Imperialism: True Reform or Economic Motives?

Imperialism, often identified as “the white man’s burden” to civilize, educate, and reform indigenous peoples in third world countries, has been a constant issue since the 19^th century. Forcefully promoting and injecting culture, politics and economics into a country in a state of poverty has its benefits, such as economic success and stable political positions. With imperialism, third world countries are able learn the art of craft of establishing flourishing states, and reap the benefits of the colonizer. Ultimately, however, the question is if the benefits of imperialism outweigh the burdens.

            With colonization comes a loss of culture, a silenced indigenous voice, and often, oppression. In many cases, such as that of the French colonization of Algeria and the Belgian colonization of Rwanda, extreme cultural tensions emerge, and mass genocides result. This kind of backlash against enforced colonial policies is a major threat to the intrinsic point of colonization.

Although affluent countries appear to try and aid countries in need through colonial rule, they often end up thwarting the growth of the nation on its own, in turn harming the countries own cultural and religious growth. Other motives often motivate the colonization of a country: such as natural resources, and religious conversion. Although these motives seem legitimate, they eventually taint the national identity, and impede the type of nationalism that makes a nation strong. Personally, I believe that if a country is truly in need of reform and political support, the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations should contribute to the cause. All in all, colonization and imperialism were negative “reforming” movements that only stunted the progress of independence.  

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