Introduction
At the end of the nineteenth century, the foreign policy of the United States underwent considerable change. Being one of the most powerful countries at that moment, the USA had to expand its territory and therefore the government took the course, which is often called imperialism. This term can be defined as a superior attitude towards less developed countries. This is the first meaning of this word and the second is the development of the country as to be means of expanding its territory.
Main body
It stands to reason, that there were both supporters and opponents of this policy. Among the supporters of this policy, there were such prominent people of the then-American society as Theodore Roosevelt and President William McKinley. The arguments that this side presented were the following: first and foremost, the US had to win the palm of supremacy in the East and it could not be done without expanding the territory of the country. As Theodore Roosevelt said “We cannot sit huddled within our own borders and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond.
Such a policy would defeat even its own end” (Roosevelt, 147). Naturally, his arguments appear to be quite weighty. Moreover, the supporters of colonial policy were quite sure that the United States would bring freedom and democracy to the so-called ‘third world countries”, as President McKinley remarked:” there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them”. (Jeffrey S., 98). The statement that President McKinley made seems a little bit artificial because the primary concern of the US government was not the benefit of the Filipinos.
As far as the opponents of this policy are concerned, this side advanced the following arguments; according to them, this course of action was aimed at subduing people from other countries, but not to free them. It eventually turned American soldiers into conquerors. As Mark Twain wrote: “I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem’’ (Bernard Semmel, 77). According to him, the United States should leave the people of the Philippines alone and let them deal with their problems on their own.
The second argument is that imperialism inevitably leads to ceaseless bloodshed. The opponents of imperialism believed that this game was hardly worth the candle. From their point of view, the lives of American soldiers could not be sacrificed. Besides, the soldiers, themselves, could not understand, what is the purpose of the campaign in the Philippines. For example, one of the American soldiers wrote to his family the following:” I am not afraid and am always ready to do my duty, but I would like someone to tell me what we are fighting for’’ (Lewis Feuer, 110).
Conclusion
In conclusion, having weighed up all the arguments, it is quite possible to say that the issue of imperialism still needs a great deal of discussion.
Bibliography
Bernard Semmel. Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social-Imperial Thought 1895-1914. LONDON: Ruskin House George Allen & UNWIN LTD MUSEUM STREET, 1968.
Lewis Feuer. Imperialism and the Anti-Imperialist Mind. Buffalo, New York: PROMETHEUS BOOKS, 1986.
Theodore Roosevelt. An Autobiography. New York: Macmillan, 1913.
Jeffrey S. Sposato. Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social-Imperial Thought, 1895-1914. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1995.