Aggressive Nature and Global Effects of Imperialism Imperialism is an empire or nation extending its rule or authority over foreign countries. During the ninetieth and twentieth centuries, there was a push for expansion that the historical writings at the time described detrimental to the world due to the aggressive nature of the imperialistic countries that viewed it as their moral obligation to bring civilization to the rest of the world. As explained in Commissioner Lin’s “Letter to Queen Victoria” and Mohandas Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), imperialism ruined the traditional ways of their societies. While in Rudyard Kipling’s The White Man’s Burden and Albert Beveridge’s “The March of the Flag”, see imperialism benefitting the …show more content…
Europe’s Industrial Revolution and growth of nationalism made the need for expansion apparent. Europeans had to fight but eventually they prevailed. Europe thought they were bringing progress to these societies. Europe’s feeling of superiority created extreme racism towards the “inferior” people. Rudyard Kipling in “The White Man’s Burden” said “Take up the White Man’s burden--/ The savage wars of peace,/ Fill full the mouth of Famine/ And bid sickness cease:” Kipling is saying all the benefits that countries get from accepting the forceful movement into the country such as no wars, sickness, or famine. It is the white man’s job to rid countries they take over of these things; therefore, it is called the white man’s burden. The burden to help all other societies. The world did gain technology and education but crashed the economies and governments of some countries. America didn’t become interested in expanding until the 1900’s when they won the Philippines in the Spanish-American war. America now had the power and the will to overcome European imperialistic powers. Albert Beveridge’s “March of the Flag” greatly encouraged America to expand beyond the Philippines. Albert Beveridge said, “We cannot fly from our world duties; it is ours to execute the purpose of a fate that has driven us to be greater than our small intentions” which means that he believes that God bestowed the honor of teaching others how to be …show more content…
If the country placed more value on the traditional views such as emperors and religion being central to the country, then they didn’t see the benefits of imperialism. For example, Gandhi and Commissioner Lin wanted to keep their countries in the same state; however, both lost to the powers of the imperialistic countries. If the country placed more worth on wealth, power, and expansion, then they saw the merit to be gained from imperialism. Rudyard Kipling and Albert Beveridge explained that imperialism would help both countries being effected by imperialism because the imperialistic country would be fulfilling their duty to the world, getting wealthier, and expanding while the other country would brought to new standards of living. Gandhi best compares the two views by using religion. He says, “The tendency of the Indian civilization is to elevate the moral being; that of the Western civilization is to propagate immorality. The latter is godless; the former is based on belief in a God.” Westerners wanted to make a profit and used religion as justification for “improving” other countries. Old traditional societies, like India and China, tied religion in with their everyday
British Imperialism in India and China Imperialism is the domination of a weaker country by a stronger country. For instance, Britain dominated India and China in the mid 1880s to the beginning of the 20th century. Imperialism has had both a positive and negative effect on the countries involved. Britain was imperialistic for many reasons, it could dominate because it had the technology and power to do so.
At a glance Imperialism is seen as a horrendous practice that many European nations practiced at the turn of the century. With Britain at the top and many other nations coming up behind them Imperialism seemed to be the way to go. But why would such a practice that involved exploiting the natives and harming both the land and people be so appealing to the public? The profits offered by Politicians and Officials hid the truth behind Imperialism, swaying the opinion in favor of money, goods, and a sense of moral duty. Imperialism was a great example of ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing’, its promise of greatness for everyone involved outweighed the hardships many endured from it. The pros and cons of Imperialism
The Negative Force of American Expansionism and Imperialism Many people believe that American Expansionism and Imperialism was a positive force, that it did more good than bad. However, many people disagree with this popular notion. Many good things do come out of it, but the bad ultimately trumps the good. There were several problems between whites and Natives and because of the problems countless people died. To start off, American Expansionism and Imperialism brought isolation to America.
... of power and they also felt as though they needed to help smaller nations like if it was their burden, which Europeans called it the “white man’s burden”. Mother countries were destroying ethnic groups and causing civil wars between smaller nations.
Imperialism is a policy based on the ideas of conquering less industrialized countries in order to gain more power, wealth and to increase a nation’s cultural influence. Imperialism took a tight hold on the modernized world after the industrial revolution, as more developed countries through military force started to conquer surrounding countries, and quickly became a global policy. Imperialism left a lasting affecting on the whole world and the result of the idea was not always for the best. An example of such a case was seen in South Africa where due to British rule, apartheid and segregation grew rampant.
...nents often admit that Imperialism may benefit a small, favored group but never the group as a whole. Their reasoning ends in the advocacy of rectification of economic relations so that in fact the benefits might be obtained which American Imperialism claims to but does not actually provide. This mixture of invocation makes it difficult to eliminate imperialism, but easy for nations considering themselves potential victims to suspect policies not intended to be imperialistic.
In the 18th to 19th century the factor determining the everyday life of many people was egotistic, uncompassionate nations of ‘superior’ cultures and religious doctrines. These nations with their superior ideals studied and applied imperialism to nations, they thought were uncivilized. According to Merriam Webster Imperialism is ‘the effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries.’ Imperialism was an era of major changes, in which for the better and the worst, the imperialized nations were affected. Many poets and philosophers commented on imperialism in their writings, some were in agreement and others were opposed of imperialism. One of these poets is Rudyard
Introduction: The epoch of imperialism cannot be defined simply as a proliferation of inflated egos tied to the hardened opinions of nationalists, but also a multi-faceted global rivalry with roots of philosophies tainted with racism and social Darwinism. The technique of each imperialist was specific to the motivations and desires of each combative, predominantly Western power and subsequently impacted the success of each imperialist and its colonies. Driven by industrialization, Europeans are aware of the urgent need for raw materials and new markets to maintain a constant rate of expansion and wealth. Imperialism became a competition; in general, the European countries led with fervor while the non-Western regions deemed likely to be stepped on.
Imperialism means a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force. During the turn of the 20th century, the United States used this policy when conquering and controlling countries that they helped win their independence, but then the US would turn and say they weren't ready, so they took them in. They called this the White Man’s Burden where the United States thought it was their duty to take the countries in and protect them and force them to change their culture and way of life. There are many negatives and positives to this policy. Overall though, the United States was right for getting involved or taking over, and helping the other countries get on their feet after we helped these countries
Although imperialism helped the colonized people by improving the economy and the lives of the people, for the most part imperialism hurt the colonized people because the people were forced to grow cash crops which led to death by starvation. First of all, imperialism improved the lives of the colonized people by aiding economic growth. The imperial powers prompted industrialization in the colonies, which is the development of advanced technology, leading to modernization in the colony. This is the change to a more modern, a more advanced country with new technology and better standards of living. These improvements then led to an increase in self-sufficiency, being able to maintain the colony’s economy by itself.
Imperialism is a policy of expanding a country’s power by using diplomacy and military force. Imperialism is usually against with weak or undeveloped countries by another country which is more developed. Many people think that the imperialism helps the nation to develop. The people of the nation who impose imperialism to other nation will most likely see imperialism as a positive way, however people of the weaker think see it as negative. Thus, imperialism is sometimes positive or sometimes negative, it depends on where you are from and your beliefs. Even though imperialism can help both nations, stronger nations would have more benefits from imperialism than the weak nations. So while it helps the stronger on, it can hinder the lives of the people of the weaker nation. I believe that the imperialism has negative effects more than the positive ones.
This method of understanding imperialism that contrasts with the traditional ideas provides a much more complete understanding of not only European imperialists in the 19th and 20th centuries, but of the concept of imperialism as a
The concept of imperialism is one that has pervaded nearly every major society or empire throughout human history. It seems to be a natural consequence of societies growing in size, power, and knowledge. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries vast changes occurred in Western Europe (and soon spread elsewhere) that spurred a new round of imperialism the likes of which had not been seen before. The changes were the industrial revolution that was taking place. Countries were rapidly advancing to industrial societies producing much greater quantities of goods at much lower costs. The goods produced ranged everywhere from cotton textiles to military machinery, all of which would play important roles in rounds of imperialistic expansion that would follow. The imperialistic displays by Western European nations also brought about several other industrial revolutions in other regions including the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and Japan. I will take a look at how the industrial revolution encouraged imperialistic expansion, as well as some of the results of that expansion in other regions.
This essay will be about a comparative study of the representation of colonialism as a positive or negative force. The texts that are being used are my core text ‘Heart of Darkness’ by Joseph Conrad and ‘Collected Poems’ by Rudyard Kipling. The partner text will be ‘Swami and Friends’ by R. K. Narayan.
I must say that Rudyard Kipling's Kim can be interpreted as a project that articulates the "hegemonic" relations between the colonizer and the colonized during British imperial rule in India. Kipling's novel explores how Kim embodies the absolute divisions between white and non white that existed in India and elsewhere at a time when the dominantly white Christian countries of Europe controlled approximately 85 percent of the world's surface. For Kipling, who believed it was India's destiny to be ruled by England, it was necessary to stress the superiority of the white man whose mission was to