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
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
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
Social Darwinism fueled imperialism by making imperialistic nations believe that their imperialistic ventures were a natural turn of events and not a cruel, opressionistic system of government. These imperialistic nations exploited other nations and cultures and their troops’ motivation was the glory of the nation and the eradication of the weaker races on earth. These soldiers believed in Social Darwinism. Also, nations were able to become imperialistic because of the support of their people. They “marketed” imperialism through Social Darwinism. Finally, when these weaker countries were taken over, they were brainwashed to believe that the invasion and oppression of their people were just a result of nature. These oppressed people believed this because, according to Social Darwinism, only the fittest survive. And so, the imperialistic nations would survive and multiply while the oppressed civilizations were invaded and changed.
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...
Throughout the 19th century, European Imperialism had a major effect on Africa. As countries expanded in terms of wealth, resources, and innovation, more territory and workers were needed. The first solution to solve these problems was to begin colonizing in Africa. The driving force for imperialism in Europe and Africa was mainly economical. This economical approach was established through many ways including cultural and nationalistic ideas.
Imperialism is the act of expanding a country through diplomatic means. The British imperialized South Africa. One reason for doing so is because of South America’s natural resources. Useful resources such as diamonds, gold, tin, copper, and plants could be found in South Africa. The British also had new markets to sell to. Britain has control over South Africa’s natural resources and could use those resources to trade with other countries. In addition, the British believed in European superiority. The Europeans were racist and had racist beliefs in Social Darwinism, the idea that Europeans were more advanced and had the right and duty to bring their progress to other countries.
American Imperialism American Imperialism has been a part of United States history ever since the American Revolution. Imperialism is the practice by which powerful nations or people seek to expand and maintain control or influence over weaker nations or peoples. Throughout the years there have been many instances where the Americans have taken over other people's countries, almost every time we go into we have taken over a new piece of land. The Americas first taste of imperialism came about five hundred years ago when Columbus came to America. We fought the pleasant inhabitants and then took over their land, making them slaves.
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 in America At the turn of the century, America and the views of its people changed. Many different ideas were surfacing about issues that affected the country as a whole. The Republican Party, led by William McKinley, was concentrating on the expansion of the United States and looking to excel in power and commerce. The Democratic Party at this time was led by William Jennings Bryan, who was absorbed in a sponge of morality and was concerned with the rights of man.
Social Darwinism is the influence behind the act of one country taking over another country intending to facilitate progression in society. Orwell writes that "[he] of course was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British. As for the job [he] was doing, [he] hated it...in a job like that you see the dirty work of Empires in close quarters" (Orwell 233). Since the British held themselves as superior to the Burmese, they believed it was their duty to seize the inferior Burmese territory in the name of advancement. This facade of advancement proved shallow as the British impounded the natives, incarcerating "huddling [them] in the stinking cages of lock-ups" (Orwell 233). When the British conquered the Burmese land, they had no intent of improving the quality of life for the natives. Orwell notes the British Empire's apathy in regards to the inhabitants of the nation's that they conquer; they just throw the captives in cages like wild animals. The British masquerade their selfish influences of expansion with a veil of
Social Darwinism is a late 19th century term used to describe the application of British naturalist Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection to social and political conditions. Late 19th century sociologist Herbert Spencer tried to capture the essence of social Darwinism with his phrase “survival of the fittest”. This essentially meant that the strong would rise to the top while the weak simply died out. Social Darwinists eschew social responsibility and compassion, instead believing that some people are more fit to survive than others. Many social Darwinists advocated that the government should maintain a laissez-faire, or hands off, approach when it came to regulating economic competition and alleviating social inequalities. Social Darwinism was used to justify the consolidation of the majority of wealth by a minority of Americans. The term allowed people to rationalize capitalism, imperialism, racism, and even eugenics. The wealthy believed in social Darwinism because it allowed them to justify their oppressive business tactics and low wages for their labor force. Politicians believed in it because it allowed them to justify imperialism, or expansion of the nation. Affluent Anglo-Saxons believed in social Darwinism, believing themselves to be the superior race, and used it to justify ...
One could approach this topic from two points of view; the British and the Indian. One could choose either party and find very different opinions. When British colonizers first arrived in India, they slowly gained more and more control in India through many ways, the most prominent being trade and commerce. At first, they managed India’s government by pulling the string behind the curtain. However, soon they had acquired complete rule over India, converting it into a true British colony. The British considered Indian civilization to be inferior and implemented their western ways overriding ancient Indian customs. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that British imperialism in India resulted in both positive as well as negative reforms in political, economic and social aspects of its new colony.
There were two different time periods where Imperialism occurred. The first wave of imperialism, called the 'Old' Imperialism, lasted from around 1500 - 1800. The 'New' Imperialism lasted from around 1870 - 1914. The three main differences that we will discuss today are the differences in economics, politics, and the motive behind all of this.
To begin, the term colonialism is defined in the dictionary as “control by one country over another and its people”. Throughout history colonialism has confounded and damaged numerous cultures and people. Indigenous people have undergone a series of massive modifications to their culture as well as spiritual beliefs and morals and obligations they’ve held since before the first coming of Western cultures. In regards to this, there are many concerns of loss of culture among several different 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.