Imperialism

[Kamakun]

I have an essay due later this week on imperialism in India. I have to find ways in which India was harmed. I already have 2 topics for it (Thousands were killed and Muslims were separated from the Hindus) Is there any other way India was harmed as a result of English imperialism?

Thank you

[Athos]

Eh, it's been a while since I've done something with English history...

Well, India was economically exploited for India's natural resources (cotton, spices, rubber, etc...) And of course, there is also the British East India Trading Company. You could also say that the East India Company was a monopoly. Didn't they started to get people addicted to opium? I know they did it to the Asians, but I don't know about the Indians.

If India had been a democracy at the time, I could have given you at least a page of topics you could have used as harm, but they weren't.

I suppose however, you could go into the rivalry between the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and the French. Certainly, countries fighting over territory would have been harmful.

Nicccolo Machavelli (he wrote "The Prince"), asserted that nations endowed with superior qualities are destined to rule over others. I don't know if that helps, but I think throwing anything at you can help jog your memory. It's been 3-4 years since I took World History (which is where I first learned this).

I hope that helps. If not, I'll be more than happy to look into my history books for you.

[Karin Rengu]

Damn! If only I had found this sooner! I did an entire 9 week report on this!

[Athos]

Well now you know.

[Karin Rengu]

XD

[Dretlin]

Eh, it's been a while since I've done something with English history...

Well, India was economically exploited for India's natural resources (cotton, spices, rubber, etc...) And of course, there is also the British East India Trading Company. You could also say that the East India Company was a monopoly. Didn't they started to get people addicted to opium? I know they did it to the Asians, but I don't know about the Indians.

If India had been a democracy at the time, I could have given you at least a page of topics you could have used as harm, but they weren't.

I suppose however, you could go into the rivalry between the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and the French. Certainly, countries fighting over territory would have been harmful.

Nicccolo Machavelli (he wrote "The Prince"), asserted that nations endowed with superior qualities are destined to rule over others. I don't know if that helps, but I think throwing anything at you can help jog your memory. It's been 3-4 years since I took World History (which is where I first learned this).

I hope that helps. If not, I'll be more than happy to look into my history books for you.

It would take a look at the other side of the coin. In becoming part of the British Empire, India joined the largest empire the world as ever produced. Which includes all the economic benefits of being in the Empire.

I don't think Americans or people outside the UK might know the saying "The sun never sets on the British Empire". This was literal and symbolic.

[Jade_Steel_Hawk]

Star Wars! =]

[Raoul Duke]

It would take a look at the other side of the coin. In becoming part of the British Empire, India joined the largest empire the world as ever produced. Which includes all the economic benefits of being in the Empire.

I don't think Americans or people outside the UK might know the saying "The sun never sets on the British Empire". This was literal and symbolic.

I know the saying. But WTF? Are you actually serious? So you're subscribing to antiquated and comprehensively refuted propaganda now? A true patriot. The slaves benefited inasmuch as they received a slave-wage. Sure they did... Have you heard of this barbaric lie of a saying, and its disgusting variations: "the worker is worthy of his hire [Luke 10:7]"

Have you read 'Heart of Darkness'? What you've said is reminiscent of one of the great farces of the slavery there: "...they had given them every week three pieces of brass wire, about nine inches long; the theory was they were to buy their provisions with that currency in river-side villages. You can see how that worked. There were either no villages or the people were hostile [...] so unless they swallowed the wire itself, or made loops of it to snare fishes with, I don't see what good their extravagant salary could be to them. I must say it was paid with a regularity worth of a large honorable trading company."


'Economic benefits' indeed! What a great and repulsive lie that phrase is, Dretlin.

[Dretlin]

If you want to deny that many people benefited from that conquest on an economic perspective, you leaving out the other side of the story.

But then again I have come to expect that from you, when you deicide you want a melee and only want to hold facts that further an argument rather than pursue a resolution.

For the love of Satan- do no insult my intelligence by going way too far in thinking I have a lack of understanding or knowledge and condemnation for acts within the british empire.

I'll debate this with you when you have researched it properly or willing to discuss ALL factors within imperialism.

A "patriot"? We are all old enough to stop sarcastic remarks that have no value arnt we young man?

You colonial scum bag you.

[Raoul Duke]

If you want to deny that many people benefited from that conquest on an economic perspective, you leaving out the other side of the story.

I am not denying that people benefited from the conquest in economic ways. In fact, I am saying the exact opposite! People benefited all right. Albeit via exploitation! Economic benefit was the reason for the conquest. It is who actually benefited that is of chief moral concern here.

But then again I have come to expect that from you, when you deicide you want a melee and only want to hold facts that further an argument rather than pursue a resolution.

1. You took what I said out of context.
2. Argumentum ad hominem
3. Some relevance issues, as to my disposition, and your affront on my character.

For the love of Satan- do no insult my intelligence by going way too far in thinking I have a lack of understanding or knowledge and condemnation for acts within the british empire.

I am not insulting your intelligence. You've just explicitly insulted mine. The only person insulting your intelligence, and insulting it only mildly, might I add, is you. With the very post I am presently responding to.

I'll debate this with you when you have researched it properly or willing to discuss ALL factors within imperialism.

Evasive tactics? That's cowardly! Come now! I'm ready!

A "patriot"? We are all old enough to stop sarcastic remarks that have no value arnt we young man?

You colonial scum bag you.

Sarcastic, yes, "no value" no. There's value. I wasn't insulting you, I was merely bemused by the ironic fact that what you have said has a colonial ring to it. A very immoral, repulsive ring. However, I know that you are not immoral and repulsive in your views. I believe you merely chose an ironic turn of phrase to express your idea. I was responding to the irony as much as I was to your post. I believe you've slightly overreacted, and that your condescending post is not only evasive but intended to be insulting towards me.

[Dretlin]

I honestly don't have the time or the care to put effort into being insulting toward you.

I would rather discuss Imperialism in it entirety, rather than picking a single one.

"But then again I have come to expect that from you, when you deicide you want a melee and only want to hold facts that further an argument rather than pursue a resolution." You would be surprised how true this is, has you haven’t changed in all the time I have read your posts.

And yes, no value. Not matter what way you spin it.

You have a way with words but it does not hide that you bait people then claim they other overacted. Your first post was unsympathetic to your own integrity at best.

If you want to discuss it further make a topic about exactly what you want. That sounds much more entertaining.

[The Rage]

Eh, it's been a while since I've done something with English history...

Well, India was economically exploited for India's natural resources (cotton, spices, rubber, etc...) And of course, there is also the British East India Trading Company. You could also say that the East India Company was a monopoly. Didn't they started to get people addicted to opium? I know they did it to the Asians, but I don't know about the Indians.

If India had been a democracy at the time, I could have given you at least a page of topics you could have used as harm, but they weren't.

I suppose however, you could go into the rivalry between the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and the French. Certainly, countries fighting over territory would have been harmful.

Nicccolo Machavelli (he wrote "The Prince"), asserted that nations endowed with superior qualities are destined to rule over others. I don't know if that helps, but I think throwing anything at you can help jog your memory. It's been 3-4 years since I took World History (which is where I first learned this).

I hope that helps. If not, I'll be more than happy to look into my history books for you.

Aside from the historical facts about the Indian and their history with the British empire, the Indians are Asians as they are a part of the Asian continent (very very common misconception). =P

[Raoul Duke]

I would rather discuss Imperialism in it entirety, rather than picking a single one.

Being a scholar of history, this is what I would prefer to do as well, rather than watching you rehearse the same trite and irrelevant character analysis that you have always directed towards me. I must say, my own patience with you over the years is quite astonishing. I'll reserve my intelligent-discussion-having-with for Athos, from now on.

[Dretlin]

I would rather discuss Imperialism in it entirety, rather than picking a single one.

Being a scholar of history, this is what I would prefer to do as well, rather than watching you rehearse the same trite and irrelevant character analysis that you have always directed towards me. I must say, my own patience with you over the years is quite astonishing. I'll reserve my intelligent-discussion-having-with for Athos, from now on.

The sense of loss is crippling me.

[Raoul Duke]

I have an essay due later this week on imperialism in India. I have to find ways in which India was harmed. I already have 2 topics for it (Thousands were killed and Muslims were separated from the Hindus) Is there any other way India was harmed as a result of English imperialism?

Thank you

Whenever an ethnic group or nation is invaded, exploited, and made dependent, there is typically a certain "hangover" period after withdrawal in which the disenfranchised ethnic group/nation/whatever remains so. Withdrawal symptoms, so to speak. The moral thing for a withdrawing party to do is to mitigate their own withdrawal. This was done in parts, but you could quite easily argue that residual deficiencies, like lack of infrastructure, exacerbated the effects of the 1943 Bengal famine.

[Snowy]

So I did some research on imperialism because I knew what it was but I was not the best on the topic to make anything more than assumption. So here is what I came up with:

Actually there are 4 different major interpretations of Imerialism:

1. (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and J.A. Hobson) Imperialism may have benefits, surely, but they benefit a small minority and harm the majority. Marxist theoreticians interpret imperialism as a late stage of capitalism when the national capitalist economy has become monopolistic and is forced to conquer outlets for its overproduction and surplus capital in competition with other capitalist states. (capitalism=imperialism).

2. (Machiavelli, Sir Francis Bacon, Ludwig Gumplowicz, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini) Believed that Imperialism was a natural struggle for survival and that those who endowed superior qualities are destined to rule over others.

3. This is merely that the perpose of Imperialism is for strategy and security. An empire expands for security by owning more territory, unforunately the phrase "spread too thin" comes to mind, since any and all forms of Imperialism cause much distress with the people of the territory being acquired. Causing, not security, but the opposite - a full range of new enemies.

4. The final interpretation is on moral grounds and is mostly related to Christianity. Sometimes the empire bringing forth the imperialism believes that they are doing it to free those people from a horrific ruler or bring them blessings of a superior life. Althought mostly is caused by greed when it comes down to it.



And with these 4 examinations of Imperialism, I came to the conclusion that I disagree Dretlin. Although it may have furthered India and pushed them into the industrial age that they currently reside in, I think that the complications down the road with polution and the huge loss of funds as to being in the "empire" were not worth the security and advancement of being in the British Empire.

but then again im probably just a silly girl. a wee silly girl.