Are the affairs of the Philippines testimony a general pro-imperialist or an anti-imperialist? How does the reading support either position?

Imperialism is when a country wants to extend its power to another by wanting to have total control over its politics, economy, and territories. Following the defeat of Spain by the USA in the 1899 Spain- American war Spain ceded the Philippines which was their colony. The testimony is a general pro-imperialist as it's clear the US army was ready to do everything in its power to ensure that they in opposition to extend their power to Philippines.

The inhumane ways they treated the people such as the use of the water cure in order to gain a confession, the burning of the houses for the people are just some of the ways mentioned in the testimony in which the army was pro-imperialist. The army had received orders from their brigadier to leave the place in a manner that resembled a dessert. The orders to the soldiers were for them to kill anyone they came across and were in a position to carry ammunition. He moreover, encouraged them to kill as the act pleased him more.

To add to this the fact that it was common knowledge to everyone in the army that the water cure method was been used to force people to testify; shows that the soldiers and army generals were all pro-imperialist. The soldiers sometimes got orders from up the line and in that time they did not question but act on the orders. A soldier testifies that there was an instance when they were ordered to just shoot at a Pilipino village and kill everyone. This is despite the fact that nobody from the Pilipino side fired back at them. In the event where the natives or the Pilipino tried to resist they were put in concentration camps The reading is a pro-imperialist from the way the Pilipino were treated and the matter handled.