For 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.