The nineteenth century was characterized by heightened immigration, the utilization of new technology, and the rise of imperialism. By this time, Northern American, Japanese, and European superpowers adopted a new mission of expansion and forced rule over less-developed populations. This expansion seemed in practicality, to be driven by a philosophy of mercantilism and the idea that the cultures would further increase their economic standings by gaining raw materials and new markets for their goods. Nonetheless, as their influence increased, colonization and imperialism took on an additional, less profit-based standpoint, morphing into a competition between the reigning powers of the world in a race to proclaim dominance.
The exact purpose of imperialism, nevertheless, is hard to pinpoint, as the practice took on a different meaning for each specific nation that decided to engage in it. Intellectuals have long debated the theories behind imperialistic expansion, with conservative to liberal ideas proposed without a clear verdict reached. Intellectuals such as Hans Morgenthau and Benjamin Cohen have argued that the basis of imperialism is to decrease the strategic and political vulnerability of a nation. On the other hand, however, social-psychological theories circulate as well, from theorists such as Joseph Schumpeter. He rationalizes that imperialism is merely expansion without a purpose that nations learn from the actions of other nations. He concludes that this behavior then becomes institutionalized as a way to show authority. All in all, it seems that the motivation behind becoming involved in various poor locations was so that the dominant nations could showcase their wealth and capability as world powers.
Another much-discussed drive for U.S. imperialism was Manifest Destiny, popularized by Democrats in the United States in the nineteenth century. This belief stated that Americans were destined, by the will of Heaven, to expand across the continent and gradually the world. In this scenario, liberals cited divine intervention as the reasoning behind colonization and imperialism, providing yet more reasoning for expansion.
In any case, imperialism has come to dominate many corners of the world, for better or for worse because of wealthy nations drive to utilize resources and more vainly, display their supremacy.
I really liked how specific your examples were, especially the reference to the manifest destiny concept of the 1840's.I wish you had talked more about the desire of nations to become dominant (maybe talk about Theodore Roosevelt and his desire to showcase the US as a dominant power in Latin American affairs).
ReplyDeleteWe know you liked the specific examples. (just kidding!). I agree that the desire to be dominant is an important aspect of nations and why they want to expand.
DeleteHey at least I know accuracy when I see it. Then again, we are talking about a certain person who thought there were 52 states...
DeleteI don't feel the need to pack something with examples. An open ended question allows for me to be opinionated and opinion doesn't necessarily need examples. I doubt you would know that because it was probably taught in the last few minutes of class, which I'm sure you were not present for. Or in Ms. Watter's class last year on the day you ran out. Burn.
DeleteA sure sign of intelligence is the ability to leave when one still feels like it and STILL pull an A. Also, any opinion can still be enhanced with examples. It just shows you've done your research. Which I did extensively. While sitting at home, drinking a chai tea, pondering the 16th amendment (which you would still probably get wrong in an AP US quiz game)
DeleteNo, that is a sure sign of arrogance. Being arrogant is defined in the urban dictionary as, "When a person is led to believe that they are in some way more superior to everybody else. Pride is fine up until a point, but as soon as you believe that you are in some special way better than everybody else, you become a dickhead." No human is perfect and my minor mistake by not recalling the 16th amendment only makes me that much more human. And chai tea, really? Not green? Green tea, which I drink, is healthy in about every aspect and even helps protect about cancer.
Delete* prevent cancer
DeleteNowhere in my statement did I suggest that I am better than anyone else ( objection, creation of a material fact). I simply stated that it takes a certain amount of scholastic aptitude to be able to figure concepts out on your own and successfully apply them to your schoolwork. That is not being arrogant, it's just being clever. Also, I never stated that I, or anyone else, was perfect. To suggest that would be both ridiculous and a waste of time. By the way, who wants to be "that much more human". I myself would prefer to be that much more Egret. At least they know that chai tea has numerous antioxidants and anti- inflammatory agents.
DeleteIn those three minutes that you gain by leaving the class early, what concepts are you "figuring out"? Perhaps it is just me but the concepts that I choose to learn and apply to my schoolwork take more than three minutes to understand. I myself am not foolish enough to wish to be anything other than the human being I am. Unless I could be God. Also, is it the anti-flammatory agents in your chai tea that are preventing you from creating a large flame? Or am I just that much better?
DeleteI obviously wasn't referencing the times I left early. Those were just times that I needed a couple of moments to clear my head so I can focus on the really important things. It helps me recharge my mental battery. Maybe if you spent a couple of minutes just wandering around, you might be able to write a blog post as in depth as mine. Also, I was joking about wanting to be an Egret. Why give up my mental capacity for a brain a fraction of the size? Scientifically, we are way better off. Then again, not all minds were created equal... Although I probably don't have to explain that. You did take Bio, right?
DeleteYour post sounded very intelligent, and I could see a lot of AP World knowlegde coming in handy. Your observations about imperialism being caused by want of money and to show world supremacy were spot on I thought. One criticism: you spent too much space talking about philosophers and what they thought.
ReplyDeleteI liked your discussion of philosophies for imperialism and the various philosophers as well. The varying ideas offered a detailed picture of the topic. I am curious as to why you put US Manifest Destiny in there because the US never had any significant colonial presence in Africa
ReplyDeleteI recognized most of your examples from history and they were used very well here. I feel like you could've gone on longer but that might've turned into a paper on its own! You connected all your topics very clearly. Your last bit at the end was a short but good summary of your main points. I wasn't so sure on that bit with the philosophers. It was interesting but it deviated a bit.
ReplyDeleteI included the theories of the philosophers to address the variety of ideas that have circulated regarding the purpose of colonialism. I addressed a few of the theories to show how hard it is to pinpoint a definite reason behind colonialism and imperialism.
DeletePersonally I agree with Matthew the philosophies were right on topic and they made you're post great. I also agree with Nick that you brought in a lot of knowledge from AP World that made the writing more detailed. I would've liked to have seen you take a strong stance on which motive you thought was the strongest one.
ReplyDelete