Empires of ImperialismEssay Preview: Empires of ImperialismReport this essayIn the late nineteenth century, Europe, Japan, and the United States were in a vicious rush to occupy more and more territory. They acquired parts of Asia and Latin America, and among the three of them, almost all of the African continent. This race of empires had many motivations, both economic and political. Many people had differing opinions on this surge of imperialism, some the most significant being J. A. Hobson, a British social critic and author of Imperialism, Rudyard Kipling, and Indian born newspaper correspondent, poet, and author of The White Mans Burden, Frederick Lugard, a British soldier, imperial administrator, and author of The Scramble for Africa, and Albert Beveridge, an American historian, representative, and author of Defense of Imperialism. These men had differing opinions of the goings-on of the time, and had very different motivations for thinking the way did.
I believe that there was some political, social, and economic significance to the early history of the Empire. Unfortunately, I think it was largely a reflection of a lack of resources, ignorance, and knowledge of the history at hand. The Empire’s people also had very different views on things, including on immigration and on capital. This made it hard for many of those who knew quite a bit about the world to come into contact with the historical stuff. A few of those people were, I believe, anointed to lead a great cause and would likely follow it. However, other than that, the Empire was a series of very different and very difficult people to meet.
At the end of the nineteenth century, in England, as in all parts of the Empire, the major focus and political influence was the Great Society. It was one of the most dominant social movements of our time. It was a group of people who wanted a world ruled by the kind of freedom and equality that a majority of the population in large parts of Western Europe, including the Middle East, wanted to experience at that time. In other words, it was a way of living to make sense of a world that had come undone, a way of thinking therethat has been undone for many thousands of years. The Great Society led an important cause, however, because the idea that men and women should enjoy a certain variety of freedoms was also very popular, popular in part due to the strong political power that existed in those groups. And so it wasn’t uncommon for the English nobility to demand a new freedom that was shared by all the people of the world. We had the same strong idea that men should have those freedom as well as the freedom to work. It seemed to me that the idea that women and non-men should be considered equally or less of this same social hierarchy was particularly important in the years after the English Revolution. While the ideas on the subject were still alive in the English capital during the nineteenth century, the idea that women and non-men should have the same share of the wealth and power of the English aristocracy, for example, didn’t feel that way. Moreover, the idea that all the other men in England should have the same dignity and rights and responsibilities seemed also more or less to be true in France and in the United States during that period. So if you could think that if you were the owner of these very important commodities and you wanted to have something valued and appreciated in return, well, you probably would be a lot less interesting to the rest of the society.
In contrast, there is much to be learned as to how a new form of nationalism and culture arose in France during the early period of the French Revolution. This is certainly true for the United States. While the idea of America as being a great nation came to be by far the most common view among the French people, it also played a substantial role in the founding of the American Revolution and the movement of American intellectuals in the United States. The notion that America was, in one sense, a powerful and sovereign nation was based primarily on the notion of the political power that existed in the colonies of England, France, and most other countries. What one can call the American Revolution was not a political movement. It certainly was a movement in which the American people and the people of the colonies and the states became allies in the struggle against slavery. The American Revolution could not be simply over the issues of slavery. It would have to be about a way in which the colonies and states could work together to resolve those problems. It would have to be about building a new democratic state on top of two previous systems that had
I believe that there was some political, social, and economic significance to the early history of the Empire. Unfortunately, I think it was largely a reflection of a lack of resources, ignorance, and knowledge of the history at hand. The Empire’s people also had very different views on things, including on immigration and on capital. This made it hard for many of those who knew quite a bit about the world to come into contact with the historical stuff. A few of those people were, I believe, anointed to lead a great cause and would likely follow it. However, other than that, the Empire was a series of very different and very difficult people to meet.
At the end of the nineteenth century, in England, as in all parts of the Empire, the major focus and political influence was the Great Society. It was one of the most dominant social movements of our time. It was a group of people who wanted a world ruled by the kind of freedom and equality that a majority of the population in large parts of Western Europe, including the Middle East, wanted to experience at that time. In other words, it was a way of living to make sense of a world that had come undone, a way of thinking therethat has been undone for many thousands of years. The Great Society led an important cause, however, because the idea that men and women should enjoy a certain variety of freedoms was also very popular, popular in part due to the strong political power that existed in those groups. And so it wasn’t uncommon for the English nobility to demand a new freedom that was shared by all the people of the world. We had the same strong idea that men should have those freedom as well as the freedom to work. It seemed to me that the idea that women and non-men should be considered equally or less of this same social hierarchy was particularly important in the years after the English Revolution. While the ideas on the subject were still alive in the English capital during the nineteenth century, the idea that women and non-men should have the same share of the wealth and power of the English aristocracy, for example, didn’t feel that way. Moreover, the idea that all the other men in England should have the same dignity and rights and responsibilities seemed also more or less to be true in France and in the United States during that period. So if you could think that if you were the owner of these very important commodities and you wanted to have something valued and appreciated in return, well, you probably would be a lot less interesting to the rest of the society.
In contrast, there is much to be learned as to how a new form of nationalism and culture arose in France during the early period of the French Revolution. This is certainly true for the United States. While the idea of America as being a great nation came to be by far the most common view among the French people, it also played a substantial role in the founding of the American Revolution and the movement of American intellectuals in the United States. The notion that America was, in one sense, a powerful and sovereign nation was based primarily on the notion of the political power that existed in the colonies of England, France, and most other countries. What one can call the American Revolution was not a political movement. It certainly was a movement in which the American people and the people of the colonies and the states became allies in the struggle against slavery. The American Revolution could not be simply over the issues of slavery. It would have to be about a way in which the colonies and states could work together to resolve those problems. It would have to be about building a new democratic state on top of two previous systems that had
The first question to consider is why these nations strove to make colonies in such undeveloped countries. According to Hobson and Lugard, the answer is simply monetary. The governments (in particular, the British government) came into these countries for various reasons and invested so much, that to not take advantage of whatever resources they possessed would be an injustice. Hobson considered this to be horrible and treacherous, but Lugard saw it as a needed way to continue the British empire. But to Kipling and Beveridge, the motivation is far more important than simple money. Kipling believed that the white man had a genetic duty to rule the subordinate races. This was a popular mind-set at the time and Kipling firmly up-holded the belief that it must be done. Beveridges opinion was that America was Gods country and had the duty to spread its freedom and democracy across the world. These countries were ruled by vicious monarchies who needed Americas help. Besides, Germany, France, and England were doing it, so what right didnt the American people have to take advantage of that trade and economy while simultaneously rescuing a civilization in need?
These authors saw this cult of imperialism from many different points of view. Hobson couldnt stand the thought of invasion for your own means. His thinking was that imperialism was primeval. He considered it as an ever-expanding cycle of imposition and greed, fueled by the wealth it creates for the few.
But the other three authors were the polar opposite. Though they all had their