European Imperialism example essay topic

imperialism Colonialism is an important concept to address because it has had such a major impact on the modern world. It is often responsible for the movement of peoples throughout the world and is often a factor in the rate of development of nations. In their acquisition of Asian colonies, the European imperialists were driven by several motives. They wanted new sources of raw materials and precious metals, and (later) new markets; but they also claimed that they were assuming responsibility for bringing Christian salvation to the heathen. There was, moreover, a prestige to be gained from the possession of colonies.

These three motives for early imperialism are often summed up as 'Gold, Gospel and Glory'. By 1900 the European nations held a dominant position in both Asia and Africa. They tended to claim that their imperialist activities were BENEFICIAL to their subject peoples. How could this be so if the rivalries between imperialist powers generated tension, especially between Britain and Germany, which would eventually contribute to the first world war My opinion is that Imperialism is a natural phenomenon occuring in social species. I mean, look at ants... they " ll take over other nests and steal the eggs to eliminate competition and give themselves a boost. It's survival.

Humans are that way, only more complex and less instinctive. That in no way makes imperialism right... but it does remove some blame from Europeans. The world powers had a "right" to take the land because they said that they did, and back then, as now, supreme rule makes the rules. Also, they thought that they were civilizing the "poor" Africans. Unfortunately, their involvement in Africa held catastrophic results for the Africans: slavery, poverty, civil unrest, not to mention years of already successful civilization, if primitive, wasted. The worst thing in the world is a well-intentioned idiot.

Not to say the Europeans were stupid just nearsighted, ignorant, pompous, greedy, and selfish. Politics are like that today... when someone gains power, they often forget the original reason they worked towards it in the first place, blinded by new temptation. The European leaders could hardly be expected to understand the Africans; they weren't even aware of the problems in their own lower class of citizens. The right of one nation to take over another for whatever political, economic, social or religious reasons is never justifiable. When nations like Britain, the U. S, Germany or Japan engaged in imperialism their primary concerns were not the welfare of the lesser nation.

They intended to "rape" the African countries, the Far East of whatever cheap raw materials could be extracted and used for the expansion of their own industries at home. If their interests were not in cheap raw materials they were searching for new markets to sell the surplus of manufactured goods they had produced. Therefore their own greed cannot be a justifiable reason for their territorial aggrandizement. The claim that they wanted to christianize the pagan societies of the world was a facade to hide their underlying economic motives.

Imperialism had many causes, many people were driven to spread thier religion because they felt obligated to tame the savages and share with them the glories of civilization. Although this probably wasn't the major cause of the Imperial ization it not only made poeple want to help others but probably more importantly justified many poeple morals. Europeans also used social Darwinism to justify themselves. Nationalism also played a large part in imperialism, when the English started creating Empires, other people said if the british can have a empire so can we. Imperialism was used by positions to gain popularity.

One of the major reasons for creating empires was the gain of raw materials. Mainly it seems that the spread of Imperialism was similar to a child busting open a pinata and all of the other kids franticly grabbing for the candy, not really thinking about what they were doing of what they were destroying. There were different reasons for building an empire. One was a search for market and raw materials. Religion made people want to build an empire because it helped spread imperialism. Domestic politics and nationalism influenced the spread of imperialism because politicians wanted domestic support by being an emperor.

Domestic politics lead to building an empire. International politics caused people to build an empire because it put their country ahead and gave them more opportunities. Nationalism lead to imperialism and the building of empires. Any ruler could build an empire, they weren't always good or evil. Countries built empires because their rival countries were building empires. Imperialism was also caused by new technology so people thought that they were superior and they built empires because they thought they were entitled to it.

Everyone had their own reasons for imperialism. The reasons were good reasons except for the one where people thought they were superior and were entitled to having an empire. I believe that Imperialism was definatly justified. The public and the government both wanted their country to succeed. Their reasons might have been different but the major one was Nationalism. Nationalism made people want even more to see their country succeed.

They decided to make their country into and empire by settling or controlling other lands in Africa, India and Asia. This made trade alot easier for a country. They were already there so they didn't have to make as many back and fourth trips. As for the question of weather or not the conquorers were evil I believe that in their own eyes they were doing the other countries a favor. In the eyes of the other country they were destroying the land and they community. Europeans have destroyed many cultures including the Aztecs and many other.

I do believe that the Europeans were "bad guys". I believe that Imperialism was justified in the minds of some people, however not in the minds of others. That is, the Europeans felt it was justified, where as others like the people already living on the land felt it was not. To the Europeans, Nationalism- the belief in unity and having pride for ones country was very important.

The Europeans felt that if they colonized land and started from scratch that they would be able to make their colony the most powerful. However, the natives of the lands felt quite differently and therefore did not believe that Imperialism was justified. In the minds of the natives, it was not fair. The Europeans were just coming in and stealing the lands that they had lived on for many years. The natives ended up getting pushed off of their lands so that the Europeans would be able to start their own colonies and gain power. Why should the natives have to suffer so that the Europeans could grow stronger Therefore, Imperialism was justified in the minds of the Europeans, however not in the minds of the natives.

I think that imperialism was not justified. The countries that were expanding did not think whose land they were taking and what cultures they were disrupting. The reasons that a country would expand in Africa or Egypt, was to use the land for reasorces they could not get in their country and for strategic reasons. People used those places for many other reasons, also. They went for religious reasons and to show other poeple "their" way because "their" way was the right way. And who wouldn't want to learn the right way from a country so big and powerful as they were Nationalism added a lot to this feeling and made more people believe in imperialism.

The people who would expand were not heroes, they thought only of themselves and only wanted to help their country and bring glory to themselves. Imperialism, in my opinion was selfish and inconsiderate of the cultures and traditions of the countries that were taken over. Eventhough the leaders from Europe tried to make the leaders of the tribes and poeple who lived in Africa and Egypt understand what they were doing, they did not think of the language barriers or that even possibly that the tribe would not want to be a part of imperialism. I think imperialism caused many problems in later years for Europe, and did not have great or helpful effects. Imperialism was not justified in my opinion. How can it be I wouldn't consider people barging into other peoples' property and claiming it as their own, making others change their views and ways of living to match that of someone elses, with greater power, in order to gain power, just.

Wanting to improve the economy, spread religion, and other beliefs, wasn't enough to justify imperialism. The reasons for people to build an Empire were sound reasons. The English were the first to build an empire and because it was liked by others, following a good example was what other nations began to do. Another reason for building an empire was for competition.

Competition aroused the idea of wanting to get to a cera in destination before anyone else could claim it. This caused great expansion and boosted the power of certain nations faster that others. It all depended on how fast people could travel, by foot, to claim the land. These builders, in my opinion, weren't "bad guys", villains, or heroes. I feel that what the builders did to gain power might have seemed good at the time for them to be considered heroes, but now that we look back at them, we realize that it wasn't the best way to deal with the gaining of power, possibly considering them "bad guys". But neither now or in the past, would the builders been considered villains.

I think that they were just pretty normal people who new what they wanted. They were neither "bad guys", villains, or heroes. For Europeans, Imperialism was justified because it was a method by which they bettered their nation. By expanding their empires into china, Japan, India, and africa, Europeans increased trade and land. they established colonies in strategic military and trade places, and also gained raw materials and cheap labor (the natives). for europeans, expanding their empire produced ony good things, and had virtually no drawbacks. However, the neighbors of those colonies had different views about european imperialism. for them (especially africa), European Imperialism was an unjust invasion of the land they inhabited for thousands of years. all of a sudden, they were forced to live in an industrialized world, and their land was carved into numerous colonies. "Hero" and "Vila in" in this case are relative terms.

Europeans were, to themselves, heros. They gave the gift of modernization and industrialization to poor, third world nations. they introduced the natives to the advantages of formal education, modern medicine, and the Christian religion. For the natives, the European Imperialists were villains. They stole their land from them and robed them of their natural resources. however, the Europeans did do some good things for the natives. they introduced them to an industrialized and modern world, which had been developing for the past 300 years. Although that introduction was too sudden, it had to have been done sometime. eventually, the things introduce to natives by european Imperialists bettered the quality of their lives. There were many reasons why countries wanted to expand into Asia, Africa, and China to build empires.

I think the main reason was competition. During the time of the great expansion into Asian / African countries, european countries were becoming subject to trade tarriff. These trade tarriff effectively locked out competition in european countries- if France had a huge tarriff, other countries cant compete in France. Therefore the only places they can compete are countries outside of Europe- like Asia, etc. Therefore people valued trading posts outside of europe highly and a push for expansion began.

The initial push in turn created a much bigger push due to competition- the attitude "if i dont get there now and claim it, someone else will" became common. These were sound reasons for each country because they were in the countries' best interest. However, i do not think they imperialism can be justified- especially with their reasoning. I dont think that the desire to improve economy, spread religion, etc. is enough to justify destruction of cultures and killing / abusing natives (i personally my has a bias against the british though for staying in India- my parents tell me too many stories). I think that the imperialistic rulers seemed like heroes at the time for their countries because they were expanding and strengthening their countries (feeding nationalism if you will), but overall i think that they were not heroes (but not necesarrily "bad guys") because their reasons for expanding were not just. Imperialism was started because of the desire for markets and raw materials and also the desire for countries in Europe to have a balance of power.

Great Britain was the first country to start expanding to Africa. The different countries expander ed for differnt reasons. One of the main reasons was religion. Missionaries were sent out all over Africa to try to spread their religion. I don't think that this was such a good idea, because then many enemies were made, becuase most people like to believe their own beliefs, and not have others religions forced on them. Another reason counties expanded was because other countries around them were expanding to Africa before.

They did not want to have less power than any other country in Europe, and they thought that by sending people to Africa, they were going to have more power. Countries thought they were making their own countries more powerful than other countries. I think that expanding and forcing their ways onto the people who already lived in Africa, was a bad idea. Everything would have been different if they would have not forced their ways onto the people who lived there first. I think that the empire builders did not think that they were doing something wrong, but that's just it, I don't think they fully thought thru what they were doing. They did not take the time to think about everything that might happen when and if they expanded.

I think that imperialism was a result of the natural desire shared by many, to attain something bigger and better. When imperialism became a practiced theory in Europe in the mid 19th century, it seemed logical to move into, or develop areas in Africa, China, and India, since they were rich with resources that could benefit European countries. The coming of the industrial revolution caused a large increase in the need of raw materials for use by England, and France. These countries found that there were valuable 'veins' of resources available in India and Africa. Colonies in these areas also offer convenient trading posts for eastward trading. This is where the imperial ruler is making prudent decisions that benefit the whole of their nation.

I see a flaw, when the reasons for European expansion into China are compared to the previous uses of imperialism. The reasons for this better fit the idea of "wanting bigger and better" and not really seeing how necessary these desires are. Europe wanted a trade route into China and Japan, mainly for novelties such as spices, silk, and tea. These are of course nice things to have, but the disruption of Chinese and Japanese ways of life do not seem worth the desire to have an "exotic cup of tea". If a country had survived without these novelties before, it probably wouldn't have been necessary to the survival of a country. Here is where the distinction can be made about the virtues of imperialistic rulers.

If there is a great need 33 f history of the world text book.