Reading other people’s impressions of imperialism and its historic significance caused me to wonder about whether it still exists, or will exist in the future. Someone mentioned that the class gap between extremely rich and extremely impoverished is rapidly growing. It’s scary to imagine what the next step in the pattern of imperialism could be when the wealth is already distributed so unevenly. Just look at many third- world, or underdeveloped, countries versus America. But in my opinion imperialism will remain six feet under, mostly because of how global our planet has become. Of course it’s necessary to understand I mean the offensive military actions taken by dominant nations, not the imperialistic attitude, which will exist as long as there are top world powers like the United States. But today justifications for imperialism wouldn’t be tolerated by the rest of the world. If a country tried to oppress another with an unprecedented war there would be a huge backlash. Other nations would come to their aid with their voices and their militaries. We live in a very global world society with a series of networks and allies. Not only would this morally gray behavior be chastised, but many other nations would be affected too. The ripple effect would hurt other nations through trade among other effects. I think we coexist with enough nations that are powerful enough to protect their allies, creating our own method of checks and balances. George Bush’s “war on terror” is an example of military reasoning that many people found to be unsound. Historically many imperialistic powers have acted self-righteous, hiding their true greed behind a façade of democracy or superiority.
Mostly everyone categorized imperialism as an evil force dominating our history textbooks. And while its corrupt nature is undisputable, the point was developed in someone’s paper that there have been benefits like rise of technology, educational programs, and global views that has spread understanding of other cultures. But another glaring negative, besides the killing and suffering of a country’s natives, is the fact that you can’t have imperialism without assimilation. I think this is attributed to the fact that people are afraid of what they don’t understand, including different culture. I wonder, is it possible to conquer another nation without decimating its identity (i.e. religion, dialect, beliefs)? Regardless, I believe the various aspects of imperialism are now a moot point, considering we live in such an interconnected world.
Friday, February 27
Neo-Colonialism
Chris Ryan
Neo-Colonialism
Throughout the Imperialist age in Europe, colonialism was justified by the notion that white people were culturally superior to peoples of other continents. The “White Man’s Burden” of civilizing foreign populations may not have been the colonizers primary concern, but efforts to assimilate those under control of the Europeans did occur. Though the European efforts to civilize its colony’s inhabitants resulted in the formulation of Westernized customs, the colonies were hardly transformed into the fully modernized industrious nations idealized by the concept of the white man’s burden. Instead nations in Africa, the Middle East and other parts of the world had trouble adjusting to the new customs imposed on them by their colonizers, and arguably left them in a more violent, troubled state than they had previously been in. Before the colonization of sub-Saharan Africa, the area was inhabited by tribes that differed in ethnicity and region of inhabitance. Though the area was not entirely peaceful, the natural formation of tribes provided relative socio-political stability in the region. However, when the Europeans colonized the region, they split up different nations regardless of tribal differences. The division of African colonies partnered with technological and cultural changes ushered onto the people of Africa created a very turbulent environment. Even after the age of Imperialism, the affects of neo-colonialism are felt throughout Africa, as the sub-continent is plagued by war, disease and poverty. Similar affects are seen throughout the Middle East and North Africa, as nations formerly part of the Ottoman Empire were arbitrarily divided, causing racial and religious conflict. As a result the region is very violent even today, as conflicts of religion are rampant throughout the region.
Though the colonizers intentions for those they were colonizing were allegedly good, the white man did not come close to completing his objective of creating civil, Western people. Instead the affects of neo-colonialism created conflict and poor quality of living even after the colonizers left their respective regions.
Neo-Colonialism
Throughout the Imperialist age in Europe, colonialism was justified by the notion that white people were culturally superior to peoples of other continents. The “White Man’s Burden” of civilizing foreign populations may not have been the colonizers primary concern, but efforts to assimilate those under control of the Europeans did occur. Though the European efforts to civilize its colony’s inhabitants resulted in the formulation of Westernized customs, the colonies were hardly transformed into the fully modernized industrious nations idealized by the concept of the white man’s burden. Instead nations in Africa, the Middle East and other parts of the world had trouble adjusting to the new customs imposed on them by their colonizers, and arguably left them in a more violent, troubled state than they had previously been in. Before the colonization of sub-Saharan Africa, the area was inhabited by tribes that differed in ethnicity and region of inhabitance. Though the area was not entirely peaceful, the natural formation of tribes provided relative socio-political stability in the region. However, when the Europeans colonized the region, they split up different nations regardless of tribal differences. The division of African colonies partnered with technological and cultural changes ushered onto the people of Africa created a very turbulent environment. Even after the age of Imperialism, the affects of neo-colonialism are felt throughout Africa, as the sub-continent is plagued by war, disease and poverty. Similar affects are seen throughout the Middle East and North Africa, as nations formerly part of the Ottoman Empire were arbitrarily divided, causing racial and religious conflict. As a result the region is very violent even today, as conflicts of religion are rampant throughout the region.
Though the colonizers intentions for those they were colonizing were allegedly good, the white man did not come close to completing his objective of creating civil, Western people. Instead the affects of neo-colonialism created conflict and poor quality of living even after the colonizers left their respective regions.
Thursday, February 26
Response on Imperialism
Many people are saying that the Europeans justified their colonies through the “white man’s burden”. Some are saying that the Europeans didn’t really believe in the white man’s burden, and were only using it as an excuse to for their imperialistic conquests. Although this is partially true some Europeans may have just used the “white man’s burden” to justify their actions, but others actually thought they had a duty to uphold. Evidence of this can be found in the movie the “Rabbit Proof Fence”. This is a movie about how white Europeans attempted to get rid of the dark skinned color of the Indians. They did not gain anything by attempting to teach the kids English and to read and write. They only did so because of their moral obligations. This proves that some Europeans did believe in the “white man’s burden”. More evidence of this comes from missionaries. Missionaries went out into various foreign countries attempting to spread their religion to the natives in order to protect them from “hell”. The people who traveled to these far away places didn’t get any material benefit out of them either. They just risked their lives and left their homes because they thought that they had a moral obligation to do it—“the White Man’s Burden”.
Wednesday, February 25
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.
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
