Imperialism?

Question

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

Answer 1

It really depends on what era we are talking about. Lets start with Roman imperialism.

After the initial wars and people being forced in to Slavery at the hands of the Romans, life in Roman provinces added to Rome became pretty good. Lets not forget that Rome started simply as a small city-state not unlike those in Greece and Macedonia.

Romans did have things pretty good. Relative amounts of freedom, (most of the time), fairly low taxes (most of the time), ect. Many times life was better for people after their lands were annexed to Rome than prior - lower taxes, better, more fair legal system, more money due to the opening of trade routes back to Rome... (the phrase "all roads lead to Rome" wasnt created for nothing...) Rome was somewhat a militarized society. They were constantly on the lookout for attack from outside. The provinces they control were under the protection of the Roman army which almost always meant better protection from bandits, rogue tribes, ect.

The only complaint one might have against Rome, at least in the beginning, was the fact that people were not made Roman citizens in the provinces. This meant they could not hold offices, vote, have fair representation in the Senate, ect. This changed much later though and definitely did a lot to improve the quality of life.

So to answer your question in short about Rome, the answer would be yes, definitely.

Lets move on to modern Imperialism....

Countries of the recent era looking to expand themselves by forming colonies around the world did so in self interest. They wanted places to obtain raw materials, places to sell their goods, sometimes ways to expand their religious beliefs, and ways to expand their power base. Think about Spanish colonies in the new world. They focused on "the three G's," meaning Gold, Glory, God.... meaning money, power, religion.

Frequently yes, this did create horrible issues of exploitation. Native populations were forced to work at horribly low wages. Circumstances close enough to slavery arose all over the world. Native people were not compensated for the natural resources such as diamonds taken from THEIR countries. A good example of this can be found in the book Heart of Darkness, a very well written book. As someone else mentioned, many countries take a lot out without putting much in... in the form of neccesities such as education and health care.

Outside of this, these people obviously had very little self determination. They had little control over the affairs of their country.

In short, yes. These people probably did suffer in most circumstances.

Moving on to Neo-Imperialism...

Time will only tell. At this point, I would say yes, countries are still suffering. Does the word sweat shop bring any images to mind? Kids being paid cents per day to make Nikes for 12 hour work days? Does Neo-Imperialism have anything to do with the Iraq war? Perhaps, it really depends on your political views - I won't go in to what mine are at this time. The thing to remember though about Neo-Imperialism is the fact that most of the time it revolves around simple economics - get countries to buy western goods.

Hope that answered your question.

Answer 2

That is hard to answer and it may just depend on your point of view. Nations that colonize other nations inevitably wound up taking advantage of the people and making off with that countries resources. But then consider that if it the colonizing countries hadn't been the oppressers the people's own rulers would have been. Troughout all of human history govenments we would call "oppressive", "tyrannical", or "totalitarian" have been the rule, not the exception. Somebody like Saddam Hussein would not have stood out among them. It has only been in the last couple hundred years that we've started looking at it any other way.

On the other hand, when technically more advanced societies have taken over less advanced people they have inevitably wound up passing on things that those people would not otherwise have had, at least at that point. Sure, somebody in the Belgian Congo or the Dutch East Indies might have discovered pennicillin, or the nature of gravity on their own, but it would probably have been a long time. When European nations began colonizing they brought with them discoveries and inventions that had come about in the West. Many former colonies were introduced to things like science, high rates of literacy, and modern medicine by colonial powers.

I don't believe colonialism was a good thing. I think it was very a unjust system that resulted from the greed of those who instigated it. But as to whether or not nations benefitted from it, I suppose a person would have to weigh the benefits of modern civilization against the injustice of colonialism.

Answer 3

Largely depended on which country did the colonising. The Spanish were renowned for taking all the treasure they could and wantonly killing the natives. But it had been going on since pre-history and nearly all countries and tribes did it.

For all the criticism that the British Empire still gets, they did an awful lot for the countries they colonised and whilst they did take a lot out they also put a lot in, in the form of infrastructure, education, health and welfare.

Whilst many former British colonies may have changed their countries or cities name they still retain the institutions and infrastructures put in place by Britain.

The Romans were also famed for fighting and defeating countries to colonise them. They too left many legacies that benefit those countries and the world today.


It is a pity that people moralise about colonisation in modern times without consideration for what societies were like in those days.

I think the world is a far better place because the countries that did the colonising realised that it was not good and gave them their freedoms back. It resulted in the abolition of slavery and in many ways led to the internationally agreed morality we have today.

Answer 4

It's fifty fifty. Some did, some didn't. Naturally a vastly superior force with relatively benign intent will prove some benefit. The oddity: Quality of Life was better in the Roman provinces and subjected lands than in Rome itself. The rest of Italy for a long time - wasn't - considered Rome. Hence the addage: France is not Gaul and Italy is not Rome. Oddly, the finest school for Latin in the ancient world? Was at Gaul! Self determination is always the first priority. Alliances rarely work well. Friends of today may be enemies of tomorrow. Self determination. When the people are morally strong in themselves, it is the finest trait in any people. A defining strength and building block. Nothing else will do.

Answer 5

Big question but - probably both things happened. The smaller countries certainly got new access to tools, technology and new knowledge they might have taken decades or centuries to develop themselves, but of course, the bigger countries got their diamonds or whatever that they didn't realize the value of - so it's probably both, a trade off, like so many things.

Answer 6

Why not question the pathology that leads to imperialism, and what to do about it? :))