Carroll 1
Christian Carroll
Doctor Abigail Heiniger
Honors Composition 1103
4 November 2014
Modern Imperialism and Manifest Destiny: An Annotated Bibliography
Baldoz, Rick, and Cesar Ayala. “The bordering of America: colonialism and citizenship
in the Philippines and Puerto Rico.” CENTRO: Journal of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies
25.1 (2013): 76+. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
This scholarly article discusses the issues revolving around the annexation of countries
such as Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines during the beginning of the twentieth
century. The article states that while people living in Puerto Rico and the Philippines were
considered U.S. citizens, they did not have the full rights of U.S. citizenship; the people of both
countries were considered “colonial citizens” (Baldoz 81). While Filipinos and Puerto Ricans were
not considered U.S. citizens by the general public, they were considered citizens in “matters of
international relations” (84). One reason that the Philippines was not annexed was because of its
“black” population (the people of the Philippines are Malaysian descent, not African), so Puerto
Rico was annexed but the Philippines was not. Many Puerto Ricans were upset by the fact that
Hawaiian people “had been collectively naturalized in 1900” but Puerto Ricans still were not fully
considered U.S. citizens (89).
U.S. Imperialism during the beginning of the twentieth century actually diminished
worldwide independence and clearly went against our country’s basic principles of “life, liberty,
Carroll 2
and the pursuit of happiness.” The U.S. used the war against Spain as an excuse to expand its
borders and compete with Britain for world dominance. While this source defines U.S.
imperialism, it is not subjective, but rather objective in its viewpoint. The sources’ objectivity
broadens its’ audience, yet the article is clearly scholarly.
Carlos, Alfredo. “Mexico ‘under Siege:’ Drug Cartels or U.S. Imperialism?” Latin
American Perspectives. 41.2 (2014): 43-59. Print.
As a peer-reviewed scholarly article, this article defends Mexico and determines that the
United States portrays Mexico as an unsafe country that could soon impede the good ole’ American
lifestyle—“[…] it masks [Mexico’s] origin in U.S. economic foreign policy while providing
justification for continued and future U.S. paternalism and domination” (Carlos 44). The article
claims that the U.S.’s discourse on Mexico started back in the 1800s “in which the Unites States
made a concerted effort to dominate Mexico economically and subordinate it to U.S. corporate
interests” (47). In reality, “Mexico is suffering much more from extreme economic inequality,
caused in large part by U.S. economic imperialism and capital extraction […] than drug-related
violence” and therefore people have moved out of Mexico. The article claims that while Mexico
does have crime issues, they are not nearly as bad as other Latin countries or even the U.S.; in fact,
the U.S. has the highest prison population in the world. Also, it is noted that more people in the
U.S. kill themselves each year than the numbers of murders committed in Mexico per year.
While this article brings up a great point on modern-day border issues, it does not fully
support its claims with significant and jaw-dropping data. Issues such as “imperialism” and
“paternalism” make the U.S. seem like an abusive father to Mexico ever since the MexicanAmerican War. This article is biased, rather than objective, and is in favor of Mexico, not America.
Carroll 3
The goal of this article is to prove to the United States that Mexico is not going to destroy U.S.
live and threaten U.S. national security.
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Benjamin I. Page. “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” The
American Political Science Review 99.1 (2005): 107-23. ProQuest. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
As a scholarly peer-reviewed article, this article serves as a statistical database for modern
U.S. foreign policy. Through the use of cross-sectional and time-lagged analyses, this article find
that “internationally oriented business leaders” (Jacobs 1) have the most influence on U.S. foreign
policy. The article argues that “government policy ought to reflect the views of ordinary citizens”
but “the quality of foreign policy is likely to suffer if the mass public is allowed to have much of
a direct impact” (1). The findings in the article conclude that U.S. politicians put the economy first
when considering foreign policy, and do not consider the general public’s opinion to be worthy on
a worldwide scale; rather stating that the general public loses it influence once it tries to change
broad ides rather than community issues.
While this article maintains clear and concise data throughout its analyses, it does not prove
a point about U.S. foreign policy or imperialism. The article is great for supporting claims such as
that international business leaders have the greatest impact on modern foreign policy, but it does
not provide background for analytical rhetoric on my topic. This article could serve as a scientific
database for my research and could definitely make my claims much more technical.
Shafer, Gregory. “The Common Currents of Imperialism - the Recent U.S. War on Iraq
Has Been Justified As an Act of Benevolence, Paralleling the Rationale Used During the Early
Twentieth Century U.S. Invasion and Occupation of the Philippines. This Supports the View
That U.S. Activity in Iraq Is Imperialistic.” The Humanist. 63.5 (2003): 22. Print.
Carroll 4
This scholarly article published by Gregory Shafer, who was an assistant professor at Mott
College in Flint, Michigan, compares the U.S. territorial invasion of the Philippines to the War on
Terror in Iraq. The article compares the U.S. searches for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to
the “genocidal cleansing of the Filipino people” (Shafer 22). An interesting point brought up by
the article is that the U.S. invaded the Philippines to expand our nation and bring in new natural
resources more cheaply, while the invasion of Iraq was solely an excuse for the September 11th
attacks on the World Trade Center. In fact, this “benevolent assimilation” (22) was so close to the
September 11th attacks that the “Pew Research Center reported that two-thirds of the U.S. citizenry
believed that [Saddam] Hussein ‘helped the terrorists in the September 11 attacks” (25). This
article firmly believes that the invasion of Iraq was firmly a ploy to create ease of access to Dick
Cheney’s (Haliburton) former oil company’s reserves.
While this article provides substantial support for my research paper, it does not provide
any rebuttal information or support necessary to make a clear and concise argument in my research
paper. Being a local article, this article may make my research paper more prevalent in the
surrounding community. Compared to other sources, this article clearly supports my goal for my
research paper.
Spalding, Hobart. “U.S. imperialism and 1898.” Monthly Review Dec. 1998: 31+.
Popular Magazines. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
This peer-reviewed periodical analyses the U.S.’s involvement in the Spanish-American
War of 1898 and the impact it had on the world. The article claims that the U.S. used the war to
create a territorial race for power between Great Britain and the United States that would propel
economic growth in a rather bleak American economy. The war against Spain was merely started
Carroll 5
through U.S. propaganda and mishap, which led to a general public thinking that Spain was our
enemy when really greed was our enemy. Many military bases were built on Puerto Rico, Cuba,
Guam, and the Philippines to heighten our status militarily and make us the world’s best navy. The
people of all these nations were forced under patriarchal, Christian rule that taught U.S. history,
the alphabet in English, and farming that was not native to any of the nations. These nations, such
as the Philippines, were heavily discriminated against and were used as countries that were only
good enough for resources instead of people. This led to much violence, and, in fact, the U.S. lost
more soldiers in the Philippines than it did in the entire war against Spain.
While this article provides great historical background for my research paper, it does not
provide a comparison to modern times. The author of the article is biased in the sense that he is
against imperialism and fully supports independence. This article reaches a broader audience than
any of the other sources because it is a monthly publication that the general public may read. This
article is also shorter and straight-to-the-point, so it provides great intellect on imperialism in a
timely manner.