of imports and exports between Great Britain and her colonies exposes the declining importance of their economic dependence they have on one another. Using four-yearly averages, Hobson shows the sharp, and very consistent, decline Great Britain suffered in exports to, and imports from her colonies between the years 1856 and 1899. Between 1856 and 1859 Great Britain was importing 46.5% of the goods received into her colonies and was in turn enjoying 57.1% of the exports out of the colonies. By the years 1896-1899 however, those numbers had dropped to 32.5% and 34.9% respectfully. Hobson’s economic argument alone discredited imperialism on the basis that it was not a successful practice for nations supporting it for economic gains. Although he had …show more content…
already illustrated how the practice of keeping colonies was not one that was not finically beneficial for the Empire, he did believe that somewhere, someone was making money off of these exploits.
Having no qualms of making enemies, Hobson points the blame directly at those imperialists’ businessmen whom, both at home and abroad exploit the situation at the expense of the average man. “Imperialism, as we see, implies the use of machinery of government by private interests, mainly capitalists, to secure for them economic gains outside their country.” Although Hobson could have, because of the argument he proposed and the extensive research in the first part of his book, discredited Imperialism from a strictly economic standpoint, he decided to attack it further by exposing the contradictions it had concerning its ‘moral’ application. The supposed purpose of imperialism to educate the population through the occupation of their lands and the renege of this proposal in favor of
propagating a hidden agenda of economic exploitation and expansion across the world were the evils Hobson planned to bring to attention. In order for imperialism to be successful, it would be necessary to model the imperialized land and government after the mother countries, and in nearly all instances, this did not happen. In these colonies, “in most instances they form a small minority wielding political or economic sway over a majority of alien and subject people, themselves under the despotic political control of the Imperial Government…” Continuing, Hobson simplifies this occupation and subjugation by using a statistical approximation. According to Hobson, there are three hundred and seventy million people that live under the Crown outside of the British Isles, and only eleven million, or one in thirty four people, have any legitimate involvement in their government in terms of legislation and administrative abilities. Consequently, the education of these foreign peoples in self-governance modeled on Europe, the most basic justification of imperialism, was non-existent. The absence of education for these people, and in many cases nothing to even culturally assimilate to, meant they were nothing but a source of extraordinary cheap labor being exploited by wealthy business owners in Europe. John Hobson had been writing books on economic topics prior to his publishing of Imperialism, but in the case of this text, it significantly influenced a leftist radical who, despite disagreeing with Hobson’s politics, believed his interpretations and analysis of imperialism to be very good and cited him on multiple occasions within his own critique and explanation of imperialism. Vladimir Lenin was born in 1870 into an economically comfortable family in Russia and at age seventeen experienced the unfortunate event of his brother’s execution for the planned assassination of Emperor Alexander III. After becoming well acquainted with Marx and his work he finished earning his law degree and began work. While working as a lawyer, a great majority of his clients were peasants who, Lenin felt, were oppressed by a class-biased legal system which only served to strengthen his Marxist ideology. Vladimir Lenin’s opposition to these imperialistic practices occurring across Europe stemmed directly from his Marxist ideology and his correlation of imperialism to capitalism and therein capitalism to greed and a class-based society. At the height of the Russian Revolution in 1917, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, was published. It was not just a critique of imperialism, but an attack of capitalism. Through the point of view of his Marxist ideology, Lenin’s goal is to educate the reader on the complexities and evils of modern capitalism and believes that imperialism is the final stage of capitalisms because it is furthest is can grow without destroying itself. Lenin understands the rise of imperialism as caused by capitalism in a series of steps ending in the present moment. The concentration of population due to the Industrial Revolution created huge centers of production. Small companies could not compete with those larger than them. They were then eliminated and consumed by the larger companies; this cycle of completion, elimination and concentration continued until there was only a small number of companies remaining in that select industry. Until then, these companies were content within their own lands, however, once there were only companies of equal strength remaining, they looked abroad to continue to increase profits even further. Each nation, guided by businessmen, grab lands around the globe they believe to be most profitable, “the capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but…in order to obtain profits.” This super-concentration of production and currency caused the death of the free market according to Lenin. Destroying it because of how pivotal the free market is to a functioning capitalist economy. He references Hobson who said the old style of imperialism normally took the form of a single nation trying to expand its influence and power while the new-age imperialism was “…competing empires, each motivated by similar lusts of political aggrandizement and commercial gain; [who have] dominance of financial or investing over mercantile interests.” This was precisely what Lenin did not want to happen. If the world was completely divided among the great capitalist powers, whose business men pulled the strings of control from thousands of miles away, then the classless society that he aspired to establish would be nearly impossible to develop. The age of European Imperialism was a fifty to seventy year period but can still be seen on a map today. Many national boundaries in Africa and the Middle East can be attributed to someone drawing a line on a map where he saw fit. The Social Darwinist ideology that some used in order to justify, genuinely or not, the occupation, and subsequent stealing of lands and resources from millions of people to increase their own profits, were opportunists of the worst kind. Those who were against it, or were honestly trying to help the natives in the colonies, were unfortunately unable to circumvent the practice soon enough for it not to have a negative impact on the population.
One facet of this unique system involved the numerous economic differences between England and the colonies. The English government subscribed to the economic theory of mercantilism, which demanded that the individual subordinate his economic activity to the interests of the state (Text, 49). In order to promote mercantilism in all her colonies, Great Britain passed the Navigation Acts in 1651, which controlled the output of British holdings by subsidizing. Under the Navigation Acts, each holding was assigned a product, and the Crown dictated the quantity to be produced. The West Indies, for example, were assigned sugar production and any other colony exporting sugar would face stiff penalties (Text, 50). This was done in order to ensure the economic prosperity of King Charles II, but it also served to restrict economic freedom. The geographical layout of the American colonies made mercantilism impractical there. The cit...
“When on December 22, 1775, the British Parliament prohibited trade with the colonies, Congress responded in April of 1776 by opening colonial ports—this was a major step towards severing ties with Britain.” (history.state.gov) The colonies no longer depend solely on British goods, but had set up strong trading agreements with numerous countries. These agreements sustained the colonies. By setting up trade agreements with other countries, the colonies had, in a way, become “independent’ from the necessity for British goods. These British goods had become obsolete to the goods of rival
The French and Indian War impacted the trans-Atlantic economic relationship between the motherland and her colonies. Before the war colonists were rushing to buy new British manufactured goods resulting from the early stages of the industrial revolution. To pay for these manufactured goods, colonists increased their export of raw materials for sale to Britain. Although the exports were able to pay for a significant portion of cost of British imports, a significant shortfall was covered by British loans. This economic relationship saturated much of pre-French and Indian War colonial America and became normal. After 1763, Britain was in dreadful need for revenue to pay for the French and Indian War. Britain was clever on finding ways to raise revenue from the colonies. From 1650 to the end of the French and Indian War was a period of "salutary neglect." Britain had very little involvement in the lifestyle of the colonies. After the French and Indian War, mercantilism became strictly enforced. Merc...
This period is also characterised with further strengthening of heavy industries, factories and more global presence of industries in France, Japan, USA thereby, giving them a reason for territorial expansion. The rapid industrialisation resulted in increased production and hitherto, known luxuries became products of mass consumption however, it required a robust supply chain. So, there was a need to identify places which could provide raw material and those which will procure them for consumption, which could be easily satisfied by the colonies. The colonial powers competed for share in the market driven by the need of cheaper raw materials, labor and higher profits . The industrialisation had also, enabled development of a war military industry which gave them and advantage over their opponents such as in a battle between British and Sudanese in 1898, where British lost 368 men to 11,000 of Sudan or Japan’s defeat of China (1894) and Russia (1905).
Introduction: The epoch of imperialism cannot be defined simply as a proliferation of inflated egos tied to the hardened opinions of nationalists, but also a multi-faceted global rivalry with roots of philosophies tainted with racism and social Darwinism. The technique of each imperialist was specific to the motivations and desires of each combative, predominantly Western power and subsequently impacted the success of each imperialist and its colonies. Driven by industrialization, Europeans are aware of the urgent need for raw materials and new markets to maintain a constant rate of expansion and wealth. Imperialism became a competition; in general, the European countries led with fervor while the non-Western regions deemed likely to be stepped on.
In this imperialism by Europe, there was much good that was brought out from it which allowed for the response of happiness. An Indian politician named Dadabhai Naoroji wrote all about “the Benefits of British Rule” specifically in India (Doc. 3). In his book, he talks about politics, economics, and material goods that was influenced greatly of Great Britain and greatly
Today’s progressing world is being driven by the rapid acceleration of technological advancements. Although this allows us to enjoy more luxurious, financially rewarding lives, we also face increasing competition from other countries as their own technological advances gain momentum. Our involvement in the slave and sugar trade has given us leverage over our competitors in the Eurasian world and has proved to be a major asset in transforming our economy. Acquiring sugar colonies in the Americas aids our goal of empire-building, which, in today’s increasingly globalized world, is vital in preserving our dominant economic role in the worldwide stage. However, many of our fellow British citizens have voiced concerns about our utilization of the
In this essay we'll examine the practice of imperialism throughout modern history. Specifically, the philosophies and doctrines that provided justification of its offenses. We'll allow the life of Cecil Rhodes to serve as an entry point for this topic. This is ideal, first because Rhode's ideas and doctrines provide an illustration of imperial doctrine as a whole. Secondly, because Rhode's life is a microcosm of historic imperialism, as we shall see.
In 1600, Queen Elizabeth I officially approved the British East India Company to trade with other countries, which symbolizes the beginning of the Old Imperialism. That is, the British started to
Imperialism, a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force, is the main focus in this essay. Imperialism comes in many shapes and forms; George Orwell showed this many times in his essay. He views imperialism as an evil thing or as a wrongful doing. He shows us how evil imperialism can be by using allusion. He shows how he was forced to do things he does not want to do, but choose to do so because that is what was expected of him. He uses a story from his past to show how cruel imperialism can be. Orwell himself uses parallel between the British Empire and the elephant to send a message about Imperialism.
The common factor amongst all three instances of British Imperialism was Britain’s greed for economic opportunity. Greed is often caused by unjustifiable pride, which Britain undeniably had. England was so willing to achieve various advancements to its own economy that it created long lasting and devastating destruction in three other regions of the world. These countries still face lingering effects from British greed.
Imperialism sprung from an altruistic and unselfish aim to "take up the white man's burden"1 and “wean [the] ignorant millions from their horrid ways.”2 These two citations are, of course, from Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” and Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, respectively, and they splendidly encompass what British and European imperialism was about – at least seen from the late-nineteenth century point of view. This essay seeks to explore the comparisons and contrasts between Conrad’s and Kipling’s view of imperialism in, respectively, Heart of Darkness and “White Man’s Burden” and “Recessional.”
Imperialism, is it the big, bad master who enslaves the good, little child or is it the good, big master who protects the bad, little child? As history has shown in the past; sometimes, it is both. Through examination of three important pieces of literature “Shooting an Elephant by G. Orwell, White Man’s Burden by R. Kipling, and The War Prayer by M. Twain, it becomes obvious that there are serious consequences in supporting imperialistic ideals. Three very important ideas about Imperialism can be gleaned from these writings, which then provide a distinct concept about the subject.
Imperialism has had a profound effect on the world that cannot be underestimated. While the flags of European powers no longer fly over countries and the sun finally sets on the Union Jack, the scars of colonialism are still present. During the centuries of European globalization many viewed colonialism not only as a necessity for the economic power, but also for the expansion of sciences, and political power. This view was supported by many intellectuals during the height of the British empire including Herbert Spencer who defended it scientifically, philosophically, and politically but also by Rudyard Kipling who defended the cause artistically. Only in recent times has the west been able to truly discover the horrors
...settlements in Palestine. Imperialism with view to economic gains is also slightly evident in the U.S.A’s recent yet muted intervention in Iraq, supposedly for the oil. Colonialism and its effects are mainly relating to monetary issues, and its effects are almost always felt by the masses of a nation yet to steady its feet. The beauty that lies with our world is found in the massive and expanded history of its existence. Yet how does a nation exist with no history of its own?