When I was in Mr. Aronson's English 114 class last semester, I remember fellow guest speakers who also taught at SWCCD visiting my class to speak of Filipino-American events--since our class is Filipino focused. I think I remember Mr. Aronson--who continues to be my English 115 this semester--telling our class how the Philippines-American war was menially mentioned in our History books to the point of it seeming to be nonexistent. Then what he said was backed up as Professor Tuyay, a Filipino-American History advisor also at SWCCD, told us how this war has indeed been overlooked.
 |
| Battle of Manila, February 1899 |
What I thought was interesting (and super exciting!), was when I was in my History class last week, my professor, Cuddy, mentioned the Philippines-American war. I was shocked! He didn't really speak a lot about this topic, nonetheless, he mentioned it! My History class is based on History of Americans from 1812 to the present: focusing on the evolution of American involvement in Canadian, Caribbean, and Latin American affairs.
When our History class was discussing the Spanish-American war, we spoke of the consequences that the U.S. had in the process of this war. The U.S. was taking over different countries such as the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The war was part of a series of conflicts in the Philippine struggle for independence, preceded by the Philippine Revolution and the Spanish–American War. Instead of trusting Emilio Aguinaldo--an intelligent Filipino general, politician, and independence leader--to help them, the U.S. started this war. It lasted four years: 1899-1902. Even Professor Cuddy thought that the Philippines should've had their independence.
Just thought it was interesting that it was actually acknowledged. Thanks for reading! :)
Great post, Jessica. It's great when topics in classes overlap. Your post makes me think about rhetoric and naming. Different historians call the war by different names. Many scholars consider the armed conflict a war for independence, similar to the war of independence the thirteen colonies fought against the British Empire. Others' consider the war an "insurrection," a skirmish wherein a rebellious group tries to break away from the legitimate rule. Notice that the name we give the armed conflict reveals a particular rhetorical stance that favors one political reading of the historical event. Whether we call it a righteous battle for independence or a rebellious insurrection reveals a political perspective. Even the names we choose to call an event carries a rhetorical weight. I'm thinking of the civil disobedience in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict came down. Some call the event a riot which sends one message. Others nominate it a revolution, which conveys a different message. Just figuring out what to call something is a rhetorical - and political - act.
ReplyDeleteI love when topics from one of my classes show up in another class, especially when the subjects are so different. What I like the most is that it makes that certain topic interesting for me and my being able to make the connections between my two classes encourages me to read and learn more about it. Great post!
ReplyDeleteThanks Jennifer! Same goes for me, as well :)
Delete