Colonialism and Nationalism In our time the legacy of colonialism is mostly talked about in negative terms. It is rightly suggested that the colonial period in worlds history is marked with massive violations of aboriginal peoples rights. Also, contemporary critics point out to the fact that natural recourses in underdeveloped countries were being exploited in the most shameless manner. Yet, even now, there is a lot of injustice happening in the world and it would be naive to think that there are any moral obligations to be considered when it comes to extracting economical profit on geopolitical arena. We can say that beginning of colonial era has coincided with discovering of America by Christopher Columbus. It didnt happen accidentally, sooner or later Europeans would find its way into this region of the world. History shows us that every particular culture or race is whether in the process of continuous expansion or retreat. Remarkably 1492 was also the year when the last strongholds of Moorish emirate were liquidated in Spain.
The rise of capitalism was another motivational factor that encouraged the whole legions of adventurers from Europe to look for the ways of making quick fortune in other parts of the world. This period is usually referred to as the second age of commerce. But it wouldnt be correct to suggest that European colonialism never had any beneficial effect on local people. Quite opposite the rising of living standards in post-colonial countries has come as a direct result of European influence. The notion of White mans burden was popular right up to the end of Second World War. Those, who say now that the aboriginal people wouldve been much better off if they werent colonized, dont seem to understand the history dynamics.
About the end of the end of the world, well I can say... plenty. This final event has been troubling mankind for years, when is it going to happen? We " ve been asking ourselves this one question for centuries. Nobody will ever really know the answer until the inevitable finally happens. Many people have their own theories and beliefs on when they think it's going to end. But in my opinion, the ...
In 17th 18th century, Haiti was generally regarded as land of honey and milk. French government had granted independence to this colony in 1801, ever since Haiti regressed to the status of the poorest country in the world. The example of Haiti was being followed by all post-colonial countries. There are 32 independent countries in Africa these days, yet right up until sixties, most of them were nothing but colonies of such countries as England, France, Belgium and Portugal. Despite the fact that European companies were exploiting natural resources in African colonies, local people were still able to have a stable job, trains used to arrive on schedule, children were being encouraged to attend school by Christian missionaries and there were no mass rapes taking place in this part of the world, as it happens now, because colonial administrations used to deal with it very quickly and decisively. The situation has changed drastically after African countries gained political independence. It is a fact that most of them have not just failed to progress further, but even to maintain the cultural level that was introduced to them by Europeans.
In Central African Empire, during the reign of Bocassa, there were countless accounts of cannibalism taking place and the French government had no choice but to send Foreign Legion to stop the horrors, despite the fact that this constituted a breach of international law, since this African country enjoyed full independence at the time. In my opinion, the only negative influence of European colonialism in Africa was introduction of Christianity to this continent. This could not bring any other result but a corruption of local populations. As rule, the missionaries would come first, only to be followed by more practical Whites, who used to take an advantage of aboriginals. Still, the most remarkable example of European colonialism is India, which remained under British rule from 1858 to 1947. There were no more that 60.000 Brits in the India during all this time, yet they were able to subject three hundred million of locals with ease. Historians are still puzzled about how they were able to accomplish this, especially given the fact that Indians are very ancient people with well developed culture, which in many respects proved even to be superior to English.
Industrial Revolution Great Britain is where the Industrial Revolution all started. The Industrial Revolution took place and started in Great Britain because at that time they were one of the most powerful nations that was being developed. The Industrial Revolution was a time of great economical and technical growth and change in Britain eight-tenth and nine-tenth centuries. In the mid nine-tenth ...
In India Brits were dealing not with just primitive tribes of savages, like in Africa these were people with well-developed sense of national identity. We know of only one time when there was an attempt to overthrow British rule. This happened in 1857 when Sepoys, who were predominantly Muslims, learned that Brits used pork to seal rifle cartridges. The period of political unrest followed, as a result of, but in the end Britain was able to regain control of the country and introduced its direct rule to set the accounts straight. By 1900 Britain was the most powerful nation in the world. Its fleet ruled the waves and there was no country in the world that was able to challenge Britains supremacy.
Yet, it was India that allowed British Empire the global dominance, since 60% all British foreign trade accounted for the goods coming in and out of India. Because of Britain, India still has the most developed railroad network in the whole Asia. British administrators were behind establishing of many of Indian universities. Many Indians share the opinion that one of the reasons for their country becoming the fourth economical power in the world is British colonial legacy. Even now, former British colonies try to maintain close contacts with Britain by being members of Commonwealth. This, of course, benefits them more than Britain, as theyre heavily dependent on its financial aid. If there is any historical guilt on the part of Brits, they had redeemed it long ago. In my opinion, we live in the period on new colonialism, when Western companies relocate its production lines to Third World countries, where there is an abundance of cheep labor.
The economies of such countries are gradually becoming dependent on these companies. This, in its turn, causes their political independence being largely undermined through economical means. The Global Trade treaties are only meant to provide legitimacy to such state of affairs. In 19th century the ultimate symbol of colonialism were British redcoats, now their role began to play faceless bureaucrats that promote Globalization.
... denied, and in a condescending manner after Indias sacrifice for the Empire in World War One. During the 1920s and 1930s ... the application of satyagraha against the British administration "could so paralyse the economy that the country would become ungovernable" (Cowie, ... self-government for India. There was, however, much suspicion that this declaration meant nothing and that Britain had no intention ...
Boyce, Robert. The Colonization of Africa. 2000.
Journal of the Royal African Society. 19. Nov. 2005. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0368-4016%2819110 7%2910%3A40%3C392%3ATCOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C Cody, David. British Empire. 1999.
The Victorian Web. 19. Nov. 2005. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/Empire. html Johnston, Alex. The Colonization of British East Africa. 2000. Journal of the Royal African Society.
19. Nov. 2005. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0368-4016%2819051 0%295%3A17%3C28%3ATCOBEA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9.