Two Sides of Imperialism

Imperialism in the nineteenth and 20th centuries began crumbling at its foundations. Small enclaves of ethnic and nationalist groups sprout throughout their native countryside, binding their people together to rise a accomplishst their enemies and oppressors. The archetype of independence from the fo control getrs, from the class system they set up, and from the atrocities they committed to gain control of the land was more than enough to motivate the fellow countrymen to impart action. The foreigners, however, stood confused, wondering how much(prenominal)(prenominal) a great colony turned into such(prenominal) a massive conflict.The seeds of oppression and cruelty were sown year by and by year, and finally bore fruit. What these foreigners didnt consider, however, was that there are m all slipway of creating an empire. The papistic pudding stones standard of conglomeration is a smash method of imperialism than the exploitative approach employed by 19th carbon nations. Th e Roman Empire neer fell by a whirling from its own people. Rather, m whatever of its subjects lived living as each full-time or part-time citizens of the empire. M any(prenominal) of the conquered people were given some semblance of citizenship, as provincials.The Empire, however, did provide the newly-conquered the opportunity to become a citizen, provided they meet certain qualifications or expectations. In the study of Roman affairs, it is found that, the Roman government worked to maximise the number of persons to whom Roman ius civile, the law of Roman citizens, applied Beginning with the reign of the emperor Augustus (27 B. C. E. -14 C. E. ), institutionalized practices permitted provincials to become citizens, generally by serving either in the Roman army or on a metropolis council.While the Roman Empire continued its oppressive conquest of Europe, it continually sought to make conquered lands and their people a part of Roman life and economy. By providing the conquer ed a chance to someday become a Roman citizen, there was little incentive to rebel and revolt against the Empire. The Western placement on imperialism, however, was based off of an ideology much more diverse than the Romans. The general consensus numerous European countries grantd was that Europeans were, racially speaking, superior to any other race, and as such, were predetermined to rule the rest of the world.One such instance is given in a speech given by Jules Ferry at the French Chamber of Deputies in 1883. At single point, Ferry states that in effect, superior races have rights over inferior races. When questioned closely the rights of man, he promptly replies that, if the declaration of the rights of man was written for the blacks of equatorial Africa, the by what right do you impose regular commerce upon them? They have not called upon you. While the French were, like the Romans, interested in expanding, the justification by which they use extend themselves onto othe r lands are not the same.Ferry is of the perspective that because the French are a superior race, they should embark on a conquest over inferior races and makes them work for the benefit of the French Empire, without any of the same rights as a French citizen. The difference is that while the Romans enforced a system to someday incorporate their newly-conquered people, the French were only preparation on exploiting their advertise and commerce without ever extending to the people the same rights the French enjoyed.This exclusion did not go unnoticed among the French colonies, and would be a foundation for revolution in the coming years. But what about in colonies where there existed such a small opportunity for advancement? In colonies like India, there were chances for an Indian to learn like scholars, and as a result of such education, could communicate effectively with their ruling British counterparts. In fact, many of the Indians who had such education could see the flaws th e colony had to address, and hoped to work with the British on fixing such problems.William Duiker writes that members of the (Indian National sexual relation) did not demand present(prenominal) independence and accepted the need for reforms at the same time, they called for an Indian share of the governing process and more spending on economic ontogeny The British however, tranquilize shared the same Western notion of racial superiority as the French, and as a result, remained convinced that British rule over India is still the best thing. Duiker states that the British responded with a few concessions yet in general, change was glacially slow3.Great Britain remained focused on keeping Indias resources, and giving Indians the same rights as British citizens was never part of the plan. Dissent grew over the imbalance of government, and the same people who were meliorate by the British were now starting to realize that there disgrace no future in pledging faithfulty to British rule. One such man, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, spoke openly against Great Britain at the Indian National Congress in 1907. Pax Britannica has been established in this country in disposition that a foreign government may exploit this countryWe believed in the benevolent intentions of the government, but in politics there is no benevolence. generosity is used to sugarcoat the declarations of self-interest and we were in those days deceived by the unembellished benevolent intentions under which rampant self-interest was concealed Great Britains biggest concern was for itself and its interests, and never intended to follow through on any plans benevolent to the Indian people. Even after being provided with an education, Indians still would never attain the same level of citizenship and respect that Britons night receive.The British Empire never expanded into India to make Indians a part of Great Britain its textiles, teas, and labor were more than enough. With the chance to become fellow B ritish citizens practically non-existent, many Indians soon turned to rebellion, boycotts, and a push for independence. Without the opportunity to ascend into British society, the Indians were left with no choice but to stay as loyal subjects of the British Crown, or call for independence.To conclude, the Roman Empire, while it may not have survived the test of time, used a method by which it kept its subjects content. The path for upward mobility in society was available to those who wanted it. The 19th century imperialist countries, however, such as France and England, felt that it was only necessity to implement brute force and harsh laws to get the same railroad siding from their subjects in distance colonies. Were it not for that sense of superiority, we might all still be loyal subjects of European nations.