Imperialism in the United States

Imperialism in the United States

Imperialism

Jasmine Latoya Jennings

Imperialism in the United States

Those who argued for the practice of imperialism by the United States did so with vigor and vehement support. Politicians contended passionately and with relative eloquence the reasons why imperialism, and specifically for the purposes of this paper, imperialist rule of the Philippines. Representatives from across the United States government provided dramatic requests using historical references, allusions to the Constitution, and platitudes regarding preemptive striking. Many of the arguments sound quite similar for the calls for war and other armed conflicts in the 21st century around the world, not just in or by the United States of America.

The argument to keep the Philippines is not compelling in the opinion of this author. The arguments are too familiar and the strategies of psychological influence or manipulation are too apparent. Perhaps when these arguments were current, they were more potent. Many years later, numb from the countless politicians who say the say things and make similar sorts of references, the argumentation is ineffective. Some of these men are nearly pleading for war. Pleading for war for the sake of capitalism and imperialism only logical to those who favor capital, assets, and profit above all things and all people. Capitalist greed is present and evident in the many in favor of imperialism in the Philippines following the Spanish-American war.

Furthermore, some men argue for war and argue to keep the Philippines from Spanish rule because of the Spanish-American war. Readers may infer arrogance on the side of the Americans, which is a key aspect to the tone of preemptive strikes that some senators make. Ultimately, the main arguments are intentions of the call for Philippines are to aggravate Spain and to have a foothold in Asia that leads to serious capitalist activity. All the talk about the wounded soldiers and being an example to the "savages" of the Philippines is filler. The real reasons for imperialism are for control, power, and capital. Those intentions were clearly and effectively expressed in the arguments for imperialism. Repeatedly, those who call for imperialism contend that to do so is Constitutional as well as part of the will of God, which is a primary reason used for "manifest destiny," which is occurring simultaneously on the domestic front in the U.S.

Those against imperialism utilize for factual information regarding the conflict with Spain. There are descriptions of the conflict and the context of the conflict that reflect more than just an American perspective. There is more of an attempt to be objective and to clearly identify potential and actual biases from various parties involved in the contestation over the Philippines. Rather than making more bold, declarative, and arrogant proclamations, those against imperialism prefer to ask open-ended questions about who has a right to what based on a combination of factors. There is additionally an awareness and a desire to support and promote the expansion of the country while doing so in a manner that demonstrates intelligence and integrity. Those who argue against imperialism take consideration what the decision for imperialist rule in Asia would mean for the country in the present and in the future. The overall tone of the argument against imperialism is more philosophical and considerate. There is just as much urgency in the argument for it as against it, but those who are not in favor urge those with the power to make such changes or decisions to weigh their actions heavily.