gain access to foreign markets
Imperialists believed in the US maintaining control over the Philippines to bring civilization and stability, while anti-imperialists argued against US expansionism and believed in self-determination for the Filipino people. Imperialists viewed the Philippines as a strategic asset and gateway to trade in the Pacific, while anti-imperialists saw it as a violation of American values and principles.
Imperialists.
imperialist were usually the northerns (The people killing them black haters) while anti-imperialists were the southerns (The people doing the right thing enslaving those black monstrosity's because they are not good for anything else but doing a white mans job)
There are two interpretations of your question: 1. Why does my boyfriend argue with me first and then argue with the people who cause us problems? 2. Why does my boyfriend argue with me rather than with the people who cause us problems? Which is it?
William James
William James
The anit-imperialists opposed the United States expansion because they felt that imperialism would violate the fundamental principle that just republican government must derive from consent of the governed.
There are zero similarities between the two.
There are zero similarities between the two.
We did not argue, but tried to make peace, there were many people who wanted to drive us out of where we lived.
Anti-imperialists believe that imperialism is wrong because it often leads to the exploitation and oppression of colonized peoples, stripping them of their autonomy and cultural identity. They argue that imperialism perpetuates inequality, fosters conflict, and undermines the self-determination of nations. Additionally, anti-imperialists highlight the moral and ethical implications of imposing foreign control and influence, viewing it as a violation of fundamental human rights. Ultimately, they advocate for respect, cooperation, and equity among nations rather than domination.
You could argue that.