. When analyzing the events that took place during the time of the Cuban revolutionary uprising and the involvement of the U.S. in the Spanish American War, it is important to look at all of the factors that led up to this point. Leading up to and even shortly after the American Civil War, America was a nation divided. Even during Reconstruction, many Southerners resented the Northerners and their losing battle against the “Lost Cause”. I believe that this loss and the tension that still existed between the North and South helped to maybe provide unity once again for American men into joining together and fighting for the same cause versus on separate grounds. Another important factor to take into consideration during this time was the uprising of the women’s rights movement. Many women were fighting for women’s suffrage and beginning to become involved in the political world, which was always considered a man’s domain. I believe that this factor helped lead to the uprising of the jingoist ideal of manliness because they may have felt threatened by these women. By entering a war, they were entering into something that women would not have been allowed to participate in.
ReplyDeleteThe relatively feminized Victorian period in the US was abruptly followed by the rapid growth of emphasis placed on masculine qualities following the Civil War, most aptly illustrated in the Lost Cause rhetoric in the South. The reasons for this are numerous, as Hoganson demonstrates in Fighting for American Manhood. Increased industrialization, prominence of women in the public sphere, the ideas of Social Darwinism, and economic swings that threatened men’s primary role as provider are some of the many cultural factors that had the odd effect of increasing an overall expression of masculine virtues. These ideas were articulated in the arbitration debate, while the romantic notions of chivalry and honor were invoked in the arguments for war against Spain. The quick and neat victory in the Spanish-American war served as ample fodder to assist in the further attempts reassert a consolidated white male hegemony, as “military heroes, dudes, and southern white men strove to enhance their political standing by citing their military capacities (125).”
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hoganson’s argument. During a period of such rapid social and cultural change, there was a large section of the population, both male and female, that looked to a reassertion of traditional gender roles as a mitigator. It stands to reason that this would be reflected in policymaking, and most illustratively, in the heightened jingoism of the period.
Hoganson highlights the American man's insecurities as one of the primary factors which lead the U.S. to "reclaim" its masculinity through war. She spends a good amount of time discussing McKinley's political appearance (how he was criticized as weak), how support for the war increased several politician's political clout and how several social and ethnic groups did not receive due credit for their part in the war after it was over.
ReplyDeleteAll these points are important and worth discussing, though I find what she states about Cuba after the war more interesting. Americans had once depicted Cubans as heroic figures fighting oppression, only to go right back to treating them like inferiors right after the war was won and their "honor" restored. It really highlights how America was (and still is, in many ways) a slave to the moment. At one point it there to liberate a nation from oppression and to show off its military prowess. Then as soon as thats done it can begin forming its own empire out of what it now has.
I think that Hoganson makes an intresting argument concering gender as a provoking element for the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. I could understand her argument how a new generation sought to show their manhood through war with the decline of the Civil War generation. I also agree that men may have been threatened by women gaining a more prominent role in society than in previouse years. I think the argument she makes is acceptable and has evidence to back it up.I do not think that it alone was the sole reason for the start of the wars. It along with economic and political factors had a strong influence in the start of the wars.
ReplyDeleteThe Hoganson’s conception of gender as a cultural manifestation that had deep implications which greatly influenced American political, societal and foreign policy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is an extremely provocative argument. Examples such as how the Jingoist sympathies for Cuban revolutionaries based their favorable view of the imagined chivalric qualities of Cuban men, greatly exhibited the virility of her thesis. The most intriguing aspect of her thesis, or rather the aspect that I appreciated the most, was how the country was continually paralleled with having manly qualities in itself and being personified through “Uncle Sam.” I think her ability to infuse illustrations into her explanations of the gendered view of American society at the time and how it applied to our foreign policy was extremely relevant because I think it still applies to how many in the U.S. view our mission globally today (Toby Kieth’s hit song “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue”). I think her ability to use Uncle Sam greatly increased the potency of her argument especially as to how the general jingoist mindset toward foreign policy and how they utilized the principle of honor as it applied to personified countries (such as the U.S. personified by Uncle Sam) to spread their policies nationwide.
ReplyDeleteHoganson presents a pretty strong argument for her thesis, especially considering the post civil war fervor to fight and the vanishing frontier, Hoganson argues well that America's politicians masculinity was rooted so deep, that "physically soft" president McKinley was strong armed into the Spanish and Philippine American Wars by Jingoists in Congress. Though I think that emasculated politicians were influenced by the manly urge to go out and conquer, it is not the reason that they did so. Other unaddressed issues such as the need for ports on trade routs to meet the needs of the emerging American industrial economy, or the need for harbors on foreign shores for America's new Navy. Hoganson's argument undoubtably influenced the decision making in Washington at the time, but most likely did not completely determine the imperialist policy.
ReplyDeleteI found Hoganson’s argument to be extremely convincing. The point is supported by her discussion on the international arbitration treaty between the US and Great Britain on page 15, Hoganson lays the first layer of how jingoism managed to become significant in the late 1890s. The treaty would have allowed for 5 years of arbitration, yet the jingoists of that era were disinterested in avoiding fighting, as it would only emasculate honor. As we discussed in class, men felt they were becoming too civilized, so the best thing for them to do was go to the frontier and once again connect with the roots of manhood.
ReplyDeleteFollowing the vetoing of the treaty, the jingoist tide was overtaking American men. “Chivalry”, a new concept, emerged ready to stomp on the idea of the Strong Woman and also destroy all others deemed stronger. The Cuban man was romantic and chivalrous, but was being beaten by Strong Spain. Jingoists aching for a fight saw this situation and began forming a bond with their Cuban brethren.
Dishonor would be the result of not entering the fight, especially after the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine. This is where I believe the strength of Hoganson’s argument emerges. Politics had become intertwined with the presumed manliness that was necessary. McKinley was seen as a goody two shoes (p 91) because he did not declare war.
As well, Hoganson’s discussion of how active women were disliked stemming from how they would feminize politics was interesting. The new sort or moral patriotism they had was different than that held by the jingoists and it endangered everything men and politics stood for.
Even thought I totally fell asleep in front of my computer last night and did not hit the submit button... Hoganson's suggests that manhood was directly because of President McKinley’s persona and leadership. While it is clear that Manhood has almost remained consistent through the past century. This however, fueled the bloodshed and feelings of war in the nation. The issue of public opinion was a different story. While women were arguing they should have equal rights, men were asserting that they were stronger, faster and (certainly) more wild. What is odd in my opinion was that Chivalry didn’t stick around. The notion could be born by the premise that women are inferior, but does “manhood” mean putting women down? Or is the iconic picture of Uncle Sam, barreled chested and brave the only image of American Manhood at the turn of the century? Going to war was caving to peer pressure… and not manly at all.
ReplyDelete