The overall reputation of the large Colonial Empires is that their interaction with other nations in order to colonise them, has negatively affected those colonised nations. This essay, however will argue that the colonisation of countries had positive effects and outcomes for both the Empire and the colonised countries themselves. It has been stated that the main aim of the colonial powers was conquest, expansion, seeking resources and trading these resources with other countries. While this has the markings to be an essay that focuses on the negative impacts of these aims, it will be discussing the positive side of the argument. That there is a positive relationship between the Empires and their legacies of economic, democratic and industrial effects on the colonised countries. These, as well the cross-cultural exchange that occurs during colonisation, had the foundation to build the modern world that we are currently living in. This essay will discuss how the various Empires were able to depart their ideas upon their colonised nations in such a way that there are long-term benefits that are being reaped from now prosperous and stable nations. The economic growth from colonised countries post-colonisation can and should be admired. The trade routes that are opened between countries are itself a mark of successful colonisation. The Portuguese colonies have had an increasingly positive impact on the country’s economic growth. The main source of economic advantage has
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)?
Furthermore, this essay discusses the standard development model or development policies it refers to the group of four policies: mass-education, creating a national market, erecting an external tariff and creating a banking system as discussed in (Allen, 2011, pp. 41-43). This essay argues that colonisation was economically beneficial to the colonialist powers through improving the metropolitan state’s international trade and giving them access to cheap resources. Furthermore, this essay argues that colonisation was economically detrimental to colonies due to both the short-term impacts of deindustrialisation and longer-term impacts of limiting development by limiting the use of the standard development model and creating economies characterised by inequality. However, this essay acknowledges that some colonies did benefit but they were largely the exception due to their high European population i.e. the US.
Between the period from 1880 to 1914, European powers went after overseas empires in Africa. The governments and political leaders of the European powers believed that this colonization of the African empires was necessary to maintain their global influence. A second group of people supposed that African colonization was the result of the greedy Capitalists who \only cared for new resources and markets. The third group of people claimed it to be their job to enlighten and educate the uncivilized people of Africa. Although the political leaders of European powers encouraged colonization of African empires to advance their nation’s global influence, others argued that it was only for the profiteering of the Capitalists who sought new
The study of British colonialism is a rather new field with much to discuss and a lot more to debate. The recent recognition of new nation-states that were once under the control of Britain was a growing phenomenon and one that continues to play a large role in today’s global politics. Since the rather recent period of these new nations, new study’s have been done into the history of a) the peoples that inhabited the land before Britain, b) the way Britain occupied and control and land, and now c) post-Britain. This is a growing topic in the historical field because seventy-five years ago there was no thought that Britain would relieve control of India or Nigeria. That is why post-British colonialism is important to today, because it is a
Imagine you 're in the 1700s and live in South Africa or another colonized country. You’ve gotten used to the new lifestyle, but then the Europeans come in and force imperialism onto you and your country. Being obliged to do something is what happened in South Africa. South Africa got colonized by Britain in 1795. Imperialism spread in the 1900s to Africa. So Africa was forced into having something they don 't want. Even though colonized countries wouldn 't have the resources they have today such as advanced construction engineering, European imperialism shouldn 't be good for colonized
In the literary work “Colonialism” by the author, Frederick Cooper, discusses different types of economic projects colonizers had attempted to impose on their colonies. The author continues discussing how Great Britain and France had plans to make exploitation of colonial resources more systematic, therefore overwhelming their colonies with the effort of having more control over them
These conditions were found in the most backward territories, without technical and weaker means from other continents, especially from Asia and Africa. We must bear in mind that the crisis of 1873 caused the industrialized countries to develop protectionist policies, so it became indispensable to look for these new markets, more raw materials and places to invest and find profitability. Currently, this classical economic theory is being qualified in relation to imperialism. There are studies that consider that most of the foreign investments of the developed countries were not directed towards the new territories but towards other industrialized countries or in process of being it, like the United States. Moreover, always according to this new theory, most of the foreign trade, both industrial and agricultural products, continued to be among the industrialized countries. Finally, the economic profitability of some empires, like the British, the principal of them all, is in doubt. It would have been proven how the costs to maintain it - administration, army, etc. - did not justify the benefits obtained. In addition, imperialism did not benefit the entire population or all British economic sectors equally. The main beneficiaries were the economic sectors that invested in colonial companies while their contribution to the
The effects of European colonization can still be seen today. It can be seen physically in the landscapes of the islands of the Caribbean, and mentally it is still present in some of the inhabitant’s minds. Political struggles should not be ignored as well as many islands have struggled since their independence. Today when many Europeans look back at the peak of their country’s empires they see the Caribbean as a contributing factor. While there is no question as to the wealth generated by the control of the Caribbean islands, one can ask how great these European colonizers were. There are many ways to measure accomplishment, if one measures it just by wealth then European colonization could be considered a success. However, if we were to
Debates about whether the British Empire was a positive or negative force are common and usually unresolvable. While it is certain that British imperialism was neither entirely ‘good’ nor entirely ‘bad’, many historians still
The idea of expansion and migrating to other territories in search of quest and conquer has been prevalent in history time period after time period. There were the powerful militaries who came to a territory and conquered and prospered in wealth because of their strength and power. While there were other groups have failed to do such task. As time went on historians defined the task of extended a country 's power through force of diplomacy or military power as imperialism. Imperialism has been the most dominant powerful force in the last four to five centuries in civilization. Imperialism has formed civilizations in entire continents while pushing out the indigenous people and destroying other civilizations in the meantime. In this case, we look at whether the factors of economics was or was not the primary reason for British Imperialism.
Colonialism has been viewed and interpreted from multiple perspectives. Both the coloniser and the colonised are said to have benefitted therefrom. While on the one hand it is considered abject exploitation by the coloniser to fill his coffers, on the other, the routine by-products of colonisation were of absolute benefit to the colonised. The four century long period of colonisation that gripped the world is one of the most oft debated and scrutinized periods of human history. In the period beginning sixteenth century AD, trade and commerce through the sea route became a means of expanding markets in many countries. Great Britain, France, Belgium and Portugal were amongst the pioneers in taking their wares to countries far away, like Africa and Asia. One early form of colonialism that was thrust upon the colonised country was economic exploitation.
Dating back hundreds of years the role of colonialism has played a vital role in the historical context to many of not only our own countries history, but also the history of many other countries around the world. The use of imperialistic colonialism was an approach ideological approach not only focused around the economic revenue involved, but the expansion of empires, use of labor and extraction of natural resources. As made evident throughout the beginning half of the first semester, the role of imperialism plays off of the role to which colonialism offers, without colonialism there is no imperialism. As witnessed throughout the reading of Heart of Darkness, the role of imperial
The historical phenomenon of colonialism commenced in the 15th century during the “age of discovery” that led the imperial powers of Portugal and Spain to the Americas. At this time, dominant European powers participated in the active exploration and exploitation of newly discovered land, for the purpose of accumulation of land, wealth, political power, and its colonies resources. Similarly, this era strived on the economic policy known as mercantilism, designed to maximize its nations trade markets. In essence, mercantilism encouraged powerful European powers to accumulate more natural resources – such as gold and silver – that arguably fueled the particular European nation’s need, for further expansion and imperialism. Therefore, the practice of acquiring full political control over another land in exchange was in order to exploit its natural resources, the customary norm of colonialism. So, the ideology suggests, the more colonies acquired by a nation, primarily means, the more resources to exploit as a result of the systemization of mercantilism. Through that medium, it provided products for that nation’s trade markets while increasing its overall wealth and power. Correspondingly, by means of exploration, powerful Europeans nations looking for alternative routes to Asia consequently found themselves in areas rich in natural resources from the discovery of the New World. Under those circumstances, ethnocentric principles developed in the Europeans colonies, interactions
However, the economic advantages to the colonist have been argued to come at the cost of the economies of the colonies. Those that argue that colonisation was economically detrimental to the colonies often point to the short-term impact of deindustrialisation and the long-term impacts of inequality and the inability of colonies to pursue development policies, that the European powers had on their colonies. Deindustrialisation of colonies was caused by the industrialisation of the European powers which shifted the colonies comparative advantage from manufacturing to agriculture. In addition to this, colonies had to export primary products to pay for capital imports form their metropolitan state (Clark, 2007, p.315), further shifting their comparative advantage towards agriculture as they increased their productivity in the primary sector to pay for more imports of industrial goods. This source is an academic book and can be taken at face value to the author's use of good academic practice. Due to deindustrialisation, the Indian economy shrunk from generating 23% of world GDP to a third world country (Tharoor, 2017), clearly showing that colonisation was detrimental to the colonies as not only did it prevent growth through industrialisation it leads to economic decline. Whilst this source is a newspaper article rather than a more reliable medium, its information is in line with other reliable sources that demonstrate the deindustrialisation of many colonies, thus its
It is very much clear that a general model of colonialism and underdevelopment cannot explain the variations in India’s growth trend during the colonial period from 1863 to 1947. However, there are three structural features that define the entire colonial period. Structural features which include the importance of natural resources and labour to economics growth and welfare.Land intensive agriculture, Labour-intensive handicrafts, and modern industry in natural resources, were the main livelihoods throughout this period and beyond. Global features which saw a more open Indian economy and the fact that India took part in the first globalisation of the 19th century, which saw a rapid integration of world economy in terms of commodity trade, capital flows, and labour migration. Due to the opening of Suez canal in 1867 India also witnessed the revolution in transport and communication, Railways and telegraph which were introduced in this phase. There were Colonial features suggesting India was a colony is evident from the large remittances that government of India paid to the government in Britain. Thus, development in India was not resultant of a single factor but can be summed as the culmination of various factors which shaped, in mutual interaction, the economic growth in the region.