The Pros And Cons Of British Imperialism

Throughout history, many powerful nations interfered with nations that were weaker than they were. This form of sabotaging a nation is economic, political or cultural life is called as imperialism. Imperialism is often separated into two sects. The first one is old imperialism, which was the period from the 1500s to the 1800s, where European nation started to colonize many areas such as the Americas, and parts of Southeast Asia. On the other hand, the new imperialism was the period between the years “1870-1914”, where Europe became more focused on expanding their land into Asia and Africa. Imperialism had many pros and cons. In addition, it also had many causes led by the feeling of nationalism.

This section highlights that history has created a false narrative depicting the natives as a victimized people, which they were to some extent but only in the fashion that they did not possess the same technology for warfare, immunity of communal diseases transmitted, and they were not anticipating combat. All other factors considered, the natives stood to be a potential threat. In regards to knowledge obtained by Spaniards prior to arrival and knowledge gained from observation, it would be remiss had they not prepared for battle. This argument is not to be misconstrued in approving their actions; I do recognize colonization as an evil for both the reasons employed and its damaging effects, but rather to change the narrative surrounding that of the native people. While they did experience a tragedy, I feel that it is erroneous to write them into history as being incompetent resulting from their

As an anti-imperialist writer, the author explains his hatred and guilt toward the arrogant system that cause him to denounce British Imperialism by demonstrating the incompatible relationship between the powerful

The crown depicted the Indians as intractable, only to find that settlers resorted to violence against the Indians precisely because of their supposed intractability. Indigenous peoples, for their part, fought among themselves and against advancing settlers. All groups sought to “territorialize” their societies to secure themselves against competitors. In the final chapters, Langfur extends and qualifies this complicated story. In the later eighteenth century, settler pressures grew, stressing crown policies and threatening indigenous social orders, until all-out war broke out after 1808. For Langfur this was no Manichean battle between European invaders and indigenous victims. To a dominant narrative of violence he juxtaposes a “parallel history of cooperation” among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, and he concludes that war itself must be understood in terms of “the relationship of cooperative enemies.”

It is reasonably hard to measure the extent of the influence that imperialism has had on the contemporary world, at least due to the fact that imperialism shaped the appearance of the modern world, starting from the name of places and geographical boundaries, to the establishment of a globalized economic system. Accordingly, European colonization has left its mark on many parts of the world, especially by providing a strong foundation for the formation of a cultural universalization, substantial changes in the education system, an occurrence of a language hierarchy, and the emergence of a world economic system (Osterhammel and Petersson 2005, pg. 73-77). Through altered societal structures, a restricted access to education, substantial changes to the cultural values of colonized countries, and the special division of the labor market, the age of imperialism has had an outsized impact on the modern developing world, perhaps more than any other particular age.

During American colonial times, the native peoples of the new world clashed often with the English settlers who encroached upon their lifestyle. Many horror stories and clichés arose about the natives from the settlers. As one might read in Mary Rowlandson’s Narrative, often these disputes would turn to violence. To maintain the process of the extermination of the natives alongside Christian moral beliefs, one of the main tenets of colonial life was the belief that the natives were “savages”; that they were morally and mentally inferior to the English that settled there. As is the case with many societies, certain voices of dissent began to spin. These voices questioned the assertions

Imperialism is a policy used by political leaders to extend their authority over foreign entities as a means of acquiring and maintaining empires. The extension of authority would create an opportunity for the imperialists to exercise political and economic control on other countries. George Orwell argues against the taste of imperialism and its abuse of power in his narrative “Shooting an Elephant”. It is essential to show concern in resolving racial discrimination because of the integrity and viability of individuals. Imperialism involves exploitation of the natives, the oppressed and squeezing them to from different angles for example restricting the freedom of the oppressed. George Orwell expresses anger and disgust against any kind of oppression and tyranny to the less advantaged individuals (Alam and Sarwar, 55). The imperialists burdened the poor natives by inflicting on them hatred and torment. The imperialists considered the Asians as culturally inferior as they humiliate and subjugate them as racially inferior individuals. George Orwell desired to rescue the poor natives from the exploitations by the imperialists (Doyle and James, 15). The Orwell’s narrative “Shooting an elephant” is a demonstration of George Orwell’s argument against the taste of empire-building and its abuse on the poor natives.

Various nationalist groups propelled the decolonization process, which in turn impacted the institutions that were built for, said nations (Branch, Glassman, Straker). Moreover, many nations found that they upheld the same colonial structures that oppressed them in the first place (Shepard). In another contrast and comparison, British and French decolonization processes differed; although both France and Britain recognized that “…they were no longer world powers in the way that they had been and that they needed to adjust to this situation,” the French were very personally involved with their colonies of Morocco and Algeria which ultimately led to bloody wars, where as the British practiced a more “indirect rule” and indirect involvement in the decolonization process (Chafer, 2002, p. 11). The ways in which the colonial states were shaped had a direct relationship to how the nation state developed; and nationalism is the ideological response to what colonialism

Imperialism -which is defined as the extension of a country's power and influence through colonisation, use of military force, or other similar means- occurred in history during two different time periods. The first bout of imperialism which is often referred to as “old” imperialism occurred between 1492 and 1800 while the “new” imperialism transpired between 1870 and 1914 (Scammell, 2004). Although the two movements had some similarities, there were several differences starting with the motivation behind each wave of imperialism and extending to the economic, ideological, and political differences (Bush, 2006). Those differences are the reasons why the two waves of imperialism are often classified as ‘Old’ and ‘New’. This essay will be briefly

George Orwell and Robert Delavignette both acted as agents for their imperial empires at the turn of the 20th century. While engaging in the similar task of representing a European dominating power, the two viewed the outcome of their own work in drastically different ways. Orwell believed that his British Empire was trapped in a vicious loop with no positive externalities, while Delavignette believed that his French Empire was on the vanguard of creating the future of government and administration. Interestingly, the core of their arguments seem to be similar, that the power of their respective empire’s was not as mighty as popular opinion may have suggested, and that, in turn, the colonized people had a greater influence than expected.

The word colonialism is used to describe the act of colonizing another country. To colonize, is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “To settle (a country) with colonists; to plant or establish a colony in.” the settlement into these other countries leaves the indigenous peoples of that nation can leave an unfair biased opinion of the people who are native to the area which is being colonized and exploited. There are two primary examples of the effects of colonialism in the literature examined in class and that is the effects colonialism has had on the colonizers and the effects it has had on the colonized. There can be an obvious one sidedness to both of these opinions, both which can influence the perspective of the situation which had occurred. However before discussing the different opinions post colonialism, we must first discuss the process of colonialism.

The European fever of colonial aspiration, as Andrea White in “Conrad and Imperialism” suggests, is a very common motivation in the mid of the nineteenth century to carve up the non-European landscapes (White, 1996: 180). It was a period of ‘high colonialism’, frantic incentives for expansion, and sharing colonial territories. (GoGwilt, 2010: 138). It was the age where the Europeans were imperialising the weak peoples to construct their Empires. It is worth mentioning that, these Empires were often represented as creation of peace. They attach the names of peace to these Empires such as ‘Pax Romana, Pax Britanica, Pax Hispanica, Pax Mongolica, and so forth. The foundations of these Empires are written by people who live in the imperial countries. In his book, The History of the Decline and Fall of Roman Empire (2000), Edward Gibbon manifests that: ‘The obedience of the Roman world was uniform voluntary and permanent [....] The vast Roman Empire was governed by absolute power under the guidance of virtue and wisdom’ (Gibbon, 2000: 30). The assumption of the Empires’ good will to dominate the subjected peoples, is recently demonstrated by Jack Conrad in his book Fantastic Reality. His assumption coincides with that of Gibbon’s, he claims that: ‘[Domination comes in] a fit of absence of mind’ (Conrad, 2013: 243). The Empires are presented as a necessity to attain stability, prosperity and order for the subjugated peoples. They used the word ‘civilisation’ instead of

Hobson served as a correspondent covering the South African War for the Manchester Guardian. In 1902, he wrote his book, Imperialism: A Study, providing a look into his skepticism of the effectiveness of imperialism. “It has indeed been proved that recent annexations of tropical countries, procured at a great expense, have furnished poor and precarious markets…” (John Hobson, pp 51-56, 160-161, 208-209, 266-267). Here, Hobson clearly outlines what little economic gain there is to imperialism, referring to it as “a constant menace to peace”. Indeed, imperialism resulted in the devastation, depopulation, and destabilization of many conquered societies. What this does is create social hierarchy, resulting in the dehumanization of natives of conquered continents and countries. Such calamity gave rise to consequences such as The Age of Revolution in the 1770’s-1840’s (the period in which social revolutions rocked North America, Europe, the Caribbean, and Latin America) (Lockhart 448). What imperialism enthusiasts like Ferry do not understand is the lasting damage that they cause to conquered countries. They fail to BE the very revolutionist they claim to be. Imperialism does not foster revolutionary ideology, as a matter of fact, it is a repetitive cycle that does not force one to cultivate new ideas and ways of life by way of learning about native peoples and the land they inhabit. If one is not learning, then one is not growing, but only reinforcing outdated

Colonialism’s initial assumption or rather a presumption was to create a civilised and ordered world through establishing dominion over seemingly uncivilised and backwards countries. The colonial enterprise was justified based on the prevalent discourses of savage and primitive natives as reality was hidden due to a severe lack of historical narrative from the natives themselves. The ‘white man’s burden’ is to care for indigenous people who are unable to survive. This becomes a disguise for economic interests in colonisation. An important aspect of colonisation was to ‘discover’ new lands and territories in order to accumulate them in their world. With the dawn of this age of discovery, new areas were found and the New World was formed. This

The literary theory known as Post-Colonialism is easily defined in content but not in its beginning or end. Ashcroft, Griffins, and Tiffin state that the term “covers all the culture affected by the imperial process from the moment of colonization to the present day” (2). They focus on the territories colonized by Britain in Empire Writes Back but state that the analysis can apply to the former empires of France, Spain, and Portugal. This view falls in line with the issue brought up by Childs and Williams about after whose empire or whose colonization does it begin? The United States in the 1700s, the Latin American states in the 1800s, or the mid-1900s fall of the British and French empires (1)?