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.

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

Imperialism

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.