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.