The question of whether Imperialism is constructive or destructive would depend on which side of the Imperialistic force one stood. For instance, for the many peoples in Africa, Imperialism was certainly a destructive force. No consideration was given for the people that were already there, their customs, their already placed tribal divisions. Instead the areas of Africa were divided by Watershed over River Valley, and not the ethnic and linguistic groups that were already there.
Imperialism itself is based upon extending a country's’ power and dominion over other territories by force. To put it in more modern cinematic terms-- think of the Imperial nature of Star Wars, Darth Vader, or the of Avatar’s Resources Development Administrations, Colonel Miles Quaritch. History shows, much like it is reflected in these films, Imperialism has been more of a destructive force overall.
In the 19th century when Imperialism and Nationalism became even more closely tied, the force became even more destructive to the peoples on the ‘being conquered’ end. This was because Nationalism focused more on educating and teaching the conquered peoples the “correct” way of being, ie. Christianity, being
civilised, etc. This is evidenced by President McKinley stating that “there is nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them” when deciding what to do with the Philippines after the Filipino-American war. Perhaps even more evident under King Leopold when he decided that the people of the Congo needed to be civilized all about making them use their own land more productively, to the benefit of the Dutch and King Leopold.
This may seem like a bold statement, but compared to the conquering that was had at the hand of the Mongols, who left conquered peoples culturally intact, the Imperialist conquering had by the British, French, Dutch, and Americans, that was followed up with Nationalistic trends, seemed to be much more destructive overall.
Comments
Post a Comment