NationStates Jolt Archive

Pretty much since the end of the Second World War, Imperialism has become a dirty word. Why so? Well, to most people this seems obvious - it removes the right of a people to self-determination and puts them at the mercy of a foreign state that may or may not choose to act in the way they want it to. It creates disempowerment and frustration, as well as friction. This is what happened in the latter stages of the British Empire, in any case. But why? In my opinion, the answer is simple - the British Empire become a political Empire controlled centrally from London, rather than a private Empire of trade and culture as the Americans have built. Of course, theirs is no where near as successful as ours was, nor is it as ideologically based or as prominent in world affairs. But why is Imperialism good?

Firstly, we should define Imperialism. I am talking here about economic Imperialism - where a state or (more importantly) private individuals from a state move into that state and, through investments, essentially take control of this state to all intents and purposes. This is what happened in India, which was not controlled centrally from London until the 1850s, as well as most of the settled colonies and the West Indies. So why is this good?

- By their very nature, potential colonies are small, weak and poor. Generally there are regular famines, frequent instability and violence as well as a great deal of general warfare. These states (if they are even states) are not pleasant places to live.

- Private individuals or companies move in, setting up (for example) mines or factories. These produce things that the factories sell and so make money. They are made by the natives who are then paid.

- This brings jobs to the states in question. Moreover, it also brings economic prosperity and means there are fewer reasons for there to be violence.

- Generally a company or individual may bring a security force to safeguard himself and his investment. Sometimes this is basically an army, as in the case of the East India Company. However, this does not enforce the will of the individual or company upon the people of the state, it merely protects the property and employees of the individual or company, bringing greater stability to the area.

This is what has happened across the world and this is why, on average, countries that have had more British influence (as this is primarily a British model - the other European models were somewhat different and so did not become as successful) are more successful. That is why Hong Kong and Signapore are capitalist bastions of a first world lifestyle whilst China, for all its overall strength, is a backward provider of subsistence agriculture and cheap, unskilled labour. That is why Canada, Australia, New Zealand and America - all once British - are rich and powerful countries.

However, there are two inherent flaws in the British system. The first is the most obvious and the one most heavily attacked by anti-Imperialists - the economic Imperialists get too big for their boots. They become social and political Imperialists. They try to enforce their will on an ambivalent or hostile people. They don't mind the jobs, but they don't want the bayonets. This is ultimately unsustainable. People will not work for you if they don't like you - they will smash your factories, flee in the hills and kill your troops. They will burn your crops and, eventually, tear down your flag unless you are willing to invest so much time, energy and manpower in beating them into line that the whole morally repugnant affair becomes a net loss-maker anyway.

The second is far more intricate, and far less easy to avoid - eventually the people grow used to their better lifestyle, and decide to take the factories for themselves. Regardless of your views on land redistribution, this is clearly wrong, as far as I am concerned - the owners put in the initial investment and hardwork, and it is their property. Theft is never noble, no matter the cause (and I believe the cause of redistribution to be a wrong one in any case). We have seen this happen most dramatically in Egypt, with the seizure of the Suez Canal. Also in Iran, when the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was to be nationalised.

Perhaps more tragically, we have seen it in Africa where state after state has elected or had imposed a government which has nationalised the foreign businesses. Generally this leads to one thing - failure and economic collapse. This is the main reason Africa is poor today - that and there not really being enough time to finish the job in Africa. South Africa, a nation that has retained a free market (albeit for some time under a tyrannical and racist government) all the way through and which has had the longest period of settlement (first the Dutch, then the British), is the richest in Africa - easily comparable to a first world nation.

Many would say that Imperialism is the cause of poverty in Africa. They couldn't be more wrong. Imperialism is nothing more than investment, and it benefits everyone. Imperialism at the barrel of a gun is certainly wrong and almost certainly dead. It is simply not sustainable in the long term. Economic Imperialism is still very much alive, and it is something that should be embraced, not rejected.

[Off-topic Notes: I just felt like writing that. I think it's pretty good. Any comments on either the ideas expressed (I'm expecting it to be a little contravercial) and the literary side are both appreciated.]

Prae... My father comes from Sabah - North Borneo - an ex British colony. I visit there every summer because I hardly ever see him, and what I see there is the result of British Imperialism. I look out the window and it disgusts me to se - oh wait, that's Indonesia, the ex Dutch colony, not Malaysia. Back to the other window. Without the British influence, Malaysia would not be the rising tiger economy it is today. They have a law system, education, infrastructure, healthcare, a growing economy, a stable (yet slightly corrupt) democracy. And they owe it to Britannia and her Imperialism. Without the British influence, they would have had none of that. Before the British, various other nationalities, mostly Chinese or Indian, had arrived and stolen most of the Cadazan(native Sabahan) land and claimed it as their own. The arrival of the British stopped this, and the British *returned the land* to those who previously owned it. When the Indonesians tried to assault sovereign Malaysian Federation land in 1962, Britain and various other commonwealth countries deployed a military presence, including aircraft carriers and royal marines, to aid its former colony. Colonialism and Imperialism can be bad, but it improves countries for the better.

Well, Britain did drag a lot of places, like India, out of the middle ages.

Imperialism was a nice game. But I prefer EU II.

I think that British Imperialism was more positive than the imperialism of say, France, or, worse yet, Belgium. But when you start taking away political freedoms of people, of self-determination and self-governance, it will eventually bring everything involved and everything accessible down with it. I wouldn't consider, however, a sphere of cultural and economic openness imperialism, however. I think rather that it's more like a community that is trying to maximize efficiency, without distant governance and centralization, which characterizes imperialism.

British imperialism was superior to that of any other colonizing nation. Overall, places colonized by Britain saw real gains in economic growth, infrastructure, security and personal/political freedoms than what had existed before.

It was that emphasis on the development of colonies as trading partners, strategic bases, and investment opportunities (and the significant gains in various sectors that entailed) rather than only brute resource extraction and national enrichment that made British imperialism so comparatively beneficial to the nations it was imposed upon.

British imperialism was superior to that of any other colonizing nation. Overall, places colonized by Britain saw real gains in economic growth, infrastructure, security and personal/political freedoms than what had existed before.

It was that emphasis on the development of colonies as trading partners, strategic bases, and investment opportunities (and the significant gains in various sectors that entailed) rather than only brute resource extraction and national enrichment that made British imperialism so comparatively beneficial to the nations it was imposed upon.

So long as they weren't black....

So long as they weren't black....

Racism was prevalent in every society on the planet at the time, and so was discrimination. The imperalist nations were really no worse than any other society when it came to those kinds of crimes. The only difference was the location in which the abuses occured.

Racism was prevalent in every society on the planet at the time, and so was discrimination. The imperalist nations were really no worse than any other society when it came to those kinds of crimes. The only difference was the location in which the abuses occured.

Well that justifies it then.

Well that justifies it then.

It doesn't justify it; however, the fact that those abuses existed doesn't marginalize the benefits of the task itself. Virtually any major human action has a dark side to it, but that doesn't necessarily make the action entirely bad. Some of the greatest benefits to mankind had horrendous costs.

For example, the Transcontinental Railroad was a great project that brought considerable economic development and linked the United States; there is no question it was to the benefit of people at large. However, the project also had numerous racial abuses of Chinese laborers, brutal campaigns against Native Americans, and many deaths due to dangerous conditions.

Firstly, we should define Imperialism. I am talking here about economic Imperialism - where a state or (more importantly) private individuals from a state move into that state and, through investments, essentially take control of this state to all intents and purposes. This is what happened in India, which was not controlled centrally from London until the 1850s, as well as most of the settled colonies and the West Indies. So why is this good?
- By their very nature, potential colonies are small, weak and poor. Generally there are regular famines, frequent instability and violence as well as a great deal of general warfare. These states (if they are even states) are not pleasant places to live.
You call pre-colonial India small? I believe that many pre-colonial people had enjoyable lives and that in many cases pre-colonial life was more enjoyable than post colonial. As for 'economic imperialism' it as often as not destroys social structures and environments. Just because a life style is not what you are accustomed to, does not mean it is unpleasant.

- Private individuals or companies move in, setting up (for example) mines or factories. These produce things that the factories sell and so make money. They are made by the natives who are then paid.
It is a well established fact that most of the money is shunted back to capitalist centres. Resource extraction from periphery locations does not benefit the local economy. Labour and resources are extracted at the lowest possible cost. In many cases in order to cause people to be willing to work for wages it is necessary first to destroy economic and social structures that are barriers to wage-work. Needless to say such destruction is not done for the good of the people who's structures are being destroyed and in most cases this is to the detriment of the people concerned.

- This brings jobs to the states in question. Moreover, it also brings economic prosperity and means there are fewer reasons for there to be violence.
Except it doesnt necessarily bring prosperity. In fact I suggest in most cases it doesnt bring prosperity. Evidently prosperity doesnt bring an end to violence.

- Generally a company or individual may bring a security force to safeguard himself and his investment. Sometimes this is basically an army, as in the case of the East India Company. However, this does not enforce the will of the individual or company upon the people of the state, it merely protects the property and employees of the individual or company, bringing greater stability to the area.

Nonesense. In colonial times armed forces did indeed enforce the will of the individual, company or state that controlled them. I can only suggest you head back to the history books.

This is what has happened across the world and this is why, on average, countries that have had more British influence (as this is primarily a British model - the other European models were somewhat different and so did not become as successful) are more successful. That is why Hong Kong and Signapore are capitalist bastions of a first world lifestyle whilst China, for all its overall strength, is a backward provider of subsistence agriculture and cheap, unskilled labour. That is why Canada, Australia, New Zealand and America - all once British - are rich and powerful countries.
You are dreaming! New Zealand is not rich or powerful. I dont see either Canada or Australia as particularly rich or powerful....what on earth are you on about?!

However, there are two inherent flaws in the British system. The first is the most obvious and the one most heavily attacked by anti-Imperialists - the economic Imperialists get too big for their boots. They become social and political Imperialists. They try to enforce their will on an ambivalent or hostile people. They don't mind the jobs, but they don't want the bayonets. This is ultimately unsustainable. People will not work for you if they don't like you - they will smash your factories, flee in the hills and kill your troops. They will burn your crops and, eventually, tear down your flag unless you are willing to invest so much time, energy and manpower in beating them into line that the whole morally repugnant affair becomes a net loss-maker anyway.
You are joking?! The entire colonial system wouldnt have gotten started if people had been well-fitted to their boots. From the outset political, social and economic imperialism was the intended policy. You seem to have some very misguided ideas about the whole imperialist/colonialist process.

The second is far more intricate, and far less easy to avoid - eventually the people grow used to their better lifestyle, and decide to take the factories for themselves. Regardless of your views on land redistribution, this is clearly wrong, as far as I am concerned - the owners put in the initial investment and hardwork, and it is their property. Theft is never noble, no matter the cause (and I believe the cause of redistribution to be a wrong one in any case). We have seen this happen most dramatically in Egypt, with the seizure of the Suez Canal. Also in Iran, when the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was to be nationalised.

Darn right theft is never noble, not even theft via economic imperialism.

Perhaps more tragically, we have seen it in Africa where state after state has elected or had imposed a government which has nationalised the foreign businesses. Generally this leads to one thing - failure and economic collapse. This is the main reason Africa is poor today - that and there not really being enough time to finish the job in Africa. South Africa, a nation that has retained a free market (albeit for some time under a tyrannical and racist government) all the way through and which has had the longest period of settlement (first the Dutch, then the British), is the richest in Africa - easily comparable to a first world nation.
The colonialist/imperialists left African nations in a frigging mess and is in all probability the single largest cause of the mess experianced there today.

Many would say that Imperialism is the cause of poverty in Africa. They couldn't be more wrong. Imperialism is nothing more than investment, and it benefits everyone. Imperialism at the barrel of a gun is certainly wrong and almost certainly dead. It is simply not sustainable in the long term. Economic Imperialism is still very much alive, and it is something that should be embraced, not rejected.
The only imperialism you have used for your examples was at the barrel of guns. Your only 'positive' examples are examples of the kind you then call 'certainly wrong'...hardly a convincing argument.
As it happens 'economic imperialism' even in modern times often requires the gun barrels you claim are unsustainable. For some reason people resent working their arses off in poor conditions while their environoment is degraded and their local resources depleted, all so someone in some other country can reap the huge benefits. This leads to unrest and often to violence.
Because economic imperialism is about exploitation, and because people dont like exploitation the guns become necessary eventually.

[Off-topic Notes: I just felt like writing that. I think it's pretty good. Any comments on either the ideas expressed (I'm expecting it to be a little contravercial) and the literary side are both appreciated.]
To be honest the entire piece seems to be based on ignorance, both historical and contemporary.

I agree with you on some points Praetonia: imperialism can help, but it can also hinder.

Imperialism led to the 1st world world which preceptitated the 2nd world war.

Imperialism has led to many hardships in various former colonies (see africa)

There are benefits and costs to Imperialism, even when it is performed by a responsible development and civic minded power (See: Great Britain). When it is performed by a hyper-exploitative mercantilist state it can be incredibly destructive and oppressive. (See: France and Belgium)

So then why would British people have such a problem with becoming a colony of the States, or the EU?

Could it just be that people like their countries to be sovereign and ruled by their own?

So then why would British people have such a problem with becoming a colony of the States, or the EU?
Your example confuses me.
Only inferior brownies, blacks and orientals are the proper targets of imperialism.
I thought everyone knew that.

Your example confuses me.
Only inferior brownies, blacks and orientals are the proper targets of imperialism.
I thought everyone knew that.

Into which category do the Irish fall?

Into which category do the Irish fall?
Obviously the Irish weren’t proper targets for imperialism.:D

Obviously the Irish weren’t proper targets for imperialism.:D

Piss off one man and all the scots revolt. Savage and beastly....scared the English out of their wigs and into their homes. XD

Obviously the Irish weren’t proper targets for imperialism.:D

The correct answer is: The Irish didn't fall into any category, they were pushed.

You are dreaming! New Zealand is not rich or powerful. I dont see either Canada or Australia as particularly rich or powerful....what on earth are you on about?!

New Zealand, Canada and Australia are all wealthy countries, with GDPs well within the range of Western Europe and the United States, get your head out of your ass.

Let me see here, you forgot that under economic Imperialism, the standard mode of operation was to force the colony to make goods and ship raw materials to the mother country, the mother country then returned with various goods and sold them to the colony. The colony was allowed to buy from the mother country only and was economically bound to the mother country, no matter what the cost or if there were better trading partners. This economic hostage situation tends to lead to people in the colony getting cranky that their country is not allowed to devlop according to their own will.

It should be noted that one of the primary causes of the American revolution was economic do to the unfair colony trading system as imposed by Great Britian.

China was British, not just the Hong Kong part of it, and the British did their level best to addict the Chinese to opium in order to sell it to China, hardly a laudable or great move on the part of the Empire and led to both the Boxer and Opium wars (and, ironically, scared the Japanese silly and led to them adopting Western style Imperialism themselves and setting up for WWII).

Your examples of the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as countries that have benifited greatly from imperialism are suspect as well. In all cases, British (or other Europeans) moved in and so displaced the native populations that said populations have effectively ceased to have any say in their own home countries. Look at the stolen generation in Australia and the native schools in both the US and Canada. The treatment of all these populations in the name of colonzation and Imperialism was hardly just, right or fair and none have benifited really from the economic might that those countries command.

No, I see no real value to Imperialism, economic or otherwise.

There are benefits and costs to Imperialism, even when it is performed by a responsible development and civic minded power (See: Great Britain). When it is performed by a hyper-exploitative mercantilist state it can be incredibly destructive and oppressive. (See: France and Belgium)

Britain had a more liberal government then France or Belgium or Spain. Mostly, this lead to Britain being better able to adapt to problems in the colonies. Additionally, Britain screwed up badly in a few places, take Ireland, Ghana, Nigeria, the partitioning of India... they have had their stumbles too.

New Zealand, Canada and Australia are all wealthy countries, with GDPs well within the range of Western Europe and the United States, get your head out of your ass.
My head is not in my arse. I never stated that any of these nations were poor. They are not accurately described (in my opinion) as 'rich and powerful'. You are entitled to have a different opinion. You are not entitled to make statements about my intimate orifaces. Perhaps you should pull your own head in...:rolleyes:

Imperialism leads to disaster. Only Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought can save the world.

Racism was a novel thought in the nineteenth century. Generally it came from the colonies and reached Britain rather than vice versa. When racism was proposed in England at the start of the nineteenth century, it was by colonials who were run out of town. Sadly, this changed.

It is also worth considering that the Empire expanded more under the liberal, wishy washy Gladstone than the imperialist Disraesli. As soon as other countriues started grabbing parts of the globe, it was not longer possible to hope to deal with independent countries outside Europe.

Am I the only one annoyed that the credit for development in the third world countries is being attributed to the first world, instead of the actual country that developed?

As for imperialism, I think Mr. Fanon would have quite a lot to say.

Am I the only one annoyed that the credit for development in the third world countries is being attributed to the first world, instead of the actual country that developed?
Well, they have to justify foreign aid somehow.

Well, Britain did drag a lot of places, like India, out of the middle ages.

More like the blood and loot from the colonies propelled the growth of colonial powers.

Racism was a novel thought in the nineteenth century. Generally it came from the colonies and reached Britain rather than vice versa. When racism was proposed in England at the start of the nineteenth century, it was by colonials who were run out of town. Sadly, this changed.

Rudyard Kipling must have thought of black man's burden, if that were the case.

You seem to be referring to the first age of British Imperialism were nations were brought into the empire for profit under a nation state economy however that idea become obsolete after the United states won independence suddenly we realised we could still have the rich trading partner but now we didn’t have to pay for its protection under this system Britain profited far more than under the old nation state economy and that’s the way things stayed for quite some time until Empire for the sake of Empire kicked in

suggest you read about Imperialism before talking about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_empire

Rudyard Kipling must have thought of black man's burden, if that were the case.

That would be the Kipling of the late nineteenth century, when I was saying racism was far more 'in'.

You are agreeing.

So then why would British people have such a problem with becoming a colony of the States, or the EU?

Could it just be that people like their countries to be sovereign and ruled by their own?

I wouldn't mind being a colony of the US actually. Their government system seems better than ours, except for the religious elements.

I wuv imperialism.
If it werent for it, we wouldnt have Pcs... probobly.
America would still be native.
India would be eating itself to the shits because of the internal probs.
China would still be full of drugee's

India and the Thugs would still be there.
Commonwealth trade helps africa.
RULEE BRITANNIA!
BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES.

ps rule britannia is not racist, i challenge anyone to find a racist comment.
If you cannot, do kindly keep your knee-jerk idiot opinions to yourself.

The imperialism of the Belgian Congo was hardly beneficial. It is impossible to say what the situation would be if imperialism had not occured and to just assume it would have remained as the horror stories of imperialists depicted seems misguided.

The imperialism of the Belgian Congo was hardly beneficial. It is impossible to say what the situation would be if imperialism had not occured and to just assume it would have remained as the horror stories of imperialists depicted seems misguided.

Well lemme say this.
If imperialism hadnt occured and the Whites hadnt expanded
The blacks would have.

To think otherwise is so stupid you need to vote republicans.
Its not racist, its just fact.
So imperialism would have occured ANYWAY

Well lemme say this.
If imperialism hadnt occured and the Whites hadnt expanded
The blacks would have.

To think otherwise is so stupid you need to vote republicans.
Its not racist, its just fact.
So imperialism would have occured ANYWAY
You know this for certain? You have some magic ball that tells you this?

Well lemme say this.
If imperialism hadnt occured and the Whites hadnt expanded
The blacks would have.

To think otherwise is so stupid you need to vote republicans.
Its not racist, its just fact.
So imperialism would have occured ANYWAY

As some huge co-ordinated mass movement?

People tend to expand when they have the numbers. What is your point?

The British and most European countries only really made a big push when they feared that other countries were going to grab the rest of the globe. Perhaps if Europe was united like China, there would not have been the same push.

Please, do not try and come the all knowing.

That would be the Kipling of the late nineteenth century, when I was saying racism was far more 'in'.

You are agreeing.

Kipling was a domiciled Indian. Your premise is that the colonialst picked up racism from the natives (as though they were the victims:rolleyes: ) and then passed it back to the natives.

Which is utter BS.

At the very initial stages of colonialisation, there was some mixture between the Brits and Indians. The book "White Mughals" has lots of info on this.

But when the conquest was complete, the sense of superiority took over and racism set in. This is when signs of "Indians and dogs not allowed" were put up in clubs.

But somehow the colonialists must have picked it up from the natives.:rolleyes:

Kipling was a domiciled Indian. Your premise is that the colonialst picked up racism from the natives (as though they were the victims:rolleyes: ) and then passed it back to the natives.

Which is utter BS.

At the very initial stages of colonialisation, there was some mixture between the Brits and Indians. The book "White Mughals" has lots of info on this.

But when the conquest was complete, the sense of superiority took over and racism set in. This is when signs of "Indians and dogs not allowed" were put up in clubs.

But somehow the colonialists must have picked it up from the natives.:rolleyes:

So, you are getting smug and superior over something you imagined I wrote.

"But somehow the colonialists must have picked it up from the natives.": I do not say this, I struggle to see how you think I implied it. Britons went to foriegn lands, often idealistic. They settled and became racist and then imported this feeling back to the UK.

I say nothing else and your idiotic smugness does you no favours.

Britons went to foriegn lands, often idealistic. They settled and became racist and then imported this feeling back to the UK.

Often idealistic?

What is idealistic in looting?

Forget my idiocy or smugness, your romantic notions of colonialism is not doing you any favor either.

Well lemme say this.
If imperialism hadnt occured and the Whites hadnt expanded
The blacks would have.

To think otherwise is so stupid you need to vote republicans.
Its not racist, its just fact.
So imperialism would have occured ANYWAY
In some form or another.

Often idealistic?

What is idealistic in looting?

Forget my idiocy or smugness, your romantic notions of colonialism is not doing you any favor either.
They obviously wouldn't be told about the bad things that happend so they would have thought that the natives where doing fine.

RULEE BRITANNIA!
BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES.

ps rule britannia is not racist, i challenge anyone to find a racist comment.
If you cannot, do kindly keep your knee-jerk idiot opinions to yourself.
It might not be racist but it is supremacist. You're wrong on the rest of the post but I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct it.

It might not be racist but it is supremacist. You're wrong on the rest of the post but I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct it.

Not to mention Britain hasn't ruled the waves since 1945. It is the US that Rules the Waves now :D

Often idealistic?

What is idealistic in looting?

Forget my idiocy or smugness, your romantic notions of colonialism is not doing you any favor either.

:headbang:

Look, do you think Joseph Conrad was full of romantic notions of colonialism when he wrote Heart of Darkness, yet he depicted idealism concealing a heart of darkness.

I have already cited the Belgian Congo, do you think that was me saying how good things were.

Good people do terrible things. Colonialism saw terrible, terrible things, yet was justified through idealism. That is why it did not just rely on evil baddies with crooked grins.

Often Europeans assumed they could simply export their ideals to far off lands and everyone would live happily. Generally people have to justify things to themselves, even slavery.

"But somehow the colonialists must have picked it up from the natives": You accpet I never suggested anything like this, either directly or indirectly I take it?

They obviously wouldn't be told about the bad things that happend so they would have thought that the natives where doing fine.

Yes, they would want to hear about the gratitude of the natives for bringing trade and how they were progressing with eduction. The idea that people would not want a foriegn army in their lands would not be a popular story.

China would still be full of drugee's


Actually, it was BECAUSE of British Imperalism and your opium that China was "full of drugee's" :upyours: :sniper:

Actually, it was BECAUSE of British Imperalism and your opium that China was "full of drugee's" :upyours: :sniper:

Spot on. Depressingly true.

Actually, it was BECAUSE of British Imperalism and your opium that China was "full of drugee's" :upyours: :sniper:

100% Accurate! Opium Wars anyone?

Actually, it was BECAUSE of British Imperalism and your opium that China was "full of drugee's" :upyours: :sniper:
Some people realy need sarcasm tags.

Actually, it was BECAUSE of British Imperalism and your opium that China was "full of drugee's" :upyours: :sniper:

Well then they would be filled with....erm...umm...people with funny hats? Or maybe people with...ummm...silly looking shoes? Yea, something evil and satanic like that. Obviously opium was a far better alternative.

So long as they weren't black....
The Brits were rather less racist than say, the Belgians or the Boers. Also, unlike the Belgians they tended not to go for the same kind of ultra-gratuitous genocide and most places that they pulled out of had a decent infrastructure left in place. Unlike France.

Excuse me while I go and wash my hands of this defence of Brit imperialism.

More like the blood and loot from the colonies propelled the growth of colonial powers.
I would say that both our statements are true.

The Brits were rather less racist than say, the Belgians or the Boers. Also, unlike the Belgians they tended not to go for the same kind of ultra-gratuitous genocide and most places that they pulled out of had a decent infrastructure left in place. Unlike France.

Excuse me while I go and wash my hands of this defence of Brit imperialism.

Too late, you are clearly a racist, British imperialist!

:p

Imperialism was a nice game. But I prefer EU II.


Less action, but far more maneuvering and duplicity involved.

The second is far more intricate, and far less easy to avoid - eventually the people grow used to their better lifestyle, and decide to take the factories for themselves. Regardless of your views on land redistribution, this is clearly wrong, as far as I am concerned - the owners put in the initial investment and hardwork, and it is their property. Theft is never noble, no matter the cause (and I believe the cause of redistribution to be a wrong one in any case). We have seen this happen most dramatically in Egypt, with the seizure of the Suez Canal. Also in Iran, when the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was to be nationalised.

Perhaps more tragically, we have seen it in Africa where state after state has elected or had imposed a government which has nationalised the foreign businesses. Generally this leads to one thing - failure and economic collapse. This is the main reason Africa is poor today - that and there not really being enough time to finish the job in Africa. South Africa, a nation that has retained a free market (albeit for some time under a tyrannical and racist government) all the way through and which has had the longest period of settlement (first the Dutch, then the British), is the richest in Africa - easily comparable to a first world nation.

Many would say that Imperialism is the cause of poverty in Africa. They couldn't be more wrong. Imperialism is nothing more than investment, and it benefits everyone. Imperialism at the barrel of a gun is certainly wrong and almost certainly dead. It is simply not sustainable in the long term. Economic Imperialism is still very much alive, and it is something that should be embraced, not rejected.

[Off-topic Notes: I just felt like writing that. I think it's pretty good. Any comments on either the ideas expressed (I'm expecting it to be a little contravercial) and the literary side are both appreciated.]

So stopping the flow of your resources out of your country is wrong, but jumping off a boat and subverting a countries economic interests to your own at the point of a fun for a few centuries is ok. Strange set of standards that. By the way, the attempt to nationalise the oil in Iran led to a anglo-American/French backed coup, the payment for which was 25 years of Iranian oil revenues. Thus they received the money, without having to put up with the nasty business of governing the natives. "outsourcing" in a way.

As regards the person who said that the British "dragged" India out of the middle ages, its truer to say it kept them there for as long as it suited them. As far as I know, the British picked up the habit of washing regularily from India.

So stopping the flow of your resources out of your country is wrong, but jumping off a boat and subverting a countries economic interests to your own at the point of a fun for a few centuries is ok. Strange set of standards that. By the way, the attempt to nationalise the oil in Iran led to a anglo-American/French backed coup, the payment for which was 25 years of Iranian oil revenues. Thus they received the money, without having to put up with the nasty business of governing the natives. "outsourcing" in a way.

As regards the person who said that the British "dragged" India out of the middle ages, its truer to say it kept them there for as long as it suited them. As far as I know, the British picked up the habit of washing regularily from India.

Washing is over rated.

The tea and curry, though, ah yes....

Less action, but far more maneuvering and duplicity involved.
Bigger maps. More managing. More enemies to conquer for the glory of the gloriouse all powerfull empire of Benin. You should see what our witchdoctors can do. We have more gold then anyone else. And now Portugal is our vassal.

Bigger maps. More managing. More enemies to conquer for the glory of the gloriouse all powerfull empire of Benin. You should see what our witchdoctors can do. We have more gold then anyone else. And now Portugal is our vassal.
We shall convert the ignorant heathen christains to the true faith and bring civilisation to their land!

Interesting arguement. Well thought out. But please don't show this to Bush!