British Empire example essay topic

"Are Justifications of Imperialism via Economic and Social Benefit still Apparent in the 21st Century" In my essay I will discuss how social and economic imperialist attitudes are still apparent and remain in the 21st century. If we look at the concept of and definition of what is actually meant by the word 'imperialism' according to Williams "imperialism developed as a word during the second half of 19 century. Its meaning was always in some dispute, as different justifications and glosses were given to a system of organised colonial trade and organised colonial rule. However in the 20th century it acquired a new specific connotation to 20th century writers like Hobson, Kautsky, Bauer, and Lenin who in varying ways related the phenomena to the modern imperialist development of capitalist economy. (Williams 1976: pg 159) If we look at the historical background of British economic and cultural imperialism we will notice that most of the British Empire was based on the expansion of industrialisation of Britain during the early period of the empire. The British government have always felt a deep-rooted justification of ruling other nations to be their Christian duty.

Like most other European empires the benefits were substantial part of the conquest. The empire brought massive profits and wealth to a minority section of the British population. This enabled the British Empire to remain a powerful adversary among the European community. Like most other European empires they took advantage of other nations wealth and cultural values to use to their advantage of 'divide and rule' India was a previous example she was the biggest and most prosperous adventure for the British rule as suggested by Hobsbawm "India was the 'jewel crown' and the core of British global strategic thinking precisely because of her importance to the British economy.

(Hobsbawm 1987: pg 69) as pointed out by Hobsbawm the India had become important since sixty percent of British cotton was exported to India and the Far East, the empire hinged on the surplus income India provided. Its no wonder the previous empires had such blown up self-esteems about being superior then anyone else. The concept of Empire was deeply entrenched in the British consciousness has argued by historian Keith Robbins "The empire penetrated the emotions of millions. It gave Britain its position among the nation confirmed a national, not to say racial superiority. Taken together with Britain's insularity, the empire marked out an 'island race' as a people set apart, with connections across the globe matched by no other state. 'British culture' had in these respects a psychological dimension shared by no other European state, not even by France".

(Robbins Pg 4) However long have the days gone of British imperialist might since it can be suggested the hand over of Hong Kong maybe the last heritage of the golden age of imperial might drifted into the distant memory. But since the events of September 11 whole new policies have emerged under a new umbrella of old imperialism. A world of 'new order' deep-rooted thoughts of old imperialist ideologies is still significantly apparent in the 21st centuries upper classes, politicians and intellectual propagandists policy makers reminiscing in the imperialist renaissance. People like Robert Cooper Deputy secretary of the defence and overseas secretariat in the British cabinet office an influential part of Tony Blair's policy adviser a member of the foreign policy centre suggests that Britain should play a major European role in the 'new age of liberal Imperialism' he points out in his essay titled "the post-modern state" published by the foreign policy centre Cooper according to David Chandler in the Observer writes in which "Cooper is the articulate advocate for 'a new age of Empire' in which western powers no longer have to follow international law in their dealings with 'old fashioned's tates, can use military force independently of the United Nations and impose protectorates to replace regimes, which 'misgovern' (Chandler Observer 2002) The word 'protectorates' comes as an ambiguous meaning especially with the Iraqi conflict could then be this another justification of Anglo- America going pass the U. N backing to remove Saddam's regime which would have been a more un imperialist act this did. Nail Ferguson's channel 4 series and the book 'Empires' presents an acceptable face of past and present imperialist brutality because the empire as pointed out by Wilson a anti colonialist and a professor of history at kings college London feels "Ferguson defence of the new imperialism is based on a view that the west is always best" (Wilson Guardian 2002) to justify the war with Iraq is like previous propagandists have based historical events to justify the new imperial order. Early as the 1800 to 1900 the past imperial message was penetrated into deep levels of the society.

Isn't this what people like cooper and Ferguson trying to achieve sentimental romp from the mass public about the British being 'best from the rest'. Ferguson makes the point about how the Britain's free trade policies of 'law of rule' Ferguson points out that no other organisation has done more for the economy by imposing western norms of law order and governance around the world. Ferguson also points out how they put out 'free trade' as pointed out by Wilson that rather than enriching the world they improvised it, instead of pouring money into the local economies in the countries they ruled they did deals with indigenous elite to sustain their rule at knock down prices. Ferguson needs to look at sweat shops in India and Pakistan were the sweat shop workers earn very little from the products the surplus profits from the selling of products are poured back into the British economy, super stores like Mat alan and Marks& Spencer are some of the stores that make huge profits from sweat shop in third world countries there products are sold twice the price of the average labour in these places. It can be suggested that this reminds us of the currant situation of Iraqi oil rather then liberating the people of Iraq the British soldiers went straight to the old fields to secure their interests, a share of the booty the price for liberating Iraq and what a price that is to the Iraqi people? Already the 'protectors' have put a price on the Iraqi oil which is that under supervision the oil will be supervised where its sold, another example of the economic imperialism is the way the American's have replaced Iraqi diners with dollars.

But it's not just Iraq that has become important to the imperialists agenda since they already have Afghanistan and its natural resources to either establish or maintain their imperial economy. People like Cooper like Ferguson feel that the Asians, Africans and Arabs cannot look after their own affairs unless the western 'civilised' countries don't help them yet if we look back in history most of these civilisations have been managing their own affairs for thousands of years without the help of the west that is until the west decides to sow the seed of deception by turning each culture against each other like all the previous times during the old empires take India as an example has pointed out by anti colonialist Wilson "India ruled by Muslims before the British India was a prosperous country rapid commercial ising Society" (Wilson: Guardian 2002) that is until Robert Clive's victory of India. Clive's deception was subject of parliamentary inquiry as pointed out by Mihi r Bose in an article for the Guardian newspaper pointed out that colonel Burgoyne accused Clive off looting Bengal for his gain. Clive defended himself by saying it was for the good of Britain. Again the same policies exist in the 21st century with Tony Blair justifying the war as the Iraqi people need this to be free maybe there is no doubt the such a leader needs to be removed but it's the means in which he or any other dictator is removed is questionable? These dictators were placed by the west to benefit their own political agendas because they did what the west wanted.

Labour M. P Tom Da lyell complains that Coopers policies are against the labour party's long history of anti-colonialism. David Chandler in the observer reported that Coopers kind 'new imperialism' is already well established. The U. K government's joint consultative committee called a couple a years ago for the U. N to restore the trusteeship council for managing the growing number of international protectorates. Tony Blair recently appointed paddy Ashdown as the colonial administrator of Bosnia, the peace council has already taken up the role of self-selected peace implementers which as 'voluntarily' taken up the duty of running Bosnia for indefinite future. Well this evidence speaks foe its self about how the British government will profit economically from this deal since all the contacts and spoils of war will be in the pockets of the British government officials. Sundar Kat wala suggests in the Observer all the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up.

Yet Jack straw believes that most of the political instability in Middle East, Asia and Africa has something to with their legacy of empire yet as pointed out by Wilson that while he beliefs the wrongs of imperial violence can be righted by new wave of liberal imperialism how arrogant these policy makers are to think that they can right the empires past mistakes (Wilson Guardian 2002) They end up making further mistakes to justify further colonialisation of other countries has pointed out by Home Bhabha "In order to justify conquest and establish systems Of administration and instruction... colonial discourse produces the colonized as a fixed reality which is at once an 'other' and yet entirely knowable and visible" (Bhabha 1983: 23) The west has always justified its reign on the orient as the 'other'. Past justifications have emerged into new policies new ultimate metaphors like has pointed by Vannin 'mass destruction' 'collateral damage' and 'will of the international community' these terms have become justifications to misuse their power and enable them to do as they choose without the backing of U. N or any other country. Words like 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'terrorism' portray a real sense of how the government in Britain has constantly justified the war to benefit their economic and social needs. Still there maybe some hope when politicians like Robin Cook and Clair Short decide to resign their posts within the government because they feel that Blair's policies are against all that the old labour stood for in terms of colonial rule. There is also another aspect of how the governments justify any war to further their goals. The media in the 21st century is the biggest propagandist of all times.

Since most is owned by the big American corporations example like sky and fox these governments use the media to establish a sense of imperialist ideologies. The coverage of the war was restricted to what they wished the public to see. The public never really saw the other side of the coin as suggested by Said "one significant contemporary debate about the residue of imperialism - the matter of how 'natives' are represented in the western media" (Said 1993 pg 22) If we look at the recent events of the Iraqi and Afghanistan war we can see the there are many justifications of economic benefits for the British and American governments. However the question remains that if the international community moved to their old ways of imperial status then as pointed out by Wilson that "the new liberalist see the west has the power to re mould the rest of the world in its image.

It doesn't instead imperialism creates a cycle of violence and poverty that advances the short-term interests of a few by impoverishing us all in the long term".