MODERN IMPERIALISM

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the nation considers itself part of the empire. The "Age of Imperialism" usually refers to the New Imperialism period starting from 1860, when major European states started colonizing the other continents.

The term 'Imperialism' was initially coined in the mid to late 1800s to reflect the policies of countries such as Britain and France's expansion into Africa, and the Americas.

Imperialism draws heavy criticism on the grounds that historically it has been frequently employed for economic exploitation in which the imperialist power makes use of other countries as sources of raw materials and cheap labor, shaping their economies to suit its own interests, and keeping their people in poverty. When imperialism is accompanied by overt military conquest, it is also seen as a violation of freedom and human rights.

Effects of Imperialism -

Imperialism is when a mother country takes over a smaller nation or colony for political, social, and/or economic reasons. Imperialism has been a major force in shaping the modern world. The effects of Imperialism have been interpreted from a variety of viewpoints. This major Imperialism occurred during the late 19th Century and early 20th century. It had more negative effects in the modern world today then positive effects.

A positive effect is seen in document one called "Modern Progressive Nations," it shows how the larger nations gave to the smaller colonies. The nations built them roads, canals, and railways. Showed them the telegraph, newspaper, established schools for them, gave them the blessing of their civilization, and overall made them economized. They were part of modern culture after this occurred. Another positive effect is seen in document three called "Colonial Governments and Missionaries. " It shows how the colonial governments introduced improved medical care, and better methods of sanitation. There were new crops; tools and farming methods, which helped, increase food production. These changes meant less death to smaller colonies, and overall improve the state of living. They now could live longer and have better sanitation compared to the earlier imperialism.

A negative effect is seen document two-called "Colonization." In the picture you can see that the colonies doing the mother country’s hard work did not civilize the smaller colonies. They were put to work as cheap labor. They had no freedom, had to do what the mother country said since it has so much towering power over them, they were exploited and were taken advantage of. Another negative effect is seen in document four called "Missionaries." In this quote you can see that when the white people came to the Africans they had nothing but power over them. They came with the Bible and no land, and instead took their land and forced the religion Christianity upon them. In document five-called "The White Man," another negative effect occurs. In this little tale or quote, David Diop talks about how the whites came and killed the innocent. This had many negative effects on Africa such as the African's were put to work as slaves but more like cheap labor. Many of them dies from this, they were resettled, exploited, weren't taken at their free will and took all of their land. The last negative effect can be seen in document seven called "The German Cartoon." This cartoon shows how severely the presence of imperialism affected such continents as Africa. The man in the machine is being forced to drink hard liquor and alcohol, they were corrupted and given evil minds, their money was all taken away, and most of all religion was forced upon them.

Imperialism is never considered as a good cause and effect. At first when it occurs it may seem as a positive effect, but in the long run, for example in this case it was a negative effect. All Africans and Asians were heavily exploited and were given no rights to do anything even though the mother countries gave them modern culture. Colonies inside colonies would fight because they wanted independence and have their own government and rule. There were many ethnics group that had nationalistic feelings but could not accomplish anything and become a free nation because of Imperialism. The mother country's that did the taking over were only after a few things and unfortunately did happen to accomplish what they were after. They wanted raw materials, markets for goods, national glory, balance of power and they also felt as though they needed to help smaller nations as though it was their burden, which Europeans called "White Man's Burden." In their point of view they thought they were helping people but really all they were doing was hurting the smaller colonies. Mother countries were destroying ethnic groups and causing civil wars between smaller nations. This newer modern Imperialism was never productive.

When a mother country took over a smaller colony for economic, political or social reason, they were Imperialistic. As shown they changed the modern world plenty and pretty much made it a harder world to live in at that time. It all depends on which viewpoints you may look at. Some may think it was a positive thing but overall, it only led to things in this world that were negative. Even thought the modern Imperialism occurred no more then 100 years ago, it still affects us greatly, and how our nation is broken down.

Various adventurers in the US and UK undertook semi-private campaigns disguised as strategic attacks on Britain's enemies. The gradual, insidious annexation of Uganda and Kenya were directed against Germany and France. The 19th century United States dabbled in imperialism as a means of securing military potential: possessed of tiny military might, with a navy barely worthy of the name, Washington saw a chain of tiny bases across the Pacific as less an expression of "manifest destiny," as a providential investment in future capital exports. Here, then, was a sort of strategic imperialism of another category: bases to enable, ensure, and preserve, global economic access. Britain and the USA were, along with the other imperial powers of the day, pre-occupied with this third category of strategic imperialism: (c) defense of economic potential. While all imperial powers, from pre-history onwards, have pursued this category with vigor, the USA, England, and Holland surpass all others in continuity and professional single-mindedness. Others dabbled in it; Japan, for two generations, prosecuted it with a zeal that certainly inspired awe; Germany has undertaken a financially shrewd foreign policy, that was repeatedly trumped by ideological ambitions within Europe; but the USA, England, and Holland are unusual in being almost single-minded about it.

The way that leads us and all humanity out of the danger that world imperialism signifies for the productive and cultural community of nations and so for the fate of civilization is rejection of the policy of feeling and instinct and return to political rationalism. If we wanted to throw ourselves into the arms of Bolshevism merely for the purpose of annoying our enemies, the robbers of our freedom and our property, or to set their house on fire too, that would not help us in the least. It should not be the goal of our policy to drag our enemies into our destruction with us. We should try not to be destroyed ourselves and try to rise again out of servitude and misery. That, however, we can attain neither by warlike actions nor by revenge and the policy of despair. For us and for humanity there is only one salvation: return to the rationalistic liberalism of the ideas of 1789.

It may be that socialism represents a better form of organization of human labor. Let whoever asserts this try to prove it rationally. If the proof should succeed, then the world, democratically united by liberalism, will not hesitate to implement the communist community. In a democratic state, who could oppose a reform that would be bound to bring the greatest gain to by far the overwhelming majority? Political rationalism does not reject socialism on principle. But it does reject in advance the socialism that hinges not on cool understanding but rather on unclear feelings, that works not with logic but rather with the mysticism of a gospel of salvation, the socialism that does not proceed from the free will of the majority of the people but rather from the terrorism of wild fanatics.