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.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

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.