Category: Imperialism

It is a ways stated that the bringing of Civilisation trust and infrastructure inspired the scramble for Africa by using European powers due to the fact European human beings were on two folds functions specially the unfold of Christianity and colonization whereby evangelical ministries were placed in Africa to civilize African human beings to be developed, advanced, and skilled as Roman imperialism made the foundations of contemporary civilizations which counteracted African barbarism, cruelty, torceculture at the equal time moulding Africans with material wishes of European civilization and European states pledged themselves to cooperation solemn convenent to produce best penalties on the African perspective and the situation count number discuss the reasons for scramble for Africa, nearby scramble triggers, And treaties made with European powers, dual mandate theory have an effect on in sub-saharan Africa and the remaining verdict on whether or not or no longer European powers produce civilization belief and infrastructure or not.

The mere motives for scrambling for Africa have to be expected monetary causes and or political obtain by using European powers. Behind the effect of either the economic or political reasons for the scramble for Africa used to be the problem of European imperialism which meant nothing else barring territorial increase and occupation either through peaceful potential or coerciful means. (Chambalain:1974) preserve that The capacity of imperialism as quickly meant nothing more than a guide for an empire and it was once used by the partisans of Napoleon in their conflict in the direction of the French Republic¹. It supposed that the explanations for the scramble had been a convergence of vital factors determined that monetary or political gain

Furthermore, there have been colonial motivations in Africa (Lugard, FD pp218-229). That man did that European imperialism largely benefited the African continent namely, Senegal through the potential of France, Congo through Belgium King, and Egypt by Britain. colonial motivations have been pushed by a colonial administrator diagnosed as Frederick Lugard who gave pointers on forces to attack Buganda’s protestants in order to have Uganda agreement and the sub-imperialism of the Baganda². Through his instructions, navy forces destroyed the Sokoto caliphate and overpowered Nigeria in 1912. Frederick lugard used an indirect rule computing device that used biblical reputation to collect Africans’ favors. European powers concept that African uncooked resources had been no longer used by way of Africans and as a result European powers headed to take the likelihood of the usage of African raw materials so that Europe and Africa benefit. European powers had to come to Africa for egocentric reasons on top of what they prommulgaicated based totally on civilization religion and infrastructure creation.

Europe has a cause of seeing Africa diminishing instead of being developed and superior due to the fact it desired to take Africa`s satisfaction and possessions to belong to Europe as it used to be boosted with the useful resource of the Industrial Revolution which induced Europe to be nearer to Africa and Europe noticed African raw treasures and was as soon as attracted. The scramble for Africa had already been taken through as Britain had already had her colonies in Africa and Britain strategically used free change to reap political electrical energy in order to put into effect financial dominance.  Free alternate used to be the truth of a passport to supremacy³. The scramble had trigger 1 which worried the entice of Bambuk gold which covered the following territories the exclusive European rule, occupation of Algeria in 1830, western Sudan, Francoise de I Afrique Equitorial in 1830, and the champagne du Senegal (1881), and the territories of Niger company.

Moreover, the scramble set off 2 involved king Leopold II being covered and he played an important role in the scramble by means of the acquisition of territory in Central Africa. He hoped that he would improve Africa both in scientific and humanitarian desires and he recruited Henry Morton Stanley (journalist and explorer) who made treaties with many common leaders inside the Congo ambit as promises to free slaves changed ironically due to the truth deep down their hearts they had secret agenda of scrambling Central Africa. Congo was once as soon noted to be a free kingdom divided into Compagnie du Kasai, the Champagne du Katanga, the Abir rubber business corporation, and advertising.

The closing scramble set off three worried bondholders on the Nile which allowed the government to buy Egypt`s last final asset due to Egypt`s bankruptcy and that alone allowed Egypt to be severely manipulated by using the usage of European powers due to the fact Egypt misplaced her political, social, and financial powers over the government. Allied powers and France severely manipulated Egypt`s chief to have a commission of an inquiry about public debt in 1878 and that on my own compelled Ismail to be considered as a horrific chief and had no preference alternatively compelled him to appoint an English and Frenchman to run Egyptian treasurer (dual manage supposed Englishman and the Frenchman controlling Egyptian finances. Ismail was once vehemently abused by way of Britain and France in his administration and that resulted in public riots with many Europeans killed and that introduced an Army to assault Egypt in 1882. Thus, the Suez Canal was once managed through Brian and the sea route to India, and that indicated Britain had USA broad pastimes in Egypt compared to France who had economic interests.

The dual mandate notion through Frederick Lugard highlighted the rate of position in the tropics of Africa consisting of native races. That was called the dual mandate due to the reality Britain had to play a role and African states had to cooperate with supremacy and that contributed to a big contrast as to whether or not they got here for evangelical ministries or political domination with the effect to have a right to rule over African states by means of liberal democracy. In this regard Britain exploited Africa as if she wanted to civilize her and create developmental infrastructures in the quick run, alternatively, in the lengthy run, Britain had imperialist implications and connotations, and subsequently, Britain was supposed to have territorial enlargement and occupation of African states barring the initial implication of propagating civil religion and developmental infrastructures.

Finally, it was false that the bringing of civilization faith and infrastructure brought about the scramble for Africa due to the reality scramble for Africa had political, budget-pleasant motives through the ability of European powers when focusing on the causes of the scramble for Africa, nearby scramble triggers, and made treaties and the dual mandate theory make the assertion about civilization religion and infrastructure to be mockery because the actual real colorings the place displaying the convergently on the trouble of the scramble for Africa cease partitioning of Africa in a Berlin convention of 1884 and the goal used to be to triumph over Africa and dominate over her treasured uncooked substances so that Africa will remain subjugated to European domination.

It is false that the bringing of Civilisation trust and infrastructure inspired the scramble for Africa through European powers due to the fact European human beings were on two folds functions especially the unfold of Christianity and colonization whereby evangelical ministries were placed in Africa to civilize African human beings to be developed, advanced, and skilled as Roman imperialism made the foundations of present day civilizations which counteracted African barbarism, cruelty, torceculture at the equal time moulding Africans with cloth wants of European civilization and European states pledged themselves to cooperation solemn convenent to produce perfect consequences on the African perspective and the problem matter discuss the reasons for scramble for Africa, close by scramble triggers, And treaties made with European powers, twin mandate principle affect in sub-saharan Africa and the remaining verdict on whether or not or not European powers produce civilization belief and infrastructure or not.

The mere reasons for the scramble for Africa need to be assumed on economic motives and or political gain by European powers. Behind the effect of either the monetary or political motives for the scramble for Africa used to be the trouble of European imperialism which intended nothing else without territorial growth and occupation both through peaceful potential or coerciful means. (Chambalain:1974) hold that The skill of imperialism as soon as supposed nothing more than aid an empire and it used to be used by the partisans of Napoleon in their battle closer to the French Republic. It supposed that the causes for the scramble had been a convergence of important factors decided that of economic or political gain.

Furthermore, there have been colonial motivations in Africa (Lugard, FD pp218-229). That man did that European imperialism largely benefited the African continent namely, Senegal through means of France, Congo through Belgium King, and Egypt through Britain. colonial motivations have been pushed by using a colonial administrator identified as Frederick Lugard who gave guidelines on forces to assault Buganda protestants in order to have Uganda agreement and the sub-imperialism of the Baganda². Through his directions, navy forces destroyed the Sokoto caliphate and overpowered Nigeria in 1912. Frederick lugard used an oblique rule laptop which used biblical repute to collect Africans’ favors. European powers and thinking that African raw resources had been not used by using Africans and subsequently European powers headed to take that chance of using African uncooked substances so that Europe and Africa ought to benefit. European powers had to come to Africa for egocentric causes on top of what they prommulgaicated primarily based on civilization religion and infrastructure creation.

Europe has a reason for seeing Africa diminishing instead of being developed and superior due to the reality it wanted to take Africa`s satisfaction and possessions to belong to Europe as it was boosted with the aid of the Industrial Revolution which triggered Europe to be nearer to Africa and Europe noticed African uncooked treasures and used to be once attracted. The scramble for Africa had already been taken via as Britain had already had her colonies in Africa and Britain strategically used free change to acquire political electrical energy in order to put into effect economic dominance. Free alternate used to be the fact of a passport to supremacy. The scramble had set off 1 which concerned the entice of Bambuk gold which blanketed the following territories being the different European rule, occupation of Algeria in 1830, western Sudan, Francoise de I Afrique Equitorial in 1830, and the champagne du Senegal (1881), and the territories of Niger company.

Moreover, the scramble set off 2 involved king Leopold II being included and he performed a major position in the scramble by means of the acquisition of territory in Central Africa. He hoped that he would develop Africa both in scientific and humanitarian goals and he recruited Henry Morton Stanley (journalist and explorer) who made treaties with many usual leaders interior the Congo armpit with promises to free slaves changed ironically due to the reality deep down their hearts they had secret agenda of scrambling Central Africa. Congo was once as soon as cited to be a free kingdom divided into Compagnie du Kasai, the Champagne du Katanga, the Abir rubber commercial enterprise, and advertising.

The closing scramble set off three worried bondholders on the Nile which allowed authorities to purchase Egypt`s last ultimate asset due to Egypt`s bankruptcy and that on my own allowed Egypt to be severely manipulated by using the usage of European powers due to the fact Egypt misplaced her political, social, and monetary powers over the government. Allied powers and France severely manipulated Egypt`s leader to have a fee of an inquiry about public debt in 1878 and that on my personal compelled Ismail to be viewed as an awful chief and had no preference then again compelled him to appoint an English and Frenchman to run Egyptian treasury (dual manipulate supposed Englishman and the Frenchman controlling Egyptian finances. Ismail used to be vehemently abused by using way of Britain and France in his administration and that resulted in public riots with many Europeans killed and that added an Army to assault Egypt in 1882. Thus, the Suez canal was as soon controlled thru Brian and the sea route to India and that indicated Britain had u. s. a . large pastimes in Egypt compared to France who had financial interests.

The twin mandate concept through Frederick Lugard highlighted the charge of role in the tropics of Africa consisting of native races. That was once called the dual mandate due to the fact Britain had to play a role and African states had to cooperate with supremacy and that contributed a large distinction as to whether they came for evangelical ministries or political domination with the impact to have a right to rule over African states with the aid of liberal democracy. In this regard Britain exploited Africa as if she wanted to civilize her and create developmental infrastructures in the rapid run, however, in the lengthy run, Britain had imperialist implications and connotations, and consequently, Britain was supposed to have territorial enlargement and occupation of Africa states barring the preliminary implication of propagating civil religion and developmental infrastructures.

Finally, it was false that the bringing of civilization religion and infrastructure precipitated the scramble for Africa due to the truth scramble for Africa had political, budget-pleasant causes with the aid of the capability of European powers when focusing on the explanations for the scramble for Africa, regional scramble triggers, and made treaties and the twin mandate theory make the declaration about civilization religion and infrastructure to be mockery due to the fact the actual real colorings the area displaying the convergently on the hassle of the scramble for Africa stop partitioning of Africa in a Berlin conference of 1884 and the aim used to be to triumph over Africa and dominate over her treasured raw materials so that Africa will remain subjugated to European domination.

In the modern day, society, especially in America doesn’t understand imperialism. Nowadays, imperialism is more hush hush and doesn’t show up in the news. Whether it is an overthrown leader lead by a conspiracy or covert agents being dropped into another region to sabotage the political landscape, imperialism has shaped into a completely different monster from what it used to be. In the olden days all major superpowers competed to their fullest to see who can expand their territories the furthest. This allusion of becoming the worlds strongest superpower caused meaningless lives to be lost and entire economies to be destroyed, because of economic greed.

Always fun to talk about how America played a role in imperialism, because whenever it comes to overthrowing other regions that are deemed inadequate, the U.S is always at the forefront. The U.S was so active in imperialism, that they even coined a fancy term for it, ‘Manifest Destiny’. Manifest Destiny was a phrase which invoked the idea of divine sanction for the territorial expansion of the United States. The term was coined by an American newspaper editor, but the government adopted the phrase in its true form.

Most textbooks refer to the Spanish-American War as our first imperialist movement but honesty why don’t we look at presidents such as Jefferson or Monroe as imperialists when they made it clear that they believed “Euro-Americans had the right to spread from sea to sea and Americanize anyone in their wake?”. Historians keep arguing that before 1898, the U.S. was not involved in imperialism, but rather was expanding into land contiguous with its existing territories. When they realized that this wasn’t convincing enough, they simply stated the acquired land was intended for American settlement and they claimed, was ordained by God and was not imperialistic!

Not everyone was onboard with this idea of Manifest Destiny in America, there were a couple of reasons for this. One was that imperial rule seemed inconsistent with America’s political principles. The other was that the United States was uninterested in acquiring people with different cultures, languages, and religions. However, politicians believed that the United States had a duty to Americanize less fortunate societies. So why imperialism, why did America decide to become so aggressive and become judge and jury of whether a foreign land was theirs or not? Before getting into that, it is important to note that America was not the first to get into this game of land grabs.

By the mid-1890s, a shift had taken place in American attitudes toward expansion that was sparked by a European scramble for empire. “Between 1870 and 1900, the European powers seized 10 million square miles of territory in Africa and Asia, a fifth of the world’s land mass. About 150 million people were subjected to colonial rule”. Any war, economic or political issue seems to have the same two root causes; money and power. Each can be broken down extensively. When it comes to power, things get complex quick. The definition of power to be kept in mind, is the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. The U.S used to be a tiny speck on the worldwide map, consisting of only 13 colonies geolocated on the eastern land mass of the North Americas. In a mere 200 years, America went from gaining independence from England to one of the top three superpowers in the world. Stretching its land mass from east to west and allocating strategic territories from sea to sea: that is power.

By the end of the nineteenth century, farms and factories in the United States were producing considerably more goods than Americans could consume. For the nation to continue its rise to wealth, it needed foreign markets. Europe wasn’t a viable option, the governments there, like that of the United States, protected domestic industries with high tariff on imports. Americans had to look to faraway lands, weak countries that had large markets and resources but had not yet fallen under the sway of any great power. America used its widely increasing power to play the world like a fiddle. It used its spread-out geographic territories to place military equipment and manpower in these isolated regions. It uses these mechanics to suppress any other nation from speaking out against their practices or attempting a rebellion.

Leading on to Social Darwinism, which was a belief that “the world’s nations were engaged in a struggle for survival and that countries that failed to compete were doomed to decline” heavily contributed to a new and bolder imperialistic thrust on part of the United States. Kind of ironic when you remember this is what the United States went to war to free themselves from. And the 2nd reason, yet most important resource for mankind, money, was the greatest allocation of greed when it came to imperialism. It is undeniable that the world operates on a simple premise; money comes, and money goes, whoever holds on to the most money is most powerful. It is pointless at this point to discuss the benefits of money, money simply does it all. The U.S currency used to be very lowly ranked in comparison to other superpowers, however at the halfway mark of the 20th century the USD skyrocketed to 1st place surpassing both the euro and the British pound and become the entire worlds reserve currency.

Onto the most controversial topic; whether the methods used for imperialism were justified. Say you want to take a lollipop from a child, there are 3 tactics you can employ. One is to manipulate them into giving it to you, another is to take it while they aren’t paying attention and lastly you can snatch it right out of their hands. These were the various tactics used by the United States to further expand their reign as a dominant power on the globe. A few examples are needed to conceptualize these tactics. In comparison with the first option a good example which would be the Adams–Onís Treaty, this was a treaty between the United States and Spain in 1819 that ceded Florida to the U.S and defined the boundary between the U.S and New Spain. This treaty was the outcome that the U.S came to with Spain regarding land disputes in Spanish Texas. America decided that they had a right to annex parts of Spanish territory in Texas because they believed they had a right to the land, even though that land was colonized by many Spanish colonists. Thus, in an ‘attempt at diplomacy’ the U.S manipulated Spain out of their land in Florida; in trade, the U.S would give in to its conquest into acquiring Spanish Texas and not go to battle with Spain.

There are also times when America just swooped in and declared that ‘X’ land is theirs as if it was a fact for ‘Y’ reason. For instance, the land of Hawaii was closely linked by business and trade to the U.S by the 1880s. In 1893 business leaders overthrew the Queen of Hawaii and sought annexation. President Grover Cleveland strongly disapproved, so Hawaii set up an independent republic, the Republic of Hawaii. However, a more neutrally stanced man, President William McKinley, came along and realized the need for advanced naval bases to fend off Japanese ambitions; secured a Congressional memorendum in 1898, and the republic of Hawaii joined the U.S.

Lastly, America is no beginner to taking things it wants by force. A notable push for imperialism by the United States can be found from the outcome of the Spanish-American War. On December 10, 1898, the Treaty of Paris which ended the war was signed. The treaty transferred control of the Philippines from Spain to the United States. This agreement was not recognized by the Philippine revolutionaries. They declared war on United States on June 2, 1899. In 1901, Emilio Aguinaldo, president of the Malolos Republic, was captured by American forces and pledged his allegiance to the American government. The U.S unilaterally declared an end to the conflict in 1902 and took over control of the Philippine islands. Understatingly, the people who gained from this expansionism was the U.S government with stronger political powers. But most of all, businesses were the most beneficiary, they now had access to lands abroad and good import and export via new routes never available to them before, taking in boat loads more money. This led to a boom in the U.S economy and its military might; having access to strategic land points in which to strategize military bases. However, this expedition did not fervor without any victims. Whole nations collapsed, people were forced to adopt traditions unaccustomed to them and very many people lost their so called ‘independence’ and many more were meaninglessly killed, often soldiers used as puppets in these ventures.

Adding to the fact came New Imperialism. In 1899, about fifteen years after the Conference of Berlin fast-tracked Europe’s partitioning of Africa, African-American preacher Henry Parks eagerly believed the fate of Africa as a continent would be determined during the twentieth century. By that time, he had become Secretary of Home and Foreign Missions. Parks promised Christian redemption of Africa within the new century, “he went on a rampant mission to convince other African Americans that it was their duty to conquer the continent of Africa for God, for Africans, for themselves.” However, surprisingly, the Scramble for Africa was not as popular for the U.S as its European counterparts; most of the African territories were left to be colonized by European powers, although the U.S always has some sort of deal struck out with these nations to share the land for resources and military bases.

Now focusing on the New Imperialism association with the United States comes two prime examples, Cuba and the Philippines. In accordance with Kinzer’s book, President McKinley who succeeded Cleveland had reason to worry about the Cuban issue: Cuba had been raked with endless conflict between itself and Spain for close to 30 years. “Cuban rebel leaders were promising that once in power, they would launch sweeping social reforms, starting with land redistribution”. According to Kinzer, in 1898 it finally came to an end when U.S troops came to Cuba’s aid after the Spanish had ‘evidently’ bombed a U.S warship in the Havana harbor and helped it defeat Spain, in which Cuba became independent. During this New Imperialism, Americans ceased to be satisfied with solely holding territory on the North American mainland, from which they originated. They became consumed with a majestic new idea – coined the ‘White Man’s Burden’, which was that of a United States whose influence extended around the world.

The U.S had perfected a sort of mechanism for taking control of foreign lands. It would firstly act as a helping hand, giving a foreign land aid in terms of money, supplies or troops. But very soon to follow it, would declare itself as their ruler and would threaten military action along with harsh economic sanctions until the country would undoubtedly have to give in, as the U.S was such a superpower. It would then proceed to stuff a never-ending list of “diplomatic treaties” down the countries throat until it was left with nothing but a few plots of land under its own native control. And from there on out the Americas would put their own leaders in place, in their newly acquired land and run it like a puppet state. Same scenario went for both Cuba and the Philippines. Both had natives fighting and dying for independence and then all of a sudden, they are right back under colonial rule, all that changed is the superpower that is ruling them.

In the case of the Philippines, the U.S got involved in the conflict they had with Spain because according to Kinzer, the revolutionary conflict struck fear into the hearts of American businessmen, who had more than $50 million invested on the island, most of it in agriculture. Therefore, McKinley was dumbfounded by what to do with Cuba, on one hand he didn’t want to impose in another foreign battle but on the other he was being pressured by big businesses to take charge of the island. After much deliberation ‘in his own, hidden mind’ he decided that he had to free Filipino people and show them the light of God. He sufficed that it was necessary to show his foreign mates that Christianity was the way and to free them of their tyrannical rule by Spain.

Whatever way you look at it, America has asserted itself in almost every single conflict, war, diplomatic struggle, or tyrannical expansion in one way or another. Most recently being the U.S military expansion into the Middle East followed by an increased presence in African peninsulas. We don’t know much about this stuff because U.S news medias do not or can not cover this type of discussion. Thus, it is sufficed to say that imperialism started from the United States inception and will most likely last for many, many more decades.

Sources

1. https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/imperialism-and-socialism-context-africa
2. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/newimperialism.html
3. https://www.sps186.org/downloads/basic/588610/ch27_2.pdf
4. https://www.tamaqua.k12.pa.us/cms/lib07/PA01000119/Centricity/Domain/119/TheAgeofImperialism.pdf
5. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/30/the-fatal-expense-american-imperialism/teXS2xwA1UJbYd10WJBHHM/story.html

Have you ever thought of how life would be like today without World War II and other world events, would you be here today? The U.S has been through many national events including World War II , Imperialism, and the Industrial Revolution, changing the U.S. forever and showing how the U.S. handled these situations leading into our future today. Throughout history, the United States has quickly adapted to change by how they handled imperialism, industrialization, World War II.

Any of the changes that America saw were more and more people immigrating to the United States because it was a way to spread their values and live a new life full of many more possibilities. Another reason more people immigrated to the U.S. is that if they were trapped in a hole coming to the U.S. to start from fresh again, maybe they needed an escape from their nations. During this time of the Industrial Revolution, some political policies were developed, such as the 1832 Reform Bill and the Factory of 1833. This impacted the nation because almost ¾ of most large cities and industries’ workforce was made of immigrants. This being said, the demand for items goes up industrializing most thighs such as enterprises. Natural Resources were one of the main reasons Britain had a huge supply of coal and iron which were two of the most important raw materials used at the time of the Industrial Revolution to manufacture goods. The lasting effects we see today are how most companies and enterprises are made up of immigrants and without them, our workforce would drop significantly. What I also know is that immigrants over the years have brought lots of talent and innovation into our country. What the U.S. could have done differently is maybe educated the not as educated immigrants putting the higher up on the scale to work in higher-skilled jobs instead of leaving the lower jobs such as agriculture, construction. All in all, the United States during this time of Industrialization was quick to change and expand by opening up new jobs for incoming immigrants and growing our economy. During this time of the Industrial Revolution, lots of resources were brought in because of the U.S. expanding during the time of Imperialism.

The need for military power, the need for new markets, and confidence in cultural supremacy were the things that contributed to the Age of Imperialism. Some of the changes saw at this time changed from a geographic standpoint from taking land and also lots of wars to come. Some of the Political Policies that were developed during this time were Spanish- American War of 1898 which was a battle that took place when the colonies were expanding during this time of Imperialism. One of the impacts of Imperialism is the fact that the more land we took the higher and more expensive the prices got to keep control of the land. The same thing happened to the British when they owned the U.S. colonies. Some changes we saw were the victory of the Spanish- American War which gave us control of countries such as Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. The annexation of Hawaii in 1898, declared that the United States gained ownership and control of all ports, buildings, military equipment, and public property or owned by the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, was one of the main effects that impacted our country. One thing the government should have done better is to deal with any situation with multiple countries, like Spain, better and not have to lead to war and problems. Imperialism would now go on for 80 years causing lots of problems with other countries because of how a certain country did not like to agree to the policies or did not like the idea of another country taking over them. This overall led to many countries not liking other countries causing World War II.

The changes we saw from World War I and World War II were Germany was a huge threat and bigger power than before and During World War II. Germany had already taken over most of the smaller countries so they did not get sandwiched. During this time there was a series of battles occurring in the pacific called the Pacific Theater. The Pacific Theater was caused by the attack on pearl harbor sending America into shock and putting us into the war. The Pacific Theater was important overall because it was a victory for the United States, but because of many innocent people and captives killed and captured, it was quite harsh. Some political policy that was made turning this time was the Alien Registration Act which controlled immigrants from flooding into our country because of what was going on in Europe because from World War I people and America had a bias to Europeans and had some racial discrimination there. Another political policy that was put into place was the Non-Aggression pact between Russia and Germany so Germany did not get sandwiched by both countries during World War II, later on, Germany broke this pact. Some lasting effects today we see from World War II are in Europe how many countries lost land who have fought against Hitler and peace treaties that were made turning time that still exists today. Also after the war, Germany and its capital Berlin were divided into four parts. The U.S in both world wars were quick to change and to act because of the Neutrality Acts that were put into place but after numerous attacks on allied countries and the desperate need for America’s help they were quick to do something out of it. Another reason why America was quick to change is that they were in fear of another Great Depression and economic collapse again just like what happened after World War I. World War II has changed our country dramatically because of how the United States was quick to change during global events, overall leading to how everything would play out.

All in all, the United States during the Age of Imperialism, the Industrial Revolution, and World War II has developed lots of political policies and has been quick to change. Overall lots of immigrants and people coming into the U.S. at the time gained lots of new jobs and got to live a new life full of freedom because of how the U.S. was quick to change during these eras. Throughout history, the United States has quickly adapted to change because of how they handled Imperialism, Industrialization, World War II.

From the 1800s to the 2000s, many powerful countries in the European continent were in search of economic stability for their citizens. To fulfill these needs, their leaders understood they must engage in wars and trades to control the military capabilities as well as the administration and the resources of “weak” but rich countries in the African and Asian continents. They forged the imperialist policy. The imperialism policy provided the powerful European powerful countries with resource expansion and socio-political and economic prosperity over the conquered countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. European invaders could extract resources and gain cheap labor.

Imperialism encouraged European nations’ expansion of resources over the African continent. “Africa is one of the most diverse continents”. Africa had various resources stripped from them, which benefited the European colonial countries. Africa was best known for its resource of gold, spices (cinnamon, ginger, cumin, etc.), and salt. During the 1800s, Europeans created ties with Ghana and Mali. The Europeans wanted to create bridges with Asian and African countries due to the fact that they had access to spices, silk, slaves, and other luxury items. Imperializing Africa allowed Europeans to increase their economy by reselling the resources that were extracted.

Also, the imperial policy caused Europe to begin its industrial revolution. Some areas were ruled by the Dutch. The economy fell as they were settled at the edges of Africa; because of this, the Dutch began to move upwards of Africa. During the end of the 19th century, European countries such as Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium, etc. attended the Berlin Conference called by Otto Von Bismarck of Germany. During this conference, there was no representation for the African countries. One effect of this was putting King Leopold of Belgium in charge of the Democratic Republic of Congo. With King Leopold being in charge of the Congo, he used this area to exploit the Congolese to look for items such as rubber to bring to him as tax payment to the government. If he was denied or if people refused, their hands would get severed. When the other colonies heard about this, King Leopold was stripped of his colony, the Congo.

In the 19th century, Western Europe’s policy set its domination on the territory of many countries in Africa and Asia. This was its opportunity to control the economic, military, and political landscape of the nations on those continents. Indeed, British Empire took over the Suez Canal. This canal was an important strategic area that allowed this empire to control the land, the harbors, and the sea in that region, and therefore secure its economy.

In fact, it is mentioned that most of the Europeans had imperialized mainly the borders of Africa. As time progressed, Britain, Dutch, and France began to move closer to the inside of Africa. Britain occupied Egypt due to the creation of the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal is a sea-level waterway that is connected from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red sea. This was the route for trade from China and India to Europe. European countries started to explore Africa’s interior more due to industrialization. They wanted to find war resources such as rubber, copper, gold, etc. Additionally, this created a better economy for Europe because of the resources they found.

During the 1900s, Imperialism was impactful, also, because it allowed advancements to new technology medicine began to advance due to the European countries industrializing. After many different confrontations with other countries, the western powers had the most control. European countries were forced to industrialize and accept the new ways of doing everything. This caused the countries to recreate their cities. There was an increase in medicine such as vaccines, hygiene, etc. For example, Countries such as Britain couldn’t go far into places like Africa because of the diseases that they wouldn’t endure. These killed Europeans in outstanding numbers. The life expectancy increased as medicine and technology were created. Medicines such as Penicillin, CAT scans, Ultrasounds, et cetera. Since the Europeans weren’t able to exploit the other parts of Africa due to diseases such as smallpox, yellow fever, and Africa Horse Sickness. They created Steamboats to penetrate through Africa because their horses were not immune to some of the diseases such as malaria and AHS. They created a medicated type of tonic water which helped lower the effects of the diseases they were not immune to. Lastly, the creation of weapons helped the Europeans. Gun technology has improved since the 1600s. They had machine guns which allowed them to wipe out the Africans through war. Imperialism was impactful due to the fact that there was a great increase in technology and medicine. This will later help in future wars such as World War I. These weapons helped the men on the battlefield, created new defense mechanisms, and offensive techniques.

Between the 1900s and 2000s, Social Darwinism gave weight to the ideas of Imperialism. Social Darwinism is best known as natural selection. This was advocated for by Herbert Spencer. After his ideas were broadcast, they became more popularized in Western Europe by mainly the French and Portuguese. Social Darwinism supported the idea of “Survival of the Fittest”. Therefore, the European countries began to expand their military, overseas investments, making profits et cetera. Europeans believed that whites were superior and that they’re the great conquerors against others because they were considered inferior to them. The weaker race was to be obliterated because that was the law in its natural form.

In the twentieth century, the European continued to dominate a lot of countries in Africa and in Asia. For example, England exerted strong power over Congo, Egypt, and India. Such domination limited the power of those countries’ administrations. The local leaders served and protected the European economic interests. A historical document revealed, “By 1914, Great Britain controlled the largest number of colonies and the sun never sets on the British Empire”(Worldatlas). This document described then the vastness of the British‘s holdings and wealth gained in these aforementioned countries

Imperialism was the most influential policy in Europe toward African and Asian continents because it created a resource expansion over them. Not only did it promote and secure the invading European countries’ economic prosperity, but also it provided them with a standard of grandeur and superiority in various aspects: cultural, military, social, and religious. Social Darwinism established Caucasian superiority with the concept of fitness survival and European religion or Christianity reigned.

Nationalism for an individual is identifying with their nation and supporting its interests, even if that means disregarding the interests of other nations. “nationalism” The pride the individual carries for their nation puts the nation on a metaphorical pedestal. Imperialism is a policy where the nation in question expands their influence through diplomacy or force exhibiting power normally to obtain more power typically for resources to better their economy. “imperialism” From a thorough investigation of detailed accounts in history, this essay will explain why imperialism has a greater impact on the world as opposed to nationalism.

The British are notorious for implementing policies and efforts that exercised imperialistic motives. Evaluating European history, their success in colonizing so many territories relied heavily on the fact that they were the first to industrialize and this allowed their societies to accelerate faster than their competition. Technology, advances in science, a stable government, and a workforce that made relatively modern tools, ships, and weapons put them in a very comfortable position to obtain what they wanted from other countries whether they acquired it through diplomacy or war. As the Europeans were the first to establish large manufacturing operations and businesses also ahead of the race in terms of mass production in products to trade and sell bettering their economy. However, with the industrial revolution underway, this fueled the British’s appetite for expanding and the need for raw materials. They used their power to gain footholds in Africa and China.

Europeans and the Chinese have a complicated history as imperialist efforts were pursued by the Europeans in the 17th century left China in a delicate state. China is notorious for its ideals and refusal to adopt western culture as a means to protect its own. With China being the lead supplier of various goods, made trade very important to the British. With the Port of Canton, European merchants were permitted to trade but the only item they had that the Chinese were interested in was Opium. Unfortunately, Opium was later discovered very addictive and left many crippled by their addiction. This being bad for the people of China, the leaders felt it necessary to halt the trade and stop the flood of opium resulting in a war that was easily won by the Europeans superior military. Matters worsened for China losing many political and economic rights leading up to a series of events where foreign invaders continued to take a bite out of China until the Chinese had a revolution in 1911 and Dr. Sun Yat-Sun proclaimed a republic and advocated changes in China.

In Africa, the greatest colonial empires belonged to Great Britain and France. The British occupied Africa since the 16th century to set up trading posts but wasn’t until the 19th century they completely dominated the territory. “The European ‘Scramble for Africa’ and the expansion of Great Britain’s swathes of red on a political map are the traditional archetypes of this kind of imperial relationship, with possessed countries being subsumed under the banner of their colonial conquerors.” In attempts to colonize Africa in the past, the Europeans failed due to diseases they were susceptible to, poor weaponry, and were not able to commit to colonizing Africa until the 19th century until their technology was advanced enough to destroy the Africans retaliations. Medication, large ships, and guns were the recipe for their success. The Suez Canal was opened in 1869 and was crucial to the British as a trade route and came under their control in 1882. Originally built by the French company, but protected by the British when civil war broke out in Egypt. The British wanted the canal as a trade route to access India more efficiently by water as opposed to traveling through Africa.

The United States is no stranger to nationalism and imperialism. The European settlers that came to North America acquired their territories from the Native Americans much like the British did Africa. The colonist brought along with them diseases that severely damaged the Native American’s chance to win and their lack of superior weaponry make it much more of a challenge to defend their land from being seized. Later on, Mexican also lost their sovereignty after 1848 in the Mexican-American War where the United States acquired California and Texas. In the 19th century, the American settlers felt it was their destiny to expand and move across the continent to spread their traditions and institutions, as a means to enlighten more primitive nations. Sounds very similar to their English brethren motives to justify the domination of the civilizations they came in contact with that had resource that could be utilized to strengthen their own country. This Manifest Destiny philosophy is textbook nationalism, and the imperialistic means in which it was pursued exhibits some morally questionable ideals but to 19th century Americans was a belief they clung too and it is interesting to imagine what the US would be had westward expansion been approached differently. (“Manifest Destiny”) Upon expanding westward, Americans were eager to make a larger impact on foreign trade but to do so, a canal would be necessary to ship goods quickly and cheaply between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. (“Building the Panama Canal, 1903–1914”) During the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, the construction of the Panama Canal was underway and eventually completed in 1914 symbolizing “technological prowess and economic power.”

Nationalism was a factor in European society as Europeans wanted bragging rights to most colonies. They desired the title to have the most control over various territories. The British had an ABC nursery rhyme song that read, “ C is for colonies. Rightly we boast. That of all the great countries Great Britain has the most.” Nationalism seems to be the mentality of thinking you’re superior and have pride whereas imperialism is the physical action taken to conquer to prove why one’s nation is superior. A strong nationalism belief amongst the British and later Americans was strong naval artillery. Naval nationalism revolves around the possession of large ships and having a reputation of maritime dominance that reflects great power and ambitions. The same ideology was implemented by Theodore Roosevelt in his personal interest in ships and “with a nationalist impulse to promote American great-power status in world affairs.” In the US, in 1895 Congress funded construction for first-class American battleships, and during the Roosevelt presidency, the Navy commissioned twenty-one battleships. “By 1902, Great Britain began a strategic withdrawal from the Western Hemisphere, conceding US maritime superiority, and it soon welcomed American expansion, both in its colonial presence in the western Pacific and in the form of the construction of the Panama Canal.”

In conclusion, when looking at the Europeans and later Americans, imperialism was being practiced heavily as a part of their conquest to advance. Imperialism is the advocacy to extend a national power with a goal to gain political and economic power. I feel that physically dominating an area changes history drastically because in most cases results in stripping away the culture and potential of one society to build and better the stronger at the time. Nationalism can be considered the fire or notion behind bringing the masses of society together to produce the success of imperialistic ventures. But considering the course material and research presented in this paper, imperialism makes a greater impact.

This thesis will argue that there is nothing ‘New’ about ‘New Imperialism’. Imperialism extends its nation’s political dominion over other areas, whereas new imperialism has been described as the period between 1870 and 1914. Imperialism is interpreted in a variety of ways. Moreover, the call ‘New imperialism’ is equally debated. This thesis will show that imperialism is just the continuation of capitalism. In essence, imperialism is the foundational reason that morphs itself into war as the likely outcome when capitalism stalls as a way of resetting itself to create another market. Capitalism is essentially the investment of money in the expectation of making a profit (Fulcher, 2015). Imperialism is a continuation of capitalism and a type of system consisting of a complex whole made up of several interacting connected and independent offshoots that enable it to execute its functions. Froim what presplective decide ?

Imperialism emerged from the latter part of the nineteenth century rather than the slave trade, which was more of a seventeenth and eighteenth-century process but built on the slave trade. Some scholars argue it stopped when it became less profitable. Instead, Marx highlighted that accumulation was the driving force of capitalism. Although amazed by the capitalist system during his lifetime, Marx knew that capital would concentrate.

Marx foresaw the modern structure of capitalism as the final phase of capitalism resulting from the extreme concentration of capital. This is the starting point taken by most Marxists, especially Lenin (Mandel, 1966). A little further on, he generalized this idea by insisting that a capitalist society must continuously extend its base, its area of exploitation (Mandel, 1966). Harvey (2001) terms this as a ‘spatial fix’ that takes many forms, one being large-scale infrastructure projects to absorb surpluses while facilitating expansion into new territories, which has occurred throughout capitalist development (Harvey, 2001).

Lenin (1916) stated that without reading Marx or having a Marxist understanding of the economy, there was no way to understand imperialism (Lenin, 1916). Lenin argued that monopoly capitalism is not something that just arose by accident but an inevitable phase of capitalism itself. The type of capitalism that Marx was analyzing was the competition between equally sized enterprises. As one enterprise starts to kill off, another power becomes concentrated (Lenin, 1916).

Hobson (2011) asserted that accumulating more and more capital is a routine consideration in a capitalist economy and addressed that reinvestment was central to capitalism’s fight for viability and vitality because reinvesting was required to accumulate. However, he argued that good places to reinvest were limited in, which drove the capital abroad associated with the finance and big banks. According to Hobson (2011), the banks drove imperialism, who rejected the idea that somehow imperialism was simply a political decision or that it was a national imperative to build up the nation, whether it was just the patriotic duty of people to join. A popular reason espoused among some was that imperialism was essentially missionary work to Christianise the savages and allow them to reach heaven.

The arms manufacturers selling evermore rifles and other weapons to subjugate other peoples or those who manufactured for the export trade textile corporations were among those who were beneficiaries of imperialism. However, Hobson (2011)

asserted that there were not many profitable opportunities within. Why could the capital not produce enough of the commodities at home and then benefit from international relations? It was because so much money was gained from their monopoly; they could not spend it all, and then the workers could not spend very much because of their meager wages. It was why investment and subsidiaries went abroad, which destroyed cultures and took them over (Hobson, 2011).

However, imperialism could not succeed abroad if countries were not civilized. Could imperialism have become the excuse for the ‘white man’s burden’? Hobson (2011) argued that it was not the capitalist system itself that could have been tamed if more supported trade unionism and socialists and welfare policies would increase equity and income distribution.

Rosa Luxemburg conveyed that imperialism is an extension of Marx’s idea of primitive accumulation, which was the accumulation of the slave trade, taking of the new world of gold and all of that went into creating the original accumulations needed to launch capitalism (McMahon, Siddhant and Brown, 2021). She argued that imperialism is simply an extension of that process where the world is ravaged to meet the needs for markets for home industries and for places to invest (McMahon, J., Siddhant, I. and Brown, R., 2021).

The four objectives of imperialism are to grab raw materials, control them, separate the workers from the means of production, and create wage laborers. For example, the enclosure movement in drove workers away from their ownership of small plots of land and into the cities where they had nothing but their labor to sell (McMahon, J., Siddhant, I. and Brown, R., 2021). Luxemburg thought this was the same kind of process as imperialism in a country with a natural economy and cooperative labor in a small village. Instead, workers are separated from having control of their means of production and made into wage laborers on whatever plantations to create the market system there. So in the process, the natural economy is transformed into a market economy and creates a division of labor in the industry, trade, and agriculture in a national economy (McMahon, J., Siddhant, I. and Brown, R., 2021).

Engels also added a more detailed elucidation to Marx’s comments. In his last writings, from the beginning of the industrial revolution until the 1870s, exercised an industrial monopoly over the world market (Mandel, 2022).

Thanks to that monopoly, in the second half of the nineteenth century, English capitalism could grant necessary concessions to a section of the working class at the rise of craft unions. But, towards the end of the nineteenth century, the German, French, and American competition made inroads into this English monopoly and inaugurated a period of sharp class struggle in Great Britain (Mandel, 2022)

Parenti (2020) argues that one of the laws of capitalist motion development is an expansion into the expropriation of the third world. This process has been going on for hundreds of years not because these countries are poor. He stated that nobody goes to poor countries to make money, but because these countries are rich, there are billions to be made there to be carved out taken, as the timber, the flax, hemp, Coco the, rum, copper the, iron the rubber the slaves and the cheap labor. These countries are not underdeveloped. They are overexploited (Parenti, 2020).

Lenin (1916) sees imperialism as an extension of Marx’s laws of motion of capitalism. The characteristics of imperialism and the monopolization of each industry again were something Marx had already observed. He predicted when he talked about the concentration and centralization of capital would create a financial oligarchy (Lenin, 1916). The financiers dominate the fusion of bank and industrial capital, so when the banking industry becomes monopolized, it begins to have much more power over the industrial capitalists, similar to what Hobson and Luxembourg argued. For example, in financial oligarchy Wall Street or the Britains financial sector, bank of the export of capital then becomes a characteristic, and cartels in the world divide up each market and the imperialists have divided the entire world among themselves so by the turn of the 20th century. According to Hobsbawm (1989), much of the globe outside of Europe and the Americas was partitioned into areas under the formal control of or informal political dominance of a handful of governments between 1800 and 1914. The dominant powers were Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, the USA, and Japan. Hobsbawm (1989) states this was probably a period of modern world history in which the number of rulers officially regarded themselves by Western diplomats as deserving of the title of emperor was at its maximum. Gallagher and Robinson (1953) assert that imperialism was indeed made possible only through the combined efforts of indigenous peoples in the final quarter of the nineteenth century; it was more a function of African or Asian local politics that had European economic or geopolitical interests. When they ran out of collaborators, they had to leave, and when so many African leaders petitioned Europe for help, it looked like a Scrabble for protection in Africa (Gallagher and Robinson, 1953). Africa was the last field of European penetration but not the most important. In the so-called expansionist era, the main work of imperialism was in developing areas already linked with the world economy. In tropical Africa, the imperialists were merely scraping the bottom of the barrel (Gallagher and Robinson, 1953).

Lenin also argued that the world was divided among the imperialists, so there is no virgin territory from the standpoint of imperialists.

Imperialism experiences uneven development, a very fundamental characteristic of dialectics, and that is the specific case that led up to WW1 once Germany became a country in 1871 under Bismarck and then it grew rapidly, causing tension with, who had been the established imperialists throughout the ninetieth century (Lenin, 1917).

J Hobson (2011) believes that military missionaries, industrialists, and financiers established a coalition of convenience to force Western colonial domination on foreigners. However, the backbone of imperialism was the influence of financial capitalists. In their imperialism of free trade, Gallagher and Robinson (1953) suggest there is continuity in imperialism throughout the ninetieth century and that finance men played only a minor role. In their view, imperialism was the direct political aspect of integrating new regions into the expanding worldwide economy. Direct rule was necessary for regions with significant economic opportunities or strategic interests. However, where security was minuscule indirect informal control through free trade was the preferred method of imperialism. Both formal and informal empires were functions of the extending pattern of overseas trade investment (Gallagher and Robinson, 1953).

Robinson and Gallagher (1953) theorize that diplomats and merchants worked together to spread the rule of free trade from Buenos Aires to Istanbul from Niger to the Yangtze. Regions were drawn into the empire of informal sway. The reason for colonies in Africa was not for empire building but for the strategic necessity of protecting sea routes to India.

However, when power broke down moved into the military (Gallagher and Robinson, 1953). However, MacDonagh (1962) critiques the impact the Gallagher-Robinson thesis has and conveys that the idea of ‘free trade imperialism’ should be revised. He acknowledges the authors were successful in establishing the imperialist nature of policy and public attitude in the years I845-6o, dispelling the opposing idea (MacDonagh, 1962); however, he adds that they mislead us dangerously when they downplay the presence of an unyielding opposition to imperialism and deny variation in imperial strategy during the Victorian era. In fact, In no other decade, perhaps, did fortune favor the imperialists so markedly as in the I850s (MacDonagh, 1962). In the last quarter of the 19th century, commercial and industrial supremacy was challenged by other powers in Europe like France and Germany. They were forced to protect what they already owned by the method of imperial expansion. Their African empire was the product of fear, a fear of losing early lead geography is more critical to empire-building than frontiers are critical. Afghanistan comes to mind as an example of protecting India by conquering more and more land. The Monroe Doctrine, promulgated by the United States and enforced by the navy, sufficed to spare Latin America new European adventures. The outcome of the U.S. Civil War ensured that North America would not develop a multilateral balance-of-power system (Shahid, 2019).

Cain and Hopkins (1986) and their imperialism thought the cause of imperialism was the gentlemanly capitalism of aristocrats and bankers. It was a metropolitan phenomenon with three hundred years of continuity from 1688 to the twenty-first century. The informal empire of free trade and manufacturers did not exist, and the periphery was a sideshow. The most significant expansion of finance into the foreign market took place from 1850 to 1914. After WW1 had to compete on worsening terms with other financial centers such as Japan, Germany, and the United States. Cain and Hopkins (1986) state

that imperialism was a collaborative process and required the integration of world economics with Britain as an early example of globalization. However, acknowledge that when the terms of credit from the city bankers involved loss of sovereignty to other nations expansion became imperialism. There is a story of city bankers and loafing aristocrats pursuing the peaceful art of lending money. Nevertheless, there is one area in which Cain and Hopkins and Gallagher and Robinson agree that the actions of economically motivated actors do not rely on Marxian structure to explain imperialism.

Conclusion

Is new imperialism simply a response to a reduction in profitability?

Slavery happened because capitalism didn’t exist then slavery wouldn’t have happened capitalism is extremely treacherous and will destroy anything in its way. However, what could these concentrated capitalists do they could either spend their income and stockpile a bunch of unsold goods which is usually not a good idea, or refuse to spend all their money and then reduce effective demand which would ensure a glut or they could find a foreign place to invest so it’s pretty straight forward that the investment abroad. The flip side to conquering land this that imperialism was about finance and not strategic interests but whatever it is the baseline the circumstances still present themselves as the continuity of capitalism. Provide indications of the intrinsic interest in the historical importance of the subject as well as justification for historians’ continued preoccupation.

Imperialism is a practice used by countries to extend its sovereignty and power over other developing countries or territories by gaining political and economic influence over them. Japan was one of the first to develop imperialism throughout the 20th century, which was later dissolved during the US occupation after World War II. Japan’s imperialism developed with anti-Western, anti-colonial themes against powers such as the US, UK, France and many others. Japan derived social Darwinism from the west and concluded that it needs an empire if its own. It rejected foreign influence and developed anti-globalism when the US forced Japan to adopt foreign influence. As a result, Japan moved over to isolationism and commits acts that corresponds with the Nazi-Germanic type. Japanese imperialism was harsh. The techniques that Japan used when it was influencing nations like Korea and China were cruel acts of violence.

Japan was interested in taking over Korea, and saw it as an asset that benefit Japan’s industrialization and economy. As a result, Japan took over Korea from 1910 to 1945. Japan led to Korea to split and got divided forming North Korea and South Korea. Later after World War II ended a war between North Korea and South Korea occurred which lasted 3 years and did not resolve. Some may argue that Japan had a good influence on Korea, since it made Korea to be one of the most industrialized countries in Asia by building factories, buildings and roads. However, this is untrue depending on the way Koreans were treated. They were forced to fight for Japan and work in its factories. Also in Korea, Japan prevented the Korean language to be taught in schools. It forced many thousands of Korean women to be abandoned from their families and be sex slaves known as ‘comfort women’ to the Japanese soldiers. Some of these women were young teenagers. It was identified that a 14-year-old named Maria Rosa Henson was captured by the Japanese and forced to have sex with soldiers. Not just that, she was forced to have sex with hundreds of soldiers in a period of 9 months. She testified in court that she would have an intercourse with 12 soldiers at the same time. This is obviously a cruel brutal act done by Japan. As well as forcing 80% of Korea to change their names into Japanese names. Japan wanted to end the Korean culture and make it a culture of its own. Clearly, this shows how brutal Japan was. These acts committed by the Japanese Imperialists still leave a mark till now. Japan caused Korea to split and made North Korea and South Korea in danger of war till now. Although Japan taking over Korea was many years ago, there is still hate and anger between the two countries due to the way Japan annexed Korea.

Greedy for raw materials and economic growth, Japan came up with an event to take over Manchuria, which is located in north China. Japan’s military staged a bombing in a Japanese railway line it owned in Manchuria called the South Manchuria Railway. Japan blamed China for this incident and used it as an excuse to start a war with China. Japan later planned a puppet regime in the state of Manchukuo in China. After a few years Japan made a massacre in Nanjing known as the ‘Nanking Massacre’, which was the capital of China during that time. Japan bombed this area, killed over hundreds of thousands of Chinese residents. Between 20,000 and 80,000 women were raped. Also, the Japanese soldiers looted and burned the residents. As well what happened in Korea, women were collected by military trucks to become comfort women. Women who came out during the day to wash clothes got raped. The Japanese weren’t hesitant and not showing any shame from what they had done to the Chinese people. Soldiers sent pictures to their families containing them smiling while carrying separated heads of the Chinese people. Some pictures also included Japanese soldiers sticking swords to the necks of Chinese prisoners; moreover, other pictures consisted of proud Japanese men standing next to a nude woman. As for the looting, it was quite obvious that it was organized. Japanese soldiers were divided to steal rare antiques and ancient valuable books by breaking-in libraries and private collections. Soldiers even removed religious figures and symbols from the Chinese temples. There are explanations to how these Japanese soldiers acted in Nanjing. During that time, the Japanese were taught a racist education that considered the Japanese people to be superior to all people and that the Chinese are a backward declining civilization. Also, superiors in the Japanese military would promise their soldiers to have women and plunder to stimulate the massacre. As result these mass murders, rapes, and looting happened. Certainly, this was a cruel act done by the Japanese imperialists. This shows how they were involved and organized these vicious actions and that the Japanese soldiers were told what to do.

Japan wasn’t just harsh on its neighbor countries it was cruel to its soldiers too. Superiors would beat up and slap the soldiers. The whole group of 80 to 150 soldiers would get punished and forced to march as a response to an action of just one member. Soldiers were trained not surrender no matter what happens. They were told that if they surrendered, they would get tortured and killed by the allies any way; however, this was untrue. This was known as the ‘Senjinkun’ military code, which was issued to the Japanese soldiers. The wounded Japanese soldiers were sometimes killed by their own medical officers or given grenades to commit suicide during an attack. Japan didn’t just implement this belief in its soldiers but also the civilians. The Japanese military formed a propaganda to its soldiers and civilians stating that if they surrendered and got captured, the Americans would torture, rape and kill them. The Japanese military also distributed grenades to the civilians to commit suicide before being captured. The propaganda worked a lot with the soldiers and the civilians. enormous number of the Japanese people had committed mass suicide attempts. Men killed their wives, and mothers killed their children. They felt as this was the right thing to do. This shows how cruel Japanese Imperialists were to launch a propaganda that would trick its civilians to commit suicides and kill their loved ones. Some soldiers have failed to commit suicide and got captured by allied and Chinese forces. During World War II, about 50,000 Japanese soldiers surrendered and became ‘prisoners of war’. The Japanese government prevented the information to reach to the families of the prisoners. Also blocked any letters sent from Japanese prisoners to their families to not make Japanese soldiers consider surrendering. Japan neither cared for its soldiers nor its civilians by taking these actions.

Japan in the beginning of its imperialism during World War I succeeded to globally rise and become recognized as a great power. It was the first non-western power to industrialize by itself. Japan expanded its empire and established overseas colonies all over East Asia like Korea, Taiwan and areas in China. Japan expanded its economy through trade and shipping; therefore, gaining dominance in Asia. In 1919, Japan was one of the ‘Big Five’ powers in the Versailles Peace Conference. However, it had reached its goals violently and cruelly.

Since the early 1500s, foreign intervention has played a major role in the history of Latin America. While the region has seen some benefit from this involvement it has been mostly for the worse. The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende touches on this with its depiction of an American-backed coup in a fictional Latin American nation during the Cold War. While this incident in the novel reflects the real-world negative implications of American intervention in Central and South America, the book largely ignores the similarly detrimental effect of Soviet intercession in the region. This is especially relevant due to the origin of the book’s primary genre, magical realism in the Cold War era and its genesis resulting in part from the geopolitical struggles of the period. For years, Latin America had been subjected to the United State’s imperialist capitalism that drained the region of natural resources and prevented many nations from becoming economically independent and attaining full sovereignty. This continued during the Cold War, however, with the addition of the USSR and its imperialism into the mix. The Soviet Union had similar goals to the United States including the expansion of its economic system across the world, and maintaining the dependence of less developed countries like many of those in Latin America, on its technology and hefty financial resources. The resultant conflict between the two nations for power, influence, and economic control of the region caused significant harm to Latin America. This conclusion is evident when observing the consequences of the US-backed Coup in Guatemala, the systemic nature of Soviet imperialism, the long-term impact of the Nicaraguan Revolution, the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the fictional but historically based work House of Spirits.

US-Backed Coup in Guatemala

Since its independence from Spain in 1821 Guatemala has had a long history of both democratic and authoritarian rule. For the first few decades of the twentieth century, the country experienced one of its more authoritarian periods, being ruled by a series of dictators and despots(Moye 44). These included statesman Manuel Estrada Cabrera, and generals, Jose Maria Orellana and Lazaro Chacon Gonzalez. Each of these strongmen allowed the American-based and backed United Fruit Company to further its business in Guatemala and substantially assisted them in this endeavor. This started with Cabrera who granted the company land, tax breaks, and control of vital infrastructure. His immediate successor attempted to repeal these concessions but he was quickly removed from office in a coup led by Orellana. Orellana renewed the policies that were followed after 5 years by the similarly minded Chacon Gonzales. The last of these dictators Jorge Ubico was the most brutal in his rule and the most lenient in his treatment of UFCO(Moye 44). He allowed the company to become the most dominant in Guatemala, granting it control of rail lines, electric plants, and ports, in addition to its already established landholdings. After 13 years of constant suppression and militarization of almost every institution in the country including the post office, Ubico’s government was overthrown in the Revolution of 1944, and democratic elections were held(Shahan). Anti-Communist socialist Juan Jose Arevalo won and became Guatemala’s first democratic leader in decades. He brought voting rights to the nation’s Indians, significantly expanded the country’s education system, encouraged peasants to freely organize together, and instituted progressive labor reforms. However, he allowed the UFCO to continue its dominance of Guatemala and banned the local Communist Party, although he allowed those with Communist beliefs to express them without repression.

He was followed in 1951 by Jacobo Arbenz also a socialist, but one who was more sympathetic to Communism. Arbenz legalized the Communist Party and many of his advisors were members. Even his wife was affiliated with the party(Moye 45). However, he was not a Communist himself. Despite this, his connections with the party drew the suspicion of the United States who believed him to be one. These suspicions were only exasperated when Arbenz implemented the Agrarian Reform Law on July 12, 1952. The bill called for the confiscation of large tracts of privately owned land to be compensated, with government bonds. In total, 1.5 million acres were seized from over one thousand plantations(Moye 45). This had a major impact on the agricultural business of the United Fruit Company which had around a third of their holdings in the country taken from them. In addition, Arbenz further angered UFCO and its American backers by building a new port as an alternative to the United Fruit Company’s ports and new power plants as an alternative to their power plants(Moye 45). Guatemala’s decreasing reliance on UFCO made the company and its allies weary. As a response to these policies, they lobbied the United States for the overthrow of Arbenz and his democratically elected government. John Foster Dulles affiliated with the company and Secretary of State at the time assisted them in this endeavor(Moye 47). A proposed coup further aligned with American interests due to suspicions that Arbenz was a Communist and President Eisenhower’s staunch anti-Communism.

Thus in August 1953, the President authorized Operation PBSUCCESS and preparation for the invasion began. The United States armed and funded Carlos Castillo Armas who had been exiled from Guatemala after a previous failed coup against Arevalo(Moye 48). However, waiting for the right time to strike was vital for the success of the operation and the US needed a justification for their actions. In the months leading up to the invasion, Arbenz heard word of the pending coup and purchased weapons from the Soviet-controlled Eastern Bloc nation of Czechoslovakia. This was the excuse America needed: “The immediate justification for the authorization of the U.S.-backed intervention in Guatemala was an arms shipment in May 1954”(Moye 48). Subsequently, on June 18, 1954, Armas’s forces crossed into Guatemalan territory from the Honduran border initiating the invasion. His army consisted of around two hundred troops and three US-provided bombers. Though small in number Armas faced little opposition due to Arbenz’s fears that retaliation would result in a direct American invasion(Moye 49). In addition, the consistent air support and an effective propaganda campaign led the government to believe the rebels were far more successful than they were. Castillo Armas’ only military victory on June 25, 1954, in Chiquimula, was the final straw for the Arbenz government, and rather than be executed, he resigned. Two weeks later after a failed attempt by Arbenz allies to maintain power, Castillo Armas seized the Presidency as the first of another series of brutal dictators who both imprisoned and killed thousands of their people in Guatemala: “His regime and those following were marked by turmoil, corruption, and repression…an unknown number summarily executed”(Moye 49). Their authoritarian regimes were opposed by leftist rebels with whom they fought a bloody civil war that spanned three decades and resulted in a massive human toll.

Soviet Imperialism

While American intervention in Latin America including the Coup in Guatemala is extensively covered in academia, journalism, and media of all forms, Soviet interference in the region is a significantly less popular topic. Nevertheless, it has still been covered by a range of scholars and other authors including Paul Saba. Saba was a lifelong communist activist, historian, and a prolific writer in his field(“Paul Saba”). He penned his academic piece “Soviet Penetration of Latin America.” in the early 1980s. In it he highlights Soviet Marxist imperialism in Latin America, especially in the preceding decade, and how it worked in tandem with American capitalist imperialism to keep the nations in the region dependent on foreign powers. This prevented these countries from becoming self-sufficient and exercising their full sovereignty.

The USSR first gained a foothold in Latin America with Fidel Castro’s 1959 Marxist Revolution in Cuba and the dictator’s subsequent alignment with the superpower. In the following years, the Soviet Union strengthened its grip on the region, particularly in South America. This was made possible by the decline of US influence on much of the continent and widespread struggles for independence from the long stranglehold of American imperialism. The Soviets accomplished their objectives in a variety of ways including through the offering of “long-term low-interest loans”(Saba). Such loans were preconditioned on wide-ranging economic agreements that discouraged further industrialization and development. Most loan repayments from South American nations indebted to the Soviets came in two distinct forms. The first was in raw goods and materials. The second was in the purchase of Russian-manufactured products. Often, both methods were utilized.

A salient example of this can be found in a 1976 Soviet loan of 19 million dollars to Brazil for the construction of a power plant. The following year, Brazil was instructed to sell them 75 thousand tons of coffee in repayment. Brazil agreed to this demand. In addition, they subsequently bought more Russian machinery for the power plant to complete payment of their debt(Saba).

The history of Nigeria is heavily intertwined with British colonization. Ambiguity arises regarding the emergence of this imperialism, in the mid-1900s, and the end of its reign as the dominant authority in Nigeria, in 1960. Lugard’s amalgamation of Lagos and the Northern and Southern Protectorates led to Nigeria as we know it now, a British creation. British imperialism asserted imperial power through law. European law was illustrated as a gift of legal stability and legal coherence which juxtaposed the natives’ formless oral laws that preceded colonial presence and governance in Nigeria. Eurocentric rule of law ‘lays down the fundamental requirement for law’ in order to centralize the Nigerian legal system rather than it being more pluralistic, with religion near equal divided and ethnic groups are close to 300 in amount. The Nigerian legal system shows the multiplicity of law as it utilizes inherited English (common) law, Islamic law and customary law whilst also borrowing the three-tier federal government system from the United States. Although, it could just be ‘the complex interplay between common law, statutes and customary law’ which followed as a result of the colonial modification of customary law. The impact of European colonization on the Nigerian legal system is shown through the methodological rigidification of customary law and the post-colonial importance of Islamic law.

Prior to colonialism there was ‘no organization of courts in the modern sense’. Nigeria’s court hierarchy consisted of various chiefs and emirs presiding over cases brought to the family, chief, judicial council of Ibos and Juju courts. The Nigerian legal system consisted of Islamic law and customary law; Islamic law was legally prominent in northern states whilst ethnic customary laws were mainly present in the southern states.

The integration of colonial law into the Nigerian legal system was a gradual process where in ‘the glaring differences between Islamic law and customary law’ were ignored and Islamic law was categorized under the umbrella of customary law. Islamic law being inflexible and written compared to the oral basis of customary led to needless complications. Despite this, ‘colonial courts were expected to enforce a blend of English common law principles, colonial statue law, and local African customary law’, asserting their role at the head of the court hierarchy. The integral changes in the Nigerian legal system were brought about by Lugard’s indirect rule. Lugard reformed the traditional administration into a more progressively modernized administration that represented the British system whilst removing customary and Islamic laws that were repugnant to ‘natural justice, equity and good conscience’. Indirect rule revolutionized British colonialism, when combined with law, which was ‘stronger in many ways than a Maxim gun’ the imperial project had solidified itself in generational power which outlived the disbandment of colonial Nigeria and implicitly influences the Nigerian legal system as it stands today.

English common law is still valid in Nigeria today and has become integral in the system. Although, English decisions are no longer legally binding in Nigerian court, the statute system is still influential on judicial matters. Nigeria has sought the legal stability that was dismantled throughout colonization, the state has been in ‘search of justice in a jurisprudence which is supposed to be indigenous to its peoples’. Nigeria adopts British secularism in ‘not adopting any religion as state religion’. Nigeria is suffering from a legal identity crisis where colonialism has left the state so far gone that their own customary law is forgotten as they wear their white masks. This secularism contrasts the state’s pluralistic groundings and highlights Lugard’s removal of pre-colonial customs. Perhaps, the adoption of British law served as a legitimacy generating legal transplant for Nigeria as they prepared for self-rule. Since independence Nigeria has sought to conform to a universal law that achieves easier transnational business and legal structure. This legal harmonization involves precursors and products of Imperialism, with the dominant state influencing the docile state in a new age legal ‘price leadership’ of sorts. Therefore, British colonization has reworked the legal system of Nigeria to act as a ‘proxy’ for domination, under the guise of bringing lawless states into the new legal age. To this day Nigeria’s legal system suffers from Lugard’s reforms and faces deep rooted structural instability.

Prior to Lugard’s amalgamation of individual states, Nigeria was ethnically diverse and thus the umbrella term of customary law was ambiguous. The multiplicity of customary law meant that there was no ‘single customary authority, but several; each of these defined in custom in its own domain’. Islamic law and customary law made up the Nigerian legal system. Customary law was ethnic and non-Muslim personal law due to Islamic Sharia law being its own separate legal entity. The separate states and ethnic groups that followed customary law also followed its unwritten and oral nature making it difficult to identify its structure. Therefore, the customary law of Nigeria was flexible and were able to ‘adapt to social and economic changes without losing its character’. Consequently, colonial courts had difficulty in determining ethnic Customary law and how it could be integrated into the colonial legal system. With Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo as its main ethnic groups Nigeria was split in different legal system. Yoruba ‘practiced a monarchical system of government which was centralized’, whereas Igbo ‘consisted of largely autonomous clans without any centralized political authority’. Nigerian customary law was adhered to because of ‘oath swearing, an integral part’ of the law, this provided a revered aspect of the system despite it being unwritten.

If customary law was the ‘language of tradition, of authenticity’ then civil law ‘spoke the language of rights’, such juxtaposing legal qualities amidst each other meant that the stability and coherence of Nigerian law became unclear. However, the colonial powers rigidified and removed the fluidity of customary law by applying it as ‘inferior to the common law of England’. Lugard’s indirect rule meant that colonial courts used the insight of native advisors to interpret pre-existing customary law, these ‘local alkalis, were an integral and predominant part of the native legal system’. With Nigeria having various customary authority, there was not a single dominant legislative power that could define the characteristics of customary law. Consequently, only one of the ethnic group’s perception and belief of customary law was adhered to, it being ‘genuine’, and ‘the rest were officially silenced’. However, this practice only carried out until colonial courts had built up enough case law to use legal precedent in future cases. As such customary law had now become part of English common law, its defining fluidity and oral nature was dissolved.

As colonial authorities governed Nigeria, they abrogated many customs that were seen to be repugnant to the foundations of law itself. The doctrine of repugnancy tested the barbaric customs against cohesive and legally sound English law. The ‘transformation of a barbarous custom into a milder one’ was beyond the courts capabilities as the colonial arrogance and rule of law did not bend to savage native customs, these said customs conformed to the ‘right law’ instead. It was stated that primitive and uncivilized customs were to ‘be rejected as repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience’. ‘Equity’ is representation of the English legal system’s Victorian morality with natural law aligning morality and law as interlinked. English law and customary laws conflicted frequently on personal matters regarding forced child marriage and polygamy. Moreover, the introduction of the doctrine of repugnancy ‘stunted the development of customary laws in Nigeria and hence brought about Legal Pluralism’, leading to confusion surrounding the appliance of the correct law. Therefore, the British colonization of Nigeria has led to ambiguity regarding the importance and appliance of customary law.

Following British imperialism and independence, Nigerian customary law is near unrecognizable. Such a change begs the questioning of law’s validity from a native standpoint. Although, the country’s constitution provides ‘comprehensive human rights-based means of evaluating customary law’, the validity tests of repugnancy are still applied to this day. This reliance on the colonially modified customary law shows that Lugard’s codification of customary law took a new form, a written presence in Nigeria’s legal system. However, it was still depicted as inherently inferior and had to prove it validity to a now foreign ex-colonial jurisdiction. With oral customs being an aspect of the pre-colonial Nigerian legal system, transliteration was a product in its dismemberment. The British altered the customary law whilst trying to legally categorize the ‘inferior’ law within their established system, however, as the ‘meaning of the rule changes, the rule itself changes’. The artificial nature of customary law (and its state) derives from the externally dictated transplant of the English legal system into the Nigerian, without a consideration of the incumbent legal system. Subsequently, the colonial rule of the British in Nigeria created a new law of written customs, through the attempted transplant of the English legal system and its structural values. Although, Lugard’s indirect rule changed customary law for the worse, it also redefined the more punitive aspects of Islamic law through the doctrine of repugnancy as Sharia law was assessed on its ‘natural justice, equity and good conscience’.

Islamic law in Nigeria is heavily predominant in the Sunni northern states, specifically the Sokoto Caliphate. Unlike customary law, Islamic law was written and was formed upon the Qur’an, Sunnah, Hadith, Scholars, Ummah and Qiyas, it was ‘highly systematized and sophisticated’. The basis of Islamic law is the Sharia, with it being separate from pre-colonial customary law, it was self-governed and uncodified. Sharia, or Islamic law, is ‘divine will as only God knows it’, with fiqh being the main legal literature in the interpretation of Sharia. Classical fiqh is split in 2 parts: usul al fiqh and furu al fiqh, the former focusing on critical legal theory and the latter focusing on the roots of Islamic jurisprudence. Classical fiqh provided definition and insight into Islamic criminal law and its three categories: hudud, qisas (and diya) and ta’azir. Hudud laws persecute crimes against the ‘divine will’ of God, with the punishment outlined in the Hadith and criminality in the Qur’an. Zina also known as ‘adultery (zina) by Islamic law’ is punishable through ‘death by stoning’. Although, zina is ‘considered one of the greatest sins in Islam’, there is no ‘documentation of capital punishment for zina crimes prior to 1999’. The colonial legal restructuring of the Nigerian legal system brought stricter Islamic law to the forefront as seen in post-colonial Nigeria. However, patriarchy has been present in Nigeria and has taken the form of Muslim values such as ijbar (forced marriage) and purdah (female seclusion).

As seen with customary law in general, Islamic law was beyond the capabilities of the British colonial administration, although it was clear they sought to ‘replace Islamic Law completely with their own common law’. ‘Transculturation’ proved an obstruction for the British as their attempts to override Muslim law led to the development of ‘new Muslim legal cultures’. In Northern Nigeria, Lugard’s indirect rule encountered strong Islamic judicial presence, and as a result he ‘adopted a policy of non-interference’. Alkali advisors introduced common law into the Islamic law and were subsequently eased out of the system in favor of legal precedent. To combat the resistance faced in Northern Nigeria, indirect rule was used to assign Islamic law to personnel matters only via the customary law, forcing Muslims into ‘forum shopping’ at customary courts. As British colonization could not wipe Islamic law out of the system, it was instead repressed until Nigeria gained constitutional independence in 1960.

Now independent, Nigeria balanced Islamic law, common law and customary law, until it moved towards secularism in ‘not adopting any religion as state religion’ and thereby allowing individuals ‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion’. The northern Nigerian state of Zamfara retaliated in 1999 by ‘resuscitating Islamic law’ and adopting Sharia law as their ‘principal legal system’ including penal matters which directly violate the constitution. Later, 11 other northern Nigerian states followed suit. Islamic law’s new penal jurisdiction under the 1960 Penal led to the emergence of zina trials as adultery was again an offence punishable by death.

Amina Lawal was sentenced to the hadd punishment for zina, death by stoning, following the birth of her illegitimate child. Upon her first appeal, Amina failed on all grounds due to her child serving as proof of zina. However, the second appeal was successful and Amina was acquitted on the basis of the ‘sleeping embryo’ wherein her child was attributed to her husband. Zina trials are no longer frequent following the Lawal trial, the judicial activism sparked by the injustice, ceased the application of similar Sharia matters.

In conclusion, British colonialism has negatively impacted the Nigerian legal system, from the rigidification of customary law to post-colonial dependency and zina trials. The disruption that imperialism brought greatly outweighs the good, so much so that the legal effects of colonization are being reappraised.

Bibliography

1. Adesina O. ‘Women, Shar’ia, and Zina in Northern Nigeria’ [2010]. 1/2 African Nebula https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273821191_Women_Shari’ah_and_Zina_in_Northern_Nigeria
2. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 Article 10 – Article 18.
3. Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria (1931) AC 262 (Atkin J).
4. Fanon F. Black Skin, White Masks (Éditions du Seuil, Grove Press 1952).
5. Ibhawoh B. ‘Stronger than the Maxim Gun Law, Human Rights and British Colonial Hegemony in Nigeria’. [2002] 72 (1). Africa: Journal of the International African Institute accessed 13 November 2018.
6. Vikor K.S. ‘Between God and the Sultan: A History of Islamic Law’ (Oxford University Press 2005).
7. Legrand P. ‘The Impossibility of Legal Transplants ’ [1997]. 4/2 Maastricht J Eur & Comp L https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/maastje4&div=13&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals# Accessed 13 November 2018.
8. Mamdani M. ‘Beyond Settler and Native as Political Identities: Overcoming the Political Legacy of Colonialism’. [2002] 43/4 Comparative Studies in Society and History https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/beyond-settler-and-native-as-political-identities-overcoming-the-political-legacy-of-colonialism/A1919DC1C4418B5229BBE876C18BFCFB Accessed 13 November 2018.
9. Masud M.K., Salvatore A. and Van Bruinessen M. ‘Islam and Modernity: Key Issues and Debates’ (Edinburgh University Press 2009).
10. Mir-Hosseini Z. and Hamzic V. Control and Sexuality: The Revival of Zina Laws in Muslim Contexts, Colonial, and Post-Colonial Eras (Women Living Under Muslim Laws 2010).
11. Nwankwo P.O. Criminal Justice in the Pre-Colonial, Colonial, and Post-Colonial Eras (University Press of America 2010).
12. Oba A.A. ‘Islamic Law as Customary Law: The Changing Perspective in Nigeria’ [2002] 51/4 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/islamic-law-as-customary-law-the-changing-perspective-in-nigeria/82086B559DE96F078271DA5D67CD29DE Accessed 13 November 2018.
13. ‘The Administration of Customary Law in a Post-Colonial’ [2006] 37 Cambrian L Rev 95 https://
    heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/camblr37&div=14&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals# Accessed 13 November 2018.
14. Okonkwo C.O., Naish M.E. ‘Okonkwo and Naish on Criminal Law in Nigeria’ (Second Edition Sweet Maxwell 1980).
15. Tobi N. Sources of Nigerian Law (Lagos: M.J. Professional Publishers Ltd 1996).
16. Uweru B.C. ‘Repugnancy Doctrine and Customary Law in Nigeria: A Positive Aspect of British Colonialism’ [2008] KIU Journal of Humanities https://www.ajol.info/index.php/afrrev/article/view/41055/8479 Accessed 13 November 2018.
17. Wuraola O.T. and Ojibara H.B. ‘Revisiting the Effects of Colonialism on the Development of Customary Laws in Nigeria’. [2017] 20/1 Nigerian LJ 108 https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/nlj20&i=124 Accessed 13 November 2018.

During the course, we have been dealing with some concepts related to England that were pointed out in the very first class. This essay aims to analyze how Imperialism, power, and a sense of superiority have been reinforced throughout the lessons. It will be using analyzing poems and the bibliography related to the history of England that these concepts are going to be strengthened.

To begin with, it should be noted that it was during the nineteenth century that England, under Queen Victoria’s rule, expanded its Empire globally. It was a great exhibition that showed some of the English pride, greatness, and superiority. They exposed their achievements and progress such as railways, sculptures, and machinery. “Nineteenth-century imperialists justified their projects by saying that their investment in infrastructure-railroads, harbors, and roads-and their social reforms would fulfill Europe’s secular mission to bring civilization to the rest of the world”. After the Napoleonic wars, England seized the opportunity to conquer lands with the excuse of bringing civilization and prosperity to those conquered territories. In reality, Imperialism was a measure towards keeping market clients and emblazon naval supremacy. The poem by Rudyard Kipling, “The white man’s Burden”, illustrates the English reasoning behind justifying their expansion and conquering. He pictures the conquering of territories as a “duty” relegated to the English due to their being superior and civilized. According to the writer, England committed to bringing progress to those lands which were suffering from famines, lack of technology, and lack of “culture”. The second argument was Social Darwinism, the application of Darwin’s theory of evolution to the way society worked. The survival of the fittest was taken in its literal written form. However, this had nothing to do with the real theory of evolution, it was the rationale for England’s superiority over colonies. [1: Cole, Joshua & Symes, Carol (2014) Western Civilizations Their history and their culture. Imperialism and Colonialism, 1870–1914. 729]

It should be pointed out that the conservatism from this period called “unionist leaders” had vested interests in consolidating the English empire on foreign soil. “Britain was losing European markets to Germany and American ones to the United States. New colonies meant new markets protected by the Union Jack and British arms from foreign competition. There would be new sources of raw material, and the natives of Africa and Asia might be expected in return for the blessings of civilization to provide cheap and willing labor without strikes or demands for political rights” This is in line with what Lenin states about Imperialism being an integral part of capitalism “With domestic markets saturated and growth limited by competition at home, capitalists were forced to invest and search for new markets overseas, producing an even more intensive pressure for the expansion”. Taking into account this quotation, it is clear that England decided to conquer other territories to obtain raw materials, cheap labor and to be the most powerful nation of all. [2: Thorn, John, Lockyer, Roger  & Smith, David. (1964) A history of England. Imperialism; The Last Years of Victorian England. 518]

It is important to expand on the definition of Imperialism since it can take different forms. Imperialism can be exercised through direct rule, indirect rule or it can be informal. The direct rule means that “the colonizing nation annexed territories outright and subjugated the peoples who lived there”. This was the case in Africa. England was interested in the diamonds that lay on South African soil. Cecil Rhodes, who was an English politician, wanted to expand the English empire to the south by saying that the natives would improve culturally. He wanted to build a South African empire and by doing so, England would attain raw materials (gold, diamonds, and sugar) and would be able to export goods. There was resistance from the Boers, who fought against the English twice, but finally, those African territories were taken under British control and English was established as an official language on those lands. [3: Cole, Joshua & Symes, Carol (2014) Western Civilizations Their history and their culture. Imperialism and Colonialism, 1870–1914. 729-730]

English Imperialism in China had begun some years earlier due to the Asian nation providing silk, tea, and porcelain, key goods for the British aristocracy. Eventually, the opium trade between these two nations was the issue that gave rise to a conflict. Chinese authorities decided to block English ships in the ports because the English smuggled Opium into China, which led to the Opium Wars. The matter was that England wanted to trespass on every land since it was the Empire that ruled overseas. The war was a British victory: “After a second war, the British secured yet more treaty ports and privileges, including the right to send in missionaries” China lost the island of Hong Kong and was submitted by the English. This was a case of Informal Imperialism since China remained independent, this means that it was not a colony, but her sovereignty was reduced. [4: Cole, Joshua & Symes, Carol (2014) Western Civilizations Their history and their culture. Imperialism and Colonialism, 1870–1914. 738]

In India, English imperialism was more violent since there were many revolts to cast the British East India Company out of India due to some grievances: religious ones, as the suttee were abolished and widows were allowed to remarry; annexation of territories to the British Empire from Dalhousie and economic reasons: there was high unemployment.

Eventually, the revolts were halted due to a lack of Indian leaders and population involvement. The Mutiny Act in 1857 established no more British expansion for some time; moderation towards the Indians and a bad relationship between the two countries as the British executed the rebels right after the Mutiny Act. After this, England had to reorganize the Indian Empire. “The East India Company was abolished, replaced by the British crown. The British Raj (or rule) was governed directly, though the British also sought out collaborators and cooperative interest groups. Princely India was left to the local princes, who were subject to British advisers. The British also reorganized the military and tried to change relations among soldiers. Indigenous troops were separated from each other to avoid the kind of fraternization that proved subversive” This was proof that clearly, the British kingdom wanted to have under her wing all Middle East markets and other foreign affairs without any complaints. Thus, indirect rule was established on Indian soil. That is to say that there was an Indian elite that had been chosen to link the empire and the colony. “Queen Victoria, now empress of India, set out the principles of indirect rule: “We shall respect the rights, dignity, and honor of native princes as our own, and we desire that they, as well as our subjects, should enjoy that prosperity and that social advancement which can only be secured by internal peace and good government.” This quotation asserts that the Indians should be thankful to their rulers for they will obtain only betterment. [5: Cole, Joshua & Symes, Carol (2014) Western Civilizations Their history and their culture. Imperialism and Colonialism, 1870–1914. 736-738]

Regarding Queen Victoria, she was labeled the Empress of India by Disraeli. She was a symbol of tradition and stability during her rule since she stayed more than sixty years on the English throne. “In 1887 she entered the fiftieth year of her long reign and it was celebrated as a year of jubilee. The celebrations began when the Queen, accompanied by the cavalcade of European princes who were her sons, sons-in-law, and grandson, went in procession to Westminster Abbey. They continued with a review of an army and the Grand Fleet and a conference of representatives from all the colonies”. This also denotes what a symbol of tradition and English values she had become. She was devoted to not only expanding the Empire around the world, but locally there were some reforms to reinforce the ideas of the Victorian times. First, the question of education. Some acts were passed to make sure that every child attended school. There was no cultural equality since there were public schools for the rich and Sunday schools for the poor. However, the Elementary Education Act passed in 1880 and the Free Education Act passed in 1891 focused on compulsory attendance and the state payment of school fees respectively. Punishment for misbehavior was very strict. The use of the cane and the dunce’s hat was implemented on those students who were naughty or rebellious. Learning difficulties were unthinkable at that time. Second, the question of gender and sexuality. On the one hand, men belonged to the public sphere. They could be businessmen or politicians. They were supposed to be as masculine as possible since homosexuality was criminalized. They had to have a beard and wear hats. On the other hand, women stayed in the private sphere of society. They were only wives and mothers. [6: Thorn, John, Lockyer, Roger  & Smith, David. (1964) A history of England. Imperialism; The Last Years of Victorian England. 516]

To conclude this essay, it can be stated that my viewpoint regarding the concepts of Imperialism, sense of superiority, and power have not changed throughout the course. After analyzing the different sources, it is clear that England was such a great power in the nineteenth century that nowadays there are footprints of that Empire everywhere around the world.