The Contradictions of Freedom

When looking back on the Spanish-American war, especially the Philippine campaign, it is hard to recognize the true reasoning behind it. On one hand, America was exercising its beliefs that all people had the right to freedom. On the other hand, coincidence would rear its hypocritical head when it came to the obvious economic benefit that America gained through imperialism. Here lies one of the most important questions of the past century. At what price do we protect our free way of life? One way of examining this is to analyze the generality of American politics and capitalism.

William Schroder stated: "The 1898 Spanish/American War and ensuing Philippine Campaign bolstered American business, secured American colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific and cost the lives of six-hundred thousand innocent Filipinos who happened to be in the path of the "bandwagon of Anglo-Saxon progress and decency (1)." Schroder's opinion can hardly be discounted. The fact is that American business was bolstered and colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific were created as a result of the Spanish-American War. The problem with this statement, however, is when he insinuates that we ruined the lives of six-hundred thousand Filipinos that stood in the way of this so-called "bandwagon of Anglo-Saxon progress and decency." Is it true that American politics are driven by wealth? Absolutely. That is the nature of a capitalistic society. Did we ruin the lives of many Filipinos because of this? On a moral level we might come to this conclusion. If we were to abide by American rhetoric we would have given the Filipino’s full independence. Realistically, though, this would have been an injustice to the Filipino people. Kenneth E. Hendrickson Jr. put it best when he stated: “…but nevertheless it would have been foolhardy for the Americans to withdraw and leave the Philippines open to conquest by another power (2).” Germany, England, and France all would have seen the economic opportunity that the Philippines had to offer and with their history of imperialism it would be foolish to think they would do otherwise. Does this justify our imperialistic efforts? Well looking ahead, the Organic Act of 1902 allowed elections of a Filipino assembly as well as give Filipino’s the rights conferred by the U.S. Constitution (2). The Philippines gained their independence on July 4, 1946.

Looking back at this I think it is a fair assumption to make that six-hundred thousand Filipino’s lives weren’t wasted at the expense of the “bandwagon of Anglo-Saxon progress and decency,” especially when you look at the alternatives. What we have to look at, however, is the fact that if the Philippines did not serve a purpose economically speaking, would we have had the same ambition to rid them of Spain? To properly put this into perspective we must analyze other American conflicts.

The Spanish-American War was but a microcosm to World Wars I and II. Although the two World Wars were of far greater significance than the Spanish-American War, they were started upon a similar principle. That principle was power. In the case of the two World Wars, Germany, among other nations, wanted to exact their power and will upon other nations. In both cases we intervened. In both cases we were victorious, not only militarily, but economically as well. The differences came with the political aftermath of the wars. After World War I, European nations such as England and France handled the rebuilding of Europe, which included the Treaty of Versailles. To the dismay of America, Europe placed harsh reparation payments on Germany, which consequently was a leading factor for Germany engulfing the world in yet another World War. Upon are victory in World War II we involved ourselves, not in harsh reparations, but in a concentrated rebuilding effort, not only for parts of Germany, but Japan as well. In all actuality, a large part of what we see today, when it comes to Germany and Japan, was because of our efforts to implement democracy. This also can be said about the Philippines. Heather Cox Richardson stated: “The United States retained control of the Philippines, where it built schools, roads, and factories… (3).” I think if we look close enough, we can find a common theme in all of this. Before we start characterizing common themes, though, we must consider present events to see if a pattern exists.

On March 18, 2003 America declared war on Iraq. The premise behind this was Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as well as a vengeance factor stemming from the attacks on September 11, 2001. Although our military still occupies Iraq, most Americans can come to an agreement that weapons of mass destruction were not found. Because of this, one of the biggest debates that has plagued America has been why did we go to Iraq to begin with? Schroder gives his opinion when he states: “…the government pursues an agenda calculated to transfer vast sums of public wealth into the hands of the corporate and political elite (1).” There is that capitalistic undertone again. Not to associate capitalism with evil agendas, but it is a survival of the fittest mentality in a sense. What Schroder fails to mention is that instead of Iraqis having a dictator, who wouldn’t hesitate to kill someone for a difference of opinion, they now have democratically elected leaders, that not only won’t kill them for a difference of opinion, but there going to do their best to enhance their lives. Their jobs kind of depend on it. At present, Iraq is looked upon as a black eye to America. Historically, who knows? Comparing this to the Spanish-American War we start with similarities in oppression. The Cubans and Filipinos were both oppressed, just as the Iraqis were. There is also the fact that both wars provided economic prizes. The Philippines in 1898 provided a hub for trade in the pacific. Iraq today provides arguably the most important commodity, oil. Finally there are similarities in questioning the foundation in which our country rests on. Carl Schurz statement about the annexation of the Philippines: “If we do, we shall transform the government of the people, for the people, and by the people, for which Abraham Lincoln lived, into a government of one part of the people, the strong, over another part, the weak (4),” which echoes many people’s sentiments today. It is in this that the contradictions of freedom lie.

The Spanish-American War provided the groundwork for some difficult questions that we deal with today. Studying history is not scientific. There rarely is a black and white answer. As a matter of fact most of history is littered with grey area, otherwise known as: “open to interpretation.” Noam Chomsky once stated: “units of power – corporate, political and military – will only act in their best interests. For them to do otherwise would be illogical (1).” What if these sections of a society are ran by the people and for the people? Then as a country we are going to do what is in our best interest. Therefore the price we pay to protect our free way of life is whatever it takes to serve our best interests. Sometimes we have to contradict ourselves in order to do this. We have to feed our capitalistic urges in order to sustain the principals that our fore fathers brought forth. America has always stood behind principals such as freedom and equality. In order to ensure this we have to sometimes force these principles on others in order to maintain the world’s stability. This might be characterized as a “western philosophy.” I however see this as the right philosophy.

Works Cited

1) Schroder, William. "American Imperialism and the Politics of Fear (Before Iraq there was the Philippines." CommonDreams.org. February 15, 2005. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0215-22.htm.

2) Hendrickson Jr., Kenneth E. "The Spanish-American War." Pg. 74. Greenwood Press. 2003.

3) Richardson, Heather Cox. "West from Appomattox (The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War)." Pg. 329. Yale University Press. 2007.

4) Schurz, Carl. "American Imperialism." The Convocation Address delivered on the occasion of Twenty-Seventh Convocation of the University of Chicago. January 4, 1899.