However, there were also extremely negative consequences. The Spanish War affected the lower class negatively by raising prices dramatically, and crushing the rebellion in the Philippines led to an enormous death rate on both sides (Zinn 312-313). Conversely, Schweikart and Allen state that American intervention was often in the interests of both countries. They describe the annexation of Hawaii as reasonable because Hawaii had asked for annexation before and because the U.S. did not want the islands to become a part of Japan (Schweikart and Allen
During this time, Spain used brutal measures in stopping the rebellion, and various sensational newspapers in the United States showed this, leading to Americans developing sympathy for the Cuban rebels. The aim of this essay is discussing the Spanish-American War, looking at the causes of the war, the winner, as well as the consequences. The war began as Cuba struggled to gain its independence from Spain. Through this time, the U.S journalists published the brutal ways Spain used in fighting the Cubans. The U.S thus developed a growing interest in coming up with an intervention for saving the Cubans from the brutality of Spain.
When the Spanish arrived in the Philippines, the diverse population of inhabitants were either animistic or Muslim. With the exception of Manila, the periphery of the islands had little economic value and returned relatively poor profits. Therefore, "[Spanish monarchs] resolved early that religious conversion of Filipinos was to be the only justification for holding the islands." Due to conflicts with the Dominican and Jesuit orders that did the missionary work in the Philippines, the Spanish appointed and trained Indios, those who were of fully Filipino descent, and Mestizos, those of half-Iberian, half-Filipino descent, to be priests. These Mestizos and Indios were on the lower end of the racial hierarchy of the Philippines, so the fact that they were able to gain prominent roles in the clergy show a very high level of commitment to proselytization by the Spanish.
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.
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.
The impact of disease ca also be seen in Doc 6, a report on the spread of disease into the New World. In this report, the author claims that the Mexican population dropped from 30 million to 3 million due to the European colonization. It also states how this drop was mainly due to the spread of diseases like measles, smallpox, yellow fever, and many more. Because the native peoples had never been exposed to these diseases prior, the spread of them caused a devastating number of deaths. This report is written by a third-party author, causing it to have little bias.
People died from easily curable diseases. It is a mistake to assume that the natives of the Americas lived as the famed “noble savages” of Rousseau—there stood empires and armies just as willing as the gold-thirsty Spanish to squash their enemies and take captives and take advantage of the poor and the outcasts. Yes, European colonialist did enslave and mistreat the indigenous population, did spread new diseases, did enforce a strict social caste; but colonialism by no means introduced violence and suffering to the Americas—it was simply a continuation of the pattern of fallen humans. Along with the continuation of the human habit of exploration, exploitation, and greed, European colonialism also brought new technologies. Never before had natives seen a wheel until
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.
In 1898, Moorfield Storey projected his opinions about the rights of foreigners while attempting to expand the United States territory into the Philippine Islands. Moorefield stated that it was wrong to kill the natives of the foreign land because the government would be depriving them of natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abraham Lincoln added his opinion that only “Anglo-Saxon white men” were allowed these freedoms (Document F). Homosexuals have also been underprivileged when it comes to their rights. (Document I).
The point is I don't mind if Jonathan would like a Thai flag, however I do feel discriminated against when rules are bent so that it would not allow me to bring an American flag in. Anyways, I would think it is an anti American, anti Trump bias and not an act of