Coming from someone who has studied World History before, I might as well leave my two cents. In regards to your comment:
Now here's a giant wall of text that I felt like writing in general as I was bored:
(As you can tell, I was pretty bored, also I'm not really looking for a debate or anything; just my two cents.)
No, but I'm not surprised it upset some kids in your class. Your points seem solid from what I remember.
Now here's a giant wall of text that I felt like writing in general as I was bored:
Here's the thing, imperialism was about much more than skin color. Am I saying color had nothing to do with it? Absolutely Not. Likewise, to say race was not a factor is equally false.
Best example? Read the White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling. [
Reading that, it should not take much to show what a portion of the late 19th Century Europeans thought. Being that, they naturally felt superior to the Africans/etc. In their mind, the Africans/etc. lacked much less than they did in life, therefore they must be superior because of this. It's the whole idea of Social Darwinism, and you are more "fit", therefore you will come out on top. The "unfit" will lose because they must lack something that you have, which in many cases eventually became racial. The fact of the matter is though what the "unfit" were lacking was more along the lines of infrastructure, weapons, etc. (I'll get into this later)
But then there's the reverse side; whereas many Europeans did not interpret the poem the same way as the first explanation. Being that, the poem could also be interpreted by some as truly a philanthropic concept. As in, the white man has all these resources, why not go "civilize" the poorer people of the world? As in it is the responsibility of the weak to educate the poor. Or better yet, it's the idea of "paternalism"; Europe's belief that Africans were not able to govern themselves. Just like how a parent treats his children, in that you have to tend to them, they're not capable of self-sufficiency.
Now you may be asking why on Earth am I bringing this up? Simple, this poem is the perfect tool to support an Imperialistic government; you can please two sides of the same crowd. Use the first interpretation and you now have all the racists on your side to establish a creed of supremacy via domination. Use the second interpretation and then you have the support of the fence-sitters, who weren't too sure at first but now see it as a moral obligation to help those less "privileged" than them just like a parent.
In fact this mere poem was so empowering that it was a leader's key to win support. Here's a good example:
Best example? Undoubtedly so Africa. To make a good explanation of what went down in Africa, let me share a story my old History teacher once told me.
To relate this in terms of European Colonization of Africa, well it's pretty simple. Your annoying siblings are your European neighbors; you guys will pretty much fight over anything at anytime. That's just who you are. Now you've been through a lot of wars, and quite frankly it's been enough at this point. Europe has gotten better. But now you find this very good looking pie, and you want a slice; not because you're hungry, but merely because it's first come first serve to the extreme. That is, if you don't take the slice, your annoying brother will, and then you take a loss while he benefits.
Same concept with Africa. It didn't really matter whether you actually wanted the land or not, the thing is you'd only be harming yourself if you didn't get it, as then your good neighbor Otto von Bismark or Leopold II will take the slice for himself. Now as a European Monarch, you don't want your annoying brother to get more than you, so what do you do? Take it yourself, until the whole thing
And now how do you take that piece sitting there? Simple, you send in your army.
What's that? There just happens to be
Simple, I just control them and force them to do the work. If they don't listen, then
Eventually though, everyone will start thinking of themselves as being the "superior one." Nationalism starts to rise in every European nation, and that could lead back to more kicking/pushing at the dinner table. Except this time, you call it World War I. I don't always make that connection as WWI has its own reasons, but the god-complex that came from Imperialism certainly led Europe to that direction.
Anyways my point is that race was merely an excuse for the powerful to bring forth to harbor more support for their own agendas. Same thing happened in the Americas after-all, which involved race but also religion. The whole idea of "Manifest Destiny", or that it is our God-Given right to expand our borders until all the Native Americans have been wiped out and America is fully theirs. Religion was also a dominant factor in Imperialism as well. Take the Spanish, they essentially turned an entire continent plus into Catholic partisans. In my opinion that is, race was initially overshadowed by the desire for wealth/power etc., but eventually evolved to a serious issue in different parts of the world as time progressed (i.e. Chattel Slavery)
But what interests me is that good question as to why was it the Spanish who defeated the Natives and not the reverse? Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the reverse? I can't say I have a definitive answer myself, but I've been reading a book for my Anthropology class and must say the logic seems rather interesting. That is,
But seriously your comment wasn't really racist, imo there's just more to Imperialism than racism, while race certainly played a factor.
Best example? Read the White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling. [
You must be registered for see links
]Reading that, it should not take much to show what a portion of the late 19th Century Europeans thought. Being that, they naturally felt superior to the Africans/etc. In their mind, the Africans/etc. lacked much less than they did in life, therefore they must be superior because of this. It's the whole idea of Social Darwinism, and you are more "fit", therefore you will come out on top. The "unfit" will lose because they must lack something that you have, which in many cases eventually became racial. The fact of the matter is though what the "unfit" were lacking was more along the lines of infrastructure, weapons, etc. (I'll get into this later)
But then there's the reverse side; whereas many Europeans did not interpret the poem the same way as the first explanation. Being that, the poem could also be interpreted by some as truly a philanthropic concept. As in, the white man has all these resources, why not go "civilize" the poorer people of the world? As in it is the responsibility of the weak to educate the poor. Or better yet, it's the idea of "paternalism"; Europe's belief that Africans were not able to govern themselves. Just like how a parent treats his children, in that you have to tend to them, they're not capable of self-sufficiency.
Now you may be asking why on Earth am I bringing this up? Simple, this poem is the perfect tool to support an Imperialistic government; you can please two sides of the same crowd. Use the first interpretation and you now have all the racists on your side to establish a creed of supremacy via domination. Use the second interpretation and then you have the support of the fence-sitters, who weren't too sure at first but now see it as a moral obligation to help those less "privileged" than them just like a parent.
In fact this mere poem was so empowering that it was a leader's key to win support. Here's a good example:
What's my whole point bringing this up? Well, many people still disregarded this poem. The whole purpose of this was to create a reason, a creed of support that you could rally your troops on. Race was always just a convenient blanket that someone sitting in his palace could use in the beginning to cover their agendas of wanting to obtain wealth and power. But of course, there still was a genuine belief of "genetically superior" which eventually lingered within the hearts of many.
Best example? Undoubtedly so Africa. To make a good explanation of what went down in Africa, let me share a story my old History teacher once told me.
Now I know this may seem like "What the hell did just read?" But I promise there's a point.
To relate this in terms of European Colonization of Africa, well it's pretty simple. Your annoying siblings are your European neighbors; you guys will pretty much fight over anything at anytime. That's just who you are. Now you've been through a lot of wars, and quite frankly it's been enough at this point. Europe has gotten better. But now you find this very good looking pie, and you want a slice; not because you're hungry, but merely because it's first come first serve to the extreme. That is, if you don't take the slice, your annoying brother will, and then you take a loss while he benefits.
Same concept with Africa. It didn't really matter whether you actually wanted the land or not, the thing is you'd only be harming yourself if you didn't get it, as then your good neighbor Otto von Bismark or Leopold II will take the slice for himself. Now as a European Monarch, you don't want your annoying brother to get more than you, so what do you do? Take it yourself, until the whole thing
You must be registered for see links
. The whole thing just becomes a contest. And now how do you take that piece sitting there? Simple, you send in your army.
What's that? There just happens to be
You must be registered for see links
(i.e. Rubber) and gold
You must be registered for see links
? Rubber just happens to be gaining unlimited possibilities thanks to the Industrial Revolution's late-comings? I know, I'll just go take the origin of Rubber, as there is also gold there that can make me rich. How do I get the people there to work for me though?Simple, I just control them and force them to do the work. If they don't listen, then
You must be registered for see links
. Congo is like my private venture, I'll do what I want cause I got to it first. All I need to do to trick my men to indirectly help make me rich is show why we're better than the colonized; create a sense of superiority among us "privileged ones." In reality though, this whole thing is just so I, Leopold get rich. Eventually though, everyone will start thinking of themselves as being the "superior one." Nationalism starts to rise in every European nation, and that could lead back to more kicking/pushing at the dinner table. Except this time, you call it World War I. I don't always make that connection as WWI has its own reasons, but the god-complex that came from Imperialism certainly led Europe to that direction.
Anyways my point is that race was merely an excuse for the powerful to bring forth to harbor more support for their own agendas. Same thing happened in the Americas after-all, which involved race but also religion. The whole idea of "Manifest Destiny", or that it is our God-Given right to expand our borders until all the Native Americans have been wiped out and America is fully theirs. Religion was also a dominant factor in Imperialism as well. Take the Spanish, they essentially turned an entire continent plus into Catholic partisans. In my opinion that is, race was initially overshadowed by the desire for wealth/power etc., but eventually evolved to a serious issue in different parts of the world as time progressed (i.e. Chattel Slavery)
But what interests me is that good question as to why was it the Spanish who defeated the Natives and not the reverse? Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the reverse? I can't say I have a definitive answer myself, but I've been reading a book for my Anthropology class and must say the logic seems rather interesting. That is,
You must be registered for see links
. To sum up a long book in a few phrases, Diamond basically believes that Eurasian society dominated because of (literally the title):While I do not agree with every rationale he gives, it is certainly something to think about.
But seriously your comment wasn't really racist, imo there's just more to Imperialism than racism, while race certainly played a factor.
