A BLOG ABOUT HISTORY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE PROBLEMS OF HUMAN DOMINION
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
UMW 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? Other thoughts or questions?
I find the portrayal of President McKinley interesting in Kristin l. Hoganson’s Fighting for American Manhood. There is a lot of emphasis of him being viewed effeminate because he was not as eager to go to war as much of the country seemed to be. According to Hoganson , “He remembered the Civil War as a horrible conflict and had hoped that international arbitration would replace war as a means of international disputes,”(Hoganson, 105). Hoganson’s view of McKinley is largely that of pacifist, who did like the idea of going to war, but had the United States go to war because that is what the country wanted and so he could appear to be more masculine. The argument of masculinity adds a new dimension to US foreign policy in the early 20th century. Racism was a part US foreign policy on both sides of the issue, however the attack of lack of masculinity was clearly an attack on those who were more inclined to not interfere with other nations. The idea of masculinity playing a role in the foreign policy of the US in the 1890’s is more polarizing as being masculine was something that was important to Americans during the early 20th century.
Hoganson's belief of masculinity being a main promoter of aggressive foreign policy makes more sense than the racism preventing expansion. I think the idea that Hoganson also proposes the idea of the importance of honor in maintaining the masculinity. After the Columbian Exposition, it would make complete sense that the U.S. would look for another way to prove their honor and masculinity. They had already gained control of their entire, owned landscape, but the policy makers needed something new. The USS Maine disaster was only a good excuse to show the United States was a player on the world stage.
I sort of buy Hoganson's argument because masculinity and honor were the two important ingredients in order to be a true American during the late 1890's. As reading through her book, I believed that President McKinley was the most criticized person throughout the book, but it seemed that he was not a true fan of going to war, but who isn't? I agree with the poster above that states that McKinley was a pacifist, and he was compelled to declare war due to the American people. Does it mean that men during that period were showing their masculinity? Perhaps, but the main reason that they went to war was due to the explosion of the U.S.S Maine. This was a way to show their honor and masculinity, and to show other powerful nations across the globe that American officials should be considered top players in the world.
Honestly, I never would have thought to consider the role of gender in the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars, but Hoganson's argument does make sense. Masculinity was a desirable trait for a country to demonstrate, as it implied that the nation was capable of defending itself and deserving of honor and glory. When tied into the lecture of how American feared the degeneration of manliness, Hoganson's case does not seem far-fetched at all. Men in the United States were eager to prove how "tough" they could be and that they had not been softened by the advancement of technology and the passage of time, particularly a time of peace. The men were restless, yearning for the glory days of the Civil War (In the South, the development of romanticizing the Lost Cause) and a way to express their pride in being men. A chivalrous rescue of the Cubans from their lazy and effeminate Spanish captors no doubt seemed alluring to bolster manly pride not only in men as individuals but in the nation as a whole, which seemed to have hit an stagnant point in terms of its expansion.
Man’s perception of himself has been written primarily by men and entirely through the “lens” of men for the gross part of human history. Therefore I found Hoganson’s argument interesting in the fact that it was developed from a relatively “new frontier”. Hoganson’s statement “manhood was a national security issue.”(pg. 204) seems plausible, especially since feminism (although in its infancy) was gaining momentum, and a woman’s ability to speak was undermining one of man’s most distinguishable characters … his ability to silence the “weaker” sex. Ultimately though, I believe that all aspects of life are multi-faceted, so one can never lump all their eggs in one basket to describe any situation. But as Richard Hofstadter concludes in his essay on Cuba, the Philippines, and Manifest Destiny, an “attempt to see the war and expansion in the light of social history has led us onto the high and dangerous ground of social psychology and into the arena of conjecture. But simple rationalistic explanations of natural behavior will also leave us dissatisfied”. (1) Therefore I feel Hoganson has done a good job by pushing the envelope and bringing light to an aspect of men that they rarely want to acknowledge themselves.
Hofstadter, Richard. "The Paranoid Style in American Politics. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965) pg. 185.
I believe that Hoganson's idea that the War of 1898 and the ensuing quest for American imperialism were directly linked to the American man's identity crisis of the lack of masculinity and chivalrous character in which they perceived to have. What she is saying is definitely valid, that jingoism fostered by the American male at the time was a catalyst for Americas increased urgency to go to war in the 1890s. I like how she puts an emphasis on the Civil War veterans as being the standard of the American man. One can see the same thing of the soldiers of WWII and how they were looked up to and idolized giving justification to why the men at the time were in pursuit of these manly values. However I feel like this emphasis on masculinity takes away from the fact that war is good for business, and that I believe that economic interests in these parts of the world were also strong driving forces for why the US entered conflicts at the time in which they could have avoided. Its just a thought, but I believe that gender politics may have been the starter for these conflicts but that economics was what kept it going.
Hoganson's argument is completely convincing. The young men around the time of the Spanish-American War were of the generation that had been born after the Civil War, and had really not had any "wars" to bring them masculine and martial honor. In their eyes, the generation that had fought in the Civil War was the luckiest generation because they had gotten the opportunity to prove their manliness. Also, honor and chivalry were important during the Victorian Age that was occurring at that moment and Hoganson does a good job describing how the veterans of the Civil War and their children saw them as "gallant knights" (55). The young men of that generation also most likely felt that they could not truly be men until they had gained martial honor on the field of battle. So, in truth, these insecure men looking to emulate the Civil War generation before them are responsible for the war and all the subsequent American Imperialism
I definitely think that Hoganson is making a valid point that manhood insecurity was a leading factor for the American wars with the Spanish and later in the Philippines. This was the first generation of men that were removed from the fighting of the civil war. These Jingoists that grew up admiring these civil war veterans started to grow feelings of insecurity. With women becoming more active in society many men felt this was a threat to the American manhood of the time. Many thought that American society was becoming weaker and what American men needed was places to develop this ‘manly fiber’ that many Americans were so insecure about. As one might guess war seemed to be the best way to develop this manhood since that was what made the previous generation so strong in their minds. As this jingoism nature grew around the nation, many men had to accept it or be seen as less than a man. As Hoganson tells us McKinley even had to adopt a more manly and militant character because of the fear of losing political credibility by the Jingoes. In 1893 an economic depression hit the U.S. and this also contributed to the gender insecurities of the time. Going to war to expand the American empire not only provided a new ‘frontier’ to peruse manhood but also was an effort to decrease the gender insecurities on an economic level by going overseas to obtain new markets.
I believe it is fair to argue that masculinity was a main promoter for this war, like Hoganson did in her layout of this war. She tells us that there are a group of an array of diverse men labeled jingoes. That they argue the war would be beneficial to the nation and that the war would "...strengthen American democracy by building manly character in the nation's male citizens" with manly being the operative word. She then continues to say that the gender anxieties from the Spanish war also contributed to the "allure of the Philippines" which benefitted the jingoes, and later the imperialists. I think her views on McKinley, are accurate and that her argument is valid. Stating that his "manhood" was being questioned and doubted by many members of the press because of his views on going to war and lack of a "backbone," shows how there was certainly a factor of masculine pressure for war. In the Nation's attempt to create this grand view of the US as a strong political power, if the US did not go to war after the explosion of the Maine, the credibility of US power would have been compromised. This is because the disaster was an "insult to manhood" and going to war was a chance to restore honor through vengeance. These arguments are not absurd because they are very realistic in terms of how men respond to any type of threat. Pushing past this idea, there are other obvious reasons for why the US went to war, such as strengthening the economy and possible expansion. However, Hoganson's argument for gender is well supported and realistic.
I feel that most conflicts leading into war stem from man's insecurities about their manhood. Throughout history man has always had to prove himself as being masculine and rugid. The War of 1898 is no exception. Mckinley was hesitant at first to start any type of conflict with the Spanish Empire. Hoganson argues that Mckinley's manhood was called into question by the American public. When the U.S.S. Maine was destroyed, Politicians and the public alike demanded for a swift and forceful counter-offensive against the Spanish. American's continuously debated over Mckinley's "Backbone" and his lack of manliness. After sometime his lack of manliness made him eventually wage war against the Spanish Empire. We are told to believe that Mckinley saw an opportunity to expand the US's domestic and more importantly foreign power. I believe that Hoganson debunks that idea and proves that the Spanish and American War started due to Mckinley's need to prove his manliness and how he was the ideal model of a man; masculine, tough, and forceful. To me, it seems he proved his lack of toughness by conforming to the perceived ideal of manliness. By waging war against an innocent enemy he proved he had no "Backbone."
I felt that Hoganson did a good job of laying out the evidence, and showing that the War of 1898 was caused by men trying to assert the masculinity of the U.S. She uses a quote from Alfred Thayer Mahan where he said, “no greater danger could befall civilization than the disappearance of the warlike spirit among civilized men. There are too many barbarians still in the world.” From this and other evidence in the book it’s evident that a lot of men felt that way. I think the real question is, was this a bad thing? The U.S. needed to assert itself and show that it was going to be a world power. We had an invested economic interest in the Philippines and it is far to close to the U.S. for us to just shy away and leave its fate to the Spanish. The U.S. would have been seen as a pushover had they not gotten involved in Cuba and the Philippines.
Hoganson's argument cannot be ignored. Gender politics were surely not the only reason behind the Spanish-American war, but it is no coincidence that it occurred at the same time that the feminist movement was beginning at home. I think that, at first, the emerging imperialistic mindset was just as important as chivalry for defending Cuba, but it gradually transitioned to defending America at a time when its traditional [masculine] values were threatened domestically, and its superiority threatened abroad. Cuba was hardly mentioned after the USS Maine incident, until after the American victory when Cubans were decidedly unfit for self-governance. I think one of Hoganson's stronger points is how defending "honor" (aka manhood, chivalry, and traditional gender spheres) was the greatest reason for going to war. Phrases like "war over dishonor" were frequent anti-pacifist propaganda. It was stressed repeatedly that not supporting the war would be going against Republican [manly] virtue. Even today, patriotism and self-sacrifice for one's nation are among our most highly valued characteristics. In the late 19th century, however, these values were considered exclusive to men and necessary for political leadership, and thus inhibited women's rights. The emergence of the rough, athletic, and passionate male ideal certainly supported war, as did the perceived threat to paternalistic tradition. The image of McKinley is another important point in Hoganson's argument. The nation was hungry for war, and McKinley had to oblige, despite his calculating pacifistic stance, because his credibility as a leader was at stake. On one hand, this is just how politics play out, but on the other, the values behind going to war and the debate over McKinley's manhood make the situation more about gender politics than international affairs. Overall, I have to agree that the majority of motivations for the Spanish-American war were either directly, symbolically, or traditionally connected to male values.
I think that the War of 1898 was caused by a bunch of men just wanting to start a war, but everything happened to fall perfectly into place for the beginnings of a war to present itself. And when you include America wanting to both spread farther into the Pacific and protect their interests in Cuba it is understandable why America was so quick to start a war with Spain. Also if America had what it takes to take out one of the world powers of the time in Spain, then they could show that they deserve to be considered with the other European countries in a list of world powers. So in a way America was looking for the first chance that it could to prove itself among the world powers both in combat and having territories around the world.
I found Hoganson’s evidence convincing and her argument very interesting. I think she did a good job of supplying examples and analysis of the role that gendered ideas played in getting involved in the Spanish-American War, particularly the ideas of congressmen. With the fading of Civil War veterans and women’s efforts to insert themselves into the male political sphere, something needed to be done to reassert manhood--war provided the perfect solution, especially because America’s had been violated with the “Spanish explosion” of the Maine. The consequential association of military service with political prowess also makes sense within the context of reinvigorated values of manhood. However, I do feel that serving in the military and participating in military exploits lends itself to being more well-known, so perhaps military service just served to raise people out of anonymity (which then aids campaigning and election), but not necessarily to credit men with the desirable traits of manhood and elect them on this basis.
Hoganson makes the claim that gender issues were the glue that held all other intersecting factors together that led to the war. While I do agree that gender perceptions were a factor, I think that it is a stretch to say that they were the glue holding everything together. Whenever something happens, it’s always an intersection of many factors, but just because these causes together lead to an effect, I don’t think there has to be some other factor that holds everything together. Also, I think that Hoganson did not give racism its due credit, particularly in regards to Cubans and African Americans. She does mention racism, but downplays it (understandably) so that her gender argument can continue. Especially on pages 131-132, she says that military manliness is a characteristic of white men, which is why African Americans did not gain agency after being involved in the Spanish-American War. She then continues with her gender argument and kind of skims over the race issue, which I think is really key here, especially because it continued for decades into WWII, where racism prevented African American soldiers from fighting until later war years.
I wouldn’t necessarily say the men were insecure, but I do think they were responsible for the war and subsequent imperialism. I’d rather think that they were probably just bored and itching to express their masculinity, especially since nothing terribly exciting had happened since the Civil War (which is debatably exciting, depending on if you’re the North or the South). Getting involved in a war was an outlet for built-up energy and it also came at an opportune time to start venturing overseas: the crumbling Spanish empire could be (supposedly) easily swept aside, and the U.S. could step in and begin taking a more international stage.
I think that the war was a bunch of insecure men looking for easy way to feel dominate and powerful. The United States wanted to get involved in the war but could not until the sinking of the Maine. If it were not for the sinking of the Maine then the United States would not have had a logical reason to enter the war. To a certain extent the United States did join the war with imperialistic views, because the United States had invested in Cuban land and Cuban sugar and both played a vital role in the economy. Hoganson uses some very important and detailed facts about the war, and I do see him as convincing because he does not try to “sugar coat” any of the topics he speaks the truth. For instance when he explains how everyone thought President McKinley was a coward, and then later on he mentioned how he was such a mighty man. The way that Hoganson presents the facts (by stating the truth and the political cartoons) makes the information interesting to me.
I do not believe that the insecurity of men was the sole catalyst to going to war. I think many other aspects need to be weighed when looking at an issue like this. I do think that America did have imperialistic motives which drove them into seeing the war as a means toward growth and future success. It should also be noted that there were other serious and compelling motives driving an early nation into war. Hoganson does provide string evidence to support his arguments, however I believe he has too narrow of a focus when it comes to sufficiently highlight the underlying reasons in which the series of events took place.
One of the most compelling aspects of Kristin L. Hoganson’s argument in Fighting for American Manhood is her focus on the domestic climate. I am an International Affairs major, and too often I find the domestic story absent in explanations of war and conflicts studied in my classes. Instead of looking solely at Spanish actions and then the United States’ response to them, Hoganson goes deeper to explore what was going on in U.S. politics, its economy, and its culture to understand how such responses formulated. Introducing the politically active groups and organizations of the time, and providing the reader with quotes from important figures recreated the atmosphere for the last nineteenth century. While at first I laughed at the title of her book, thinking I would never fall for such an argument, Hoganson won me over in her style, research, and depiction of life in the time of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars that was certainly dominated by gender convictions and the need to fight for manhood in the U.S.
Hoganson’s point of view on the Spanish-American War was really interesting but justified. He manages to combine history facts and gender influence on this events. He highlights the fact that men played an important role on the launch of the war. Everything was based on the fact that a man has to be manly, so if a country insults his country, he is supposed to reply and to take revenge, otherwise he can’t be respected at the national level by women or at the international level by the other countries. According to Hoganson, everything dealt about chivalrous attitude that American do have but need to express: “awaken their heroic spirit” (page 38). He also affirms that American felt this need to go on a war, to prove their dominance over this corrupted empire [Spain], to be seen as peacekeepers; “as if they were the heroes and heroines of a romance novel.” (page 51) If they act in favor of the Cubans, the USA is going to improve its image on the international stage: they help the minorities, so consequently they are not racists and they do not only think about making money. Hoganson’s evidence were convincing and different from every other version of the beginning of this war which is interesting; but from my point of view, the USA only intervenes if it can benefit from its actions. Here, Cuba was close to the US, full in resources and it was an excuse to make Spain fall down, like that the US stands out as ‘the main empire’. But, I think that Hoganson’s ideas are strongly justified and are probably right to play a huge role in this war. America is known for fighting a lot and defends its standing and territories as we can see page 64: ‘Jingoes insisted that if American men did not respond to such insults, their honor would be discredited overseas’.
Hoganson writes "As one prolabor essayist noted, 'The poor in the tenement houses of our cities are in worse extremes than the down-trampled population of Cuba, but what patriot suggests war to free them?'" (44). When asked why most Americans supported Cuba, Hoganson cites humanitarian concerns, revolutionary support, as well as this romantic vision of pure Cuban women and adventurous Cuban men among other gendered dynamics. There is seemingly no doubt that jingoism and masculinity intersected and that gender roles heavily shaped foreign and domestic policy. However, I think a worthy discussion would be why policy makers were more concerned with the plight of foreigners than that of U.S. citizens. Why were these masculine efforts directed to foreign policy once the frontier was closed? Hoganson writes about jingoism as a response to 20th century materialism and upper class values. Where is the discussion of the rest of the population, particularly the lower classes?
I thought Hoganson's argument, as set up in the intro, was well justified. His book never set out to site manhood or the return to war-like masculinity as the sole factor for the cause of the war; rather the cultural implications tied all the causes together. He describes this idea by saying foreign policy does not get carried out in a political vacuum, rather the decision makers are surrounded by the culture. I found this point to be tantamount to his way at looking into the Philippine and Spanish- American wars. Because he was able to construct a framework based on masculine culture and tie it into the policies of the period, he was able to successfully bring to light a new perspective in the politics of the 1890's. I also agreed with his point that the new generation of post Civil War politicians glorified war in a positive light, without fully comprehending the ultimate atrocities of war that are inevitable. These jingoist actively sought out a return to masculine ideology because they didn't fully comprehend the down side to war as many of the aging Veterans did.
I found Hoganson's research and interpretation of gender roles at the end of the 19th century to be in agreement with what other historians have said about the time; I believe her argument, focusing on manhood as the main cause of expansionism, is compelling because it serves as an explanation for 2 finer threads of expansionism: humanitarianism and white supremacy. While the main cause for interference in Cuba is more easily attributed to humanitarianism (prior to the explosion of the USS Maine), Philippine intervention seems to have morphed into a race war in which white supremacy was the justifier for occupation. Both instances are better understood as smaller parts under the greater umbrella of American manhood, which manifests itself as a chivalric force of honor (in Cuba), as well a dominant force by which atrocities are justified (in the Philippines).
I agree that masculinity and manliness are both huge factors in world politics. No country wants to appear weak, but no country wants to be viewed as the bad guy either. I think McKinley wanted to go to war, but doing it without at catalyst would be foolish. When the USS Maine Exploded, President McKinley found that catalyst, and the United States was able to assert its manhood by controlling its surroundings.
I find the portrayal of President McKinley interesting in Kristin l. Hoganson’s Fighting for American Manhood. There is a lot of emphasis of him being viewed effeminate because he was not as eager to go to war as much of the country seemed to be. According to Hoganson , “He remembered the Civil War as a horrible conflict and had hoped that international arbitration would replace war as a means of international disputes,”(Hoganson, 105). Hoganson’s view of McKinley is largely that of pacifist, who did like the idea of going to war, but had the United States go to war because that is what the country wanted and so he could appear to be more masculine. The argument of masculinity adds a new dimension to US foreign policy in the early 20th century. Racism was a part US foreign policy on both sides of the issue, however the attack of lack of masculinity was clearly an attack on those who were more inclined to not interfere with other nations. The idea of masculinity playing a role in the foreign policy of the US in the 1890’s is more polarizing as being masculine was something that was important to Americans during the early 20th century.
ReplyDeleteHoganson's belief of masculinity being a main promoter of aggressive foreign policy makes more sense than the racism preventing expansion. I think the idea that Hoganson also proposes the idea of the importance of honor in maintaining the masculinity. After the Columbian Exposition, it would make complete sense that the U.S. would look for another way to prove their honor and masculinity. They had already gained control of their entire, owned landscape, but the policy makers needed something new. The USS Maine disaster was only a good excuse to show the United States was a player on the world stage.
ReplyDeleteI sort of buy Hoganson's argument because masculinity and honor were the two important ingredients in order to be a true American during the late 1890's. As reading through her book, I believed that President McKinley was the most criticized person throughout the book, but it seemed that he was not a true fan of going to war, but who isn't? I agree with the poster above that states that McKinley was a pacifist, and he was compelled to declare war due to the American people. Does it mean that men during that period were showing their masculinity? Perhaps, but the main reason that they went to war was due to the explosion of the U.S.S Maine. This was a way to show their honor and masculinity, and to show other powerful nations across the globe that American officials should be considered top players in the world.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I never would have thought to consider the role of gender in the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars, but Hoganson's argument does make sense. Masculinity was a desirable trait for a country to demonstrate, as it implied that the nation was capable of defending itself and deserving of honor and glory. When tied into the lecture of how American feared the degeneration of manliness, Hoganson's case does not seem far-fetched at all. Men in the United States were eager to prove how "tough" they could be and that they had not been softened by the advancement of technology and the passage of time, particularly a time of peace. The men were restless, yearning for the glory days of the Civil War (In the South, the development of romanticizing the Lost Cause) and a way to express their pride in being men. A chivalrous rescue of the Cubans from their lazy and effeminate Spanish captors no doubt seemed alluring to bolster manly pride not only in men as individuals but in the nation as a whole, which seemed to have hit an stagnant point in terms of its expansion.
ReplyDeleteMan’s perception of himself has been written primarily by men and entirely through the “lens” of men for the gross part of human history. Therefore I found Hoganson’s argument interesting in the fact that it was developed from a relatively “new frontier”. Hoganson’s statement “manhood was a national security issue.”(pg. 204) seems plausible, especially since feminism (although in its infancy) was gaining momentum, and a woman’s ability to speak was undermining one of man’s most distinguishable characters … his ability to silence the “weaker” sex.
ReplyDeleteUltimately though, I believe that all aspects of life are multi-faceted, so one can never lump all their eggs in one basket to describe any situation. But as Richard Hofstadter concludes in his essay on Cuba, the Philippines, and Manifest Destiny, an “attempt to see the war and expansion in the light of social history has led us onto the high and dangerous ground of social psychology and into the arena of conjecture. But simple rationalistic explanations of natural behavior will also leave us dissatisfied”. (1) Therefore I feel Hoganson has done a good job by pushing the envelope and bringing light to an aspect of men that they rarely want to acknowledge themselves.
Hofstadter, Richard. "The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965) pg. 185.
I believe that Hoganson's idea that the War of 1898 and the ensuing quest for American imperialism were directly linked to the American man's identity crisis of the lack of masculinity and chivalrous character in which they perceived to have. What she is saying is definitely valid, that jingoism fostered by the American male at the time was a catalyst for Americas increased urgency to go to war in the 1890s. I like how she puts an emphasis on the Civil War veterans as being the standard of the American man. One can see the same thing of the soldiers of WWII and how they were looked up to and idolized giving justification to why the men at the time were in pursuit of these manly values. However I feel like this emphasis on masculinity takes away from the fact that war is good for business, and that I believe that economic interests in these parts of the world were also strong driving forces for why the US entered conflicts at the time in which they could have avoided. Its just a thought, but I believe that gender politics may have been the starter for these conflicts but that economics was what kept it going.
ReplyDeleteHoganson's argument is completely convincing. The young men around the time of the Spanish-American War were of the generation that had been born after the Civil War, and had really not had any "wars" to bring them masculine and martial honor. In their eyes, the generation that had fought in the Civil War was the luckiest generation because they had gotten the opportunity to prove their manliness. Also, honor and chivalry were important during the Victorian Age that was occurring at that moment and Hoganson does a good job describing how the veterans of the Civil War and their children saw them as "gallant knights" (55). The young men of that generation also most likely felt that they could not truly be men until they had gained martial honor on the field of battle. So, in truth, these insecure men looking to emulate the Civil War generation before them are responsible for the war and all the subsequent American Imperialism
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that Hoganson is making a valid point that manhood insecurity was a leading factor for the American wars with the Spanish and later in the Philippines. This was the first generation of men that were removed from the fighting of the civil war. These Jingoists that grew up admiring these civil war veterans started to grow feelings of insecurity. With women becoming more active in society many men felt this was a threat to the American manhood of the time. Many thought that American society was becoming weaker and what American men needed was places to develop this ‘manly fiber’ that many Americans were so insecure about. As one might guess war seemed to be the best way to develop this manhood since that was what made the previous generation so strong in their minds. As this jingoism nature grew around the nation, many men had to accept it or be seen as less than a man. As Hoganson tells us McKinley even had to adopt a more manly and militant character because of the fear of losing political credibility by the Jingoes. In 1893 an economic depression hit the U.S. and this also contributed to the gender insecurities of the time. Going to war to expand the American empire not only provided a new ‘frontier’ to peruse manhood but also was an effort to decrease the gender insecurities on an economic level by going overseas to obtain new markets.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is fair to argue that masculinity was a main promoter for this war, like Hoganson did in her layout of this war. She tells us that there are a group of an array of diverse men labeled jingoes. That they argue the war would be beneficial to the nation and that the war would "...strengthen American democracy by building manly character in the nation's male citizens" with manly being the operative word. She then continues to say that the gender anxieties from the Spanish war also contributed to the "allure of the Philippines" which benefitted the jingoes, and later the imperialists. I think her views on McKinley, are accurate and that her argument is valid. Stating that his "manhood" was being questioned and doubted by many members of the press because of his views on going to war and lack of a "backbone," shows how there was certainly a factor of masculine pressure for war. In the Nation's attempt to create this grand view of the US as a strong political power, if the US did not go to war after the explosion of the Maine, the credibility of US power would have been compromised. This is because the disaster was an "insult to manhood" and going to war was a chance to restore honor through vengeance. These arguments are not absurd because they are very realistic in terms of how men respond to any type of threat. Pushing past this idea, there are other obvious reasons for why the US went to war, such as strengthening the economy and possible expansion. However, Hoganson's argument for gender is well supported and realistic.
ReplyDeleteI feel that most conflicts leading into war stem from man's insecurities about their manhood. Throughout history man has always had to prove himself as being masculine and rugid. The War of 1898 is no exception. Mckinley was hesitant at first to start any type of conflict with the Spanish Empire. Hoganson argues that Mckinley's manhood was called into question by the American public. When the U.S.S. Maine was destroyed, Politicians and the public alike demanded for a swift and forceful counter-offensive against the Spanish. American's continuously debated over Mckinley's "Backbone" and his lack of manliness. After sometime his lack of manliness made him eventually wage war against the Spanish Empire. We are told to believe that Mckinley saw an opportunity to expand the US's domestic and more importantly foreign power. I believe that Hoganson debunks that idea and proves that the Spanish and American War started due to Mckinley's need to prove his manliness and how he was the ideal model of a man; masculine, tough, and forceful. To me, it seems he proved his lack of toughness by conforming to the perceived ideal of manliness. By waging war against an innocent enemy he proved he had no "Backbone."
ReplyDeleteI felt that Hoganson did a good job of laying out the evidence, and showing that the War of 1898 was caused by men trying to assert the masculinity of the U.S. She uses a quote from Alfred Thayer Mahan where he said, “no greater danger could befall civilization than the disappearance of the warlike spirit among civilized men. There are too many barbarians still in the world.” From this and other evidence in the book it’s evident that a lot of men felt that way. I think the real question is, was this a bad thing? The U.S. needed to assert itself and show that it was going to be a world power. We had an invested economic interest in the Philippines and it is far to close to the U.S. for us to just shy away and leave its fate to the Spanish. The U.S. would have been seen as a pushover had they not gotten involved in Cuba and the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteHoganson's argument cannot be ignored. Gender politics were surely not the only reason behind the Spanish-American war, but it is no coincidence that it occurred at the same time that the feminist movement was beginning at home. I think that, at first, the emerging imperialistic mindset was just as important as chivalry for defending Cuba, but it gradually transitioned to defending America at a time when its traditional [masculine] values were threatened domestically, and its superiority threatened abroad. Cuba was hardly mentioned after the USS Maine incident, until after the American victory when Cubans were decidedly unfit for self-governance. I think one of Hoganson's stronger points is how defending "honor" (aka manhood, chivalry, and traditional gender spheres) was the greatest reason for going to war. Phrases like "war over dishonor" were frequent anti-pacifist propaganda. It was stressed repeatedly that not supporting the war would be going against Republican [manly] virtue. Even today, patriotism and self-sacrifice for one's nation are among our most highly valued characteristics. In the late 19th century, however, these values were considered exclusive to men and necessary for political leadership, and thus inhibited women's rights. The emergence of the rough, athletic, and passionate male ideal certainly supported war, as did the perceived threat to paternalistic tradition. The image of McKinley is another important point in Hoganson's argument. The nation was hungry for war, and McKinley had to oblige, despite his calculating pacifistic stance, because his credibility as a leader was at stake. On one hand, this is just how politics play out, but on the other, the values behind going to war and the debate over McKinley's manhood make the situation more about gender politics than international affairs. Overall, I have to agree that the majority of motivations for the Spanish-American war were either directly, symbolically, or traditionally connected to male values.
ReplyDeleteI think that the War of 1898 was caused by a bunch of men just wanting to start a war, but everything happened to fall perfectly into place for the beginnings of a war to present itself. And when you include America wanting to both spread farther into the Pacific and protect their interests in Cuba it is understandable why America was so quick to start a war with Spain. Also if America had what it takes to take out one of the world powers of the time in Spain, then they could show that they deserve to be considered with the other European countries in a list of world powers. So in a way America was looking for the first chance that it could to prove itself among the world powers both in combat and having territories around the world.
ReplyDeleteI found Hoganson’s evidence convincing and her argument very interesting. I think she did a good job of supplying examples and analysis of the role that gendered ideas played in getting involved in the Spanish-American War, particularly the ideas of congressmen. With the fading of Civil War veterans and women’s efforts to insert themselves into the male political sphere, something needed to be done to reassert manhood--war provided the perfect solution, especially because America’s had been violated with the “Spanish explosion” of the Maine. The consequential association of military service with political prowess also makes sense within the context of reinvigorated values of manhood. However, I do feel that serving in the military and participating in military exploits lends itself to being more well-known, so perhaps military service just served to raise people out of anonymity (which then aids campaigning and election), but not necessarily to credit men with the desirable traits of manhood and elect them on this basis.
ReplyDeleteHoganson makes the claim that gender issues were the glue that held all other intersecting factors together that led to the war. While I do agree that gender perceptions were a factor, I think that it is a stretch to say that they were the glue holding everything together. Whenever something happens, it’s always an intersection of many factors, but just because these causes together lead to an effect, I don’t think there has to be some other factor that holds everything together. Also, I think that Hoganson did not give racism its due credit, particularly in regards to Cubans and African Americans. She does mention racism, but downplays it (understandably) so that her gender argument can continue. Especially on pages 131-132, she says that military manliness is a characteristic of white men, which is why African Americans did not gain agency after being involved in the Spanish-American War. She then continues with her gender argument and kind of skims over the race issue, which I think is really key here, especially because it continued for decades into WWII, where racism prevented African American soldiers from fighting until later war years.
I wouldn’t necessarily say the men were insecure, but I do think they were responsible for the war and subsequent imperialism. I’d rather think that they were probably just bored and itching to express their masculinity, especially since nothing terribly exciting had happened since the Civil War (which is debatably exciting, depending on if you’re the North or the South). Getting involved in a war was an outlet for built-up energy and it also came at an opportune time to start venturing overseas: the crumbling Spanish empire could be (supposedly) easily swept aside, and the U.S. could step in and begin taking a more international stage.
I think that the war was a bunch of insecure men looking for easy way to feel dominate and powerful. The United States wanted to get involved in the war but could not until the sinking of the Maine. If it were not for the sinking of the Maine then the United States would not have had a logical reason to enter the war. To a certain extent the United States did join the war with imperialistic views, because the United States had invested in Cuban land and Cuban sugar and both played a vital role in the economy. Hoganson uses some very important and detailed facts about the war, and I do see him as convincing because he does not try to “sugar coat” any of the topics he speaks the truth. For instance when he explains how everyone thought President McKinley was a coward, and then later on he mentioned how he was such a mighty man. The way that Hoganson presents the facts (by stating the truth and the political cartoons) makes the information interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the insecurity of men was the sole catalyst to going to war. I think many other aspects need to be weighed when looking at an issue like this. I do think that America did have imperialistic motives which drove them into seeing the war as a means toward growth and future success. It should also be noted that there were other serious and compelling motives driving an early nation into war. Hoganson does provide string evidence to support his arguments, however I believe he has too narrow of a focus when it comes to sufficiently highlight the underlying reasons in which the series of events took place.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most compelling aspects of Kristin L. Hoganson’s argument in Fighting for American Manhood is her focus on the domestic climate. I am an International Affairs major, and too often I find the domestic story absent in explanations of war and conflicts studied in my classes. Instead of looking solely at Spanish actions and then the United States’ response to them, Hoganson goes deeper to explore what was going on in U.S. politics, its economy, and its culture to understand how such responses formulated. Introducing the politically active groups and organizations of the time, and providing the reader with quotes from important figures recreated the atmosphere for the last nineteenth century. While at first I laughed at the title of her book, thinking I would never fall for such an argument, Hoganson won me over in her style, research, and depiction of life in the time of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars that was certainly dominated by gender convictions and the need to fight for manhood in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteHoganson’s point of view on the Spanish-American War was really interesting but justified. He manages to combine history facts and gender influence on this events. He highlights the fact that men played an important role on the launch of the war. Everything was based on the fact that a man has to be manly, so if a country insults his country, he is supposed to reply and to take revenge, otherwise he can’t be respected at the national level by women or at the international level by the other countries. According to Hoganson, everything dealt about chivalrous attitude that American do have but need to express: “awaken their heroic spirit” (page 38). He also affirms that American felt this need to go on a war, to prove their dominance over this corrupted empire [Spain], to be seen as peacekeepers; “as if they were the heroes and heroines of a romance novel.” (page 51)
ReplyDeleteIf they act in favor of the Cubans, the USA is going to improve its image on the international stage: they help the minorities, so consequently they are not racists and they do not only think about making money.
Hoganson’s evidence were convincing and different from every other version of the beginning of this war which is interesting; but from my point of view, the USA only intervenes if it can benefit from its actions. Here, Cuba was close to the US, full in resources and it was an excuse to make Spain fall down, like that the US stands out as ‘the main empire’. But, I think that Hoganson’s ideas are strongly justified and are probably right to play a huge role in this war. America is known for fighting a lot and defends its standing and territories as we can see page 64: ‘Jingoes insisted that if American men did not respond to such insults, their honor would be discredited overseas’.
Hoganson writes "As one prolabor essayist noted, 'The poor in the tenement houses of our cities are in worse extremes than the down-trampled population of Cuba, but what patriot suggests war to free them?'" (44). When asked why most Americans supported Cuba, Hoganson cites humanitarian concerns, revolutionary support, as well as this romantic vision of pure Cuban women and adventurous Cuban men among other gendered dynamics. There is seemingly no doubt that jingoism and masculinity intersected and that gender roles heavily shaped foreign and domestic policy. However, I think a worthy discussion would be why policy makers were more concerned with the plight of foreigners than that of U.S. citizens. Why were these masculine efforts directed to foreign policy once the frontier was closed? Hoganson writes about jingoism as a response to 20th century materialism and upper class values. Where is the discussion of the rest of the population, particularly the lower classes?
ReplyDeleteI thought Hoganson's argument, as set up in the intro, was well justified. His book never set out to site manhood or the return to war-like masculinity as the sole factor for the cause of the war; rather the cultural implications tied all the causes together. He describes this idea by saying foreign policy does not get carried out in a political vacuum, rather the decision makers are surrounded by the culture. I found this point to be tantamount to his way at looking into the Philippine and Spanish- American wars. Because he was able to construct a framework based on masculine culture and tie it into the policies of the period, he was able to successfully bring to light a new perspective in the politics of the 1890's.
ReplyDeleteI also agreed with his point that the new generation of post Civil War politicians glorified war in a positive light, without fully comprehending the ultimate atrocities of war that are inevitable. These jingoist actively sought out a return to masculine ideology because they didn't fully comprehend the down side to war as many of the aging Veterans did.
I found Hoganson's research and interpretation of gender roles at the end of the 19th century to be in agreement with what other historians have said about the time; I believe her argument, focusing on manhood as the main cause of expansionism, is compelling because it serves as an explanation for 2 finer threads of expansionism: humanitarianism and white supremacy. While the main cause for interference in Cuba is more easily attributed to humanitarianism (prior to the explosion of the USS Maine), Philippine intervention seems to have morphed into a race war in which white supremacy was the justifier for occupation. Both instances are better understood as smaller parts under the greater umbrella of American manhood, which manifests itself as a chivalric force of honor (in Cuba), as well a dominant force by which atrocities are justified (in the Philippines).
ReplyDeleteI agree that masculinity and manliness are both huge factors in world politics. No country wants to appear weak, but no country wants to be viewed as the bad guy either. I think McKinley wanted to go to war, but doing it without at catalyst would be foolish. When the USS Maine Exploded, President McKinley found that catalyst, and the United States was able to assert its manhood by controlling its surroundings.
ReplyDelete