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.

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.