A common topic of interest today would be whether American Imperialism overseas was justified or not. One who is a supporter may argue that it helped US industry; an opponent may think it was unfair of the US to take over land owned by other forces. As significant as the positive effects of imperialism may be, there were also negative results of imperialism as well. Although it has produced some positive outcomes, American expansion overseas was not justified, as there were detriments such as poor conditions for the residents, forced rule over land, and exploitation. To start out, people of the acquired land suffered under poor conditions. The US has forced the Filipinos to live in designated zones that were unsanitary and uninhabitable. …show more content…
Even though some acquisitions were nonviolent and fair, the US still annexed land from foreign powers. Senator Albert J. Beveridge compares the ruling over the colonies to “...govern[ing] the [Native Americans] without consent..” and “..governing [their] children without consent..” An example would be when Hawaii was annexed, the Queen of Hawaii Liliuokalani was forcefully removed by the US marines. In Cuba, the US proposed the Platt Amendment, and some Cubans did not approve of it. Eventually, they had to accept when US refused to withdraw its troops from Cuba. The platform of the Anti-Imperialist League “..hold[s], with Abraham Lincoln, that ‘no man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent...’” A political cartoon also depicts Theodore Roosevelt’s “Big Stick Diplomacy” by presenting it as him pulling a string connected to these ships, which represent the economic interests in Latin America; according the Roosevelt’s Monroe Doctrine, the US could use force to keep European intervention out of the affairs of the Latin Americans. The US has ruled the colonies with an iron