Migration is often portrayed as a process caused by the country’s poverty and lack of opportunities. Yet, the causes which have impacted a particular nation’s difficulties are rarely illustrated. An example of the cause of mass migration is the US’s aim to control the Pacific and its desire to expand imperialistic premises on foreign territories. The nations that have been affected were the Pacific South Asian states and China. Migration was prevalent in multiple forms depending on the time period and the overall form in which it was executed. On the one hand, the US aimed to replace enslaved people with a labor force from China and other Pacific countries. On the other hand, the result of colonization created environments in which native populations did not have the resources to live prosperously in their own regions, leaving them with the only opportunity to move to the US. This paper argues that hegemony was the cause of the mass migration of communities to the US, which directly exemplifies how a stronger nation has a devastating impact on a country, which then influences natives to migrate.
It is important to mention that the initial purpose of creating conditions for “migration,” which is now considered human trafficking, was to replace the priorly enslaved Africans with Chinese and South Asian laborers. Thus, individuals from impoverished Pacific regions would sign contracts for prolonged periods of time and ship to locations either controlled by America, Britain, Portugal, or Spain (Odo and Okihiro 21). As a result, mass migrations have been intended to become an opportunity for these nations to receive free or low-paid workers, ultimately influencing the more powerful countries to take advantage of the vulnerable Pacific nations. The process, which resembles the African slave trade, was somehow legitimized through contracts that people were often tricked into signing. Needless to say, such factors, alongside the Opium wars in China and other forms of trade, had a negative impact on the communities, both from the perspective of the workers who have been abused and violated and the families who were often left without means for survival in their native regions.
While in the case of China in the 19th century, human trade and unlawful violence were masked under the label of migration, mass migration from the Philippines has a different cause. The Philippine-American War had a devastating effect on the Philippines, with multiple deaths, burned properties, and a cholera epidemic (Mabalon 25). Thus, the population was struggling financially, which led to local migration to the capital, Manila, and a subsequent necessity to move to more prosperous countries with the intent to escape the aftermath of the war. The US militarism ideology that was prevalent in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century and aimed towards colonization and control of Pacific nations has ultimately created an environment in which native communities living in the Philippines had no other options but to migrate to the states. If the militarism of the US did not have such a negative impact on the pacific regions, the natives would not have been influenced into migrating in the first place. The situation exemplifies how hegemony contributes to such circumstances in which the more powerful nation disrupts a less militarily and economically developed one, gains power over its resources, and ultimately creates conditions under which entire communities do not have the means to survive unless they relocate. In this case, the most logical solution was migrating to the nation that initiated poverty and destruction in the first place.
The imperialistic agenda of the US resulted in the acquisition of the Philippines after the country was a colony of Spain. Since it became a US colony, specific regulations and laws related to migration to America did not cover the colony. This facilitated mass migration of Filipinos since they were considered nationals, unlike other Pacific nations that did not have the same opportunities and legal right to opt for relocating to the US (Mabalon 28). The US, however, as exemplified by history, did not have the objective of allowing foreign values and cultures to penetrate the “American” system. Thus, multiple measures have been taken to integrate the people of the Philippines into the US by creating educational, political, and social changes toward a more westernized nation. Based on this premise, migration was not a process that encouraged diversity but rather facilitated the inclusion of the Pacific nations under the conditions of maintaining an American overview of religion, culture, and society as a whole.
History shows that the mass migration of Pacific communities to the US was often facilitated by the US itself. First, the aim to replace enslaved Africans with Chinese and South Asian laborers has led to migration that is closer to human trafficking rather than relocation to another state. Moreover, in the case of the colonization of the Philippines, the militarism ideology and imperialistic views resulted in a war that devastated the country. People had to escape poverty, and mass migration was a direct outcome of US foreign politics. Thus, expansionism, imperialism, and militarization are often facilitators of migration.
Mabalon, Dawn Bohulano. Little Manila Is in the Heart: The Making of the Filipina/O American Community in Stockton, California. Duke University Press, 2013.
Okihiro, Gary Y. Finding a Path Forward, Asian American and Pacific Islander National Historic Landmarks Theme Study. Edited by Franklin Odo, National Historic Landmarks Program, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 2017.
The Reconstruction Era In The United States
The Reconstruction Era (1865-1877) was a period in the history of the United States after the Civil War, during which the reintegration of the losing southern states into the United States and the abolition of the slave system throughout the country took place. Ways to return the rebellious states to the Union were discussed even before the end of the Civil War (History, 2018). It was necessary to determine the future of the states themselves, the fate of the fighters against the federal government, and the situation of the formerly enslaved people. A supporter of the nation’s unity, Lincoln insisted on generosity to the vanquished, offering to restore their political rights and help them integrate into the new economic conditions (History, 2018). The amnesty was supposed to extend to all those who abandoned their old beliefs. The President proposed to return all states in which at least 10% of voters called on the federal government and supported the abolition of slavery to the Union. He considered it possible to endow the black population who fought for democracy with all civil rights in stages.
The southern states were divided into five military districts, in which the generals of the federal army exercised executive power. With the assistance of the local militia, the army, public bureaus, and organizations of the Republican Party, elections were prepared in which African Americans participated. In some local legislative assemblies, up to 50% of the black population was elected to the lower house (History, 2018). On March 30, 1870, the XV amendment of the Constitution prohibited the disenfranchisement of citizens on the grounds of belonging to another race, skin color, or previous stay in slavery (History, 2018). In 1877, the army’s participation in the administration in the South ceased. Slavery was not restored in the southern states, but democratic governments passed discriminatory laws called Jim Crow laws. As a result, African Americans became second-class citizens, and racist principles of white supremacy still dominated public opinion.
“Reconstruction.” 2022. History. Web.
Discussion: Taking Responsibility For The Enemy
Taking responsibility for an enemy is a major phrase that has been mentioned regularly in the secondary source computed by Linahan Jane. The book is entitled “Sermon on the mount and the creation of peace.” Contextually, individuals can use the phrase mentioned above to imply that an individual can regard an enemy as a friend. As mentioned in Mathew, there should be no differences between an enemy and a friend for a true Christian.
Individuals should love their enemies by doing well to them and not repaying for bad deeds. However, the love should not be emotional to extend selfless care among individuals. Similarly, people can compare the phrase to the love of God to his people. People tend to commit sins in their daily lives, but God does not abandon them, implying that God gives his love to the people always regardless of their sins. Through the wisdom that individuals receive from God, they can love their enemies even if they offend them.
Besides, individuals can use the phrase to imply accountability as presented conceptually in Sermon on the Mount. From the Sermon, people have to be concerned and acknowledge the basic rights of humans and the needs of their enemies. The phrase implies that no matter whether dishonest, wicked, or ungrateful individuals, individuals should love them as per God’s wisdom. For instance, the holy book states that happy people are merciful, for the Lord will show them mercy.
An example is the story of the Good Samaritan in which a man from Samaria showed the Gentile who had been attacked by robbers mercy. Finally, the phrase “Taking responsibility for the enemy” can generally imply an individual doing good to others. People should make peace among individuals because doing good does not cost an individual’s life.
Conclusively, the Franciscan values discussed are comparatively linked to the idea of taking the enemy’s responsibility. According to Francis’s context, he mainly aimed at seeking peace between Christianity and Islam religion. In this situation, the Muslims were seen as enemies since Francis believed that Christianity was the way of peace used by Jesus Himself. The key value addressed is peacemaking presented by Francis, which was focused during the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus said that happy are those who are peacemakers for they shall be called God’s children.