Colonization and imperialism revolve around the currency of the realm, money. Both were results of a mercantile society that needs new sources of revenue so survive. The theory was that if you go out and conquer than colonize and area, the mother land, or country that invaded, could trade with that area directly and collect taxes of the new market. It was also driven by the need to make sure that other countries do not gain a new source of revenue. When a nation gets wealthy it usually looks for ways to get wealthier and gain more power over their neighbors. As transportation became easier and weapons more complex, it became easier and more cost affective to invade "uncivilized" territories and sap them of resources. As it became more and more cost affective, it became more and more appealing to the business men and wealth people who ran the imperialistic empire. As the coffers and resources of the motherland ran dry, and other places became easier and easier to conquer, these business men did what they had to do to remain rich, expand their territories and collect new taxes.
Taken from my AP World/US History text book
Some historical examples would have been really nice to support the claim. But I like that everything is clearly defined and simply stated. Perhaps there is more than one reason why wealthy nations got involved in colonization though?
ReplyDeleteWhat other reasons would there be, in your view?
DeleteI think another reason may be because countries like to look "macho" in front of their opponents. Like for examples the Space Race, yes space is exciting, but it was called the Space RACE for a reason. If there is a excess wealth why not?
DeleteI defiantly could have gone into more detail about this, but I think I tried to get that point across when I said that they colonized to try and get power over their neighbors but I agree that I should have been more explicit about it.
DeleteThis is a great outline of the issue: clear, simple, and easy to understand. Every statement you made was a logical progression from the last, and nothing seemed redundant or unnecessary. Really the only thing that this is missing is an exploration of reasons that wealthy nations may have THOUGHT they needed to become involved in colonialism, whether or not they actually did.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good overview of colonization and imperialism. You were very clear and explained the subject well. However it is a bit general and could use some specific examples.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this is a good overview of the issue and logical explanation. Some historical claims and source examples would have been useful to back up your information.
ReplyDeleteI felt like it was a little short, but I was to the point, and very clear. I liked how it was a pretty unbiased view of imperialism and mercantilism. Some examples would be nice as well.
ReplyDeleteWord. Maybe some source info like this: http://www.thenewdawnliberia.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6329:main-reason-of-european-imperialism-in-africa&catid=50:special-feature&Itemid=85
DeleteExactly. Also, the original question does not limit the conversation to Africa, or that specific time period. Something that I would have enjoyed was a connection to other examples of imperialism in history.
DeleteI don't think I related my response with any place or time in history. I just gave an overview of why any country would turn imperialistic.
DeleteThis is a good historical response to your question. I feel like you could have added some examples to enhance your argument.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHaving more evidence would have definitely mad your argument stronger. I like though, the fact that you stated what the main point of imperialism is.
ReplyDeletemade*
ReplyDelete