Final answer:
Roosevelt favored retaining the Philippines for strategic and economic purposes as part of his imperialist stance, using his “Big Stick” policy to assert U.S. influence, whereas Twain was an anti-imperialist who condemned the occupation as contradictory to American principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
When contrasting Theodore Roosevelt’s and Mark Twain’s views on the occupation of the Philippines, the key distinction lies in their stance on imperialism. Roosevelt, who followed President McKinley’s imperialist policies, believed that keeping the Philippines would provide strategic value for military and commerce, serving as a gateway to Asian markets. This imperialist view saw the occupation as a means of providing economic opportunities for the U.S. and bringing civilization to the Philippines. Mark Twain, however, was an outspoken critic of imperialism and the occupation of the Philippines, arguing that this contradicted the American values of liberty and self-governance. His anti-imperialist perspective highlighted the moral and ethical consequences of subjugating another nation. Ultimately, Roosevelt advocated for the extension of American influence through power and negotiation, often utilizing his “Big Stick” foreign policy, while Twain called for respect of the Philippines’ sovereignty and criticized the human cost of empire.