British Expansionism Imperialism

The British East India Company took over India because of all the resources that they had. when the company made the Indians join a military they rebelled and started firing back at the British and then the company “called” the British government and they came with big guns to take control and regain India for themselves. British imperialism has a negative impact on the politics of india because of the British courts and the government wasn't far toward the indians. British imperialism had a negative impact on the economy of India because the British did not help the environment and they made railroads to take away from the land. British imperialism had a positive impact on the economy of India because the British eliminated highway robberies,

1. What is ‘imperialism’? How did 19th-century colonialism, empire building, high imperialism differ from those of earlier times: in particular from the colonialism of early- modern mercantilism (16th to18th centuries)?

British imperialism had a negative impact on the politics and economics of india because the British were running the country for their own good and not for the good of the indians. In contrast the British had customs that ultimately ended up benefiting the Indians.

British imperialism had a negative impact on the politics of India because of the establishment of the framework for India that leads to their downfall and the Indian Army which they used to control their own kind. According to Dr.Lalvani, the British established the framework for India’s justice system, civil services, loyal army, and the efficient loyal police. (Paragraph #6). While this is true, the framework didn’t include the Indians, because “Of 960 civil offices, 900 are occupied by English men and 60 by natives”(Doc. #2). British laws often benefited the British and were designed to limit the freedom of speech of the Indians, for example, the Rowlatt Act in 1919. (Gandhi). This evidence shows that the British, when creating the framework for the new and improved India wanted to benefit from it while trying to lower the Indian’s and limit the

During the early 1900s, America’s reputation as a world power prospered by possessing the third largest navy in the world and a significant domain over smaller countries. It was able to acquire superiority internationally due to its intervention in the intense colonialism of the time, including fast extension, colonization, and rivalry. However, America’s colonial power did not suddenly develop. Though the United States expansionism of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century was an explicit continuation of cultural and social factors that had powered the country’s past expansionism, it was more of a departure from the strategies for the past in which financial and political motives were sought.

Imagine a country coming into yours and ruining your environment. Killing your people. Taking your land- your power. Pushing you and the ones you love into starvation and poverty. In reality, this is what imperialism was for India when the British had gained control over them.

A question often contemplated, but never concluded: Is the effective rule of an alien power bette that the mismanaged one of your own? This was the case for the people of India during British colonial rule. India was the largest and most significant colony that was controlled at the height of the British Empire. Because of its vast quantities of cotton, tea and indigo, the British East India Company began to take over Indian cities in 1757, essentially establishing a monopoly over trade. When British sepoys rebelled against the East India Company in 1857, both the East India Company and the British military took over the entire country of India. Despite many Indians remaining illiterate, British rule in India was efficient, affluent and contributive.

The British imperialism is a negative impact on political, economic and social of Indian. The British controlled the government and made the Indians pay unfair taxes, grow cash crops and increased the frequency and severity of famines and manipulation of the cloth market. The British also wouldn’t let all Indians learn English. Why did the British do this to the Indians? The Indians politics had a negative Impact because the British controlled the government and made the Indians pay unfair taxes.

Colonization can be looked on as both positive and negative, however it is mainly negative. The impact of British colonialism in India was ultimately negative because, it robbed India of freedom, left many jobless, and gave India no responsibility of their own government. First, India was robbed of its freedom. One way India was robbed of its freedom is India had no control over its resources where the resources went. “India became an agricultural colony of industrial England.”

The British originally came in as a decent sized company in East India, but when the sepoys attacked that company, England sent their whole army and navy to get the sepoys under control, but while doing that they also took over all of India. Although economically and socially the Indians did benefit in some ways, the British established a massive infrastructure by controlling India and having a huge political, economic, and social impact on India that helped them more than it helped the Indians.

British Imperialism negatively affect on Indian Politics. Due to the government being beyond the control of native Indians and the fallout of religious groups fighting after independence made the political climate a toxic one. Though the British administration was “superbly efficient” (¶#6, Lavani), that administration was made of 960 offices. 900 offices were held by english men whilst the remaining 60 were held by Indian politicians (Document 2). Natives in government positions were outnumbered 15 to 1, an insane statistic that left Indians politically powerless.

Would you like if someone came into your house and start changing everything you do? Well, that is what the British did to India but on a bigger scale. The British thought that Indian had a lot of resources, which it did it was called “Jewel in the crown.” So, they came in and started changing their political, economic, and social ways of life. There were some positives and some negative to what happens when the British control India. This was a negative effect of India because they had no responsibility in their government, forced to grow cash crops, and learning the English language. Although I believe it was negative, some people believe it was a positive effect on India.

Within the NO portion the author states several things to support that imperialistic rule by Britain was not primarily economic. Industrial Europe required a highly specialized world, in which some areas would produce food for its industrial proletariat, others would produce raw materials for the industrial process, and the entire world would constitute a market for industrial goods. But to achieve this Europe needed to recast the world in its own image, to create the same infrastructures and similar institutions that would permit resources to be exploited and trade conducted (MacKenzie 99). This shows that imperialistic rule by Britain and other European nations was not solely economic but more so a way to gain materials, trade materials, and expand their cultures and receive outside cultural influence through imperialistic rule rather than using imperialistic

From 1837 to 1901, under the reign of Queen Victoria, Great Britain, with the supremacy of its Royal Navy, had largely fulfilled its ambition of global imperial expansion in Asia and Africa particularly. As the British Empire soon became the largest empire in history, this era was later known as the “Victorian Era” (John 129).

There is, however, a lot that raises the eyebrows of the economic historian. Within a few lines of the opening we read that, 'global business leaders ... seek a commercial regime unfettered by barriers'. This is rather the antithesis of the conventional understanding of businessmen almost invariably (and nowhere more so than in the US), seeking protection. And running against the conventional view (without seemingly noticing) is the idea that America is the home and inspiration of free trade. The British in the 1930s opted for, 'Regulated, rather than American style market, capitalism ... ' (p.20). Or again, 'Free trade frightened the British' (p.39). And richest of all, 'The British simply would not accept the free trade doctrine' (p.24). Zeiler suggests that free trade was key to the American economy ignoring the fact