Common Sense reads “Great Britain set us at variance with nations who would otherwise seek our friendship” (154). 2) The author, James Chalmers, is evidently a well off, affluent man who clearly does not want a change in current policy. He is overwhelmingly conservative, and fully supports the crown. The colonies were inevitably a factor in the French and Indian war under British mandate. Chalmers believes without Britain, the colonies would have been doomed.
All three Revolutions played significant part in what came to be a significantly liberalist Europe, including Industrialisation. This essay will explain just in what way the Revolutions and Industrialisation led to the overall rise of liberal government in Europe during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The French Revolution marks the beginning of the liberal movement taking shape in Europe. Not only was the monarchy in crisis (on the verge of bankruptcy after extreme spending and France’s Involvement in the American Revolution), but the people of France were also victim of poor harvest, the worst of which were in 1775 but were still significantly bad in both 1787 and 1788 (Merriman, 2004). On top of there being a scarcity of resources, the people of France were subject to also having to pay high costs for grain, a staple food in France.
Imperialism began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s affecting many countries, for example, China, India, Africa, and South America were all affected by imperialism. Although the New Imperialism resulted from industrialized nations seeking control of foreign territories, the conditions that motivated and fueled the great expansion for industrialized nations were mostly based on economic motives. As Europe gained significant power strongly centered nation states emerged. Several factors contributed to the Europeans conquest of Africa. One staggering advantage was Europeans technological superiority.
This need is commonly satisfied through the expansion of power, and in this case, Imperialism. Another common idea throughout history has been that because one nation is more civilized or successful than another, they seem to have the right to champion their ways throughout the world by taking over less powerful nations. The justification for this in Heart of Darkness, as said by Kurtz in his report to the International Society for the suppression of Savage Customs, is that “’by the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically unbounded’” (Conrad 92). These initial motives brought Europe into Africa, though both ideas set a scene for prejudice and suppression as Europe came to exert their power and obtain
Research Paper 4 Question: How did imperialism help and eventually hurt powers in Europe? Imperialism helped European powers by giving confidence to the European government. It hurt them by bringing conflict with the British and china causing the Opium war, also a major part of European imperialism was the colonization of Africa and India... The Europeans made a big name for themselves during the late 1800s, early 1900s, they ran through countries like Africa for the fact that they could. They caused a lot of hatred towards them that evolved into more… Along with expanses, there came abusive power from the European countries.
Europe wanted to set up and colonize in Africa, mainly because of Africa's raw materials it was purely economic. . (Iweriebor, 2011) The African's did not take kind to this, and it provoked not only African political responses but also diplomatic responses and military resistance. A lot of treaties of protection for the leaders of African societies, states, and empires went out. There was a lot of controversy about these treaties and eventually the military had to step in.
On the other hand, source 5 suggests that imperialism was ok, but the way the Boer war was fought was not. I agree with the view that the public got swept away with the ideas of imperialism because everyone else seemed to be believing in it, but I also think that this generalisation is fairly unreliable because it shouldn’t be applied to the whole population, because there must have been some people who were against it, or saw through the press and propaganda; how they were trying desperately hard to influence people’s opinions. Firstly, Source 4 suggests that the capital of England, London, were overjoyed at the news of the relief of Mafeking, supporting the view in question that the public were enthusiastic about the Empire’s advances: “celebrated”, and words such as “fireworks” and “brass bands” give connotations of happiness and festivity. However, this Source also implies that the root of people’s merriment (imperialism) was spread and emphasised by the “new halfpenny press”. From my own knowledge, I know that there were numerous newspapers that were ‘pro-war, such as The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Morning Post and their
North America is fond of their political stability and feel like it is more superior and therefore view the African government negatively. Countries such as Canada and the United States are democratic, effecting the way Africa is viewed, specifically pertaining to their government, war and the army/rebels. In The Bite of the Mango , Yabom (a reporter from England) shares with Mariatu the history of Sierra Leone and it's differences from America: “The British had tried to modernize Sierra Leone and make the country run like a modern nation. Sierra Leone only became a recognized country after the 1960's. There was much corruption among government officials, look around you!”[3].
Imperialism is defined as the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination. (1) With the freeing up of excess labor for many different functions and the Industrial Revolution in full swing, this saw the need for more resources and materials for production of unique items and the need for much larger amounts of resources. This led to nations wanting to expand their rule to gain access to resources. I personally believe that Colonialism led to Imperialism. European nations began by establishing colonies in foreign areas to gain access to new resources that could not be easily accessed in Europe.
For this same reason the public opinion is divided with some people recognizing more negatives outweighing the positives while some suggest the opposite. Many people see the negative impact as being more significant because British rule in India resulted in impoverished, poor people and food shortages in India. Many people see the positive impact as being more significant because Britain brought infrastructure and technology to the Indian people. Because these viewpoints can both be supported, there is a great complexity to this issue. The position that should be taken on this issue is that British rule in India was a positive impact on the Indian people to a small extent.