Africa contained a great number of natural rescources valuable to Europe such as: cotton, palm oil, rubber, ivory, gum, peanuts, bananas, coffee, cocoa, zinc, lead, coal, and copper. These valuable raw materials were used to create products that Europe could export and trade for a huge profit. These products included: fabrics, soaps, candles, tires, drugs, food products, electrical wiring, electrical insulation, rope and twine, jewelry, and many others. The invasion of Africa yielded many valuable economic advancements, and created a logical reason for Europe to invade. European imperialism in Africa was partly due to rivalries between the different European countries involved, with Britain, Germany and France the dominant powers.
In this essay I will use four interpretations given as evidence to determine whether Napoleons European Empire in 1804 offered little benefit to its subjects. I will also asses other factors such as the idea Napoleon only had French/France interests at heart. I will also look at the laws and policies Napoleon carried out. And finally I will look at Napoleons participation in the rise of nationalism in places such as Italy. In interpretation A Napoleon is said to have been inspired from ‘Roman ‘principles’ and was known to take it very seriously.
Historical Investigation A. Plan of the Investigation To what extent did Napoleon Bonaparte’s rise to power affect European culture as we currently know it, especially his attributions to law systems and various forms of politics? Different sources will be used to look at Napoleon’s influences and his direct attributions made in European society. From one aspect, Napoleon made Europe realize that the rule of Royalty and Aristocracy was dead. He opened their eyes to the ideals of democracy and the free world.
There are time periods in the history of both Japan and Western Europe (namely England and France) in which feudalism was the system of government. It was the major political system of both cultures between the 11th and 13th centuries, involving a system of mutual obligations. Though they share the same name, there are a few major differences between the two versions, causing European feudalism to stand out as what most people likely think of feudalism today and Japanese feudalism to fall into the background. Although both systems of feudalism were based on mutual obligations and protection and influenced the social structures of their people, European feudalism was created to protect Europeans from outside invasions and was mainly economic while Japanese feudalism developed because of internal attacks by groups of uncontrolled armies and had more of a military aspect. European and Japanese feudalism were similar in the fact that they both developed out of a need for protection.
It is important to recognise what constitutes fascism especially when we consider the similarities and differences that belong to different fascist regimes in Italy, Japan and Germany and how they differ from authoritarian movements in Eastern Europe. “It is still no easy matter to pinpoint fascism precisely” (Laqueur 1976 p. 315) although, all three countries shared certain characteristics with each other before the Second World War began and have contributed to its rise. I would argue the basic principles of fascism are based on absolute power of the state, aggressive dictator rule, fierce nationalism, totalitarian ambition, militarism and arguably, are revolutionary. It can also be said that fascism is anti-socialist, anti-democratic, anti-liberal and anti-parliamentary. In a fascist state there is no power greater than the power of the state.
I found this to be a great parallel to his overall goal of seeking to transform feudal Japan. Fukuzawa was a very intelligent mad, but in order for his intelligence to blossom it took dedication and strong-will. Fukuzawa understood that bringing Western ideas to Japan was going to be hard; but knew Japan would be so much better off if the country
The Social Contract, a philosophical masterpiece written by the famous French writers Jean Jacques Rousseau, greatly influenced the course of the French Revolution. Rousseau’s pioneering conception of General Will enlightened the mainstream thinkers as well as the ordinary french people in the late 18th Century France. One of those political activist and writer, Emmanueal Joseph Sieyès( 1748-1836) justified the political legitimacy of the Third Estate. He argues that the aristocracy is acting against the General Will whereas the Third Estates represents the General Will of the French people and are thus the legitimate representative of the nation. Sieyes’s admitted the fact that Third Estate represents the General Will.
France ordered Algiers in hopes to colonize it. France also conquered Tunis and secured special rights on Morocco. The Suez Canal built by Ferdinand de Lessepes joined the Mediterranean and Red Seas. It became a very important shortcut between Asia and Europe. Italy took control of Tripoli and renamed it Libya when they defeated the Ottoman Turks in 1911.
Advantages of imperialism will be discussed, as well as some of the disadvantages. Technology also played and key role in imperialism and will also be talked about in this paper. In conclusion, the paper will reiterate the perception of necessity for growth in the nation during this time. The description of imperialism in traditional usage is “the forcible extension of governmental control over foreign areas not designated for incorporation as integral parts of the nation” (Healy, 2008). More specifically, imperialism is the use of powerful national influence to impose its position over another society to acquire control of territory, government, and economy.
APUSH DBQ ESSAY The view of overseas expansion in the late 19th and early 20th century was mainly driven by Imperialism. With that being said, there emerged two groups with viewpoints on overseas expansion, imperialists and anti-imperialists. Although there are plenty of differences, the main one between the two was over territorial expansion. The imperialists were all for it, thinking that it would help the American market and the depressed economy from the panic of 1893. On the other hand, the anti-imperialists argued that it went against our American democracy and was harmful to the territories we were trying to acquire and our country itself.