Many opposed the United States from getting involved in the Philippines, including the Anti-Imperialist League, who argued that the annexation of the Philippines would be against American ideals, as imperialism would violate Filipino citizens’ right to self-govern . Proponents of imperialism attempted to rationalize their beliefs by, once again, claiming noble intentions. Albert Beveridge, the Republican Senator of Indiana at the time, gave a speech in 1898 titled “March of The Flag” where he defended that the United States should annex the Philippines and adopt an imperialist policy. Within this speech Beveridge asks if “the people of the Philippines prefer the just, humane, civilizing government of [the United States] to the savage, bloody rule of pillage and extortion from which [they] rescued them [from]” . Essentially Beveridge argues that the United States is saving the Filipinos from the oppressive rule of Spain, and under their control they will benefit from their humane ideals and civilized culture.
Jane Addams, the speaker in Document 4, criticized the Spanish-American War and the militarism it encouraged in the United States. This gave many people the idea that maybe imperialism wasn’t such a great idea. They shunned the idea of using violence in order to grow the American Empire. William Graham Sumner, also criticized imperialism (Document 2). He believed that assimilating people to American culture through military force would cause the United States to seem violent like Spain.
Additionally, the American colonists felt that the implemented taxes and laws were unjust. There were many unjust laws and taxes forced upon the colonies. In document two, the author states that Great Britain has the “legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain and all her colonies”. He believes that the raising revenue from the trade was never intended, and that the British Parliament never had the intention of implementing duties - duties before the Stamp Act - for the sake of raising revenue. However, the author felt that the Stamp Act and Townshend Act and the other acts from the Stamp Act onwards were unconstitutional.
The nation would be more capable of deciding what was best for the other underdeveloped countries in the surrounding region. The diplomacy was based upon the American belief that American ideals were the way of the future for the world; what was good for the US must as well be good for the countries of Latin America. The Hispanic newspaper Regeneración of April 13, 1912, quoted Robert M. La Follette's criticism of the diplomacy. He regarded the diplomacy as an outpost, intervening the nations in Central and South America by imposing the US's method and supervision. The diplomacy often resorted to military power as a solution to the internal conflicts within the region.
During the time of the Spanish-American War, America was split between pro-imperialists and anti-imperialists. Pro-imperialists wanted to expand America because of trade, social Darwinism, and the White Man’s Burden. The Spanish-American War was heavily supported by pro-imperialists looking to expand America’s power. Anti-imperialists believed in their cause because they thought it was a violation of self-determination, too expensive, and would get America too involved foreign affairs. Support for the Spanish-American War was not seen from many anti-imperialists.
It seems to be easier for an American citizen to name quotes from movies or lyrics from popular songs than to explain the United States of America’s effect on the world. The Oblivious Empire written by Mart Hertsgarrd discusses how America’s society seems to not comprehend how our government treats other countries and seems too naïve on the reasons why other countries or groups of people do not like us. Hertsgarrd discusses how the United States truly treats countries around the world and the consequences our actions have caused. An analysis of Hertsgarrd essay shows strong points on how our society is oblivious to the world outside our country and do not truly know how our government affects the world. Throughout Hertsgarrd essay he describes how the United States government tends to believe they have the right to be the judge on how other countries’ treatment of their citizens and how
His “check” metaphor is an accurate representation of the false promises made to the American people. The check in his metaphor is the promise of inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness made by the Constitution. The American people turned in this “check” and had it returned marked “insufficient funds.” This represents the equality denied to black individuals by the US. This metaphor was empowered to even greater heights by Dr. King making it relatable to his audience. Dr. King understood that the best way to have his audience sympathize with his purpose was to make them relate to his argument.
In the 20th century, many people have helped the US, of where it is now, and some have made it worse. The Monroe Doctrine was to prevent European countries to intervene conflicts between Latin American countries. The Roosevelt Corollary was an addition to the Monroe Doctrine, created by President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt added this addition in 1904 after the Venezuela crisis. This corollary states that the US should still intervene in conflict with Europe and Latin America, this also consisted of his foreign policy known as “the big stick policy”.
By setting this foundation of our nation’s morals and those who make them up, Russel has set the stage to continue his essay. He continues to counter Rushdie’s arguments with allusion in line 53-59, creating a counter argument for a quoted claim by Rushdie himself on migration and migrators.
In retrospect Lincolns both executive orders, Emancipation Proclamation and suspension of habeas corpus had an influence on how the future presidents interpreted their role and powers in American politics. Milkis and Nelson strongly suggest that ...” Lincoln invested the national community with a sense of purpose, even sacredness, that transformed the relationship between power and liberty. His indictment of slavery spawned a new, more positive view of liberty, in which government has affirmative obligation to ensure equality under the law...” (Milkis and Nelson, p.177). As the historian, Richard Norton Smith rightly points out, Lincoln’s famous quote on the role of government became a favorite quote for three future presidents,
The author 's primary point is that, the Americans were in bad economic times and needed revival. He names the day of the speech as a day of national consecration, and is certain that, his fellow Americans expect that on his induction into the Presidency he will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation the nation was facing.He emphasizes on the need to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. The Americans had no need to turn a blind eye on the conditions the country was facing. He begins by asserting his firm belief that the only thing that the Americans had to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
For example in paragraph 14: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate”, Kennedy used parallelism to make his speech more effective and tell the world that America will be tough in foreign policy. In paragraph 9: “to convert our good words into good deeds， in a new alliance for progress， to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty,” Kennedy used repetition to make his speech forceful, and tell the world that America will fight against the poverty resolutely with its alliance. In paragraph 9: “But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers,” Kennedy used metaphor to make his speech more vivid and tell the world that do not try to hurt America and his alliance in their territory. In paragraph 8: “If a free society cannot help the many， who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich,” Kennedy used comparison to contrast the poor and the rich to warn people the society should help poor.
Though he did not get the rights Muslim Americans, he did draw attention to how wrong some public opinions about Muslim Americans are (Shariah). Such actions could only have been pulled off by someone who had complete confidence in what they were doing. Through his battle for Muslim American rights, Senator Richard Durbin displayed immense political
They rejected the British government 's argument that all British subjects enjoyed virtual representation in Parliament, even if they could not vote for member of the Parliament.” This means that the colonists did not enjoy the Parliament so they rejected Britain 's argument because they did not agree with it. Some people started hinting that there was dark designs behind the Stamp Act. The thought that “the tax was a gradual plot to deprive the colonists of their freedoms and to enslave them beneath a tyrannical regime.” People were very worried about this and they did not want it to happen. They just wanted to live in America with their
Bartels focuses on unenlightened self-interest whereas Hacker and Pierson focuses on the role of elite manipulation. Bartel rebuts, “I believe that it is a mistake to suppose that any specific package could be said to represent “popular wishes” or “majority views” (Bartels 175). He believes that misinformation is the source of the support, and explains that the personal views that Americans have about their own taxation colored their opinions about the Bush tax cuts; further, those who knowledgeable that supported the cuts tended to be partisan. Bartels never seeks to explain why people are uninformed only that they use their limited information to form “simple-minded” opinions. I find that it is important to address the source of that misinformation/ignorance.