Impact Of 19th Century European Colonialism History Essay

Impact Of 19th Century European Colonialism History studyThis paper provide examine the impact of 19th coke European Colonialism on the troika introduction. Firstly I will provide a definition of the enclosures colonialism and Third Word, piecely I will resolve to evaluate this term in historical context of 19th carbon affairs which led to colonisation of Third World countries. I will withal define countries have been colonised and name the colonising countries to provide unaccented picture of the subject stated above. Further I will testify the arguments which will help me examine the impact of colonisation and evaluate the outcomes of this serve up. In the final mathematical function I shall try to add my personal tone about colonisation in 19th century and its impact in current world politics.To understand the term colonialism we need to go cover version in the archives and perhaps start from the ancient Greeks, who set up colonies so did the roman letterss, the Rooms and the Ottomans. The fact is that we cannot give an exact date when this process has started, however we can definitely state that in the 16th century colonialism has changed its dimension due to development in navigation that lead to weaken understanding of remote parts of the world, which were until then inaccessible. Improvement in agile sailing ships enabled discovering unknown parts of world and discovering new continents, thus disunite ties between colonies and centres. at long last this has led to the process of European settlement and governmental control over the rest of the world, including both Americas, Australia, Africa and certain parts of Asia.Fieldhouse in atomic issuing 74 and the Third World is carry onring to Oxford English Dictionary, in which we find that colonialism comes from the Roman colonia which meant farm or settlement, and referred to Romans who settled in the new(prenominal) lands but excuse retained their citizenship. Accordingly, the OED describes it as,A settlement in a new awkwarda dead body of commonwealth who settle in a new locality, figure outing a confederation subject to or connected with their produce state the community so holded, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors, as long as the connection with the parent state is unploughed up. Fieldhouse (1999, p. )There is another aspect of colonialism which needs to be mentioned here. This concept is imperialism, which precise often is mistaken as synonym of the term colonialism. Both these concepts were forms of conquering new territories which were expected to bring benefits to Europe in areas such as strategies and economics. However when we talk about colonialism we often refer to inhabiting places such as North America, Australia, brisk Zealand, Algeria and South America, mainly Brazil, that were controlled by European empires. Whereas the term imperialism refers to foreign government representatives administers a territory without settlement, typic example may be the scramble for Africa in late xixth century.In this essay, however I am going to be referring to colonialism in context of political domination between sixteenth and twentieth century, and nineteen century in particular.The Third World is a more touchy concept to be precisely defined. According to D.K. Fieldhouse Third Word form has been established as designating the non-capitalist and non-imperialist countries and colonies Fieldhouse (1999, p. 2) at the Bandung Conference of non aligned states in 1955. thereafter it has become valid to indicate those Latin American, African and Asian countries that were politically detached from economic powers such as United States and the USSR.One of the propagators of colonialism in the aboriginal nineteenth century was Wakefield. In the earmark A popular opinion of the Art of Colonization, he claimsColonies, therefore, are naturally exporting communities they have a liberal produce for exportation. Not only have they a large produce for exportation, but that produce is peculiarly suited for exchange with out of date countries. I consequence of the cheapness of land in colonies, the great absolute majority of the people are owners or occupiers of land and their industry is necessarily in great s vegetable oil, food and the raw materials of manufacture. In old countries on the other handit may be said that manufactured goods are their natural occupation of export. These are what the colonists do not produce. The colony produces what the colony wants. The old country and the colony, therefore, are, naturally, each others best customers. Wakefield (1849, p. 83)While this argument of complementarity was well suited to the early history of settlements societies from early Spanish America to nineteenth century Australia, New Zealand and Canada, it was also applicable, in modified form, to other parts of the world, notably tropic Africa and South-east Asia, which came under greatly increased European commercial bend during the later nineteenth century. Many parts of Africa, however well authentic their internal and regional trades might be, lacked markets for greatly expanded production, particularly of tidy sum commodities. The establishment of overseas markets for existing products, such as palm oil or groundnuts, or innovations such as cocoa, rubber and coffee, provided a stimulant to expand land and labour utilization. This type of development, which was found also in the expanded rice production of parts of South-east Asia, did not ordinarily require radical change in modes of production or dearly-won new equipments. It was, therefore, potentially cost- salve to these societies, unless concentration on an export crop resulted in dependence on imports of foodstuffs that had been replaced by cash crops for export.To help me analyse the question of impact of 19th century colonialism I would like to look at Britain conquering of Ind ia. During the 19thcentury a succession of Governors General continued the British success in India. It has started from East India Company, which was founded by British trades initially to trade with India. Eventually British succeeded in capturing great part of India. Some Indian kingdoms were forcibly taken with military might and govern directly as part of Indian government. By 1830 almost all of India was under direct or indirect control of Britain. More than half of the Indian provinces were directly governed by the Indian Civil Service, the remaining parts of the country called princely states were findd by Rajahs, who were controlled by British Residents, who lived in the capital of the state and kept tabs on them. In mid 19th century India was governed by capital of the United Kingdom through a Viceroy in Calcutta. The Indians were traded as slaves to other British colonies.According to D.K Fieldhouse Britain has led India to becoming a poor countryFirst, free trade had l argely destroyed a lot of Indian industry, particularly that in cotton textiles, resulting in the de-industrialisation of the country for the benefit of British manufacturers and traders Fieldhouse (1999, p.35)Fieldhouse continues emphasising that development of India was stop by rigorous free trade, which did not provide any form of protection for small industries. Real resources were drained from India to Britain, as a occasion of obligatory payments for British military expenses and salaries of British officials. The combined effect was to objurgate India to perpetual meagerness as a nation forced to be a producing country for benefit of Britain.The British introduced modern technology with the use to sell manufactured goods like textiles and machines for profit. In the process of trying to accomplish a profit and exploiting India, the British did of course benefit India. They built railways passim India in order to make everything readily accessible. They established Law Courts, civilised services and transport systems. They also established factories, schools and universities to introduce westerly ideas and to incorporated the idea of democracy. Missionaries came to India and spread Christianity. This was all done in the name of Britains economy. (http//library.thinkquest.org/17282/history.html)The European colonialism of the world brought great things but the price colonized countries paid for it was also enormous. When analysing the final product of colonialism we can see two parallels, one is the missed of national identity or strictly speaking cultural identity, and the second is the changing of hearty structure and hierarchy.However colonialism, in as much as it was a vehicle for the export of westmostern technologies, also spell out the export of these ideas. Marxism views colonialism as a form of capitalism, enforcing exploitation and social change. workings within the global capitalist system, colonialism is closely associated with u neven development, he thought. thereof Marx himself regarded colonialism as brutal precondition for the liberation of these societiesEngland, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hinduistan was actuated only by the vilest engages, and was goosy in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can globe fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution Marx (1973, p.306)One of the Enlightenment thinkers Diderot was very critical of the barbarity of colonialism. Diderot was one of the most forceful critics of European colonization. He argued that it was not genuine intention of Europe to civilize the rest of the world. In his book Histoire des deux Indes, he counter argued the view that indigenous people benefit from European civilization and opposed that the European colonists are the godforsaken ones. He claimed that culture national character- helps to inculcate morality and reinforces norms of respect, but these norms fly the coop to dissipate when the individual is far from his country of origin. He believed that colonial empires oftentimes become the sites of extreme brutality because when the colonists were far away from legal institutions and folksy sanctions, the habits of restraint fell away, exposing natural mans full instinct for violence. (http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/)In the book of Water Rodney How Europe underdeveloped Africa, author emphasises that European colonialism destroyed the inborn viability of African societies and their capacity for sustained development, leaving them marginalized helots on the periphery of the western capitalist world. He summed this up by saying Africans went into colonialism with a till and came out with a hoe Rodney (1973, p.239)To aid understanding about his check of view Fieldhouse is using another author, Jean Suret- Canale. Fieldhouse emphasises that particularly in West Africa, mainly French trading companies, which were dominating these territories had no genuine interest in economic development.they merely wanted to export commodities and sell trade consumer goods. Fieldhouse (1999, p. 165)To conclude the legitimacy of colonialism is still visible today through examining the causes of poverty and underdevelopment in Third World countries. In many of the Third World countries commodities production for export, was in no sense an optional, and certainly not a sufficient condition for sustained economic growth. Its success or disappointment seems to have been in direct proportions to the extent to which this forcible linking of peripheral countries with the West injected and nurtured the virus of capitalism, or modernisation. In the British settlers colonies colonization did this very effectively, in most tropical dependencies the effects were limited. The relativ e poverty of many Third World countries reflects this particular failure. Yet the modern experience of a number of one-time colonies in South-east and East Asia also suggest that colonial rule and foreign trade may lay the foundations for much more melodramatic economic development as part of international division of labour.