I need some help --- on imperialism......?

Question

This is the question:
In the bid for colonies, did smaller nations benefit from colonization or suffer exploitation at the hands of larger, imperialistic nations?

any help would be greatly appreciated. I might fail this class!!!!!

Answer 1

Think positive. If you haven't studied much so far, at least spend a few minutes reading the two articles from the links below and you'll get some ideas on the topic.

While a small number of people in the imperialistic (or former imperialistic) nations and an even much smaller number of people in the former colonized nations believe the colonization process benefited the colonized countries; the majority of people in the world now considered colonization to be harmful.

The pro-colonialists believe the colonized countries benefit from the technology, education, organization and development brought about by the more advanced colonizers.

The anti-colonialists believe that the exploitation of the colonies and their people by the colonizers depleted the colonies of their resources and wealth and brought about more poverty and oppression. They believe the negatives far outweigh the positives.

It's interesting to ask yourself this question: if colonialism/imperialism so benefited the colonized nations why did the American people fought and died in the Revolutionary War to free themselves from the British Empire? Why did the South American people rise up against the Spaniards? There has never been a war fought by a country so it can become a colony of another but there have been many fought by countries to free themselves from being colonies of others.

Answer 2

The record is mixed.
Let's take India as an example. The British went there in the first place because of all the riches to be found there: spices in Ceylon, later tea plantations; tropical products like coconuts and coconut wood, palm oil, cashews, semi and precious stones, cotton (which was a luxury fabric until the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790's), luxury furs like tiger, and so on. Slowly Britain gained more and more control, and by 1835 felt strong enough to outlaw the caste system. This may not have been to the liking of the native population, but it was a major step forward in human liberty. They also outlawed suttee, the practice in which widows threw themselves upon the funeral pyres of their husbands. The British introduced common law, which was another improvement (India was divided into a large number of small kingdoms and princedoms with their own particular customs and laws). The British also built a railway network, which served their own interests, but which also linked the various states of India together, and which remains an important part of the modern Indian economy.
On the other hand, the British did little to alleviate famines, and became increasingly racist as time went on.
In Africa, aside from Rhodesia and South Africa (which were very rich in diamonds and gold, respectively), the colonies cost more to administer than they were worth. Strategic considerations often outweighed the economic evidence, so that the British were slow to see that the colonies weren't worth the trouble.

Answer 3

Your teacher is clearly a socialist. The correct answer is it depends upon who you talk to. As with most things in life the colonies suffer and yet at the same time benefited from the influence of European nations. Tell you teacher to be more precise in his questions if he wants the answer he is clearly looking for which is we abused all these poor nations.

Answer 4

maybe you should read your book and study a little once in a while and you wont fail