No Cheers For Colonialism

Colonialism or imperialism should not be praised. As seen in European history imperialism came about through the want of power and wealth. Many leaders and people said that through imperialism they wanted to diminish all the small states and make the bigger states even bigger and more powerful. I believe that the ideas presented by Dinesh D’Souza in the article “Two Cheers for Colonialism” are flawed.

The main problem with imperialism is that due to the Europeans want for major wealth and power, imperialism brought about a great wave of oppression. Western countries would colonize third world countries and completely diminish the culture of the colonies they colonized. Europeans would attempt to westernize and modernize these countries and many times veer far away from the traditions of the countries. Also, since Europeans colonized to gain more wealth, they used the people of the colonies to do their work. In many cases, the native people living in the lands the Europeans colonized became slaves to the Europeans. Who cares if the West did not become “rich and powerful” (Dinesh D’Souza) through colonial oppression? The point is, the West attempted to become rich and powerful through colonial oppression, that is the real problem.

Dinesh D’Souza fails to see the real problems imperialism created. Instead of looking at the immediate effects of colonization, D’Souza focuses on long term effects which do not give a good idea of how European colonization really damaged many states. D’Souza also tries to justify his points by saying European countries were not the first to colonize. Again who cares if they were not first to colonize, the fact that they did colonize in an extremely cruel way is the problem. To say “Two Cheers for Colonialism” is moronic when speaking about European colonialism.

Casey's Response Paper

While the motivation behind King Leopold II’s conquest of the Congo was clearly rooted in economic profit, the motivation behind most imperialist actions cannot be so plainly and neatly defined. Furthermore, it is even more difficult to identify what events, actions, and movements constitute as imperialism. What is clear is that imperialism was no original idea of the 19th century nor has the flame of imperialism been extinguished in today’s world. So why is it that New Imperialism of the late 1880s is so often viewed with a critical and shameful eye? Is it actually any different than today? While we attempt to explain imperialism through self-interested fiscal motivation, there seems to be another common link at play that ties the different eras of imperialism together: the idea of responsibility. From Kipling’s explanation of “The White Man’s Burden” to the moral responsibility of humanitarian aid groups, people have justified imperialism through the socially accepted idea that the “more privileged” have an obligation to fix/help/aid the “less fortunate.” Although there are clearly differences between Leopold II and an international relief group, both are similarly driven by a sense of duty. Imperialism seems to be justified and even inspired by some type of responsibility; whether it is the obligation of a government to bring honor to a nation, a large corporation to increase its profit, or a foundation to make an impact. It is this connecting idea that makes the definition of imperialism unclear, thus complicating the analysis of imperialism. So with that said, how does imperialism stay “in check” and how does the world avoid radicalization? Who decides what responsibility actually is and is it even someone’s place to make that type of decision? The balance between acting in an oppressive and aggressive manner and actually acting in a beneficial behavior has been a struggle of the 20th century and will continue to be a struggle as long as a group can get popular support behind the idea that their actions were a result of a responsibility. What needs to happen in order to prevent a hot bed for war and a race to conquer, as seen in the 19th century, is that the world needs to find better solutions to “acting responsibly” so that instead of forcing change on others, we find a way to inspire self-improvement and internal reform.

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.

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

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.