Following the Spanish-American War, and especially in regard to American occupation of the
Philippines, most anti-imperialists argued that
A. the occupation would lead to unhealthy racial mixing.
B. because all war was immoral, the fruits of war were tainted.
C. installing tyranny abroad would encourage tyranny at home.
D. cheap, imported Filipino laborers would take American jobs.
Is it C?
This question was already answered.
http://www.jiskha.com/display.cgi?id=1338579648
Yes, but the answer didn't seem reliable.
Damon is one of Jiskha's regulars, is highly educated, and is an expert in physics and U.S. history.
Yes, the correct answer is C. Installing tyranny abroad would encourage tyranny at home.
To arrive at this answer, you can analyze the arguments of various anti-imperialists during the time of American occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.
Option A suggests that the occupation would lead to unhealthy racial mixing. While racial concerns were present during this period, it wasn't a central argument made by most anti-imperialists against American occupation.
Option B argues that all war was immoral and thus the fruits of war were tainted. While this viewpoint certainly existed, it wasn't the primary argument against American occupation of the Philippines.
Option C, the correct answer, asserts that installing tyranny abroad would encourage tyranny at home. This argument was made by many anti-imperialists who believed that expanding American influence through colonization would undermine the principles of democracy and freedom within the United States.
Option D states that cheap, imported Filipino laborers would take American jobs. While concerns about competition for jobs did exist, it wasn't a central argument made by most anti-imperialists against American occupation.