Person 1: Imperialism is the best choice, I am in favor of it, imperialist improve conditions in conquered countries. Countries who take over other countries for their raw materials to further their economic and military benefits.
Person 2: Not at all, I am against imperialism because this includes people opposing the expansion of a country beyond earlier borders. Anti-imperialism originated in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Person 1: Imperialism has quite a bit of motives though. The directive motive is a demand to market for profitable investment. There is also the element of expansion and the need to secure world standing in order to remain competitive.
Person 2: Did you know that the term ‘anti-imperialist’ happened …show more content…
Person 1: I know and I also know the situation in the Philippines grew even worse as the American army engaged rebels who wanted independence for Philippines. However there are more benefits to imperialism. Imperialism creates power and status amongst other countries. This include political, economic, social and cultural reasons. Cultural plays a huge part.
Person 2: This brought a lot more responsibility to the country, including more territory that needed defending and developing. Imperialism brought the focus off of the mother country, making it more susceptible to conflicts at home and abroad.
Person 1: My ideas on the importance of sea power influenced navies around the world, and helped prompt naval buildups before World War I. More people should be for imperialism, not against it.
Person 2: As an anti-imperialists I argued whether or not it is right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land because they wish to govern themselves, to enjoy the freedom our fathers declared the inalienable right of every human …show more content…
They believed that a self-governing republic based on representative rule and protection of liberties cannot govern another country without contradicting its own ideals.
Person 1: The opposition to imperialism ran the breadth from distress over the costs necessary to maintain an empire to the immorality of denying others self-determination to the racial notion that incorporating “lesser” cultures into a US empire would weaken American purity.
Person 2: We primarily cared about the United States which convinced many that they would act in the best interest of its people. They were worried about its traditions, destiny, security, domestic and foreign policies. They were not preoccupied with Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba or Puerto Rico.
Person 1: Despite the enormous productive capabilities of United States capitalism, the nation in the late nineteenth century was experiencing a period of economic stagnation and social and political
Person 2: Not at all, I am against imperialism because this includes people opposing the expansion of a country beyond earlier borders. Anti-imperialism originated in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Person 1: Imperialism has quite a bit of motives though. The directive motive is a demand to market for profitable investment. There is also the element of expansion and the need to secure world standing in order to remain competitive.
Person 2: Did you know that the term ‘anti-imperialist’ happened …show more content…
Person 1: I know and I also know the situation in the Philippines grew even worse as the American army engaged rebels who wanted independence for Philippines. However there are more benefits to imperialism. Imperialism creates power and status amongst other countries. This include political, economic, social and cultural reasons. Cultural plays a huge part.
Person 2: This brought a lot more responsibility to the country, including more territory that needed defending and developing. Imperialism brought the focus off of the mother country, making it more susceptible to conflicts at home and abroad.
Person 1: My ideas on the importance of sea power influenced navies around the world, and helped prompt naval buildups before World War I. More people should be for imperialism, not against it.
Person 2: As an anti-imperialists I argued whether or not it is right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land because they wish to govern themselves, to enjoy the freedom our fathers declared the inalienable right of every human …show more content…
They believed that a self-governing republic based on representative rule and protection of liberties cannot govern another country without contradicting its own ideals.
Person 1: The opposition to imperialism ran the breadth from distress over the costs necessary to maintain an empire to the immorality of denying others self-determination to the racial notion that incorporating “lesser” cultures into a US empire would weaken American purity.
Person 2: We primarily cared about the United States which convinced many that they would act in the best interest of its people. They were worried about its traditions, destiny, security, domestic and foreign policies. They were not preoccupied with Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba or Puerto Rico.
Person 1: Despite the enormous productive capabilities of United States capitalism, the nation in the late nineteenth century was experiencing a period of economic stagnation and social and political