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.

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