Exploitation through Imperialism

Whether for economic, political, nationalistic or humanitarian reasons, more dominate nations have often interfered with the affairs of weaker nations. Those powerful nations, such as Great Britain, have in the past exploited less fortunate nations for their own interests in such things as capital and resources. Although sometimes in return these exploited nation’s quality of life have been improved, it cannot hide the fact that imperialism results in oppression and a change in culture of the weaker nation.
In Rudyard Kipling’s, “The White Man’s Burden,” the imperialists are explained to be seekers of others resources and therefore oppress the weaker countries. These weaker countries are referred to as “savage countries,” just because they are not as powerful and dominate as the imperialist power (Britian). The white man thinks that any country they can exploit and change is a savage country in someway or another because it does not have the same culture or traditions. These imperialist powers, “seek another’s profit, and work another’s gain,” showing that these powerful countries act in their own interests and not really for the benefit of the less dominate, (India). They work for their own “goal” and for their own “pride.” These countries, like Britain, pride themselves on helping these countries, but only kill many of the people and steal many of their resources.
In J.A. Hobson’s, “Imperialism” this same idea stands. The missionaries think its their “duty” to help out the weaker countries, but want to show off British power. They are simply interfering with the less dominate to help with their capitalism and finance. They act in a hostile manner and want everything to line up in their favor. They will use “animal” like ways and use all of their energies to make sure to profit off the weak.

Imperialism and Humanitarianism: Fraternal Twins?

AP Euro
February 24, 2009
Lauren Berry

Imperialism and Humanitarianism: Fraternal Twins?

Imperialism and Humanitarianism are often placed in separate spheres. However, maybe these two concepts are much more similar than we know them to be. Imperialism is defined as “the practice of extending the power, control or rule by one country over areas outside its borders.” On the other hand, Humanitarianism is defined as “an active belief in the value of human life, whereby humans practice benevolent treatment and provide assistance to other humans, in order to better humanity for both moral and logical reasons.” These two practices are defined completely different, yet both involve the act of helping those in need. So, where do we draw the line? It is easy to argue that these two ideologies are completely different, yet they in fact share many similar ideas. Both practices follow similar ideologies by entering impoverished nations in hopes of injecting change within the society. However, this comparison goes no further because Imperialism uses force while Humanitarianism doesn’t. Imperialism, unlike Humanitarianism involves a greedy mindset. For example, Humanitarians come into the impoverished nation with the goal to better the lives of the society, without any strings attached. However, Imperialism calls for an unfair relationship between the society and the transitional government. Unable to speak their voice, the nation is bombarded by new ideas thrown in by the new government. Imperialism calls for a complete change to occur throughout society by force, while Humanitarianism allows for problems to be fixed and mended through peaceful acts. Humanitarianism doesn’t imply for strings to be attached, but rather it is an unselfish act. Humanitarianism is a practice that isn’t seeking power or in want of control. On the other hand, Imperialism acts as a greedy, power seeking practice that in turn creates an unfair relationship between the powerful and the powerless. In class the other day, Ms. Pugliese read from a book that argued that Humanitarianism and Imperialism are similar, but I have to disagree with the author. I think Imperialism and Humanitarianism are fraternal twins. Though they seem to have similar qualities, the intentions behind the acts are different. It’s simple: Humanitarians have good intentions, while Imperialists do not.

Historical To Present Day Imperialism

It’s a universally accepted belief that the concept and justification of Imperialism is immoral. Imperialism usually takes the form of military action enforced by a dominant country in order to exploit another country’s land, labor, and resources to benefit its own demands. Sure, it’s easy to reprimand this behavior and write it off as government bullying. But the reality is that without imperialistic behavior the U.S. would not be the top superpower it is today. Technologically and economically we have thrived on the competitive nature of our country’s foundations. No other country comes close to matching our military might. But as Americans we realize this doesn’t mean that we can or should remove morality from the equation. That’s why our Americans were so divided by George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. Many questioned the choice to enter Iraq and Afghanistan, asking was it really moral or was it similar to what the British were doing 100 years ago? Other countries took notice of our decision too, branding us as an imperialistic world police on a power trip. As a major world power the line becomes blurred between our good intentions, and our oppressive tactics. Ironically, while running for president Bush announced a passive foreign policy, only to later become one of the most interventionist presidents in foreign affairs in history.

To put it in perspective in today’s society I want to mention China. In contrast to us, China has pursued a very different policy in providing lots of economic support with no demands on internal politics or human rights with countries they do business with. They use their economic power instead of their military power to benefit themselves. As a result, countries like Sudan prefer to do business with China rather than the U.S. While we perceive ourselves to be the good guys, the rest of the world doesn’t always agree, which has driven away some of our former allies. But it’s important to realize that the nurturing and cultivation of a nation’s superiority complex did not originate with Bush’s administration. The idea of imperialism has existed forever. The Eastern Europeans were so commonly enslaved by each other that “Slav” became directly associated with serfdom. In fact the word “slave” stems from “Slav”. Hitler and the Nazi regime are a prime example of imperialism at its darkest hour. Nazi actions were based in a faith that Jews were inferior, non-human beings, using slave labor of concentration camps to their advantage.

One and a Half Cheers for Colonialism

19th century colonialism has long been seen by much of the world today as an evil, a period in history that should never again repeated, but in reality, it was not all that unique or terrible. True enough, the harshness and cruelty experienced by the colonized was atrocious and no reason or argument can ever justify such treatment of any human being. But to single out and criticize only the West or even demand reparations for their behavior towards the “third world” would be unfair. Though perhaps not always on as grand a scale, civilizations have been invading, conquering, and subjugating other civilizations since the ancient times and they are not justified in their actions either. But what is done is done and no matter how much people lash back at the West, the suffering cannot be undone, so it is better now to focus on making the best of 19th century colonialism. That is not to say that those responsible should not be punished, but that violence against the West in the name of revenge is not the solution. Instead, both the “colonized” and the “colonizers” should work together to expand and improve the benefits brought on by colonialism. The colonists brought with them modern technology, organized infrastructure, and most importantly the ideas of civil rights. The latter was a product of the West and without its introduction it may not have developed on its own for a very long time. Ironically, opening the door to colonization also inadvertently opened the door to the ideas of civil rights, which then influenced the people of the colonies to fight for those rights that their descendents now enjoy. Either argument regarding colonialism cannot win over the other, so unlike D’Souza, I will only give one and a half cheers for colonialism.

Too Many Burdens

While studying imperialism and world history, one term that has always seemed to stick with me was the term, “White Man’s Burden.” Not because I have some bone to pick with Britain colonizing my home country of Nigeria back in the 19th century, but I’ve always found this term fascinating because of the reasoning behind it. Essentially, a lot of Europeans felt it was their duty to colonize and “civilize” the “beasts” of the foreign countries in Africa and South America. The word, “civilize” meaning tame, destruction of religion, loss of national identity, genocide, forcing the destruction of local religions and languages, whatever you take the word civilize to mean. In the words of Joseph Heller (Catch 22), the White Man’s burden was just an act of “Protective Reasoning” to why it was ok to exploit the smaller countries that Europeans were taking over. Though this did happen back in the 19th century, and most of colonies have now gotten their independence, have all these burdens finally been taken care of, has the whole world been civilized?
For most teens that keep up with modern day pop culture, the answer to this question would be no. Of late, its all the rage to get pregnant now, whether it is to sky rocket your popularity or as a publicity stunt to create buzz for your new movie. But some stars don’t want to get pregnant and deal with the weight, soreness, and bloating that a baby brings, so they’ve resorted to adoption outside of the United States. The most famous case being Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt who now have 6 kids, of which only 3 are biological children. What I find very interesting is that while parents who adopt children do it because of some complication that prevents them from being able to have kid themselves, or a single parent who wants children but does not have a significant other to do so with, Angelina and Brad are fully capable of having children, proof being the two twins she popped out last year. Why can’t parents who aren’t celebrities get babies in the U.S half as fast as celebrities outside of the U.S? Why do celebrities feel the need to adopt if they don’t need to? To many, this feels like a modern day white man’s burden-type of ordeal, but at the same time, a little more positive then our ancestors. Though it seems that Angelina and other celebrities feel that it’s their right to do the world a favor and adopt every foreign child possible, in the end they are giving these children a better life overall. Though this is the white man’s burden all over again, they are actually doing themselves some good, and for once, I think I’m going to have to agree with Jolie.

The Evolution of Imperialist Policies

Elise Thygesen
AP Euro
Pugliese
02-23-09
The Evolution of Imperialist Policies

The progression from colonialism to imperialism to 21st century globalization seems natural to me. Colonialism, the act of establishing a direct connection to another sphere of the world by controlling it with external power was a way for Western Europeans to assert their dominance over the rest of world in a very direct way by establishing diplomatic, legal, and economic ties to another territory of land. In a way, colonialism was a product of early globalization, as transportation mechanisms allowed explorers, sailors, kings, and foreign rulers to connect with another part of the world. Imperialism evolved out of the colonialist tendencies to create greater economic prosperity for the dominant power. Great Britain used their imperialist countries to gain access to rich land, resources, and labor, taking the majority of the economic gains from trade for themselves by exploiting their military and political prowess.
I would argue that the modern globalization is part of the historical progression from colonialism to imperialism. No longer needing to create offshore “colonies” to capitalize on resources, the West uses their industrial advantages to exploit developing countries’ resources. William Easterly even goes so far as to argue that modern foreign aid policies are merely a veiled extension of high-minded imperialism. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the gap between the richest people and the poorest people in the world is growing fast, and it is impossible to imagine what the next step in the historical progression of imperialism might be. However, it appears to be an unfortunate pattern of big winners and losers in globalization, suggesting the benefits of trade are not always equally distributed.

Imperialism Response Paper

Imperialism is defined as “a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries”. This is a common idea among influential countries in order to expand their borders. Although this may seem like a successful strategy to gain more power, it is not moral because it ruins the less powerful countries traditions, freedom, and way of living. Kipling’s, “White Man’s Burden” favors imperialism and discusses the idea that it is the Europeans (White man’s) duty to “civilize” the “savages” of the world and take over less powerful countries. Kipling makes it seem like imperialism is the only way for smaller countries to thrive, but he fails to recognize all the negative aspects of taking over a country. It is unethical to invade a small country and alter its economy, political structure, and society. Some may believe that the third world countries, in order to be somewhat successful, need to follow in Europe’s footsteps, but at the same time, when a powerful nation occupies a smaller country they tend to destroy their traditions, force religion upon them, and create enemies. The selfish behavior of imperialistic rulers causes a nation to become less united. When a country is constantly extending their borders and oppressing smaller countries, it can have an effect on the nationalistic nature of their citizens. Throughout our studies, we have learned that nations strive and prosper due to all citizens being united under one common goal. When goals and traditions are split and mixed, it is difficult for a country to be cohesive and powerful. Yes, Europe was very successful and progressed at a faster rate then most countries, but that doesn’t mean that powerful countries like Europe should have the right to ruin traditions and force rules upon other countries.