When the Europeans took over Africa and Asia, why didnt they bothered with modernizing and industrializing the rural countries they were in? Instead of selling mass produced crap from say England to Africa or India, something that the Africans and Indians could barely afford, they could just invest money on modernizing the agriculture and industry. That way, they will buy their own stuff, and all you gotta do is just collect taxes like we do here in America. Make the people happy with a federal government, then the the highest levels collect taxes and all will be fine wouldnt it? Of course the colonies would want home rule, which would eventually be granted like Canada and Australia. In the US, if a state wanted to secede, it would be impossible dude to some law the government put in the constitution after the Civil War.
I don't want other countries to be controlled by another. I was just wondering. You know how they say about happy citizens.
2007-08-20 07:17:10 · 7 answers · asked by JN 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just in case anyone doesnt know what a federal style government is, it is when power and responsibility of government is divided among the local, state, and federal(central) level.
2007-08-20 07:18:56 · update #1
The idea behind imperialism is to take away from others in order to gain more power for yourself. Why do you think the US didn;t build a paradise in Haiti? Mexico? Nicaragua? Honduras? SOmalia?
Imperialism is about taking, not giving.
model is largely defunct? did this guy miss the US?
Are they in Iraq to pick flowers? Why did they invade Kosovo? Haiti? Grenada? Nicaragua? Why did Ronald Reagan support Apartheid in S. Africa and genocide in Palestine?
Man, Darth Vader has got nothing on US presidents.
2007-08-20 07:22:43 · answer #1 · answered by Washington Irving 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
first of all you need to understand some of the mechanics of "mercantilism". lets take the British empire for example, at around the time of the American revolution.
the colonies were prohibited from manufacture or export of finished goods. they were also prohibited from trading with certain countries, much like the federal government now bans trade with some nations. The colonies were forced to sell raw goods to the parent nation (in this case England) for artificially cheap prices, then the industry in the mother country produced finished products which were sold on the open market. this tactic produced much wealth for the mother country, while keeping the colonies underdeveloped and dependent on the mother country.
Imperialist nations do not develop the resources of another country, they either get developed following a revolution or secession or are exploited by the ruling class.
2007-08-20 14:30:14 · answer #2 · answered by Free Radical 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As put by others, the answer is in the term, Imperialism. If you can get all the resources without investing anything into the local infrastructure and population, then investing would be the last thing on the minds of most commerical interests (i.e. Dole, Monsanto, etc.) And commercial interests are the true rulers in today's world.
2007-08-27 09:20:02 · answer #3 · answered by jen_zen1950 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
imperialism is not a situation, it is an economical standard of a country. When a state have surplus capital to export, it reaches to the level of imperialism. Thats the definition. But its character vary from era to era. Because for its survival it adapts with the newer situations. As profit is its only quest it can think of nothing else. So any doing good to another nation dont bother an imperialist unless it is related to profit.
If the answer seems hard enough to u, can contact me further.
thanks.
2007-08-21 01:54:19 · answer #4 · answered by saint 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Imperialization isn't about building up the other nations.. if you build them up they gain the ability to be self sufficient and revolt.. this is why Ethiopia was never colonized.. they were built up by the Italians and were too modernized at the time to be easily defeated. Modernization is also what helped bring about the loss of India from Britain (well ... that and the entire aftermath of WW II). In short.. Imperialization is about getting what you need to make the home nation stronger. Nothing more, nothing less.
2007-08-20 14:26:35 · answer #5 · answered by pip 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you're actually asking about mercantilism. The model was to establish colonies, import raw materials from those colonies, and export finished goods to them.
That model is largely defunct, now.
2007-08-20 14:22:01 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you saying this coz those "poor" Indians and Africans are more talented that you are and you lost your job to them?
2007-08-20 14:25:35 · answer #7 · answered by The ROCK 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋