Imperialism: And the Way It Took
Away Tranquillity.

Imperialism is nothing but a fancy word for hostile take over. The only ones
to truly benefit from imperialism was the Europeans. The constant suffering and
turmoil was left to all rest of the world. Is there even one imperial country who
actually benefited from their parent country, direct or indirect ruling aside.

If we look at the imperial colonies now, their all in political turmoil. The
governments of the countries of; Cuba, Indonesia, South Africa, India, China, just
to name a few, are in constant struggle with itís citizens now, because it didnít
learn how through the course of history. Those countries whoís citizens donít
speak are suppressed to the point where if you say one thing wrong, the secret
police will shoot you right in the middle of the street.

No matter how we look at it, it comes down to one of the deadly sins;
greed. The European countries were greedy. Greedy for money, greedy for
natural resources, for land, and for power. And the ones left to suffer for their
frenzied race was the rest of the un-industrialized world. In 1859 Lincoln said that
the Republican party believed in the man and the dollar, but that in case of conflict
it believed in the man before the dollar. This is the proper relation which should
exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of God, comes first; money, the
handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the
servant, but upon all important questions of the nineteenth century European
countries tended to make money the master and man the servant.

There are many arguments to support Imperialism, like education,
industrialization, medicine, employment, agriculture, natural resources et cetera.
The list goes on forever. Some say that imperialism is an ever giving system, with
no end to itís resource. But this isnít at all a list of benefits for the imperial
countries. This, in fact, is a list of benefits for, and only for, the parent country.
Any advantages received by the colonies were merely coincidental, or forced upon
itís natives to further their own interests. Besides an African Bushman canít just
walk into a factory without first learning how to work the complex machinery.

Another example of Europe taking advantage of itís colonies is Britain. They
reaped benefits from these such activities. One example of this was that the
textile mills of England were guaranteed plenty of supplies of inexpensive Indian
cotton. The finished product, cotton cloth, was then sold in India for a
considerable profit. Meanwhile this cotton was taking up valuable agricultural
land, which was needed to grow food to feed Indiaís ever growing population.

European countries industrialized the colonies, forcing the citizens to adopt
strange, and foreign systems, and ideals. With the new system, they now needed
money to buy things., instead of the usual bartering system they were used to. To
get money they needed jobs, and they usually found these jobs in factories similar
to our modern day Sweat Shops that Kathy Lee Gifford made famous. They
worked unreasonable hours, were paid ridiculously low wages, and overall,
treated like scum. Now you tell me, it that the perfect model for employment
opportunity that they claim helped the colony.

Maybe, I was wrong earlier, stating that no colony was rewarded for their
efforts. The continent of North America up until today has grown to the point
where they lead the whole world in technology, and standard of living. Truly
America is the greatest argument in support of Imperialism, or is it? Perhaps it, in
fact, is the greatest folly Imperialism has ever created. In stating North America
as their greatest achievement, they forget the long time suppressed native
Indians, who inhabited this continent centuries before any European ever set foot
on this soil. they have been suppressed to the point where they are all but
forgotten. Itís only now, after a century of supremacy by others, that they are now
speaking up for their right as humans.

Imperialist countries, such as Britain, and France contend, they gave
political freedom to self-sufficient countries, this came to be called indirect rule.
This is where the imperial country has more political freedom to run their own
country. But this manner of government is nothing more than a fallacy. In many
cases it didnít matter how the government was run, but instead in how the
resources were going, that concerned the parent country.

In many cases they used what was called Sphere Of