How Did Albert Beveridge's Political Cartoon Protest Colonial Imperialism

What were Beveridge's economic motives for imperialism? Beveridge’s economic motives for imperialism derived from industrialization and the current economic growth America was already witnessing. This was the period where industrialization was growing at a rapid pace not only in the United States but worldwide. He made the case that the opposition was correct in resisting imperialism in the past because there was no need for new land back then.

Many Americans thought occupying foreign countries, like the Philippines after the Spanish American War, was a bad idea because it contradicts the American values of equality found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. (Doc D) However, a majority of America sided with people like Senator Albert J. Beveridge who believed people were chosen by God to expand into China and the Philippines to open more Asian markets. (Doc E) This was a continuation of past expansionism because acquiring land for money Manifest Destiny have been motives for expansionism for

However, there were the people who thought that American expansionism

Imperialism is the term used when a country expands its current power and influence through diplomacy or military force throughout other lands and countries that are weaker than their own. Some motives of imperialism is, economic reasons, like industries need resources, and customers to sell to. Another reason would be military factors, and nationalism. Imperialism in the US hasn 't been a failure. The goal was to increase the country 's influence, territory, power, and belief.

Ecological imperialism is a theory that was developed by Alfred Crosby that says European settlers were “successful” in colonization because of their introduction of animals, plants, and diseases that were not native or found in original native lands. However, it was the “success” of the colonists that led to declines and suffering in native populations. Crosby believed that this is what led to major shifts in the ecology of the colonized areas and declines in the indigenous populations. In the United States and Central America, ecological imperialism affected the native populations in destructive ways. Notably, in Central America, ecological imperialism is considered a catalyst in the collapse of many native populations due to the superior

This quotation is an excellent example of how european colonists, or at least Spanish colonist, did not want to exterminate natives. As for other european colonists they may have intentionally killed natives, but it was all for the sake of expanding their empire, and their killing were not based in racism or prejudice against natives. In fact, most of the natives were given a choice to assimilate into european

would have to govern them as dependant since they cannot self-govern, while Beveridge believed they would benefit the U.S. economy and trade. Carnegie did not want to maintain the Philippines as a colony because the U.S. would then have to be armed and ready to fight and protect the Philippines from foreign invasion, however once again Beveridge believed the U.S. should do the opposite of what Carnegie had said, and wants to maintain colonies abroad. Albert Beveridge and Andrew Carnegie had different opinions about what the United States should do when it came to imperializing other nations; Beveridge believed that the United States should join other imperialistic nations and imperialize smaller nations, while Carnegie believed the United States should not imperialize. The time period during this conflict of ideas between Carnegie and Beveridge happened right as when the

The Natives believed that the Europeans are “edgy, rapacious, and remotely maladroit.” Sure enough, the settlers in Jamestown kenned little about farming and found the environment baffling. It was conspicuous that the colonists needed the avail of the Natives. Despite their inexperience the English dominated the Indians. From “the beginning the Virginia Company indited that the relationship would ineluctably become bellicose: for you Cannot Carry Your Selves so towards them but they will Grow Discontented with Your habitation.”

Between the era of Mahan Beveridge, Schurz, and Bryan, there have been many outlooks and opinions about whether or not imperialism is good or bad; some similar, some different. One is the speech by Obama being similar to Bryan’s opinions in relations to them both believing that imperialism is pointless, and overall not a good decision since there can be other ways to solve the problems they may have for imperializing in the first place. They both saw the same effects that can come out of imperializing; the consequence being an unnecessary war that can be avoided in the first place. Webb’s is also similar to both Bryan and Obama’s opinion because he also believes that it is an unnecessary thing to do in order for us to get what we want. They

In being an anti-imperialist the worrisome is not that one opposes the idea of expansion of religion, commercial, and constitutional. It’s that with the annexing of these tropical islands would come to a result of the American system of self government would be that America might abandon this idea that makes America that nation it is to this point. Three reasons why the U.S should avoid imperialism is because it fails to follow that criteria of the constitution, could lead to tyrants like behavior, and could lead to conflict One argument that can’t be missed is the fact that the constitutions sets forth a principle that states “consent of the governed” after further research this means that to imperialize and annex other islands would violate

In the beginning, many Europeans “justified” their colonization by their desire to spread Christianity to African lands. On the other hand, many Europeans justified their domination by several rationales which describe how they are the superior race fit to rule. It is important to note that the Europeans wanted to benefit their homelands by the cash crops and cheap labor found in Africa. The colonial era of Africa by European powers was officially incited by the Berlin Conference (1884-1885) which gave rise to the “Scramble for Africa” which divided the continent among European powers in an official manner. (Gellar 1986,122)

The fault lies on “those people”, meaning the colonised population, ”who cannot perceive the wisdom of coming under our sceptre” (L.20), that is to say they will fight against their invaders. In one sentence, Mr Gladstone ridicules the notion of the white man’s burden, or the 3C, as spread in British

Furthermore, the cartoon also implies that the world’s population would end up suffering due to imperialism as it resulted in the depopulation, loss of culture and negative impacts on non-Europeans many years after the contact had

Cesaire further emphasizes his point by stating that “colonialism results in the massive destruction of whole societies - societies that not only function at a high level of sophistication and complexity, but that might offer the West valuable lessons about how we might live together and remake the modern world” (21), and that colonization also allows for the Boomerang Effect to come into play. This particular effect can be described as “the colonizer, who in order to ease his conscience gets into the habit of seeing the other man as an animal, accustoms himself to treating him like an animal, and tends objectively to transform himself into an animal” (41); the colonizer is so preoccupied with the notion of civilizing others, that he forgets to civilize himself within the process. Although, the main motive of colonization is to civilize the uncivilized, it does quite the opposite: it destroys well-established societies, and forces the colonizers to behave uncivilized themselves. Racism could be considered as the main cause for colonization, especially when considering Cesaire’s example regarding certain instances in which colonist Europe has disregarded the pleas of the peoples of Asia and Africa: “it is the colonized man who wants

People normally react negatively to anything labelled or regarded as ‘being a new tool of western imperialism”. Explain what you understand as ‘western imperialism’ and briefly discuss some of the reasons linked to this form of reaction. You may cite your own examples. (10 marks) Western Imperialism is a policy of gaining power over other nations by seizing their territory you’re dominating by means of technology advances, military advances excreta.