Imperialism has been around for a very long time. Imperialism by definition is basically a very big country taking over a smaller one and holding it under its rules and/or laws.
For example the operation in 2003 in Iraq
The British decided to colonise Australia for several reasons:
1. To expand the British empire, and prevent the French from gaining a foothold in the Australian continent or in the southwest Pacific.
2. To solve the problem of Britain's overcrowded prisons (a consequence of the Industrial Revolution) by establishing a new penal colony in a land which showed promise for eventually becoming self-supporting. Britain had been sending their excess prisoners to North America, but the American War of Independence put a stop to the practice. Following this, the English were no longer able to transport surplus prisoners who couldn't legally be executed to North America.
3. Australia could provide commercial and political gains to Britain. Great Britain had grand plans for the continent, even (according to the June 1791 edition of the British "Lady's Magazine") planning spice plantations for the northwest corner of New South Wales, expected to bring considerable commercial advantages.
4. Due to war, Britain needed to find an alternative supply of Flax and timber as her Baltic supply was under threat. It was believed that nearby Norfolk Island would provide this.
5. Britain needed a port in the East to promote trade with China and to extend its naval and commercial power.
6. The continent had natural resources which England wanted.
The first permanent settlers arrived in Australia with the First Fleet on 26 January 1788 to set up the new penal colony.
Colonisation was simplified for Britain, which was able to prove to the satisfaction of the judicial system that Australia was terra nullius - a land without ownership - because the English found difficulty in locating any individual(s) able to negotiate a treaty with the indigenous inhabitants; this concept was first tested and found valid in 1827.
The fact that there were local inhabitants all over the continent didn't make much impression on the colonists, except for their nuisance value or as cheap or free labour: they'd no written language that Europeans found comprehensible, didn't wear clothes, and built nothing recognisable as houses; settlers viewed them in much the way they viewed kangaroos and possums.
The terra nullius ruling was eventually overturned by the Australian High Court in 1992 (the Mabo decision) and later reinforced by the Wik decision in 1996.
It is important to note that, although other countries had the opportunity to colonise Australia, they chose not to. Australia was first "officially" discovered by Dutch traders in the East Indies: however, they landed in the west, one of the least forgiving areas of the continent and decided that it was not worth colonising. Likewise the French, hearing of the Dutch discovery, sent an expedition to map more of the coast. This did not, however, lead to any attempts to colonise and the continent was left alone for another hundred years. Even the English pirate and explorer William Dampier, who also landed in the northwest, dismissed the continent as uninhabitable.
It was not until James Cook's successful voyage which involved charting the eastern coast of Australia, that New South Wales was seen as a viable proposition for a convict colony. In particular, it was endorsed by Sir Joseph Banks, the influential botanist who travelled with Cook. Banks was one of three botanists aboard Cook's ship "The Endeavour", and he was a passionate advocate of British settlement and colonisation of the Australian continent. It was largely upon Cook's and Banks's recommendation that Australian ultimately was colonised by the British, and not by another power later.
grabbing the land
growing for europe
exploiting the land
u can say imperialism is...
one countries control over another countries economy or goverment:)
blacksmithing silvermaking printer logger tanner stuff like that
They did !
Nationalism is pride in your nation. Colonial nationalism is pride in the colony a nation controls. It means great pride in the colony you live in.
Spanish conquistadores led by Hernan Cortes, who was in search of God, gold and glory.
the effects of British Colonialism on Ghana was and still is very numerous.There were positive effects like the introduction of the formal system of education which saw many shs being set up,the introduction of Christianity which can be seen as both a positive and a negative effect because the African Traditional Religion was totally abandoned.Negative effects such as the over exploitation of human resources, the interference in local politics, the increasing number of wars between states
France, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States all colonized Latin America at one point.
France- Guyane (French Guiana), Haiti, etc.
Spain- Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, etc.
Portugal- Brazil (which included modern day Uruguay)
United Kingdom- Mosquito Coast (Caribbean coast of Nicaragua)
United States- Panama
European Imperialists take over Canada.
First Nations get screwed over.
First Nations fight back for their land.
To be quite honest, there were no positive effects of China being conquered by foreign interests. True, the open door policy meant that China would trade with the world, but the Chinese didn't want to do that... ANYTHING that China was MADE TO DO DUE TO IMPERIALISM only benefited those who conquered them.
The imperialism had one positive effect on China, that was to make people of China realise the emperor and bureaucrats didn't have the ability to safeguard the land and protect their safety.
The incompetence of governance brought China defeats in battles with the imperialists and unequal treaties to its people. The door of Chinese long lasting close economy was opened by cannons. Opium flowed in and treasure flowed out, increased the burden of the nation. The imperialists scrambled for spheres of influence with each other, torn apart the once completed territory, the country was at a crisis.
Under such circumstance, people couldn't undergo suffering the oppression from both inside and outside. They rose up for their own survival, powerless but numerous. They want their fate in their own hands. At that moment, the struggling against imperialism and feudalism was begun.
There was a famous map in the link below that depicts the spheres of influence and China's political situation during the imperialists invasion. It was in cartoon form and used animal images to represent fierce intruders controlling vast areas of China whilst corrupt Chinese bureaucrats still daydreaming inland. The comments around the map means 'the situation is clear at a glance, no more words are needed'.
They ruled through a Governor with District Commissioners under him as was done in many of Britain's African colonies. In effect the DC was like a local Mayor but with far more power and no worries about re-election.
Some social forces were evolutionary teachings like social darwinism. It justified competition and struggle between European countries. These countries each thought they were the best, the 'fittest' and deserved most of the world.
Wanted to access to west africas resources
To find resources such as sugar cane to bring back to South America to sell and also to find gold
India was a rich country before the british tricked India into slavery.it had huge natural resources and abundant spices.
The general geographical area of what now is India was occupied by nearly 500 kingdoms with kings and monarchs ruling them. Most often the kings were warring among themselves. The British invasion unified the land into one big country.
1) Economic: motives included the desire to make money, to expand and control foreign trade, to create new markets for products, to acquire raw materials and cheap labor, to compete for investments and resources, and to export industrial technology and transportation methods.
2) Political: motives were based on a nation's desire to gain power, to compete with other European countries, to expand territory, to exercise military force, to gain prestige by winning colonies, and to boost national pride and security.
3) Religious: motives included the desire to spread Christianity, to protect European missionaries in other lands, to spread European values and moral beliefs, to educate peoples of other cultures, and to end slave trade in Africa.
4) Exploratory: motives were based on the desire to explore unknown or uncharted territory, to conduct scientific research, to conduct medical searches for the causes and treatment of diseases, to go on an adventure, and to investigate unknown lands and cultures.
The motive of imperialism was money land and resources. The Europeans wanted to gain more land and use the resources on that territory to gain more riches. Politically Britain wanted to obtain revenge and world prestige. If they obtained China's wealth such as their silk, they could exchange it for gold, which would boost them economically as well.
They were also motivated to spread their religion of Christianity and their style of government. The most important motive was to safeguard and protect both their their lands and their country.
France, Germany, Britain, USA, and Japan. French Polynesia & Tahiti are under French rule. Parts of New Guinea and part of Samoa were colonized by Germans. The British colonized Kiribati. The US colonized Guam and part of Samoa. The Japanese also colonized several islands nearer to Japan such as the Bonins.
The effects of imperialism are both positive and negative. The positive effects are banning inhumane traditional practices such as sati and the dowry system, promoting widow remarriage and prohibiting child marriage. The negative effects are that Britain caused the traditional industries to crash. Also, poverty increased. British officials were paid out of the India treasury.
THE GREAT IMPACT OF IMPERIALISM
Fundamentally, the imperialism idea comes from the early modernization concept that began with the 16th century. Afterwards renaissance, catholic reformation and reconnaissance actions follow this concept in order. Then geographical explorations take place in history and in this sense a lightening period exists by the help of these agendas. This lightening period consists of many different ideologies. We see these ideologies' changing and shaping time to time and one of these specific action-oriented ideas is seen as imperialism with its impact on some African and Asian part, in particular, the response of conquered areas to the "west" in late 19th century and early 20th century. In order to express what the imperialism is, it can be said that imperialism is an ideology to make good society by being rooted in a particular economic system, capitalism, and benefits a particular class, which Marxists call the bourgeoisie or ruling class. (Butterfield, 2002) In this sense, we see the colonization action of the "west" under the name of imperialism against the African and Asian part of the world in late 19th and early 20th century. In some countries we see the entire-colonization and in some of them there was semi-colonization according to some reasons that are related with their understanding of modernity and the way that they show their reactions. In general sense it can be implied that the reaction of Sub-Saharan Africa against the impact of "west imperialism" was more strict than the one in Central Asia; in terms of economic reasons, nationalism and religion.
To begin with the economic perspective of imperialism, imperialist countries' need of row material and market and the change in the meaning of imperialism seem to be the crucial point. Up to 17th century, imperialism was not related with capitalism because in these times land power was important. However in later period of time, especially in the late19th century the spread of industrialization in the world had achieved the point where international competition for markets was becoming profoundly. After the third threshold of industrial revolution, the new imperialist political ideologies became the state politics of European countries. In this sense colonization action of "west" powers takes place. As a provision, we see the strict; but at the same time invalid reaction of Africans. In Asian side, we don't see such kind of strict reaction as it is seen in Africa. This is because of their preparations against the probable imperialistic action of "west", that can be regarded as the extension of rapid modernization of "west". Especially European countries could not entirely colonized South Central Asian countries such as Iran and India. For example England could not fight with India; because India was not so weak in terms of economy and because of its economical interdependence, India's military modernization had been taken place in order to fight with any power. However the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa was not so pleasing. They were still living as tribal societies and they were ready to be treated as slave. First of all, by the investigations of the European missionaries, "west" were aware of the row material sources that were not used, such as cool and diamond. By the power in their hand, "west" took the region under control and made the people work for their benefit. They also made African pay taxes. Actually that led revolt against foreign occupation. Africans tried to kill the tax collectors as time goes by. For example in 1902 a tax collection exercise in Bailundo, in the center of what is now Angola, went badly wrong when local people rebelled violently, attacking tax collectors and traders (both European and African). This was the first time that Africans had rebelled against the Portuguese in Angola. (BBC WORLD SERVICE, no date) That shows how deeply they were affected from the power of "west". Also we understand that the gloom of Africans did not result from leaving their sources to "west" power. The main point that made them revolt was being made pay taxes.
Secondly in terms of nationalism, liberation struggles of colonized countries come next. Fundamentally, the idea of these struggles relies on the French Revolution and the nationalism idea that comes next. In this sense there are structured similarities between Asian and African independence struggles. However the only point that they differ from each other is the process of their struggles. It is because the Asian nations were more ready in terms of military concept by the qualified commanders that came from "west" in the colonization process. Thus their armies were trained professionally by the Europeans and they were ready to fight with the "west" by the technology that came from "west". Actually, it can be regarded as a contradiction in terms of training the nation and then loss of the colonized land because of the liberation action of that nation. In African side the situation was same; but their liberation process was too long. At that point the lack of modernization agendas can be shown as a reason.
One other point about liberation is the modern education concept in Africa and Asia that was supplied by Europeans. Thus we are faced with the same contradiction again. "West" was supplying the modern education as one of the prerequisite of imperialism and many scientists and thinkers were brought up. As time goes by these thinkers were affected by the ideologies such as nationalism. For example Indian national leader Gandhi was one of them and played a big role on gaining the independence of India after the 2nd World War. (Cody, 1990) In this example we see the specific show of the contradiction that is mentioned above.
Lastly to mention about the perspective of religion, the eurocenteric aim of spreading the Christianity all over the world under the idea of imperialism should be discussed. At that point, we see the similarity between South Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa again as we saw in liberation concept. In 19th century most of the Asian and African nations were Muslim and this was a big obstacle for the "west" to achieve their aim. "West" tried to assimilate the Asia and Africa; but they both showed their reaction similarly against the "west". (Pappas, no date) If it is needed to combine religion with nationalism there is something to think about. If the African and Asian nations had been Christian; may be the nationalism idea would loose its validity and its impact on gaining the independence. Moreover, may be the colonized countries would be still colonized under the power of "west". So it is obvious that the religion diversity made colonized nations fight for their independent conceit.
To sum up the agendas of the impact of imperialist "west", the insufficiency in the process of modernization and because of this, being under the control of "west" can be expressed as a summary. In the above examples we see that the impact of "west" and the probable reaction of South Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are based on some economical, ideological concepts and religion in the light of many specific processes. Also it was obvious that there were both similarities and diversities between Africa and Asia in the period of "west" imperialism and economical perspective was the most distinct one in terms of diversities. On the other hand in nationalism, liberation struggle, the hope of independence and independent conceit were the common points; although there was a little bit diversity in the sense of the process of these concepts.
Yes. It set a social framework in place that has provided education and health care for many of its' people. It has also had (limited) success in overcoming the caste system. It provided a framework for the government to move toward a free society without falling into communism. All of the above has made India one of the fast growing economies in the world, thus better able to support themselves.
No. Imperialism drained India's vast resources and potential for growth. The East India Company was founded by the British to increase trade in India, but it only became a monopoly there. Through bribes, diplomacy, and manipulation of weak native rulers, it prospered, and the Indian people saw little or no profit. It eventually became the most powerful political force. This of course silenced any Indian majority. Furthermore, Britain was the only country to prosper from the trading. It destroyed India economically and politically. India became dependent on foreign money and influence because of Imperialism.
They emigrated to the USA
Negatives- The British captured India in the guise of traders to loot the resources and wealth attacking the dignity, culture and character of Indians after making them slaves. Positives- For their own comforts and luxury developed the country with new gathered technologies after the country had been looted and ruined by the earlier invaders. India's ancient History is all of imperialism -of Kings and Rajas.
This is largely mis-informed. In fact "imperialism" doesn't start with the British. There are still those in Southern India who resent what they think is their "subjugation" by the incoming Aryans. There are many who dispute this account and want to insist that there was no real ethnic, linguistic or cultural differences between "Aryans" and "Dravidians".
Well documented are several waves of conquest by the Mughals, who were Muslim. The extent to which they forced Islam on the previously mainly Hindu populace if debated by scholars. However, it was not a period of peace between religions, and much of the inter-communal violence of later years has its roots in the Moghul conquest, one that boiled over recently was over the mosque/temple at Ayodhya.
When the Mughal invader Babur came down from Kabul in 1525, he first defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the battle of Panipat and then the Rajput King, Babur, took over a substantial part of northern India. One of his generals, Mir Baki Khan came to Ayodhya in 1528 and after reportedly destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site, built the " ... Babri Masjid.
Only a few years ago Hindu militants too over the site of the Mosque and pulled it down. I heard one say, "They took this from us 473 years ago and now we're taking it back."
As to slavery, and selling of slaves in the slave markets had been going on India for centuries, if not millennia before the British arrived on the sub-continent. This is in Wikipedia's article on slavery in India
During the raids of Mahmud of Ghazni in the 11th century, many chroniclers claim that his campaign of 1024 in which he sacked Ajmer, Nehrwala, Kathiawar, and Somnath was particularly successful in garnering more than 100,000 Hindu slaves for the Muslim general,
Slavery was a standard feature of the royal courts in India during the Mughal phase - and many of them were Hindu slaves of Muslim rulers - but not all.
By the time the British government took charge in India (as opposed to the East India company) the slave trade had been illegal in Britain and her colonies for half a century and slavery had been officially abolished throughout the British Empire. Back to Wikipedia
The arrival of the British East India Company and the imposition of crown rule following the Indian Rebellion in 1857 along with the influence of the British anti-slavery society of William Wilberforce eventually brought slavery and the slave markets to an end in India.
Did the British take money and land from the people who had lived there before them? Yes - particularly money. Again, look at the Muslim Mughal invaders and ask if they had not done the same when they managed to build their great palaces and mosques, and then settled down to rule the Hindus.
The negative of imperialism in India cannot really assessed, since it depends which conquests of India you are talking about - or even failed conquests. The defeat of Tipu Sultan by the British was a result of him taking anti-British side in a larger struggle - not for independence, but between the French and the British over who was going to be top dog in India.
Tipu himself was only a second-generation ruler, whose father had seized power in Mysore and spent much of his reign at war with his Hindu neighbors over who was going to have spoils of the disintegration of Mughal rule. Were they modern enlightened rulers with a real sense of the worth of those who did not share their religion? It does not seem likely.
There are still those today who feel that the men in power in Delhi are foreign oppressors. Some are Muslims, who have a picture of a benevolent set of Muslim rulers throughout India, spreading enlightenment. There are separatists in the Assam region, who have been fighting for decades to get their own state. The Sikhs occasionally remind everyone that many of them would like to throw off foreign rule and establish a separate Sikh state. That cause led to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by one her Sikh bodyguards.
As for the positives: again it depends which imperial power you have in mind. If it's the British then I would say that we left in India some good things - there is the greatest railway network in the world, still a main link keeping all the parts of India together.
The British tried, with mixed success, to remove what they thought were social evils - sati (the burning of widows), temple prostitution, slavery amongst others.
Then they gave to India the English language. This has been of enormous value to India since it means that educated classes (and many others) from different ends of the country, and different cultural backgrounds can talk to each other. There are more than 400 "native" Indian languages - many not mutually comprehensible. Even the independence movement was made easier by the shared English language.
However, I do not think that the Indians would be semi-literate without the British. They already had centuries-old schools and even universities and in many languages there was a written culture. In fact Sanskrit - one of the oldest of Indian languages may yet turn out to be the "fountain-head" from which the "Indo-European languages, including French, German and English are derived.
However, the biggest damage done to India by "imperialism" is probably the split in Indian society between Muslims and Hindus - which is a legacy of an older invasion.
What is pokediger1s password on roblox?
Asked By Wiki User
What is 8 divided by 2(2 plus 2)?
Asked By Wiki User
What website can you type in a riddle and get the answer?
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Cherry
Japanese export during the age of imperialism?
Asked By Wiki User
What year did Belize get colonized?
Asked By Wiki User
What are the disadvantages of colonization?
Asked By Wiki User
Why did the European Powers give up their colonies?
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.