Reading other people’s impressions of imperialism and its historic significance caused me to wonder about whether it still exists, or will exist in the future. Someone mentioned that the class gap between extremely rich and extremely impoverished is rapidly growing. It’s scary to imagine what the next step in the pattern of imperialism could be when the wealth is already distributed so unevenly. Just look at many third- world, or underdeveloped, countries versus America. But in my opinion imperialism will remain six feet under, mostly because of how global our planet has become. Of course it’s necessary to understand I mean the offensive military actions taken by dominant nations, not the imperialistic attitude, which will exist as long as there are top world powers like the United States. But today justifications for imperialism wouldn’t be tolerated by the rest of the world. If a country tried to oppress another with an unprecedented war there would be a huge backlash. Other nations would come to their aid with their voices and their militaries. We live in a very global world society with a series of networks and allies. Not only would this morally gray behavior be chastised, but many other nations would be affected too. The ripple effect would hurt other nations through trade among other effects. I think we coexist with enough nations that are powerful enough to protect their allies, creating our own method of checks and balances. George Bush’s “war on terror” is an example of military reasoning that many people found to be unsound. Historically many imperialistic powers have acted self-righteous, hiding their true greed behind a façade of democracy or superiority.
Mostly everyone categorized imperialism as an evil force dominating our history textbooks. And while its corrupt nature is undisputable, the point was developed in someone’s paper that there have been benefits like rise of technology, educational programs, and global views that has spread understanding of other cultures. But another glaring negative, besides the killing and suffering of a country’s natives, is the fact that you can’t have imperialism without assimilation. I think this is attributed to the fact that people are afraid of what they don’t understand, including different culture. I wonder, is it possible to conquer another nation without decimating its identity (i.e. religion, dialect, beliefs)? Regardless, I believe the various aspects of imperialism are now a moot point, considering we live in such an interconnected world.
Friday, February 27
Neo-Colonialism
Chris Ryan
Neo-Colonialism
Throughout the Imperialist age in Europe, colonialism was justified by the notion that white people were culturally superior to peoples of other continents. The “White Man’s Burden” of civilizing foreign populations may not have been the colonizers primary concern, but efforts to assimilate those under control of the Europeans did occur. Though the European efforts to civilize its colony’s inhabitants resulted in the formulation of Westernized customs, the colonies were hardly transformed into the fully modernized industrious nations idealized by the concept of the white man’s burden. Instead nations in Africa, the Middle East and other parts of the world had trouble adjusting to the new customs imposed on them by their colonizers, and arguably left them in a more violent, troubled state than they had previously been in. Before the colonization of sub-Saharan Africa, the area was inhabited by tribes that differed in ethnicity and region of inhabitance. Though the area was not entirely peaceful, the natural formation of tribes provided relative socio-political stability in the region. However, when the Europeans colonized the region, they split up different nations regardless of tribal differences. The division of African colonies partnered with technological and cultural changes ushered onto the people of Africa created a very turbulent environment. Even after the age of Imperialism, the affects of neo-colonialism are felt throughout Africa, as the sub-continent is plagued by war, disease and poverty. Similar affects are seen throughout the Middle East and North Africa, as nations formerly part of the Ottoman Empire were arbitrarily divided, causing racial and religious conflict. As a result the region is very violent even today, as conflicts of religion are rampant throughout the region.
Though the colonizers intentions for those they were colonizing were allegedly good, the white man did not come close to completing his objective of creating civil, Western people. Instead the affects of neo-colonialism created conflict and poor quality of living even after the colonizers left their respective regions.
Neo-Colonialism
Throughout the Imperialist age in Europe, colonialism was justified by the notion that white people were culturally superior to peoples of other continents. The “White Man’s Burden” of civilizing foreign populations may not have been the colonizers primary concern, but efforts to assimilate those under control of the Europeans did occur. Though the European efforts to civilize its colony’s inhabitants resulted in the formulation of Westernized customs, the colonies were hardly transformed into the fully modernized industrious nations idealized by the concept of the white man’s burden. Instead nations in Africa, the Middle East and other parts of the world had trouble adjusting to the new customs imposed on them by their colonizers, and arguably left them in a more violent, troubled state than they had previously been in. Before the colonization of sub-Saharan Africa, the area was inhabited by tribes that differed in ethnicity and region of inhabitance. Though the area was not entirely peaceful, the natural formation of tribes provided relative socio-political stability in the region. However, when the Europeans colonized the region, they split up different nations regardless of tribal differences. The division of African colonies partnered with technological and cultural changes ushered onto the people of Africa created a very turbulent environment. Even after the age of Imperialism, the affects of neo-colonialism are felt throughout Africa, as the sub-continent is plagued by war, disease and poverty. Similar affects are seen throughout the Middle East and North Africa, as nations formerly part of the Ottoman Empire were arbitrarily divided, causing racial and religious conflict. As a result the region is very violent even today, as conflicts of religion are rampant throughout the region.
Though the colonizers intentions for those they were colonizing were allegedly good, the white man did not come close to completing his objective of creating civil, Western people. Instead the affects of neo-colonialism created conflict and poor quality of living even after the colonizers left their respective regions.
Thursday, February 26
Response on Imperialism
Many people are saying that the Europeans justified their colonies through the “white man’s burden”. Some are saying that the Europeans didn’t really believe in the white man’s burden, and were only using it as an excuse to for their imperialistic conquests. Although this is partially true some Europeans may have just used the “white man’s burden” to justify their actions, but others actually thought they had a duty to uphold. Evidence of this can be found in the movie the “Rabbit Proof Fence”. This is a movie about how white Europeans attempted to get rid of the dark skinned color of the Indians. They did not gain anything by attempting to teach the kids English and to read and write. They only did so because of their moral obligations. This proves that some Europeans did believe in the “white man’s burden”. More evidence of this comes from missionaries. Missionaries went out into various foreign countries attempting to spread their religion to the natives in order to protect them from “hell”. The people who traveled to these far away places didn’t get any material benefit out of them either. They just risked their lives and left their homes because they thought that they had a moral obligation to do it—“the White Man’s Burden”.
Wednesday, February 25
Response (Imperialism)
AP European History Response
Dawson Williams
Neither Cheers nor Boos for Imperialism
Analyzing the magnitude of European imperialism forces the person doing the analysis to understand that the effects of imperialism are not black or white, they are merely a shade of gray. Even the most prolific historians like Dinesh D’Zouza and J.A Hobson cannot agree on what the implications of imperialism were. So I will walk the tightest of lines when I say that imperialism was an unappealing hybrid of good and bad things.
Reverend Jesse Jackson demands that the dominant countries of the world today pay reparations for the “damage” that they have caused the so-called underdeveloped countries through colonization. Jackson’s demands are too broad to account for what has happened. While it is true that countries like Britain have damaged other nations through colonization by eliminating unique cultural practices, eliminating independent local government, and narrowing nations economies the major “players” of imperialism only hurt some of the nations they colonized. South Africa is a good example of a country that was incapable of recovering from Britain’s rule because Britain prevented them from broadening their economy to accumulate wealth through several different venues. Now, even today South Africa’s economy consists almost entirely on the sale of its natural resources, things such as diamonds, oil or other mined rocks and minerals. South Africa might be one of many countries that was abused and left crippled by imperialism (and it is most surely not alone) but there were several countries that began to flourish as a result of mineralization. When Britain kept a ruthless chokehold on India it sparked a rebellion that would write a new chapter in India’s history, a chapter that shows how India was far better after colonization than before. Because of Britain’s occupation in India unique leaders like Nehru and Ghandi were to break free of Britain’s chokehold and spark a bigger wave of nationalism than India had had in quite some time. But India was not the only country to do this, Latin America was successful in acquiring nationalism under Simon Bolivar, Mexico did the same under Jose Maria Morelos, and (much earlier but applicable is) Haiti under Toussaint L’Overture. Though the dominant countries did not know it at the time their presence in the undeveloped nations often lead to the smaller countries discovering their own identities and equipping themselves with the technology and knowledge they had gained from the countries that had colonized them.
Therefore, Dinesh D’Zouza is far too praise worthy of imperialism because it definitely left some countries shattered, but imperialism did benefit several countries so Jesse Jackson needs to do some more research before he makes public demands.
Dawson Williams
Neither Cheers nor Boos for Imperialism
Analyzing the magnitude of European imperialism forces the person doing the analysis to understand that the effects of imperialism are not black or white, they are merely a shade of gray. Even the most prolific historians like Dinesh D’Zouza and J.A Hobson cannot agree on what the implications of imperialism were. So I will walk the tightest of lines when I say that imperialism was an unappealing hybrid of good and bad things.
Reverend Jesse Jackson demands that the dominant countries of the world today pay reparations for the “damage” that they have caused the so-called underdeveloped countries through colonization. Jackson’s demands are too broad to account for what has happened. While it is true that countries like Britain have damaged other nations through colonization by eliminating unique cultural practices, eliminating independent local government, and narrowing nations economies the major “players” of imperialism only hurt some of the nations they colonized. South Africa is a good example of a country that was incapable of recovering from Britain’s rule because Britain prevented them from broadening their economy to accumulate wealth through several different venues. Now, even today South Africa’s economy consists almost entirely on the sale of its natural resources, things such as diamonds, oil or other mined rocks and minerals. South Africa might be one of many countries that was abused and left crippled by imperialism (and it is most surely not alone) but there were several countries that began to flourish as a result of mineralization. When Britain kept a ruthless chokehold on India it sparked a rebellion that would write a new chapter in India’s history, a chapter that shows how India was far better after colonization than before. Because of Britain’s occupation in India unique leaders like Nehru and Ghandi were to break free of Britain’s chokehold and spark a bigger wave of nationalism than India had had in quite some time. But India was not the only country to do this, Latin America was successful in acquiring nationalism under Simon Bolivar, Mexico did the same under Jose Maria Morelos, and (much earlier but applicable is) Haiti under Toussaint L’Overture. Though the dominant countries did not know it at the time their presence in the undeveloped nations often lead to the smaller countries discovering their own identities and equipping themselves with the technology and knowledge they had gained from the countries that had colonized them.
Therefore, Dinesh D’Zouza is far too praise worthy of imperialism because it definitely left some countries shattered, but imperialism did benefit several countries so Jesse Jackson needs to do some more research before he makes public demands.
Imperialism: The good and the bad
Rachel Newman
AP European History
The beginning of the imperialist powers no doubt stemmed from the industrialization in particular countries. It is no coincidence that both Britain and America were dominating imperialist powers that were also the fastest industrialized countries. With cheap goods and efficient factories, Europe and the United States could no look to other countries to find more resources and expand. Whether it was the new industrialized attitude, or the simple ‘white man is better’ belief, the idea that the west was superior polluted the minds or many determined and powerful leaders. Instead of trading with the less developed countries, exploitation and manipulation were key themes in imperialism. A prime example of this was the Europe and America handled Japan and China concerning trade. In China, British and French troops occupied Bejing and used military aggression to force the unwilling Chinese to trade across seas. After doing so, American commodore Matthew Perry bombarded Japan with the navy, the small country to trade across seas as well. On top of this, the mistreatment of Africans and Indians increased the gap between the industrialized and third world countries, along with racial tensions. Needless to say, although the human rights and conditions may have decreased, the resources that imperialism brought about are crucial into the modern development of globalization that we have today
AP European History
The beginning of the imperialist powers no doubt stemmed from the industrialization in particular countries. It is no coincidence that both Britain and America were dominating imperialist powers that were also the fastest industrialized countries. With cheap goods and efficient factories, Europe and the United States could no look to other countries to find more resources and expand. Whether it was the new industrialized attitude, or the simple ‘white man is better’ belief, the idea that the west was superior polluted the minds or many determined and powerful leaders. Instead of trading with the less developed countries, exploitation and manipulation were key themes in imperialism. A prime example of this was the Europe and America handled Japan and China concerning trade. In China, British and French troops occupied Bejing and used military aggression to force the unwilling Chinese to trade across seas. After doing so, American commodore Matthew Perry bombarded Japan with the navy, the small country to trade across seas as well. On top of this, the mistreatment of Africans and Indians increased the gap between the industrialized and third world countries, along with racial tensions. Needless to say, although the human rights and conditions may have decreased, the resources that imperialism brought about are crucial into the modern development of globalization that we have today
I find it fascinating...
...that some historians defend imperialism throughout the 19th and 20th century as being beneficial to both the imperialist country and the people who were invaded. I do understand how historians can say without imperialism, the third world countries would not have been able to export their goods into a world market as quickly as they did, however, those countries and their economies did not benefit. It’s true third world civilians increased their income due to imperialism because they were given jobs and wages, but prior to being taken over, the people were living just fine. I’m assuming people of Congo were much better just living off the land naturally without a real economy than they were being forced to work by King Leopold harvesting rubber trees. White Man’s Burden was a good way to justify Europeans and their means of controlling countries far away, but it was really just a cover up for their exploitation for those nations and their people. I see White Man’s Burden as being very similar to Manifest Destiny in the United States. Somehow, superior felling white’s always fell they should dominate a more primitive people to better themselves but somehow find a term to justify doing so.
Tuesday, February 24
Exploitation through Imperialism
Whether for economic, political, nationalistic or humanitarian reasons, more dominate nations have often interfered with the affairs of weaker nations. Those powerful nations, such as Great Britain, have in the past exploited less fortunate nations for their own interests in such things as capital and resources. Although sometimes in return these exploited nation’s quality of life have been improved, it cannot hide the fact that imperialism results in oppression and a change in culture of the weaker nation.
In Rudyard Kipling’s, “The White Man’s Burden,” the imperialists are explained to be seekers of others resources and therefore oppress the weaker countries. These weaker countries are referred to as “savage countries,” just because they are not as powerful and dominate as the imperialist power (Britian). The white man thinks that any country they can exploit and change is a savage country in someway or another because it does not have the same culture or traditions. These imperialist powers, “seek another’s profit, and work another’s gain,” showing that these powerful countries act in their own interests and not really for the benefit of the less dominate, (India). They work for their own “goal” and for their own “pride.” These countries, like Britain, pride themselves on helping these countries, but only kill many of the people and steal many of their resources.
In J.A. Hobson’s, “Imperialism” this same idea stands. The missionaries think its their “duty” to help out the weaker countries, but want to show off British power. They are simply interfering with the less dominate to help with their capitalism and finance. They act in a hostile manner and want everything to line up in their favor. They will use “animal” like ways and use all of their energies to make sure to profit off the weak.
In Rudyard Kipling’s, “The White Man’s Burden,” the imperialists are explained to be seekers of others resources and therefore oppress the weaker countries. These weaker countries are referred to as “savage countries,” just because they are not as powerful and dominate as the imperialist power (Britian). The white man thinks that any country they can exploit and change is a savage country in someway or another because it does not have the same culture or traditions. These imperialist powers, “seek another’s profit, and work another’s gain,” showing that these powerful countries act in their own interests and not really for the benefit of the less dominate, (India). They work for their own “goal” and for their own “pride.” These countries, like Britain, pride themselves on helping these countries, but only kill many of the people and steal many of their resources.
In J.A. Hobson’s, “Imperialism” this same idea stands. The missionaries think its their “duty” to help out the weaker countries, but want to show off British power. They are simply interfering with the less dominate to help with their capitalism and finance. They act in a hostile manner and want everything to line up in their favor. They will use “animal” like ways and use all of their energies to make sure to profit off the weak.
Imperialism and Humanitarianism: Fraternal Twins?
AP Euro
February 24, 2009
Lauren Berry
Imperialism and Humanitarianism: Fraternal Twins?
Imperialism and Humanitarianism are often placed in separate spheres. However, maybe these two concepts are much more similar than we know them to be. Imperialism is defined as “the practice of extending the power, control or rule by one country over areas outside its borders.” On the other hand, Humanitarianism is defined as “an active belief in the value of human life, whereby humans practice benevolent treatment and provide assistance to other humans, in order to better humanity for both moral and logical reasons.” These two practices are defined completely different, yet both involve the act of helping those in need. So, where do we draw the line? It is easy to argue that these two ideologies are completely different, yet they in fact share many similar ideas. Both practices follow similar ideologies by entering impoverished nations in hopes of injecting change within the society. However, this comparison goes no further because Imperialism uses force while Humanitarianism doesn’t. Imperialism, unlike Humanitarianism involves a greedy mindset. For example, Humanitarians come into the impoverished nation with the goal to better the lives of the society, without any strings attached. However, Imperialism calls for an unfair relationship between the society and the transitional government. Unable to speak their voice, the nation is bombarded by new ideas thrown in by the new government. Imperialism calls for a complete change to occur throughout society by force, while Humanitarianism allows for problems to be fixed and mended through peaceful acts. Humanitarianism doesn’t imply for strings to be attached, but rather it is an unselfish act. Humanitarianism is a practice that isn’t seeking power or in want of control. On the other hand, Imperialism acts as a greedy, power seeking practice that in turn creates an unfair relationship between the powerful and the powerless. In class the other day, Ms. Pugliese read from a book that argued that Humanitarianism and Imperialism are similar, but I have to disagree with the author. I think Imperialism and Humanitarianism are fraternal twins. Though they seem to have similar qualities, the intentions behind the acts are different. It’s simple: Humanitarians have good intentions, while Imperialists do not.
February 24, 2009
Lauren Berry
Imperialism and Humanitarianism: Fraternal Twins?
Imperialism and Humanitarianism are often placed in separate spheres. However, maybe these two concepts are much more similar than we know them to be. Imperialism is defined as “the practice of extending the power, control or rule by one country over areas outside its borders.” On the other hand, Humanitarianism is defined as “an active belief in the value of human life, whereby humans practice benevolent treatment and provide assistance to other humans, in order to better humanity for both moral and logical reasons.” These two practices are defined completely different, yet both involve the act of helping those in need. So, where do we draw the line? It is easy to argue that these two ideologies are completely different, yet they in fact share many similar ideas. Both practices follow similar ideologies by entering impoverished nations in hopes of injecting change within the society. However, this comparison goes no further because Imperialism uses force while Humanitarianism doesn’t. Imperialism, unlike Humanitarianism involves a greedy mindset. For example, Humanitarians come into the impoverished nation with the goal to better the lives of the society, without any strings attached. However, Imperialism calls for an unfair relationship between the society and the transitional government. Unable to speak their voice, the nation is bombarded by new ideas thrown in by the new government. Imperialism calls for a complete change to occur throughout society by force, while Humanitarianism allows for problems to be fixed and mended through peaceful acts. Humanitarianism doesn’t imply for strings to be attached, but rather it is an unselfish act. Humanitarianism is a practice that isn’t seeking power or in want of control. On the other hand, Imperialism acts as a greedy, power seeking practice that in turn creates an unfair relationship between the powerful and the powerless. In class the other day, Ms. Pugliese read from a book that argued that Humanitarianism and Imperialism are similar, but I have to disagree with the author. I think Imperialism and Humanitarianism are fraternal twins. Though they seem to have similar qualities, the intentions behind the acts are different. It’s simple: Humanitarians have good intentions, while Imperialists do not.
Historical To Present Day Imperialism
It’s a universally accepted belief that the concept and justification of Imperialism is immoral. Imperialism usually takes the form of military action enforced by a dominant country in order to exploit another country’s land, labor, and resources to benefit its own demands. Sure, it’s easy to reprimand this behavior and write it off as government bullying. But the reality is that without imperialistic behavior the U.S. would not be the top superpower it is today. Technologically and economically we have thrived on the competitive nature of our country’s foundations. No other country comes close to matching our military might. But as Americans we realize this doesn’t mean that we can or should remove morality from the equation. That’s why our Americans were so divided by George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. Many questioned the choice to enter Iraq and Afghanistan, asking was it really moral or was it similar to what the British were doing 100 years ago? Other countries took notice of our decision too, branding us as an imperialistic world police on a power trip. As a major world power the line becomes blurred between our good intentions, and our oppressive tactics. Ironically, while running for president Bush announced a passive foreign policy, only to later become one of the most interventionist presidents in foreign affairs in history.
To put it in perspective in today’s society I want to mention China. In contrast to us, China has pursued a very different policy in providing lots of economic support with no demands on internal politics or human rights with countries they do business with. They use their economic power instead of their military power to benefit themselves. As a result, countries like Sudan prefer to do business with China rather than the U.S. While we perceive ourselves to be the good guys, the rest of the world doesn’t always agree, which has driven away some of our former allies. But it’s important to realize that the nurturing and cultivation of a nation’s superiority complex did not originate with Bush’s administration. The idea of imperialism has existed forever. The Eastern Europeans were so commonly enslaved by each other that “Slav” became directly associated with serfdom. In fact the word “slave” stems from “Slav”. Hitler and the Nazi regime are a prime example of imperialism at its darkest hour. Nazi actions were based in a faith that Jews were inferior, non-human beings, using slave labor of concentration camps to their advantage.
One and a Half Cheers for Colonialism
19th century colonialism has long been seen by much of the world today as an evil, a period in history that should never again repeated, but in reality, it was not all that unique or terrible. True enough, the harshness and cruelty experienced by the colonized was atrocious and no reason or argument can ever justify such treatment of any human being. But to single out and criticize only the West or even demand reparations for their behavior towards the “third world” would be unfair. Though perhaps not always on as grand a scale, civilizations have been invading, conquering, and subjugating other civilizations since the ancient times and they are not justified in their actions either. But what is done is done and no matter how much people lash back at the West, the suffering cannot be undone, so it is better now to focus on making the best of 19th century colonialism. That is not to say that those responsible should not be punished, but that violence against the West in the name of revenge is not the solution. Instead, both the “colonized” and the “colonizers” should work together to expand and improve the benefits brought on by colonialism. The colonists brought with them modern technology, organized infrastructure, and most importantly the ideas of civil rights. The latter was a product of the West and without its introduction it may not have developed on its own for a very long time. Ironically, opening the door to colonization also inadvertently opened the door to the ideas of civil rights, which then influenced the people of the colonies to fight for those rights that their descendents now enjoy. Either argument regarding colonialism cannot win over the other, so unlike D’Souza, I will only give one and a half cheers for colonialism.
Too Many Burdens
While studying imperialism and world history, one term that has always seemed to stick with me was the term, “White Man’s Burden.” Not because I have some bone to pick with Britain colonizing my home country of Nigeria back in the 19th century, but I’ve always found this term fascinating because of the reasoning behind it. Essentially, a lot of Europeans felt it was their duty to colonize and “civilize” the “beasts” of the foreign countries in Africa and South America. The word, “civilize” meaning tame, destruction of religion, loss of national identity, genocide, forcing the destruction of local religions and languages, whatever you take the word civilize to mean. In the words of Joseph Heller (Catch 22), the White Man’s burden was just an act of “Protective Reasoning” to why it was ok to exploit the smaller countries that Europeans were taking over. Though this did happen back in the 19th century, and most of colonies have now gotten their independence, have all these burdens finally been taken care of, has the whole world been civilized?
For most teens that keep up with modern day pop culture, the answer to this question would be no. Of late, its all the rage to get pregnant now, whether it is to sky rocket your popularity or as a publicity stunt to create buzz for your new movie. But some stars don’t want to get pregnant and deal with the weight, soreness, and bloating that a baby brings, so they’ve resorted to adoption outside of the United States. The most famous case being Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt who now have 6 kids, of which only 3 are biological children. What I find very interesting is that while parents who adopt children do it because of some complication that prevents them from being able to have kid themselves, or a single parent who wants children but does not have a significant other to do so with, Angelina and Brad are fully capable of having children, proof being the two twins she popped out last year. Why can’t parents who aren’t celebrities get babies in the U.S half as fast as celebrities outside of the U.S? Why do celebrities feel the need to adopt if they don’t need to? To many, this feels like a modern day white man’s burden-type of ordeal, but at the same time, a little more positive then our ancestors. Though it seems that Angelina and other celebrities feel that it’s their right to do the world a favor and adopt every foreign child possible, in the end they are giving these children a better life overall. Though this is the white man’s burden all over again, they are actually doing themselves some good, and for once, I think I’m going to have to agree with Jolie.
For most teens that keep up with modern day pop culture, the answer to this question would be no. Of late, its all the rage to get pregnant now, whether it is to sky rocket your popularity or as a publicity stunt to create buzz for your new movie. But some stars don’t want to get pregnant and deal with the weight, soreness, and bloating that a baby brings, so they’ve resorted to adoption outside of the United States. The most famous case being Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt who now have 6 kids, of which only 3 are biological children. What I find very interesting is that while parents who adopt children do it because of some complication that prevents them from being able to have kid themselves, or a single parent who wants children but does not have a significant other to do so with, Angelina and Brad are fully capable of having children, proof being the two twins she popped out last year. Why can’t parents who aren’t celebrities get babies in the U.S half as fast as celebrities outside of the U.S? Why do celebrities feel the need to adopt if they don’t need to? To many, this feels like a modern day white man’s burden-type of ordeal, but at the same time, a little more positive then our ancestors. Though it seems that Angelina and other celebrities feel that it’s their right to do the world a favor and adopt every foreign child possible, in the end they are giving these children a better life overall. Though this is the white man’s burden all over again, they are actually doing themselves some good, and for once, I think I’m going to have to agree with Jolie.
The Evolution of Imperialist Policies
Elise Thygesen
AP Euro
Pugliese
02-23-09
The Evolution of Imperialist Policies
The progression from colonialism to imperialism to 21st century globalization seems natural to me. Colonialism, the act of establishing a direct connection to another sphere of the world by controlling it with external power was a way for Western Europeans to assert their dominance over the rest of world in a very direct way by establishing diplomatic, legal, and economic ties to another territory of land. In a way, colonialism was a product of early globalization, as transportation mechanisms allowed explorers, sailors, kings, and foreign rulers to connect with another part of the world. Imperialism evolved out of the colonialist tendencies to create greater economic prosperity for the dominant power. Great Britain used their imperialist countries to gain access to rich land, resources, and labor, taking the majority of the economic gains from trade for themselves by exploiting their military and political prowess.
I would argue that the modern globalization is part of the historical progression from colonialism to imperialism. No longer needing to create offshore “colonies” to capitalize on resources, the West uses their industrial advantages to exploit developing countries’ resources. William Easterly even goes so far as to argue that modern foreign aid policies are merely a veiled extension of high-minded imperialism. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the gap between the richest people and the poorest people in the world is growing fast, and it is impossible to imagine what the next step in the historical progression of imperialism might be. However, it appears to be an unfortunate pattern of big winners and losers in globalization, suggesting the benefits of trade are not always equally distributed.
AP Euro
Pugliese
02-23-09
The Evolution of Imperialist Policies
The progression from colonialism to imperialism to 21st century globalization seems natural to me. Colonialism, the act of establishing a direct connection to another sphere of the world by controlling it with external power was a way for Western Europeans to assert their dominance over the rest of world in a very direct way by establishing diplomatic, legal, and economic ties to another territory of land. In a way, colonialism was a product of early globalization, as transportation mechanisms allowed explorers, sailors, kings, and foreign rulers to connect with another part of the world. Imperialism evolved out of the colonialist tendencies to create greater economic prosperity for the dominant power. Great Britain used their imperialist countries to gain access to rich land, resources, and labor, taking the majority of the economic gains from trade for themselves by exploiting their military and political prowess.
I would argue that the modern globalization is part of the historical progression from colonialism to imperialism. No longer needing to create offshore “colonies” to capitalize on resources, the West uses their industrial advantages to exploit developing countries’ resources. William Easterly even goes so far as to argue that modern foreign aid policies are merely a veiled extension of high-minded imperialism. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the gap between the richest people and the poorest people in the world is growing fast, and it is impossible to imagine what the next step in the historical progression of imperialism might be. However, it appears to be an unfortunate pattern of big winners and losers in globalization, suggesting the benefits of trade are not always equally distributed.
Imperialism Response Paper
Imperialism is defined as “a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries”. This is a common idea among influential countries in order to expand their borders. Although this may seem like a successful strategy to gain more power, it is not moral because it ruins the less powerful countries traditions, freedom, and way of living. Kipling’s, “White Man’s Burden” favors imperialism and discusses the idea that it is the Europeans (White man’s) duty to “civilize” the “savages” of the world and take over less powerful countries. Kipling makes it seem like imperialism is the only way for smaller countries to thrive, but he fails to recognize all the negative aspects of taking over a country. It is unethical to invade a small country and alter its economy, political structure, and society. Some may believe that the third world countries, in order to be somewhat successful, need to follow in Europe’s footsteps, but at the same time, when a powerful nation occupies a smaller country they tend to destroy their traditions, force religion upon them, and create enemies. The selfish behavior of imperialistic rulers causes a nation to become less united. When a country is constantly extending their borders and oppressing smaller countries, it can have an effect on the nationalistic nature of their citizens. Throughout our studies, we have learned that nations strive and prosper due to all citizens being united under one common goal. When goals and traditions are split and mixed, it is difficult for a country to be cohesive and powerful. Yes, Europe was very successful and progressed at a faster rate then most countries, but that doesn’t mean that powerful countries like Europe should have the right to ruin traditions and force rules upon other countries.
Militant Nationalism vs. Imperialism
Is Heinrich von Treitshke’s ideological belief of militant nationalism a product or a cause of imperialism? In a sense, while they occupy separate spheres, they also have numerous commonalities. From the language used in Treitshke’s thoughts on the state and war, it seems as if the motivations behind militant nationalism are much more extreme than the (still not noble) motivations of imperialism.
Treitshke places a much larger emphasis on the role of Germany as an imperialist power, and glorifies the German form of imperialism whilst condemning all other similar global actions. However, unlike most intellectuals at the time, Treitshke does not scramble for a justification or reason why imperialism exists. Instead, he lays it out in a very plain and blunt way: Germans are the greatest race on the earth and in order to become the most powerful nation, they must look out for their own interests even if by questionable means.
No part of Treitshke’s ideology is sugar-coated and it fails to see shades of grey in a world in which it believes nations must attack or be attacked. To Treitshke, “peace is an illusion supported only by those of weak character” and a nation’s only concern is maintaining power. A Treitshke-esque style of imperialism wouldn’t cite religion or money as a justification. In fact, Treitshke denounces the “hypocriticall Englishmen,” calling them “an ancient robber-kight” and sharply criticizing their economic reasons for imperialism. Militant nationalism would have a much greater negative effect on the nations being colonized, though it is hard to say I prefer imperialism.
Treitshke places a much larger emphasis on the role of Germany as an imperialist power, and glorifies the German form of imperialism whilst condemning all other similar global actions. However, unlike most intellectuals at the time, Treitshke does not scramble for a justification or reason why imperialism exists. Instead, he lays it out in a very plain and blunt way: Germans are the greatest race on the earth and in order to become the most powerful nation, they must look out for their own interests even if by questionable means.
No part of Treitshke’s ideology is sugar-coated and it fails to see shades of grey in a world in which it believes nations must attack or be attacked. To Treitshke, “peace is an illusion supported only by those of weak character” and a nation’s only concern is maintaining power. A Treitshke-esque style of imperialism wouldn’t cite religion or money as a justification. In fact, Treitshke denounces the “hypocriticall Englishmen,” calling them “an ancient robber-kight” and sharply criticizing their economic reasons for imperialism. Militant nationalism would have a much greater negative effect on the nations being colonized, though it is hard to say I prefer imperialism.
Imperialism
It is the unfortunate fate of many to misjudge imperialism. What are its boundaries and exceptions? Historians exist because history, in its essence, remains unresolved. In my opinion, the truth lies somewhere in the ambiguous abyss between the theory that imperialism is entirely corrupt and selfish, and the opposing viewpoint which argues that imperialism is nothing less than an altruistic and selfless mission to better the world. True, there are many benefits to imperialism: due to it, there are educational systems erected, infrastructure constructed, technology implemented, and cultures broadened to a more global view. However, the negatives also exist. Freedom is snatched away, liberty is confiscated, justice is done away with, and agency is transferred from the imperialized nation to the imperial power. More often than not, the country is exploited for its natives’ labor capacity and the raw materials it contains, which will in turn be shipped to the imperial power, for its gain alone. The imperialized country’s language, religion, and culture become infiltrated and slowly but surely disappear. The imperialized country becomes more like its imperial counterpart and the world is that much more homogeneous. It is my belief that the imperial powers’ justifications for their actions are complete and utter crap. They claim to desire the spread of freedom, liberty, and justice, but in reality they simply crave larger paychecks, more power, and glory for their country. It is my opinion that imperialism is an atrocious political scam and such a relationship should be avoided at all costs. The connection should only be forged if there exists an atmosphere of dire emergency. That is not to say that some positives don’t emerge from the process, but rather that the negatives greatly outweigh the positives. Thus, though imperialism played a large and important role in the world’s history, I believe it should stay where it belongs – in the past.
Imperialism
Alicia Korda
AP Euro
24 February, 2009
At the same time it is hard to picture history playing out any differently. If there is one thing that I have learned throughout my studies it is that money talks. People, no matter what period in history, are driven and motivated by money and power. It is a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless. I think that some people are and were motivated to actually better other people in this world, but unfortunately the majority are not in line with this motivation, and the only way to motivate the others is to involve money, and profit. Imperialists, as a whole, were acting off of selfish motives. While those motives are sad, they are realistic and in line with the priorities of the majority.
AP Euro
24 February, 2009
Imperialism: An Easy Excuse
I believe that “The White man’s burden” is an excuse for imperialism. It sounds nice to say that we are civilized, and they are savage and therefore we are obligated to provide help and support. However, with this summary description of imperialism the cruelty, and loss of culture is rarely described or even mentioned. It becomes a story of noble men eager to help others, when that was never truly the case. If the men who imperialized truly did care for the people then they would have lent a helping hand while still preserving the peoples dignities and cultures. However, imperialists are merely concerned with their own fortunes and are solely looking to gain power and money. I agree with the article by Hobson that says that the imperialist mess is to blame on those eager to invest capital in foreign countries. I see the only motives of imperialists to be selfish and money driven.At the same time it is hard to picture history playing out any differently. If there is one thing that I have learned throughout my studies it is that money talks. People, no matter what period in history, are driven and motivated by money and power. It is a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless. I think that some people are and were motivated to actually better other people in this world, but unfortunately the majority are not in line with this motivation, and the only way to motivate the others is to involve money, and profit. Imperialists, as a whole, were acting off of selfish motives. While those motives are sad, they are realistic and in line with the priorities of the majority.
Kipling is an Imperialist
The initial response to reading “White Man’s Burden” is to cry out how the poet must be using irony and sarcasm as he scorns colonial habits. While it may seem that Kipling is mocking the horrors of imperialism, one must first understand the context in which this poem was written. “White Man’s Burden” was published in McClure’s Magazine (a pro-imperialist publication), and served as Kipling’s guide of how to be an Empire. Through the end of the 19th century, the British Empire stood alone as the greatest imperial power in the world. As Kipling writes to the United States, “Comes now, to search your manhood…the judgment of your peers” Kipling is implying that America will now be judged as an adult Empire as they “Have done away with childish days” and now must handle themselves the way a powerful Empire should. Those who disagree with the notion that Kipling is an avowed imperialist often point to the language he uses to describe imperialism and how it is quite unpleasant. What these critics fail to realize is that one can realize the brutality and violence that comes with imperialism, and accept it at the same time. Kipling believes that it is virtuous for the white man to put on the “heavy harness” that is imperialism.
In our society today, those who are wealthy frequently practice philanthropy as they feel it is their burden to use their wealth to help those less fortunate. Just as the modern wealthy use their money to lift up the world’s poor, so too did Kipling feel it was the need for the British, and then the American’s to use their power as an Empire to help those, like the American’s did in the Philippines, although it may bring “thankless years”.
In our society today, those who are wealthy frequently practice philanthropy as they feel it is their burden to use their wealth to help those less fortunate. Just as the modern wealthy use their money to lift up the world’s poor, so too did Kipling feel it was the need for the British, and then the American’s to use their power as an Empire to help those, like the American’s did in the Philippines, although it may bring “thankless years”.
Immoralities of Imperialism
Imperialism is a merely a way for one nation to take advantage of another, a way for those higher up in status to increase their position at the direct cost of another. Thus, imperialism reflects the innate human characteristics of greed, always wanting more no matter how much one has. Higher up countries (such as Great Britain, France, Spain, etc.) were already dominant countries within a European context. However, due to their greediness, certain leaders of said nations found it necessary to gain a competitive advantage over nations surrounding them. These nations colonized countries not as dominant as themselves, essentially stealing their resources. Not only did the imperializing countries take resources, but they also forced ill-fitting economies, political methods, and social structures that eventually hurt the colonized countries as well. The forcing of these things essentially lowered the colonized to a state of perpetual poverty – many formerly colonized nations are considered the most impoverished of 3rd world nations today.
Despite all of the immoral aspects of Imperialism, those within the higher up societies attempted to justify these atrocities with certain examples like “The White Man’s Burden” This theory essentially posits that it is the duty of the white man to change the savage man, forcefully altering their native ways to fit those of the European countries. Due to the fact that the imperializing nations not only severely damaged their colonies, but also attempted to justify their actions with noble intentions, Imperialism represents the sheer dregs of human society. Imperialism is a product of natural human greed, and should be regarded as simply atrocious.
Despite all of the immoral aspects of Imperialism, those within the higher up societies attempted to justify these atrocities with certain examples like “The White Man’s Burden” This theory essentially posits that it is the duty of the white man to change the savage man, forcefully altering their native ways to fit those of the European countries. Due to the fact that the imperializing nations not only severely damaged their colonies, but also attempted to justify their actions with noble intentions, Imperialism represents the sheer dregs of human society. Imperialism is a product of natural human greed, and should be regarded as simply atrocious.
the evolution of imperialism
In his paper entitled Imperialism, J.A. Hobson asked, “If Imperialism may no longer be regarded as a blind inevitable destiny, is it certain that imperial expansion as a deliberately chosen line of public policy can be stopped?” After reading his theory and proposed solution, I find myself asking the same question, calling upon modern political relationships and economic connections that exist in the world to find the answer. The answer is no. Imperialism is a ‘vicious’ cycle that allows for immediate gain, which causes imperialist forces to remain invested in order to maintain these profits. I put vicious in quotes because imperialism connotes a very negative idea with historical examples like the Spanish-American War. It is unfortunate, because I believe modern day globalization is, itself, imperialist in nature and is in fact something that has helped turn the ‘third world’ into the more politically correct ‘developing world.’ Something about developing word implies coming improvement as time goes on, whereas third world sounds like a trap that one cannot escape.
I define imperialism as having interests in a foreign nation and developing a presence there. Historically, imperialism has been more severe, referring to complete militaristic coups and takeovers, oppression etc. The modern world has made a subtle, yet very profound transition to a not-so-harsh and actually quite practical and sensible type of imperialism. For example, outsourcing, to me at least, seems like a mild form of imperialism because, as Hobson discusses, it involves investments in other countries and expected returns (i.e. continual profit). So, imperialism definitely still exists in today’s world and will continue to be a prominent part of global relationships. It will continue to evolve as humanitarian ideals, political relationships and economic interests also evolve.
I define imperialism as having interests in a foreign nation and developing a presence there. Historically, imperialism has been more severe, referring to complete militaristic coups and takeovers, oppression etc. The modern world has made a subtle, yet very profound transition to a not-so-harsh and actually quite practical and sensible type of imperialism. For example, outsourcing, to me at least, seems like a mild form of imperialism because, as Hobson discusses, it involves investments in other countries and expected returns (i.e. continual profit). So, imperialism definitely still exists in today’s world and will continue to be a prominent part of global relationships. It will continue to evolve as humanitarian ideals, political relationships and economic interests also evolve.
I'm Just Not That Into Imperialism
At first glance, it may that appear that there is nothing wrong with imperialism. But it is also important to note that appearances versus reality are entirely different things. To put it straightforward: imperialism only benefits the country itself, and is not necessarily always for the best. In addition, imperialism not only changes a country both economically and politically but also socially. The hunger for greed takes over a country and they will do anything to gain or maintain their power, even if it means destroying countries that attempt to get in their way of “success”. However, at a certain point a country needs to recognize where to draw the line.
The biggest problem with imperialism is the façade countries use when involving third world countries. They act as a bully to the small, vulnerable countries and completely dispossess them of their history and culture. But it doesn’t make a difference to them, because they are gaining their precious power. It is also easy for a country to cover up their actual motives with imperialism. In our present society, the Iraq war comes to mind. We went into the war arguing that it was for “weapons of mass destructions” but realistically it was all about the oil. And of course looking back now, most of Americans would agree that going into war was a poor choice. We have imperialism to thank for that one. Imperialism is simply a cover up for a country, and it is safe to say that the bad always outweighs the good when imperialism is involved.
The biggest problem with imperialism is the façade countries use when involving third world countries. They act as a bully to the small, vulnerable countries and completely dispossess them of their history and culture. But it doesn’t make a difference to them, because they are gaining their precious power. It is also easy for a country to cover up their actual motives with imperialism. In our present society, the Iraq war comes to mind. We went into the war arguing that it was for “weapons of mass destructions” but realistically it was all about the oil. And of course looking back now, most of Americans would agree that going into war was a poor choice. We have imperialism to thank for that one. Imperialism is simply a cover up for a country, and it is safe to say that the bad always outweighs the good when imperialism is involved.
Matt Calvi's ESSAY ON IMPERIALSIM
Imperialism
There was no ‘era’ of Imperialism. The Imperialist venture of humanity has not had a beginning point of endpoint. Imperialism is a constant venture of human history.
When I say this, I mean to say that the concept of a world of ‘collectives of people,’ either in the form of nations or countries, cannot exist without imperialism. If imperialism is the struggle between groups of people for land and resources resulting in the subjugation of one of the groups and an exchange of cultures, then imperialism has existed since the first Australopithecus walked the earth. Imperialism began with early human hunter-gatherer tribes attacking other tribes for control of hunting grounds and resources in the Pyrenees mountains. One tribe subjugated another and forced the other to provide its previously held resources, yet the too tribes exchanged technologies and stories. This fits the definition of imperialism.
Of course, this story increased in proportions up into the 19th century, with countries such as Great Britain going into E. Africa and taking colonies, yet it was imperialism in the same manner as it was thousands of years before. This trend as bound to continue with the concept of denationalization of the world and the formation of international committees. Instead of having countries like Britain or France running imperialist ventures. Cultures, such as consumerism or radical Islamic Ideology will act as Imperialist forces and begin to hold great agency over the world.
There was no ‘era’ of Imperialism. The Imperialist venture of humanity has not had a beginning point of endpoint. Imperialism is a constant venture of human history.
When I say this, I mean to say that the concept of a world of ‘collectives of people,’ either in the form of nations or countries, cannot exist without imperialism. If imperialism is the struggle between groups of people for land and resources resulting in the subjugation of one of the groups and an exchange of cultures, then imperialism has existed since the first Australopithecus walked the earth. Imperialism began with early human hunter-gatherer tribes attacking other tribes for control of hunting grounds and resources in the Pyrenees mountains. One tribe subjugated another and forced the other to provide its previously held resources, yet the too tribes exchanged technologies and stories. This fits the definition of imperialism.
Of course, this story increased in proportions up into the 19th century, with countries such as Great Britain going into E. Africa and taking colonies, yet it was imperialism in the same manner as it was thousands of years before. This trend as bound to continue with the concept of denationalization of the world and the formation of international committees. Instead of having countries like Britain or France running imperialist ventures. Cultures, such as consumerism or radical Islamic Ideology will act as Imperialist forces and begin to hold great agency over the world.
Imperialm
Brenden Mcmorrow
AP EURO
February 24, 2009
Imperialism
The argument can be made that America is an imperialist country. Just like the British in the 19 century colonized India it can be argued that we have colonized other countries as well. We can point to instances like Iraq where we claim to be invading for our own protection. It can be argued that we have invaded Iraq for Iraq’s resources A.K.A. oil. We can also point to other countries that we have incorporated into the U.S.: the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Although the people living in these places still have the same rights as people living in the states it can be argued that they are colonized. American continues to exert its influences in places around the world attempting to influence others so that it will benefit. We have lots of influence in places like Saudi Arabia as well because of our oil needs. We buy so much oil from them that we are able to influence them because they need our patronage. America is an imperialist country.
AP EURO
February 24, 2009
Imperialism
The argument can be made that America is an imperialist country. Just like the British in the 19 century colonized India it can be argued that we have colonized other countries as well. We can point to instances like Iraq where we claim to be invading for our own protection. It can be argued that we have invaded Iraq for Iraq’s resources A.K.A. oil. We can also point to other countries that we have incorporated into the U.S.: the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Although the people living in these places still have the same rights as people living in the states it can be argued that they are colonized. American continues to exert its influences in places around the world attempting to influence others so that it will benefit. We have lots of influence in places like Saudi Arabia as well because of our oil needs. We buy so much oil from them that we are able to influence them because they need our patronage. America is an imperialist country.
Imperialism's Bad Re-Run
From America’s (albeit wobbly) perch atop the global community, globalization is practically invisible. Apart from daily newspaper complaints about jobs outsourced or factories closed, Nikes and other fine Walmart products complete their endless flow into the country without notice or objection. From the vantage point of the twenty-first century, the lesson of the early 20th century was that imperialism was an immoral thing not to be dabbled in, especially not by freedom loving Americans. As evidenced by the rocketing popularity of George Orwell, modern countries like Britain and the US realized that they wanted nothing to do with their Imperialism pasts, replacing colonial control of regions such as India, the Philippines and China with representational government. This ushered in a new age of foreign policy (in which we currently reside) where the countries at the top are responsible for assisting those at the bottom by spreading aid and democracy. Not only does this mindset vaguely recall the “White Man’s Burdon,” now viewed as racist and imperialist, its screams hypocrisy. While we may not directly sanction oppressive foreign intervention, it happens right under our noses, both through covert operation and through globalization. Expansion of American corporations into former imperialist colonies like India and China may not have the same look and feel of old school 1900’s Imperialism, but it fits into the same basic structure. A powerful controlling group (in this case American corporations like GE, HP and Dell to name a few) uses their power to control local government in order to gain control of resources (talent and cheap labor wages). Globalization may be nearly unstoppable at this point, but its integral to establish a “smart globalization” based on fair environmental and labor laws so that the atrocities generated by the few controlling the many do not happen again.
Kipling's Culture Criticism
In the 1800’s it was completely fine to express and take pride in European superiority. Society dictated that the white man had a burden to “save”, “upscale” and “civilize” all cultures that did not match the dominating culture of Western Europe and North America. Motivated by power, nationalism and economic gain, European countries proceeded to bring vast areas of the planet under their control through the guise of bringing civilization. Many legitimately believed that it was their god given duty to spread the tenements of European society, and that colonization was both a profitable and humanitarian effort. Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden” is a satirical description of the “whole hearted” effort of the European power’s to envelope the planet. Kipling ends his poem stating “Comes now, to search your manhood
through all the thankless years
cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
the judgment of your peers!,” suggesting an ominous future for those powers who choose to colonize. While the poem criticizes the foundations and meanings behind imperialism, it is also marked with evidence of societies influence on self-status of Europeans. Through his words, Kipling himself seems to feel some sense of superiority over those conquered (Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child), suggesting true internationalism was still a far off concept.
Imperialism and Its Consequences
Imperialism defined simply is the "policy of extending the rule of an empire over foreign countries or colonies"; however, when we do mention the seemingly good and "necessary" deed, we fail to read the fine print. This selfish act of destroying a country, culturally, socially and economically, overwhelmingly exposes the negative consequences and the cruel state in which imperialism leaves countries. While imperialist supporters buy into the concept of the 'White Man's Burden', this immature validation is merely a cover for economic greed and political success. I do applaud Kipling for creating such a believable excuse for large empires and nations to use when enforcing this policy; however, imperialist leaders tend to look past the fact that imperialism could actually hurt their empire or nation. With economic benefit and political power in mind, imperialist leaders are blind to the fact that these positive outcomes are balanced with negative consequences. Spreading and dispersing territory leads to disunity and separation throughout the empire, which is essential to the success of any larger power, creating enemies close to an empire's border is never a positive achievement, and focusing on foreign affairs so strictly can lead to internal disorder and turmoil. All of these factors overlooked by imperial leaders contain merit but never seem to cross their minds, distracted by the potential gains.
Beginnings of Universal Rights
The Revolutions of European governments in the 1800’s sparked the idea of liberty and equality for all (men). This notion of universal rights and an idea of a perfect nation were becoming more widespread. After these political revolutions, came the Industrial revolution, which inevitably produced Imperialism. The world was now much smaller. Trade increased outside of Europe because of railroads and steam engines, which made it possible for long distance trade to occur. This was how leading nations in Europe were able to take control of other countries’ society, governments and ultimately their resources. Also, a gap was created between the industrialized, developed and “civilized” and the not. Thus creating the meaning of the Third World. Whether or not leaders in Europe actually wanted to help out these countries by “civilizing them” is somewhat debatable but it can be inferred that Imperialism occurred and prolonged because of the monetary and political gains. Compared to earlier instances of “Imperialism” such as the Crusades, Kings instead blatantly used religion as their excuse, and had no empathy for the others. So the fact that now political leaders were even using the idea of aiding these other nations as an excuse, shows the results of the years prior and how people were now living in a world that (somewhat) believed in universal rights.
"White Man's Burden": Contemptuous Exhortation
Kipling’s poem, when read today, provokes us with its seeming white-supremacist crusade: anyone who actually agrees with the poem’s literal meaning has learned that saying so would render them politically incorrect. Yet, while it is difficult for us to take a second look at a scathing work in search of the motive beneath, we should not write it off as merely an extreme and backwards statement. Why does Kipling write this—and what does he actually think?
It is true that this was directed to the United States after its conquest of the Philippines; the “new-caught, sullen peoples” are presumably the dark-skinned, dark-haired individuals inhabiting the uncivilized island. And it is also true that Kipling was raised with a diverse cultural background, that he observed the Indians around him, and perhaps believed himself to be a sound judge of non-whites. However, this does not serve as evidence that Kipling actually sees Americans—and all light-skinned people—as the saviors of their racial inferiors. There is evidence of contempt in his voice and his deliberate mechanical choices.
“Send forth the best ye breed,” Kipling exhorts. Breed? He calls into question whether the primal elements of human nature lie only among the dark-skinned; apparently, whites can be bred and compared just like farm animals. He then continues the animal motif with “heavy harness;” it is the Americans who are about to wear chains in toil. The dark-skinned are also not the only ones whose ambition is swept away: the Americans are “to seek another’s profit,/ and work another’s gain.” Not for their own sake do they discipline the natives, not for their wealth or aspirations, but for “another.” This is, again, somewhat dehumanizing.
Kipling also presents imperialism with a Sisyphean nature: hopes are to be brought “to nought,” the toil is only “of common things,” and the reward consists of “blame” and “hate.” While this may merely be a noble excuse for effectively raping a conquered people of resources, Kipling might be indicating that all people are to toil in the process of imperialism. The natives toil, the imperialists toil, and perhaps no one gets anywhere.
The last two stanzas vindicate two groups of people, neither of them being the American imperialists. First, he states that the imperialized are the judges of their masters, that in fact they are almost an authority over their imperialists. Thus the toil of imperialists is also an emotional and spiritual one, where they must watch their step and evaluate their “gods” and themselves. Finally, the “thankless years” reveal the futility of the work, that there is no glory except what America’s presumably merciless peers allow. In the same way that oxen hardly reap the rewards of a day’s toil, the light-skinned may wear fetters for nothing.
Kipling’s contempt is evident, but he is not completely mocking either imperialist or imperialized. Instead, he could be taking a realist approach, as if to say, “Well, you conquered them, so you better bear the responsibility you asked for.” Kipling does not find responsibility noble, nor does he find it so degrading—merely the way things must proceed at this point in time. And perhaps he was right, for many imperialists did attempt to achieve the ideals Kipling mockingly set forth for them, taking seriously his dry exhortation and not allowing his sarcasm to make them think.
It is true that this was directed to the United States after its conquest of the Philippines; the “new-caught, sullen peoples” are presumably the dark-skinned, dark-haired individuals inhabiting the uncivilized island. And it is also true that Kipling was raised with a diverse cultural background, that he observed the Indians around him, and perhaps believed himself to be a sound judge of non-whites. However, this does not serve as evidence that Kipling actually sees Americans—and all light-skinned people—as the saviors of their racial inferiors. There is evidence of contempt in his voice and his deliberate mechanical choices.
“Send forth the best ye breed,” Kipling exhorts. Breed? He calls into question whether the primal elements of human nature lie only among the dark-skinned; apparently, whites can be bred and compared just like farm animals. He then continues the animal motif with “heavy harness;” it is the Americans who are about to wear chains in toil. The dark-skinned are also not the only ones whose ambition is swept away: the Americans are “to seek another’s profit,/ and work another’s gain.” Not for their own sake do they discipline the natives, not for their wealth or aspirations, but for “another.” This is, again, somewhat dehumanizing.
Kipling also presents imperialism with a Sisyphean nature: hopes are to be brought “to nought,” the toil is only “of common things,” and the reward consists of “blame” and “hate.” While this may merely be a noble excuse for effectively raping a conquered people of resources, Kipling might be indicating that all people are to toil in the process of imperialism. The natives toil, the imperialists toil, and perhaps no one gets anywhere.
The last two stanzas vindicate two groups of people, neither of them being the American imperialists. First, he states that the imperialized are the judges of their masters, that in fact they are almost an authority over their imperialists. Thus the toil of imperialists is also an emotional and spiritual one, where they must watch their step and evaluate their “gods” and themselves. Finally, the “thankless years” reveal the futility of the work, that there is no glory except what America’s presumably merciless peers allow. In the same way that oxen hardly reap the rewards of a day’s toil, the light-skinned may wear fetters for nothing.
Kipling’s contempt is evident, but he is not completely mocking either imperialist or imperialized. Instead, he could be taking a realist approach, as if to say, “Well, you conquered them, so you better bear the responsibility you asked for.” Kipling does not find responsibility noble, nor does he find it so degrading—merely the way things must proceed at this point in time. And perhaps he was right, for many imperialists did attempt to achieve the ideals Kipling mockingly set forth for them, taking seriously his dry exhortation and not allowing his sarcasm to make them think.
The "Planners": a Perpetual Failure of Imperialism
William Easterly’s description of global “Planners” paints an accurate portrayal of “new imperialism,” practiced by Western Europe, the United States and East Asia during the nineteenth century. Although Easterly’s solution of employing “Searcher” heroes to solve modern, global problems is less credible than that of his imperialist “Planners,” Easterly draws distinct connections between the failures of developed countries today to boost underdeveloped economies and the detrimental effects of imperialism 200 years ago. Regardless of moral implications, imperialism of the nineteenth century not only created the Third World country, but it also perpetuated the economic underdevelopment of colonized regions and provoked political and social problems that continue to plague countries today. Economically, the establishment of capitalist economies in colonies, although idealistic wholesome, realistically profited only special interest groups of imperialist powers because as the Western world entered the Industrial Age, colonies maintained the agrarian system to provide raw materials. Even domestic reform movements and European taxpayers suffered from Western Europe’s imperialistic ambitions, and yet many people “then (and now) were sold on the idea that imperialism was economically profitable for the homeland,” according to historian John P. McKay of A History of Western Society since 1300. Because these areas were indeed under European control, European economies had the economic right to exploit the raw materials of the regions, allocate and trade scarce resources within European and the global economies, and utilize the comparative advantages of developed and underdeveloped countries (again, moral arguments aside). However, once the underdeveloped regions gained independence in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, they lagged significantly behind industrialized countries and cannot, to this day, support themselves without the constant stimulus of European and American powers. The Western world has spent over $2.3 trillion on foreign aid over the last 50 years, and yet these developed countries’ “Planner” tactics don’t seems to stimulate most underdeveloped economies that lack infrastructure and a stable economic base. And this doesn’t include other countless expenses, like those of modern warfare and terrorism in Africa and the Middle East, that imperialistic errors of the past created in the nineteenth century and that the West now must pay for in the twenty-first. Perhaps the lessons of the past may teach developed countries how to better aid underdeveloped countries – by employing “Searcher” techniques that better adapt to each regional environment (such as micro-financing, from which underdeveloped countries must establish their own economic structure without relying on the crippling and sporadic aid of the West) and avoiding costly plans to implement idealistically sound but realistically faulty projects. However, although the reliance of underdeveloped countries has not only cost Western powers money, it has also enabled the West’s economic control over the global economy. Perhaps the imperialistic powers of the past had the foresight to predict the power dynamic of today, dominated by the West, and perhaps the existence of the Third World is irreversible and inevitable as long as Western countries remain in power.
Imperialism: True Reform or Economic Motives?
Imperialism, often identified as “the white man’s burden” to civilize, educate, and reform indigenous peoples in third world countries, has been a constant issue since the 19th century. Forcefully promoting and injecting culture, politics and economics into a country in a state of poverty has its benefits, such as economic success and stable political positions. With imperialism, third world countries are able learn the art of craft of establishing flourishing states, and reap the benefits of the colonizer. Ultimately, however, the question is if the benefits of imperialism outweigh the burdens.
With colonization comes a loss of culture, a silenced indigenous voice, and often, oppression. In many cases, such as that of the French colonization of Algeria and the Belgian colonization of Rwanda, extreme cultural tensions emerge, and mass genocides result. This kind of backlash against enforced colonial policies is a major threat to the intrinsic point of colonization.
Although affluent countries appear to try and aid countries in need through colonial rule, they often end up thwarting the growth of the nation on its own, in turn harming the countries own cultural and religious growth. Other motives often motivate the colonization of a country: such as natural resources, and religious conversion. Although these motives seem legitimate, they eventually taint the national identity, and impede the type of nationalism that makes a nation strong. Personally, I believe that if a country is truly in need of reform and political support, the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations should contribute to the cause. All in all, colonization and imperialism were negative “reforming” movements that only stunted the progress of independence.
Imperialism and Its Consequences
Imperialism defined simply is the "policy of extending the rule of an empire over foreign countries or colonies"; however, when we do mention the seemingly good and "necessary" deed, we fail to read the fine print. This selfish act of destroying a country, culturally, socially and economically, overwhelmingly exposes the negative consequences and the cruel state in which imperialism leaves countries. While imperialist supporters buy into the concept of the 'White Man's Burden', this immature validation is merely a cover for economic greed and political success. I do applaud Kipling for creating such a believable excuse for large empires and nations to use when enforcing this policy; however, imperialist leaders tend to look past the fact that imperialism could actually hurt their empire or nation. With economic benefit and political power in mind, imperialist leaders are blind to the fact that these positive outcomes are balanced with negative consequences. Spreading and dispersing territory leads to disunity and separation throughout the empire, which is essential to the success of any larger power, creating enemies close to an empire's border is never a positive achievement, and focusing on foreign affairs so strictly can lead to internal disorder and turmoil. All of these factors overlooked by imperial leaders contain merit but never seem to cross their minds, distracted by the potential gains.
Carvell's Response Paper
By no means has Hobson placed the ideal of Imperialism on a pedestal. Rather, he astutely states that “self-seeking interests” and their “animal struggle for existence” characterized Imperialism. And while he does not necessarily bring up a new view, he does entice discussion. Much of the reason to colonize was for the personal benefit of the explorer, and this opportunity created excitement in others to follow him. And because of this intense excitement the colonizer (or more likely group of colonizers) would have the entire military, political, and financial resources of the nation at his command. Therefore Imperialism served as such a powerful force that national resources were used for private gain, creating a paradox between “nation” and “private”. It seems that Imperialism is unfair not only to the territory that it is conquering, but to the mother nation herself. This supports Hobson’s argument that Imperialism washes away the roots of the nation, taking away the very ideals that were fought for. Because the nation of so spread apart, oligarchies are created, and democracy is replaced. If left uncontrolled, the nation becomes weak and lacks the strong core it once had. While Imperialism seemed to reap the benefits of new territory and resources, in reality it hurt the nation because it became so spread apart.
No Cheers For Colonialism
Colonialism or imperialism should not be praised. As seen in European history imperialism came about through the want of power and wealth. Many leaders and people said that through imperialism they wanted to diminish all the small states and make the bigger states even bigger and more powerful. I believe that the ideas presented by Dinesh D’Souza in the article “Two Cheers for Colonialism” are flawed.
The main problem with imperialism is that due to the Europeans want for major wealth and power, imperialism brought about a great wave of oppression. Western countries would colonize third world countries and completely diminish the culture of the colonies they colonized. Europeans would attempt to westernize and modernize these countries and many times veer far away from the traditions of the countries. Also, since Europeans colonized to gain more wealth, they used the people of the colonies to do their work. In many cases, the native people living in the lands the Europeans colonized became slaves to the Europeans. Who cares if the West did not become “rich and powerful” (Dinesh D’Souza) through colonial oppression? The point is, the West attempted to become rich and powerful through colonial oppression, that is the real problem.
Dinesh D’Souza fails to see the real problems imperialism created. Instead of looking at the immediate effects of colonization, D’Souza focuses on long term effects which do not give a good idea of how European colonization really damaged many states. D’Souza also tries to justify his points by saying European countries were not the first to colonize. Again who cares if they were not first to colonize, the fact that they did colonize in an extremely cruel way is the problem. To say “Two Cheers for Colonialism” is moronic when speaking about European colonialism.
Casey's Response Paper
While the motivation behind King Leopold II’s conquest of the Congo was clearly rooted in economic profit, the motivation behind most imperialist actions cannot be so plainly and neatly defined. Furthermore, it is even more difficult to identify what events, actions, and movements constitute as imperialism. What is clear is that imperialism was no original idea of the 19th century nor has the flame of imperialism been extinguished in today’s world. So why is it that New Imperialism of the late 1880s is so often viewed with a critical and shameful eye? Is it actually any different than today? While we attempt to explain imperialism through self-interested fiscal motivation, there seems to be another common link at play that ties the different eras of imperialism together: the idea of responsibility. From Kipling’s explanation of “The White Man’s Burden” to the moral responsibility of humanitarian aid groups, people have justified imperialism through the socially accepted idea that the “more privileged” have an obligation to fix/help/aid the “less fortunate.” Although there are clearly differences between Leopold II and an international relief group, both are similarly driven by a sense of duty. Imperialism seems to be justified and even inspired by some type of responsibility; whether it is the obligation of a government to bring honor to a nation, a large corporation to increase its profit, or a foundation to make an impact. It is this connecting idea that makes the definition of imperialism unclear, thus complicating the analysis of imperialism. So with that said, how does imperialism stay “in check” and how does the world avoid radicalization? Who decides what responsibility actually is and is it even someone’s place to make that type of decision? The balance between acting in an oppressive and aggressive manner and actually acting in a beneficial behavior has been a struggle of the 20th century and will continue to be a struggle as long as a group can get popular support behind the idea that their actions were a result of a responsibility. What needs to happen in order to prevent a hot bed for war and a race to conquer, as seen in the 19th century, is that the world needs to find better solutions to “acting responsibly” so that instead of forcing change on others, we find a way to inspire self-improvement and internal reform.
Monday, February 23
I strongly believe than in analyzing the consequences of imperialism, many tend to shed light on the drawbacks while ignoring the benefits that have helped shape our world today. While I realize in many cases imperial governments have suspect moral frameworks and benefit unjustly from their presence overseas, the globalization sparked by early imperialism has improved lives everywhere in the long run when done in moderation. The initial effects in the colonized territory are often negative, as there is turmoil, confusion, and dissent among the natives that are being shown or forced into a new way of life. However, in the long run imperialism adds many things that we take for granted. Trade is helped, infrastructure is built, and cultures mesh over time. Exposure to the rest of the world stimulates new thoughts and ideas, and healthy competition makes everyone strive for something better. Without a significant European presence, much of the world would be far less developed than it is now. Roads were built, technology was introduced, and the lives of people living in developing countries would be very different today had imperialism never come about. Not only are there benefits in the developing countries, but within the imperial nation as well. Often there are natural resources in colonies, and this can aid the economy in a huge way. Colonizing new lands can be a way of asserting power and dominance on the world stage, and the competition of countries helps push innovation to new levels. In conclusion, while there are significant drawbacks to imperialism, there are also major benefits.
Imperialism: the Counterpart to Nationalism
Nationalism has been described as the factor that can make or break a nation. It is a necessity in government and in the people to keep the country above water. I believe that this is accepted widely by historians, but then why does imperialism constantly pop up in discussions as a popular and progressive system? Over and over again we see that nations survive because the people have united over one goal or idea. These people being from different areas and classes, but all supporting one thing: their nation. Hobson explains that “the chief economic source of Imperialism has been found in the inequality of industrial opportunities by which a favoured class accumulates superfluous elements of income”. Basically he is saying that because the upper class has so much influence in government and has so much power they are able to “use the national resources for their private gain”. They are going out and conquering other countries and colonizing, while the lower class gets nothing. The classes are growing farther and farther apart solely because the upper class has more resources and is reaching out to other countries besides their own. Also, because of this expansion the focus is shifted from inside the country to the happenings outside of it. Everyone is worrying about their capital invested outside of their own country, instead of thinking about what is going on inside their country. This is the country that they are supposed to support at all costs, and to fight for no matter what. Nationalism gets lost in the greed of imperialism and gets pushed to the back of people’s minds. They forget their duty to their country and this is why Hobson calls imperialism a “sin”.
steviez
alright so some how i messed up and posted on crandys response
When examining the effects of imperialism, the measuring stick historians most often use is that of morality. Essentially asking anyone interested in the history of imperialism to discuss the ethics and morality of imperial rulers over their subjects. While this is an important thing to consider, I find this question to be tiresome because there seems to be a single acceptable answer; that imperialism by and large was a moral abomination, and when considering the likes of Leopold II and some of the imperial rulers of Britain, this is certainly true. However, I find this question far more compelling and its answers to be more varied and debatable; was imperialism good for the colonizer from an economic and political lens? An easy way to look at this question is to consider the present day United States. To call modern America an imperial country is certainly a fallacy and a mere political statement, there are some similarities that make it a valid and simple way to look at the effects of imperialism on the politics and economy of a nation. Our foreign policy around the world has been a drain on our treasury. To sustain our wars in the middle east and our massive troop presence around the world, Americans at home have to pay higher taxes and do not receive services from the government that we are paying for refugees in Iraq (ex. new schools, roads, etc.) Famous imperial critic J.A Hobson noted that when Britain expanded to a population of 400 million people around the world the home grown British subject suffered. These are the economic hardships that accompany imperialism. On the other hand, imperialism opens trade routes and enables the imperial nation to extract resources from a country they control, which all benefit the economy. Like seemingly everything in economics, there are costs and benefits to imperialism. How we value these (the moral issue is certainly a cost) has dictated history, our reaction to history, and now modern policy making
When examining the effects of imperialism, the measuring stick historians most often use is that of morality. Essentially asking anyone interested in the history of imperialism to discuss the ethics and morality of imperial rulers over their subjects. While this is an important thing to consider, I find this question to be tiresome because there seems to be a single acceptable answer; that imperialism by and large was a moral abomination, and when considering the likes of Leopold II and some of the imperial rulers of Britain, this is certainly true. However, I find this question far more compelling and its answers to be more varied and debatable; was imperialism good for the colonizer from an economic and political lens? An easy way to look at this question is to consider the present day United States. To call modern America an imperial country is certainly a fallacy and a mere political statement, there are some similarities that make it a valid and simple way to look at the effects of imperialism on the politics and economy of a nation. Our foreign policy around the world has been a drain on our treasury. To sustain our wars in the middle east and our massive troop presence around the world, Americans at home have to pay higher taxes and do not receive services from the government that we are paying for refugees in Iraq (ex. new schools, roads, etc.) Famous imperial critic J.A Hobson noted that when Britain expanded to a population of 400 million people around the world the home grown British subject suffered. These are the economic hardships that accompany imperialism. On the other hand, imperialism opens trade routes and enables the imperial nation to extract resources from a country they control, which all benefit the economy. Like seemingly everything in economics, there are costs and benefits to imperialism. How we value these (the moral issue is certainly a cost) has dictated history, our reaction to history, and now modern policy making
Morgan Schwankinator
Imperialism has always been one of the most important aspects of an empire. Imperialistic actions establish boundaries of superiority economically, socially, and religiously. Imperialism, in the past and even today, is often affiliated with a nation capitalizing on the resources or labor of weaker countries. But as we learned last week, imperialism may also be an obligation. After reading the “White Man’s Burden”, we discovered that how others of that time felt about Imperialism. I interpreted this poem not as sarcastic or even straight forward, but as an excuse. I felt that the white man’s burden, the burden of “cleaning” a race or helping a race is all a result of the greed for economic success. It seems very clear that European countries of that era preached the purities of imperialism in order to cover up the obnoxious greed that filters through the economic motives. Africa is a prime example of how European may present their actions as fulfilling and righteous, but the down-right motive was economic success. Europeans travelled to the Congo to reap the labor and resources of the African jungle and population. With rubber abundant and people to supply the rubber, all the Belgium government had to do was sit back and roll in the product. Their sole problems dealt with how people justified their actions in the Congo. People knew that exploitation was occurring at the highest degree, but it was all how the Europeans wanted to interpret their actions and they turned it clean. Through missionary work and other procedures, Europeans backed up their settlements with defining their actions as cause-worthy or religiously righteous.
The same occurs today in the Middle East. There is no doubt that Imperialism occurs around the world, but probably most prominent deals with The United State’s presence in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that if there was no oil in these countries, we would have long left by now. But the truth is our ever growing reliance on their resources is fueling our own growth of Imperialistic actions. Sure it is conveyed on the news as establishing new governments or protecting our nation or even protecting the people of those countries, but there is no doubt that oil is definitely an underneath motive. I find it hard to believe that true imperialism may ever come from pure righteousness.
The same occurs today in the Middle East. There is no doubt that Imperialism occurs around the world, but probably most prominent deals with The United State’s presence in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that if there was no oil in these countries, we would have long left by now. But the truth is our ever growing reliance on their resources is fueling our own growth of Imperialistic actions. Sure it is conveyed on the news as establishing new governments or protecting our nation or even protecting the people of those countries, but there is no doubt that oil is definitely an underneath motive. I find it hard to believe that true imperialism may ever come from pure righteousness.
response paper
Allie Crandall
Throughout all the written works on imperialism and all the various opinions, still one boundary needs to be defined: the boundary between good works and exploitation. It is clear that the greed of imperialists such as King Leopold II can not be mistaken as humanitarian works in any right. But, what of the works today? Surely some of the efforts taken to improve poverty stricken areas are genuine, but how do we define the difference? Is it really selfless if McDonalds claims it will donate the profit from its fruit parfaits to Katrina support? (A fictional example). But, still the same message would exist that McDonalds is explointing the compassion of its customer to increase its profit, while also explointing the misfortune of others to make a profit. One may argue that if the money really does go to a cause that that alone makes McDonald's efforts humanitarian. I have to disagree. A humanitarian act does not create an auxiliary profit for those who are providing the help. The works are done without self-consciousness in the least. If McDonalds says it will donate a portion of its profit to those in need. McDonalds benefits from such a deal in multiple ways. It gains a good reputation as a company that wants to help those less fortunate than themselves. If the plan works, McDonalds makes money and is only required to give a portion of their profit, just as they said they would. But, there are also corporations which perform humanitarian works for no personal gain such as kiva. Really, it is a matter of finding the right group and not lumping all groups together. Therefore, in response to the novel which we heard an excerpt from today, it would be incorrect to say that all "white man" interaction with under developed countries is exploitation like that of the early imperialists. For while some corporations do seem to attempt to deceive us in their false acts of altruism, others do not. And, even then, those false acts of altruism can hardly be compared to that of the greedy, relentless rule of King Leopold II in the Congo.
Throughout all the written works on imperialism and all the various opinions, still one boundary needs to be defined: the boundary between good works and exploitation. It is clear that the greed of imperialists such as King Leopold II can not be mistaken as humanitarian works in any right. But, what of the works today? Surely some of the efforts taken to improve poverty stricken areas are genuine, but how do we define the difference? Is it really selfless if McDonalds claims it will donate the profit from its fruit parfaits to Katrina support? (A fictional example). But, still the same message would exist that McDonalds is explointing the compassion of its customer to increase its profit, while also explointing the misfortune of others to make a profit. One may argue that if the money really does go to a cause that that alone makes McDonald's efforts humanitarian. I have to disagree. A humanitarian act does not create an auxiliary profit for those who are providing the help. The works are done without self-consciousness in the least. If McDonalds says it will donate a portion of its profit to those in need. McDonalds benefits from such a deal in multiple ways. It gains a good reputation as a company that wants to help those less fortunate than themselves. If the plan works, McDonalds makes money and is only required to give a portion of their profit, just as they said they would. But, there are also corporations which perform humanitarian works for no personal gain such as kiva. Really, it is a matter of finding the right group and not lumping all groups together. Therefore, in response to the novel which we heard an excerpt from today, it would be incorrect to say that all "white man" interaction with under developed countries is exploitation like that of the early imperialists. For while some corporations do seem to attempt to deceive us in their false acts of altruism, others do not. And, even then, those false acts of altruism can hardly be compared to that of the greedy, relentless rule of King Leopold II in the Congo.
Sunday, February 22
Welcome to the Experiment
Collaboration, criticism, kudos – these are the goals of the game. In this space you'll post your research, your response papers, your op-eds, your drafts, your thoughts. You'll read your peers' work. You'll be impressed, as they, in turn, will be impressed by you. And, maybe, you'll even get to help each other craft better arguments, create more eloquent turns of phrase, and illuminate ever more important historical connections.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
