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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
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 amswer; 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 prescence 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 policymaking.
ReplyDelete