Imperialism did not improve the lives of the colonized people as seen through the Social Darwinism used to take over the Congo, the direct control used to control India, and the Special Economic Zones and Sphere of Influence used to trade illegal substances with China. The lives of the colonized people were not improved by imperialism as the colonizers used a number of degrading tactics to take control over and assimilate colonies. They used the concept of Social Darwinism to take away the power from the people. Social Darwinism is the application of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in society, meaning that the stronger, more intelligent people would conquer the weak. The supporters thought that the people at the top of society belonged there …show more content…
The colonizers also had a paternal mindset towards the colonies. Meaning, they looked at the colonies as children who were unable to make decisions for themselves and they should be treated as unequals. We can see all of these idea come through in the Congo when it was under the rule of King Leopold II. Sekou Toure, a West African Nationalist explained, “...[they] tried to strip us of our responsibility in conducting our own affairs and convince us that our civilization was nothing less than savagery” (African Imperialism Primary Source Docs Packet Doc 2). Here we see that the colonizers took away all power from the natives and treated them disrespect and as if they were not even human. In order to gain land they would trick the colonies and made them think the Europeans had special powers. This process is explained by George Washington Williams, who was a black American and historian when he writes, “... and when he gave the black brother a cordial grasp of the hand, the black brother was …show more content…
When colonizers come to a colony they use direct control to take over all aspects of life. A foreign style of government is put into place and foreign officials are brought into rule. The colony now has no control of themselves or their land. The colonizers goal is assimilation, or to make the group resemble the culture of the new controller. Before British rule, the Mughal Empire gave did not try to intervene with the local societies and let the people be who they wanted. They “...did not try to intervene in the local societies during most of its existence, but rather balanced and pacified them through administrative practices and diverse and inclusive ruling elites”(The Initial Colonization of India and the Later ‘Raj Era’ Reading p.1). Then, in the 1600’s a private company called the British East India Company established their dominance in trading goods from India and Great Britain. This caused more of the British to come to India and they started taking control of the country. Dadabhai Naoroji, and Indian explained “Europeans occupy almost all the higher places in every department of government...Natives, no matter how fit, are deliberately kept out of the social institutions” (Indian Primary Source Packet Doc 2). The British did everything they could to keep the Indians from taking back their power. While in control of the government they
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Imperialism became a driving force among European nations in the growth of power and wealth. European countries placed large values on controlling colonies, similarly to how members of the aristocratic society today would put emphasis on owning an immaculate mansion or an expensive car. Colonies formed in Latin America, Africa, and Asia were seen as status symbols for the overarching European countries; colonies represented economic strength and political power, which was fueled by intense nationalistic spirits. Competition for colonies became the biggest aspect of imperialism, leading several European powers to bicker over controlling colonial trade. The voices of the Colonists were oppressed and ignored as their land and resources were
Like previous American expansion, American imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was motivated by desire for new economic gains and improvements. However, the social justification, diplomatic and military approach and geographical aspect of imperialist expansionism varied greatly from previous American growth. Therefore, American expansionism underwent more change in this period than continuity.
Imperialism had some positive effects regardless of how strict and unfair it was. Some positive effects can be seen in documents 2 and 7, which talks about what the mother nation gave to their colonized nations. These oppressors built them roads, canals, railways, and gave them education. They also introduced to them telegraphs, newspapers, and overall made them economized. Another positive effect can be read on documents 1 and 5. These documents show how both the oppressors and oppressed benefit from getting new resources such as raw m...
Imperialism - the domination by one country of the political, economic, or cultural life of another country. European Imperialism did not begin until the 1800's. Because of its significant gain in power, and economic and military strength, Europe began an expansion that modern historians call the "new imperialism." This process lead to Europeans feeling racially superior. Because of this, "they applied Darwin's ideas about Natural Selection and survival of the fittest to human societies" (Various). “Social Darwinism is a philosophical, economic, social, and scientific movement that claims that the ways society functions is, and ought to be, a reflection of the methods and movements of biological evolution” (Darity). This concept was particularly executed in Africa. Because of Africa's diversity and traditional culture, they were much easier to conquer than other countries, like India and China. This conquest had a large impact for Europe socially, politically and economically. But by the mid 17-18th centuries, social Darwinism had an intense social consequence on European colonies in Africa.
With the Industrial Revolution in full swing, Europe was looking to bolster their trade markets abroad. Thinking of it this way: in order to sell more goods, you need more places to sell them. So, with this thinking in mind, the Europeans said to themselves, 'What better place than Africa and Asia?' Along the same lines, colonies on these continents were seen as great places to get cheap, raw materials for Europe's factories. Add to this that Europe needed a place to house and employ their surplus population, and you can see why New Imperialism held the promise of economic growth.
Césaire states that “colonization works to decline the colonizer, to brutalize him in the truest sense of the word, to degrade him, to awaken him to buried instincts, to covetousness, violence, race hatred and moral relativism” (Césaire, 173). This can be seen
Colonialism and imperialism was at its peak during the late nineteenth century. During this time, the African continent was partitioned by different European nations. In Heart of Darkness, author Joseph Conrad, explores this nature of colonial imperialism in African country, Congo. European nations were going to these African countries to “civilize” the natives of that continent. The European nations viewed the people of Congo as “savages.” “We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet” (Conrad). This description from Conrad gives us the impression that the people of Congo were “prehistoric” and did not develop a sense of civilization. However, the Europeans were in Africa for the exploitation of resources. To the Europeans in Congo, “progress” meant the exploitation of the natives. Through the means of cruelty and treachery and violence, the Europeans took advantage of the innocent natives. Violence instilled fear in the natives and ...
They supported the idea that every person “is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Doc 7). This statement is relatable to what Senator Hoar expressed. The Anti- Imperialist League also compared the idea of imperialism to militarism, “an evil from which it has been our glory to be free” (Doc 7). This statement recognizes that the United States should not succumb to the evils that exist in a militaristic state. Despite this, many wars continued to break out between other countries with Latin America for the fight of ownership of another country.
Once the Americans had taken over the land occupied by the Indians, to me, This idea of imperialism was a way for the U.S. to have an edge or advantage over other nations. This gave America power, control and reform policies so they could acquire addtional land. By the 19th century, America wanted to be able to expand its empire across the entire country. For the United States to do this, they seized territory peacefully by annexation or by force, resulting in conflict and war. This was known as the "Louisian Purchase," which congressed passed in 1803 (American Horizons, page 655). During this time, before Theodore Roosevelt became president, what was his purpose for wanting the United States as a global power?
Part of how North America engaged in imperialism was the idea of Manifest Destiny (Age of Imperialism II, 19:20). This was the belief that it was their destiny to take over and expand. The Europeans engaged in imperialism by taking over or having other places join their country (Age of Imperialism II, 28.06). This is important because if they could peacefully gain control it made their job easier. Another tool that helped the West engage in imperialism was the steam engine. They were able to trade with more nations and spread their ideas even better. Advances like the steam engine were key to both becoming what we call “Mother Nations.” When discussing how they believed in Manifest Destiny and the power of whiteness, it is crucial to show the flip side that allows them to take part in this. Morel, the author of the black mans’ burden, sees the burden of imperialism falling upon Africans, and wrote this against Kipling 's poem. The text says, “Thus the African is really helpless against the material God of the white man, as embodied in the trinity of imperialism, capitalistic, exploitation, and militarism…” (The Black Man’s Burden, pg. 2). This statement shows that the Africans were still less than and that there was indeed prejudice. He is saying that the Africans were destroyed by the Caucasians. While it is important to understand how the West became engaged in imperialism, we also need to understand that
One way this shown through was in the theory of Social Darwinism. This was a theory made by Charles Darwin stating that non-Europeans were considered to be on a lower scale of cultural and physical development because they had not made the scientific and technological progress that Europeans had. The Europeans who supported this theory also believed that they had the right and the duty to bring the results of their progress to other countries. Later during the later stages of Imperialism in Africa, as the French and other Europeans were taking and controlling Africa, they believed the Africans were unable to handle running a country. This was known as the policy called paternalism. As they used this policy, the Europeans treated the Africans like children as they provided for their needs but did not give them rights. These two ideas Social Darwinism and Paternalism were similar in a way, with their unfairness towards the Africans. I think Paternalism was like Social Darwinism for one because this policy also as well as the theory of Social Darwinism believed that Europeans were better than the Africans. Although the theory of Social Darwinism believed that the Europeans were better than the Africans through science, the policy of Paternalism also believed they were smarter and better than the Africans and that the Africans weren't very smart. They just both believed they were better than the Africans. Another reason Paternalism was like Social Darwinism was because they both believed Europeans had the right to treat the Africans like minors and act like a parent to the Africans. They both also believed that Europeans had the right and the duty to bring the results of their progress to other
Colonialism has plagued indigenous people worldwide and has spelled disaster for countless cultures, languages, and traditions. Over the past 500 years there have been different phases of colonization in Africa as well as other various parts of earth. There were many reasons behind exploration and colonization including economic and tactical reasons, religion, and prestige. Colonialism has shaped the contemporary understanding of individuals from Niger as well as other parts of Africa and other places too, like the Chambri and Tlingit people; mainly in economics. Because of the colonial past of so many cultures, numerous indigenous people today face many issues. Today colonialism is still active, known as Neocolonialism, which has devastating effects on global cultural groups.
Throughout history, imperialism has led countries to extend their rule over weaker countries and then colonized those countries to expand their own power. Imperialism allows the ruling countries to use the weaker countries for their resources. Colonizing other countries would then lead to growth and a better reputation for the dominating country. There are many examples of imperialism throughout European history. When many European countries “scrambled” for Africa, it seemed as though Africa had no say in anything. During the 19th century, Europe found a way to use Africa for their own growth and power. Using Africa for their resources, the Europeans colonized Africa without a second thought. European imperialism in Africa had a negative impact because of social disarray, cultural loss, and death it caused.
The effects of colonialism, whether positive or negative, are subjective wherever colonialism was practiced. Colonialism, a practice of one country exploiting another country for economic gain or for population expansion, affects both the colonizers and the colonized. There are times where the colonizers have profited and the colonized have suffered while there are times where neither the colonizers nor the colonized have profited. Because this is so, any benefits or losses occurring because of colonialism negate each other.