# data[].attributes.body
I mean it is what it is. America isn't the only Country in the world who s had these conflicts or problems a bunch of other countries faced the same things and have the same issues. When we look back at it now, DO WE agree with it, some yes some no, but I mean it is what is, Take it with a grain of salt the world was way different than it is today. Doesn't mean all of its justified but it should all be taken with a grain of salt.

# data[].attributes.body
2. specifically for 2, how does religion justify colonization? We haven't "done the right thing" from the Philippines to Persia. Based on this ideology, should we not have been invaded after the raid in January?

# data[].attributes.headline
1. I disagree with social darwinism, I don't think the US should go destroy other countries if not they would be like the British as they came and conquer nations that weren't as civilized.

# data[].attributes.subject
1. I disagree with social darwinism, I don't think the US should go destroy other countries if not they would be like the British as they came and conquer nations that weren't as civilized.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree because the United States should not have had influence over other countries that wished to evolve in their own way from a lower level.
I agree with the social gospel because the United States should always support, aide, and defend other countries.
I disagree with the White Man's Burden and just because the United States is more advanced does not mean it should impose its values and way of life on other nations. They could assist other countries in being stronger, but they should be allowed to do so in their own way.

# data[].attributes.headline
1.I agree, such is the law of the world, in nature, the strong dominate over the weak, because that is the natural order of things.

# data[].attributes.subject
1.I agree, such is the law of the world, in nature, the strong dominate over the weak, because that is the natural order of things.

# data[].attributes.body
2.They have the right to conquer, but if they really valued their Christian principles, then they should take care of the smaller nations they conquer, and protect them.
3.That depends on how much of an obligation that the U.S government feels . I would generally say if they value their Christian principles then yes, but if they don't, then no.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I disagree with Social Darwinism because the idea that just because your a more developed country shouldn't mean you get to take out/eliminate weaker and less developed countries.
2. I agree with Social Gospel because more developed countries should help out other countries that are in need.
3.

# data[].attributes.body
-I disagree with social Darwinism because just because you have more of everything doesn't mean you will always be on top.
-I agree with social gospel because the U.S. should help and protect those who need it.
-I disagree with the White Man's Burden because the U.S. should accept other peoples way of life and not force them to they way they life.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I disagree because even if the US is stronger in most things, it does not give the automatic right to eliminate weaker countries. Those weaker countries could also have some power.
2. I agree with Social Gospel because if they expect other countries/nations to help them, they should help other countries/nations as well.
3. I do not agree with White Man's Burden because the US should accept other peoples ways of life as they expect other people to accept their way of life.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Social Darwinism, no
2.
3.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Social Darwinism because the United States' "strength" should not undermine another nation's. The United States has a lot of what's listed purely based on it's large size, and the territories the US took over were islands, so of course they have a smaller population. I agree with Social Gospel to an extent because who are we to just step in whenever we deem necessary. If the country asks for help, then by all means we should help. I disagree with White Man's Burden because the cultures of these places are not inferior and these people have civilizations built, so even though their culture isn't the US culture, it can't be discounted as valid.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I disagree with it because I don't think it is the natural order to dominate other countries if yours is stronger but to instead help those countries by putting in place democracies and such rather than dictatorships. Basically not eliminate countries just make it so the people are free like we are in America, similar outcome but way different approach.
2. I do agree with this actually, it goes off of my reasoning for the first question. Whether you agree with Christianity or not the country was founded on those principles and because we are one of the few countries to be truly free then we need to help those who aren't so lucky in their countries. That does mean stopping governments that are hurting their people and bringing aid to people who are clearly being wronged.
3. I agree with this only in how America is better than many countries but not why. I don't think it has anything to do the color of anyone's skin but that the ideals and freedoms that are given in this country should be shared through other countries. It's not about race, it's about ideals and morality to me.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Social Darwinism
I disagree with it because I feel like it's unfair. Just because one country is bigger and and has more money doesn't mean they have the right to eliminate other countries. That's the same thing that Great Britain did and Americans disagreed with it so why would they do the same.
3.White Mans Burden
I just feel like this is so disrespectful and inconsiderate to other cultures and religions. Like I feel like all of these ideas are just anti diversity. It seem like they want everyone to be the same.

# data[].attributes.body
social darwinism- no i don't agree because just because we are bigger, does not make us better than other nations
social gospel- yes I agree. it's always good to do the right thing even if it seems wrong
white man's burden- no i don't agree because every one deserves to live the way they please

# data[].attributes.body
I do not agree with social Darwinism because its unfair to those other counties. Just because your bigger and more equipped doesn't mean you should be allowed to dominate/eliminate weaker countries and nations.
I do agree with Social Gospel because its the exact opposite of social Darwinism, and it wants to do the "right thing".

# data[].attributes.body
1. I disagree because the U.S. should not have controlled other nations from a lower level that wanted to develop in their own ways.
2. I agree because that is respectful to other people and God.
3. I disagree because it sends a message that non-whites are less superior than whites and that they should be as good as them. That message is very disrespectful.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I do not agree with Social Darwinism because just because the US is stronger that doesn't mean that they should dominate/eliminate weaker countries.
2. I agree with the social gospel because the US should help, aide and protect other countries whenever possible.
3. I don't agree with the White Man's Burden because just because the US is more advanced doesn't mean that they should force their ideals and way of life on other countries. They could help the other countries get stronger but let them do it their way.