Response (Imperialism)

AP European History Response
Dawson Williams

Neither Cheers nor Boos for Imperialism

Analyzing the magnitude of European imperialism forces the person doing the analysis to understand that the effects of imperialism are not black or white, they are merely a shade of gray. Even the most prolific historians like Dinesh D’Zouza and J.A Hobson cannot agree on what the implications of imperialism were. So I will walk the tightest of lines when I say that imperialism was an unappealing hybrid of good and bad things.
Reverend Jesse Jackson demands that the dominant countries of the world today pay reparations for the “damage” that they have caused the so-called underdeveloped countries through colonization. Jackson’s demands are too broad to account for what has happened. While it is true that countries like Britain have damaged other nations through colonization by eliminating unique cultural practices, eliminating independent local government, and narrowing nations economies the major “players” of imperialism only hurt some of the nations they colonized. South Africa is a good example of a country that was incapable of recovering from Britain’s rule because Britain prevented them from broadening their economy to accumulate wealth through several different venues. Now, even today South Africa’s economy consists almost entirely on the sale of its natural resources, things such as diamonds, oil or other mined rocks and minerals. South Africa might be one of many countries that was abused and left crippled by imperialism (and it is most surely not alone) but there were several countries that began to flourish as a result of mineralization. When Britain kept a ruthless chokehold on India it sparked a rebellion that would write a new chapter in India’s history, a chapter that shows how India was far better after colonization than before. Because of Britain’s occupation in India unique leaders like Nehru and Ghandi were to break free of Britain’s chokehold and spark a bigger wave of nationalism than India had had in quite some time. But India was not the only country to do this, Latin America was successful in acquiring nationalism under Simon Bolivar, Mexico did the same under Jose Maria Morelos, and (much earlier but applicable is) Haiti under Toussaint L’Overture. Though the dominant countries did not know it at the time their presence in the undeveloped nations often lead to the smaller countries discovering their own identities and equipping themselves with the technology and knowledge they had gained from the countries that had colonized them.
Therefore, Dinesh D’Zouza is far too praise worthy of imperialism because it definitely left some countries shattered, but imperialism did benefit several countries so Jesse Jackson needs to do some more research before he makes public demands.

Imperialism: The good and the bad

Rachel Newman
AP European History

The beginning of the imperialist powers no doubt stemmed from the industrialization in particular countries. It is no coincidence that both Britain and America were dominating imperialist powers that were also the fastest industrialized countries. With cheap goods and efficient factories, Europe and the United States could no look to other countries to find more resources and expand. Whether it was the new industrialized attitude, or the simple ‘white man is better’ belief, the idea that the west was superior polluted the minds or many determined and powerful leaders. Instead of trading with the less developed countries, exploitation and manipulation were key themes in imperialism. A prime example of this was the Europe and America handled Japan and China concerning trade. In China, British and French troops occupied Bejing and used military aggression to force the unwilling Chinese to trade across seas. After doing so, American commodore Matthew Perry bombarded Japan with the navy, the small country to trade across seas as well. On top of this, the mistreatment of Africans and Indians increased the gap between the industrialized and third world countries, along with racial tensions. Needless to say, although the human rights and conditions may have decreased, the resources that imperialism brought about are crucial into the modern development of globalization that we have today

Imperialism

I find it fascinating...

...that some historians defend imperialism throughout the 19th and 20th century as being beneficial to both the imperialist country and the people who were invaded. I do understand how historians can say without imperialism, the third world countries would not have been able to export their goods into a world market as quickly as they did, however, those countries and their economies did not benefit. It’s true third world civilians increased their income due to imperialism because they were given jobs and wages, but prior to being taken over, the people were living just fine. I’m assuming people of Congo were much better just living off the land naturally without a real economy than they were being forced to work by King Leopold harvesting rubber trees. White Man’s Burden was a good way to justify Europeans and their means of controlling countries far away, but it was really just a cover up for their exploitation for those nations and their people. I see White Man’s Burden as being very similar to Manifest Destiny in the United States. Somehow, superior felling white’s always fell they should dominate a more primitive people to better themselves but somehow find a term to justify doing so.

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.