Imperialism is described as a state policy, practice, or advocacy

Student’s Name

Supervisor’s Name

Course Name

Due date

Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism

Question 2

Imperialism is described as a state policy, practice, or advocacy intended at expanding power and dominion over other places and peoples, particularly by direct territory acquisition or political and economic dominance. Anti-imperialists commonly assert that they oppose colonialism, colonial empires, hegemony, imperialism, and a country’s territorial expansion beyond its current boundaries. Grover Cleveland, an anti-imperialist, saw annexation as an assault on a sovereign nation and attempted to restore monarchy. In the 1890s, anti-imperialism became popular in the United Kingdom, particularly among the Liberal Party. Economists have been antagonistic to imperialism for almost a century, dating back to Adam Smith’s days in 1776, on the grounds that it violates the principles of free commerce; yet, they have never organized a popular movement.

The Anti-imperialist League was founded on June 15, 1898, to oppose the United States’ annexation of the Philippines, citing economic, legal, racial, and moral reasons. Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, William James, David Starr Jordan, and Samuel Gompers were among its members, while George S. Boutwell, a former Massachusetts Secretary of the Treasury, served as its president. The league began to dwindle once the Treaty of Paris was ratified, and eventually vanished. Many opponents of American imperialism believe that the Atlantic Ocean provides important separation and security from European powers. No European country will ever interfere in our affairs because of our isolation. Increasing the strength of our armed forces is a dangerous gamble. European residents with a robust military have fewer rights and liberties than Americans. Our democracy is threatened by a large military. European countries are often at strife over colonial territories. We can avoid such clashes by refusing to take colonies. Within its borders, the United States boasts a diverse range of resources. It is not required to travel throughout the world. It would be hypocritical for us to regulate others if we believe in democracy and that it is right for individuals to govern themselves.

Imperialist Point of View, Many Americans wished for the United States to expand its military and economic power abroad in the late 1800s. Rebuilding, immigration, the formation of the West, and industry were among the concerns that Americans were focused on. High taxes were imposed on the rest of the industrialized world. American imperialism refers to actions taken to extend the United States’ political, financial, and cultural hegemony beyond its borders. Rebuilding, immigration, developing the West, and industry were the top priorities for Americans. In the 1880s, as the world’s attention shifted to the United States, Americans began to yearn for the country to become a global power.

The difference between those who supported European imperialism and those who supported American imperialism was that Europeans actually colonized the subject countries, whereas the US altered regimes in the subject countries for the perceived benefit of the US. European countries were looking for raw materials outside of Europe. Heavy tariffs were imposed on other industrial countries. They were looking for fresh chances as well. We’re encouraged to invest in other industries, particularly in Africa and Asia. To preserve their investments, European powers began imposing sovereignty over such lands, and these areas became colonies. The United Kingdom will soon be in charge of the bulk of the world! Other areas became protectorates, where local rulers could keep control while being protected against rebellions and invasions by the imperial authorities.

American imperialism refers to policies aiming at extending the United States’ political, economic, and cultural hegemony beyond its borders. Military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of specific factions, economic infiltration through private firms followed by intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change are all possibilities, depending on the commentator. Imperialism is commonly thought to have started in the late 1800s, while some argue that the expansion of US territory at the expense of Native Americans qualifies as imperialism. Several academics have referred to the United States’ territories as an empire, including Max Boot, Arthur Schlesinger, and Niall Ferguson, despite the fact that the federal government has never used the phrase. The United States has also been accused of neocolonialism, which is sometimes mistaken with contemporary imperialism and is characterized as a modern kind of hegemony that focuses on economic rather than military supremacy in an informal empire. For as long as the United States has existed, the topic of whether it should intervene in the affairs of other countries has been argued in domestic Opponents cited the country’s history as a former colony revolting against a master, as well as American principles such as democracy, liberty, and independence. Following imperial presidents such as James Monroe, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft, supporters pushed for country engagement or sovereignty by highlighting the significance of advancing American economic interests. People who opposed the government’s imperialist activities were not unpatriotic because they believed imperialism violated the republican concept of “consent of the governed.” According to the League, such acts would reflect a rejection of American self-governance ideals politics. Imperialists and anti-imperialists argued on how to handle Cuba’s foreign policy. On how to conduct Cuba’s foreign policy, imperialists and anti-imperialists disagreed. Anti-imperialists argued that the United States should serve as a model for free and self-governing states, and that Cuban independence should be respected, both of which were legitimate arguments. The anti-imperialist movement, which began in 1898, challenged imperialism on constitutional grounds, according to academic Fred Harvey Harrington. The anti-imperialist movement held the political belief that a nation like the United States should not have colonies inspired by it. Colonial expansion was opposed by anti-imperialists not because it was economically or humanitarianly advantageous, but because it violated the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, which both demand self-determination.

A “imperialistic democracy,” as Henry Van Dyke noted in his Thanksgiving Sermon of 1898, is a “impossible mixture.” If America sought Old World expansion, which was opposed to American ideals, its moral stature as a global beacon of liberty, democracy, and self-determination would be damaged. Some historians, including Harrington, dispute the role of race in the 1898 imperialist conflict. Proponents of Asian expansion invoked paternalistic motives such as expanding civilization to the “dark corners of the world” to support their positions, while anti-imperialists used race to justify their positions.

I also believe the anti-imperialist effort failed because William Jennings Bryan did not win the presidential election in 1900. However, following the Spanish-American War, one of the revolution’s first proclaimed goals was to rethink the concept of American foreign policy. The later struggle with Filipinos for control of the Philippine Islands was not opposed by anti-imperialists. Despite the fact that the Philippine-American War lasted considerably longer, cost much more, and killed far more Americans than the Spanish-American War, a new anti-imperialist, rather than anti-war movement emerged. A look at the anti-imperialist movement’s long-term consequences reveals that, contrary to what Harrington and other historians claim, the movement did not fail. The Philippines were promised independence in 1916, according to historian William A. Williams, and the movement established a new kind of American Open Door Imperialism, focusing on commercial and moral growth rather than political entanglements.

The need for American expansion at the close of the nineteenth century sparked this imperialist debate, which was sparked by Dewey’s invasion of the Philippines. “The existence of a free land area, its continual decline, and the migration of American colonization westward, explain American development,” stated Frederick Jackson Turner. The formation, purchase, colonization, and growth of the territories west of the Appalachians to the Pacific Ocean had been the story of the United States up to this point. For the first time in its brief history, the United States was no longer faced with the difficulty of controlling the border. Marxists and political organizations with a similar ideological bent who argue for anti-capitalism, present a class analysis of society, and the like typically use the term. Imperialism was a capitalistic geopolitical system of power and repression that had to be understood as such, according to Latin American rebel Che Guevara. “Imperialist is a world system, the final step of capitalism,” revolutionary Che Guevara stated of imperialism’s nature and how to combat and conquer it. Our role as exploited and underdeveloped peoples around the world is to destabilize imperialism’s cornerstones: our victimized nations, from which imperialism obtains capital, raw materials, specialists, and low-cost labor, and from which imperialism exports capital, dominance equipment, arms, and a plethora of other goods, enslaving us.

Imperialism is being chastised because it is out of date. Hardt and Negri argue that imperialism is no longer a single nation’s or state’s policy. They argue that the “Empire” encompasses all states, nations, businesses, the media, common and intellectual culture, and so on, and that traditional anti-imperialist methods and strategies are no longer effective against them.

References

Merleaux, (2019. Kristin L. Hoganson’s American Empire at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. academic.oup.com