How Is African Americans Justified Imperialism

Giving up all of one’s possessions due to a forceful invasion is brutal and inhumane. Europe was superior while Africans were inferior and human rights for Native Africans were disregarded when Europe took over. Europe imperialized many countries in Africa in the 1800’s; Europeans wanted to dominate a weaker nation for more land. Because Africa had ivory, gold and rubber, they wanted Africa’s natural resources to make them more powerful. The invasion of the Europeans may have improved some African lives by building infrastructure--such as railroads, roads, and air/maritime routes--however, African lives were negatively impacted due to the lack of education, racial inequality, and cultural changes.

From the birth of the United States of America until the mid 1800’s many citizens owned African slaves. Over two hundred years white men owned and dominated these africans. These Africans did not have any land but this is still a form of imperialism. African Americans were not equal in the white man's eyes, they weren’t humans they were merely property, they were pets more or less. This could easily be described as skin tone imperialism. Even though slavery was abolished in the 1860’s African Americans were still oppressed by the white man. African Americans were still not seen as equal, they could not dine in the same room or more common the same restaurant as white people, they had to use “colored” bathrooms, “colored” swimming pools, segregated

During the year of 1881, Europeans imperialist wanted to invade Africa and control the territories from the native African people. The occupation of an African person during this time is to work under the European control and they were to obey Europeans orders. An African person would live in a small house and close by the Europeans settlers that way they were nearby if needed. Africans during this time were seen as laborers in the eyes of an European imperialist that used to help imperialist gain success. There was not much practice of the African culture or religion since Africans were forced to focus and assimilate to communicate with the Europeans.

Their cultures were neglected and disregarded, their economies were driven into the ground, but worst of all they were exploited and suffered physical anguish at the hands of the western powers. However, some maintain that even though all of these things were very real and deplorable to say the least, European occupation was a necessary evil . O.P. Austin, in a piece titled “Does Colonization Pay” featured in The Forum in 1900, he highlights some of the supposed benefits to Africa from imperialism. He claims that in exchange for their labor and raw materials, they get infrastructure such as roads and bridges. They also gain the privilege of an education system. These claims are probably credible as it is from the period in question and is consistent with what European powers (Specifically Great Britain and France) did in other parts of the world (Spielvogel and McTighe 229). However, these benefits just do not outweigh the widespread suffering that occurred in Africa at the hands of western powers. If these improvements were beneficial to the continent, they would be at the very least in a stable state today. However, the scars of imperialism endure even to this day as the continent still struggles with fighting due to ethnic and class-related differences spurred on by Europeans (Spielvogel and McTighe 235). All things taken into account, European imperialism was a negative to Africa. Their cultures were disrespected and disregarded. Their economies were turned into machines for European profit. Worst of all, their people were exploited and abused. The imperial ambitions of European powers had an extremely adverse effect on the continent and the people of

Imperialism caused more problems than progress due to the destabilization of existing African tribes through unnecessary conflict caused by Europeans. In 1877, Sir Henry Frere decided that the only way to gain total control over the South African area was to defeat the Zulus, who were bordering several independent Boer and tribal states (Herbert). While warfare between African tribes did exist, it was usually fought over matters such as land. The British however, entered Africa and attempted to destabilize a tribe to make seizing power over the area easier for them. The Anglo-Zulu War wouldn’t have been fought had the British not invaded Africa and instigated the Zulu tribe. Commandment S Bourquin wrote several journal entries detailing the

White Europeans during the Nineteenth Century felt the need to civilize, people and countries that they thought were uncivilised. Kipling once said, “To serve your captives need” (Kipling, 4). Europeans felt a responsibility to spread their culture and increase their fortunes by collinazation.

Africa was greatly impacted by the imperialization, for the country fell downhill quick. The British introduced the European colonial rule, which was the establishment of a colony in one area by a political power from another area. Colonialism left Africa for the worst. Because of the European colonial rule, Africans lost control of their land and independence, lost thousands of people when resisting to Europeans, and authority figures were replaced. “But for the most part, these benefited only European business interests, not African’s lives.”(The Legacy of Colonial Rule, 350). The British were only concerned for what would benefit them the most, even if that meant having other countries at a risk of losing everything. They clearly were not

He said, “Take up the White Man’s burden-- No tawdry rule of kings, but toil of serf and sweeper…” (Kipling, line 25-27). When a nation intrudes, or comes without an invitation, upon another country the invading nation looks to overthrow the established government. Once that government is overthrown a new one is set in place. Kipling was referring to the overthrown government in the Philippines at this time. America then established a new government for the people, instead of being ruled by kings, as they had before, “serf[s] and sweeper[s]” would take up this burden. A “serf” refers to “a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord” or in other words a “slave” (“serf”). Being forced into the position of a slave would be cause for conflict, and a rebellion. All aspects of imperialism, big or small, spark conflict between the two sides. If conflict, war, and bloodshed are nearly inevitable there must be a problem with imperialism in

Rudyard Kipling’s attitude towards the British Empire was significantly negative. The novella essentially expressed Kipling’s feelings towards British Imperialism and his overall frustration with the British Empire. However, there are several positive qualities of the Empire pointed out by Kipling several times throughout his novella. Despite his mixed feelings, he is ultimately dissatisfied with the British Empire, claiming that it is “the White Man’s Burden”. Kipling was a steadfast imperialist, living in a time of British domination and oppression. He shared similar outlooks with the natives, that the majority of them were oppressed by the government and the wealthy. The upper class was greedy and wanted working men to do all of the work for them so that they could reap the profits. Kipling conveys his attitude towards British Imperialism through parallelism and figurative language.

For my NHD project, I am working alone. The theme of NHD is taking a stand and my interest was in colonization. Out of colonization, the topic was the African fight against colonization. The issue was King Menelik II of Ethiopia fighting of its Italian colonizers and winning. I was born in Africa and was interested in the African stand against colonization. Ethiopia’s stand was a very interesting stand. As result of Ethiopia’s fight against colonization, Ethiopia, under the tutelage of King Menelik II, gained the distinction of being the only country in Africa that fought off its colonizers and won.

Consequently, Kipling’s poem has been given plenty of attention and backlash. The purpose of his work was meant to notify Americans, specifically Theodore Roosevelt and the privileged while males, to undertake the idea of imperialism for the country. He admits that they will suffer with difficulties and burdens by dealing with non-white, imperialized people but in the end will be worth it.

It was 1899 when poet and author Rudyard Kipling issued his famous call to “Take up the White Man 's burden / Send forth the best ye breed” (290). Kipling thought that the culture of predominantly white, Western nations, such as America and England, was superior to foreign cultures. He was an admirer of British imperialism in India, and was a strong advocate for America’s involvement in the Philippines. Kipling earnestly believed that foreign peoples would benefit from the forceful introduction of American culture. This position has, of course, proven to be heavily misguided, and the damaging effects of colonialism are still being felt today in the Global South. The cultural conversion advocated by Kipling, however, did not end as

Throughout the 18th, 19th, and mid-20th century, Britain was the most recognized and powerful colonial power in the world. With colonies stretching from islands in the Caribbean to islands in the far Pacific, Britain had built an empire using this idea imperialism—the domination and exertion of contemporary British ideas, most often through trade, investments, and occupation. This display of British power certainly resonated with many throughout the world, especially other European powers that had imperialistic fascinations of their own. In fact, the spread of imperialism was encouraged to ‘white’ nations across the globe. This encouragement can best be seen in Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden.” However, at the same time, the

Enlightenment ideas paved the way for imperialism. Humans were thought to be ultimately good and that their actions led only to improvement. Imperialism was viewed as the gate that would improve the savage ways of inferior nations. Writers at the time of the nineteenth and twentieth century had contradictory ideas; Rudyard Kipling and Jules Ferry had similar views that it was their right as the superior race to improve the lives of indigenous and native people, while Anna Manning Comfort argues that a country must first resolve the problems within before they try to help others. J. A. Hobson’s argument ties in with Comfort’s that a country should stay within boundaries because, otherwise, they are invading a foreign land and exploiting its people. Comfort and Kipling both address the white man’s burden, but what their works truly reveal is the different mindsets of the time.

The imperializers will be so inferior that they will “blame of those ye better, the hate of those ye guard” (Kipling, line 35) Kipling argues that they will be unappreciated and people will not bless them instead hate them. So in order to civilize them the Europeans need to work hard and put in their efforts to civilize there people. Since Kipling was in favor of imperialism he tried to follow his duty by encouraging Europeans to bring everyone close to equal standards by helping the poor and wanted to help them. This is similar to justifying slavery in colonial America while writing the Declaration of