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.
Monday, February 23
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
