Arts & Humanities >
History (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedImperialism: Was it right to settle in distant lands?
Results so far:
| Right | 53% | 168 votes | Total: 318 votes | |
| Wrong | 47% | 150 votes |
Right
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesFor a start, imperialism and settling in distant lands are two different, albeit related, things. Imperialism involves a more powerful nation using its power and resources to influence events in other less powerful nations. Settling, on the other hand, involves a more direct form of control and administration from a more powerful country. The effects of imperialism are harder to measure than settling because settling in another country has a direct impact which can be traced (administration usually involves a lot of paperwork). Imperialism, however, is harder to measure since imperialism often involves making decisions behind closed doors. These decisions are not meant for public consumption since imperialism involves influencing events in a more subtle way, in a way that does not necessarily reveal who is actually behind certain events.
So now that the distinction has been made between imperialism and settling, was it right to settle in distant lands? It is hard to imagine such a situation today since there is very little of the world that has not been explored and the most powerful countries see little to gain from acquiring land which they would then have to administer. In the nineteenth century, however, it was a different matter. Take the British Empire, for instance; the nineteenth century was dominated by a need to classify, categorise and understand. Much of the world had yet to be explored, or at least not explored and recorded in any great depth. The Empire offered such an opportunity. For the British government the Empire provided jobs for its civil servants and was seen as a way of alleviate overcrowding and a population explosion. Indeed, there was a fear that Britain was being overrun by undesirables', particularly members of the working class. It was hoped that such individuals could be enticed to settle in the colonies to help rid Britain of its social ills.
The British government had not started out enthusiastic collectors of Empire, yet even though their decisions were influenced by the need to serve the mother country' that is not to say that they did not want the best for the colonies, since the colonies was a reflection on their own rule. Besides, since there were a lot of British administrators living in the colonies it made sense that they would want to live in a stable environment.
The nineteenth century was characterised by nationalism. Not only were nations established during this period, there was also a need to consolidate a sense of national pride. This is particularly true of the later nineteenth century with the new imperialism' which led to the scramble for Africa' by mostly European nations including Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal. This was not only about acquiring resources but also about national pride and prestige. Indeed, it seemed to reflect concerns about the balance of power throughout the world. Everyone was desperate to stake their claim.
Clearly nationalism did not extend to the colonies, at least not in the eyes of the British and other European nations, since when these colonies were founded they were treated as if they had no native populations in existence but rather were blank spaces in which Europeans could settle. This obviously was not the case. Settling was therefore generally detrimental to native inhabitants of such lands, and indeed many atrocities were committed against indigenous populations. However, settling in other more distant lands was inevitable, particularly amidst the nationalistic zeitgeist of the nineteenth century. If Britain had not encouraged emigration of its own people to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, there would have been other nations only too willing to do so. This was a time when the nations of Europe were not friends'. Germany was on the rise and Empire offered an opportunity to grab resources and land and basically to prevent other nations getting their hands on it.
It was hoped by leading figures in Britain to create a greater Britain' in the colonies: a Britain with the same righteous values and beliefs but without the problems that had been created by industrialisation. The colonies afforded such an opportunity, particularly since they were largely rural areas and had yet to experience the problems of an urban environment. The colonies also offered the opportunity to experiment politically and economically in a way that was regarded as too risky to do in the Britain.
In this post-colonial climate it is easy to dismiss colonialism as an all-encompassing evil, but the presence of empire did help bring infrastructure to countries which were undeveloped and to bring ideas which continue to shape the world we live in today. Empire was clearly not beneficial to indigenous peoples, however, it seems that ultimately the settling of foreigners in distant lands was inevitable. In a way Empire helped to shrink the world, and made people in the mother country' more open to the fact that there was a wider world, which was no bad thing. It is unsurprising that people who belong to a former colony will claim that empire is the root of all evil: it is, after all, all part and parcel of forming a national identity, but I do not believe that Empire can be written off so easily.
Learn more about this author, Michelle Wilkinson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Wrong
Imperialism will never disappear. As long as we have large collectives of humans living together, they will attempt to subjugate in some form another group. And sometimes this involves actively attempting to conquer distant lands and repopulating them with another nationality. This is an inevitable facet of humanity. People conquer and subjugate. However a common justification of imperialist expansions is that imperialism somehow brings benefits despite the horrors it perpetrates. After the US acquisition of Panama in the 1900s, many lamented the deaths of the Panamanians and the undermining of sovereignty of another nation by the United states. However what would become a commonly used phrase to justify such interventions was uttered by Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt claims the end justified the means. However does the potential long term benefits of imperialism justify the act of invading another sovereign nation?
First of all it must be noted that all historical actions have some sort of beneficial effect. For example it could be argued that the ancient Roman expansion although bloody brought about various technological advances, despite the high cost of life. For example the Roman campaign into Gaul resulted in hundreds of thousand of deaths. However without the Romans we might not have had the luxuries of roads, aqueducts and various cultural benefit's the Romans bequeathed us with. However over a long term period most imperialist ambitions can benefit some groups of people greatly. For example the majority of the Western world rests its economic affluence on their subjugation of African nations and the slave industry. Perhaps without the slave industry and the raping of Africa we would lack the money to implement our generally decent standard of living we enjoy now.
Ultimately all imperialist campaigns benefit some groups of people. However the very essence of the campaign unanimously involves the disruption of the way of life of a society, the murder of innumerable amounts of people and the more imbedded psychological effects on a people. Homes are uprooted, orphans are formed and societies might be changed for the worst. If we examine Rwanda during the 19th Century before the arrival of the Belgians, we see a nation that although not as technologically advanced as some of its other African counterparts or European nations it has a relatively good living standard and is for the most part largely harmonious. The complex society did not recognise ethnicity as a factor and so ensured the cooperation with the Hutu and the Tutsi. However with the Belgian arrival in 1916, they fostered ethnic divisions with extensive bureaucracy and disenfranchised the Hutu. This psychologically created the hostility between the disenfranchised Hutu and the ruling Tutsi which ultimately led to the Rwandan genocide of 1994 with anywhere between 700,000-900,000 people dead as a result of ethnic cleansing.
The main benefactors of imperialist ambitions are the elite of the conquering nations. For example the British acquisition of India lead to wealthy opium traders, wealthy plantation owners and lead to the creation of a large social grouping of affluent businessmen profiting off the subjugations of the Indians. Many Indians were largely left out of the resulting profit of the expansion into Indian and the entire Indian rural economy was decimated. However many pragmatists would argue that the British Empire in India was justified due to the implementation of public sanitation services, criminalisation of the caste system, railway services, prohibition of slavery and increased medical services. However this does not justify expansionism. Yes, at times imperialism does bring beneficial effects but this does not justify the action.
For example if we examine Germany during the late 1930s to 1945 it is apparent that Germany was essentially an imperialist nation. However under the Third Reich there were advancements in employment, social services and various other services. The Volkswagen company is an example of the benefits Hitler's regime brought us. However can we actually claim that the Nazi-led Germany was a necessity to bring about these benefits? Can we justify the regime that killed around 6 million Jews as it was a means to an end? No. We cannot use some benefits of imperialism as a reason to justify it.
What we must understand is that progress is a natural facet of humanity. Although imperialism might appear to bring progress of a society, in reality it rather accelerates it. Progress will come about without war as humans are forever trying to improve their standards of living. For example for members of the European Union, imperialism has been frowned upon and largely unfulfilled, however without imperialism the EU member states have improved the living standards of their people at a faster rate than at any point in history. Without the need to conquer and settle distant lands.
Although imperialism will not disappear from humanity, we must acknowledge that imperialism in essence is a distasteful practice. It occupies other issues such as the issues of superiority and inferiority and blatant cruelty from the invading nation. What gives a nation the right to assume a group of people are governing themselves ineffectually? Even so, why should there be a need for war instead of peaceful dialogue or pressure in the form of moderate sanctions forcing a nation to treat its citizens better?
Despite all, humans will never lose imperialism. Just like how we are destined to always fight at a micro level of individuals against individuals, we are destined to attempt to take control other people. People with more power always desire even more power. However despite the inevitability of imperialism, we must always highlight the evil nature of such actions in any form.
Learn more about this author, Mark Mukasa.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
