So, both the imperialists and anti-imperialists of the turn of the century compare America unfavorably to Spain. [This is when I decide I need to brush up on my world history] And then there's the issue of the Philippines, where there is violence and for some reason America decided to step in. [This is when I go off to wikipedia for a while] ... Okay, so after Spain lost the Spanish-American War, she ceded the Philippines, which were already in revolt, to America, along with Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The Filipino revolutionists were no more happy under America's banner, and continued to fight until 1913, with a final death toll of over one million Filipinos. [In 1946 we gave them Independence, after they'd been occupied by the Japanese for ten years]
So why did we keep the Philippines for 48 years? Especially when our gov't obviously wasn't working for them, anathema to our very premise of gov't [as set out in the first pph of the League's argument]. According to Sen. Beveridge, 'it is ours to save that soil for liberty and civilization.' He believes we have a duty to 'free' everyone. Wait, I thought we freed them from Spain... Where'd the logic go? Oh, the Filipinos are uncivilized, so we should govern them anyway, even though they've been trying to gain their freedom and govern themselves for twenty years and a million people are willing to die for that. Okay then. Perfect sense. His other arguments are equally untenable, one being that we 'need' the land to be able to export all the produce our country, which is 'perpetually revitalized by the virile, manproducing workingfolk of all the earth' [immigrants apparently procreate with more vigour than the rest of us] creates; that we must not be 'misers of liberty'; that God will favour us, as one parable in the Bible can be stretched to mean.
I ken our darling anti-imperialists much better than I do the aforementioned Beveridge. Dude, until we can sort the mess that we've made for ourselves on our home territory, we should stay the hell out of other people's business. 'The United States have always protested against the doctrine of international law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong.' The League argues that no ruler in the spirit of improvement may do something to break the social contract, as Abraham Lincoln stated that 'no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent'. And then, the League proposes that, if you agree, you oust those criminals from office by Voting! Brilliant!
If you believe in [representative] democracy, protect it! Vote! As for subjugated countries, if they deserve liberty, they will make it happen. [We did, France did, Britain did; it's not our duty to give it to people who can't govern themselves. That'd be like giving a chipmunk a grenade] As for imperial countries, well, congratulations, you have military power and your colonies don't. Kinda like running into a large person, us wee ones just bounce off and get mowed down. Perhaps this connection comes simply because I have the '33000 calorie day', a History Channel special about the super morbidly obese, going in the background, but imperialism now aligns itself with glutton in my mind. Ooh, tasty country, let me gobble it up! Like canolli! And then you end up being confined to bed for years, living off other peoples' kindness, until your overworked organs explode and twenty firemen cannot get you out of your apartment. Congratulations! I'm glad you were such a model country. We all want to pave a road directly to doom!
[Imperialism is bad]
