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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
OP-ED: Responding to a number of response papers...
ReplyDeleteI do not understand why the morality of imperialism is called into question-- or even whether it has a positive or negative externality, if you will. Imperialism, just like thunderstorms, is something that happens and is at times a seemingly inevitable event.
We can like thunderstorms or hate them, or apply our in-depth understanding of envi-sci to its criticism. However, I believe that Kipling had the correct point of view (NOT that imperialism is a moral approach and a duty), that imperialism is a part of the dog-eat-dog world we live in, and it comes as a complete package.
Kipling's poem is not sarcastic about imperialism because he is anti-imperialist and into human rights. Rather, Kipling was stating a fact, an inevitable responsibility, even an idea similar to Manifest Destiny. It is the role of powerful countries to invest their time and their people in smaller countries when those smaller countries have something that larger countries want. Whether we like that idea has little to do with it; Kipling goes on to embellish on the "burden" as a virtue because he is mocking the feel-good cover for the way things merely are. Imperialism is going to happen; we are capitalists; we want stuff; we will go get stuff.
Thus, there is not much to complain or criticize about imperialism because it is a plain phenomenon. From our constructed perspectives, we find oppression disgusting and exploitation most sinful; yet, we praise the positives-- education, organized government, higher GDP. Perhaps instead of debating the benefits and costs of imperialism, and assailing white supremacists and imperialists (many of whom are dead!), we might want to sit back like Kipling and say "C'est la vie." Life can suck sometimes. So can thunderstorms.