Parliament created a series of laws with the name of the Navigation Acts, to hold Britain and the colonies into a big and living, and trading empire. Colonial had raw materials brought into Britain while British manufactured goods were made to everyone on there liking terms to colonial buyers. The main goal was to obtain a reasonable balance of trade within the empire as a whole, with exports outside of imports.
New Imperialism: Economically Driven In the late nineteen century, a new imperialism emerged in Britain and the rest of the world. This New Imperialism was characterized by the rapid growth in the territories controlled by the British and other countries around the world.
Imperialism is a policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries. The factors in fueling the 19th-century imperialism consisted of racism, economics, religion, and politics: Racism, in my opinion, is the most important in fueling the 19th-century imperialism because the motives for expansion expressed prejudice.
Most events during the era of imperialism illustrated a trait of racism, which fueled imperialism throughout Europe. IPL J. Hobson Views On Imperialism. In Imperialism J. The groups that Hobson was talking about were the certain classes that portray the part of imposing policy is the upper tier society in Britain due to the fact they have military, politics, and financial resources.
I believe that is an advantage to the upper tier society in Britain due to the fact people because having military and financial resources can defeat what they must overcome. Why does J. Hobson argue that imperialism is dangerous and a detriment to British nationalism?
Hobson argues that imperialism is severely threatening and a disadvantage to the British nationalism because the policy they have adopted puts people in charge of the right accreditation. The British nationalism accordingly divides the classes explaining that people who are separated and from other groups based on their wealth.
This basically states that the British society has much more faith a belief to imperialism. A true strong internationalism in form or spirit would rather imply the existence of powerful self-respecting nationalities which seek union on the basis of common national needs and interests. Such a historical development would be far more conformable to laws of social growth than the rise of anarchic cosmopolitanism from individual units amid the decadence of national life.
Nationalism is a plain highway to internationalism, and if it manifests divergence we may well suspect a perversion of its nature and its purpose. Such a perversion is Imperialism, in which nations trespassing beyond the limits of facile assimilation transform the wholesome stimulative rivalry of varied national types into the cut-throat struggle of competing empires.
Not only does aggressive Imperialism defeat the movement towards internationalism by fostering animosities among competing empires: its attack upon the liberties and the existence of weaker or lower races stimulates in them a corresponding excess of national self-consciousness. A nationalism that bristles with resentment and is all astrain with the passion of self-defence is only less perverted from its natural genius than the nationalism which glows with the animus of greed and self-aggrandisement at the expense of others.
From this aspect aggressive Imperialism is an artificial stimulation of nationalism in peoples too foreign to be absorbed and too compact to be permanently crushed. We have welded Africanderdom into just such a strong dangerous nationalism, and we have joined with other nations in creating a resentful nationalism hitherto unknown in China. The injury to nationalism in both cases consists in converting a cohesive, pacific, internal force into an exclusive, hostile force, a perversion of the true power and use of nationality.
The worst and most certain result is the retardation of internationalism. The older nationalism was primarily an inclusive sentiment; its natural relation to the same sentiment in another people was lack of sympathy, not open hostility; there was no inherent antagonism to prevent nationalities from growing and thriving side by side. Such in the main was the nationalism of the earlier nineteenth century, and the politicians of Free Trade had some foundation for their dream of a quick growth of effective, informal internationalism by peaceful, profitable intercommunication of goods and ideas among nations recognising a just harmony of interests in free peoples.
The overflow of nationalism into imperial channels quenched all such hopes. While co-existent nationalities are capable of mutual aid involving no direct antagonism of interests, co-existent empires following each its own imperial career of territorial and industrial aggrandisement are natural necessary enemies.
The scramble for Africa and Asia has virtually recast the policy of all European nations, has evoked alliances which cross all natural lines of sympathy and historical association, has driven every continental nation to consume an ever-growing share of its material and human resources upon military and naval equipment, has drawn the great new power of the United States from its isolation into the full tide of competition; and, by the multitude, the magnitude, and the suddenness of the issues it throws on to the stage of politics, has become a constant agent of menace and of perturbation to the peace and progress of mankind.
The new policy has exercised the most notable and formidable influence upon the conscious statecraft of the nations which indulge in it.
Earth hunger and the scramble for markets are responsible for the openly avowed repudiation of treaty obligations which Germany, Russia, and England have not scrupled to defend. While Germany and Russia have perhaps been more open in their professed adoption of the material gain of their country as the sole criterion of public conduct, other nations have not been slow to accept the standard.
Though the conduct of nations in dealing with one another has commonly been determined at all times by selfish and short-sighted considerations, the conscious, deliberate adoption of this standard at an age when the intercourse of nations and their interdependence for all essentials of human life grow ever closer is a retrograde step fraught with grave perils to the cause of civilisation.
Stretton, The Political Sciences , London , p. We use cookies to enhance your experience. Dismiss this message or find out more. Forgot your password? Don't have an account? Sign up here for discounts and quicker purchasing. Giovanni Arrighi 18 March Hobson, which preceded it. In the excerpt below, the book's first chapter, Arrighi identifies four primary elements of Hobson's conception of imperialism and isolates them in the form of Weberian ideal types, which them serve as the coordinates for his "topological" reconstruction.
Where meanings shift, so quickly and so subtly, not only following changes of thought, but often manipulated artificially by political practitioners so as to obscure, expand or distort, it is idle to demand the same rigour as is expected in the exact sciences. A certain broad consistency in its relations to other kindred terms is the nearest approach to definition which such a term as imperialism admits.
Nationalism, internationalism, colonialism, its three closest congeners, are equally elusive, equally shifty, and the changeful overlapping of all four demands the closest vigilance of students of modern politics. But the settlers' very position as a small privileged caste altered their original national character and prevented the latter from taking any root in the subject lands: The best services which white civilization might be capable of rendering, by examples of normal, healthy, white communities practising the best arts of Western life, are precluded by climatic and other physical conditions in almost every case: the presence of a scattering of white officials, missionaries, traders, mining or plantation overseers, a dominant male caste with little knowledge of or sympathy for the institutions of the people, is ill-calculated to give to those lower races even such gains as Western civilization might be capable of giving.
Yet even this political and dictatorial expansionism, which Hobson designated by the term Imperialism in order to distinguish it from traditional Colonialism, had generated, and continued to generate, phenomena of a nationalist type, while accentuating their exclusivism or xenophobia: From this aspect aggressive Imperialism is an artificial stimulation of nationalism in peoples too foreign to be absorbed and too compact to be permanently crushed.
Tagged Imperialism. Related Books. Empire of Capital. The Dilemmas of Lenin. From Rousseau to Lenin. Anti-Systemic Movements. Hopkins , et al. Communities of Resistance. Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution The Imperial Archive. Faces of Nationalism. The Geometry of Imperialism. Adam Smith in Beijing. Unfinished Projects. The Long Twentieth Century. Of course, in doing this, they had allies:. Apart from the financial Press, and financial ownership of the general Press, the City notoriously exercises a subtle and abiding influence upon leading London newspapers, and through them upon the body of the provincial Press, while the entire dependence of the Press for its business profits upon its advertising columns involves a peculiar reluctance to oppose the organised financial classes with whom rests the control of so much advertising business.
Add to this the natural sympathy with a sensational policy which a cheap Press always manifests, and it becomes evident that the Press is strongly biased towards Imperialism, and lends itself with great facility to the suggestion of financial or political Imperialists who desire to work up patriotism for some new piece of expansion. Western imperialist nations to dominate, and that it is at the same time morally incumbent upon them to attempt to do so:.
So easily we glide from natural history to ethics, and find in utility a moral sanction for the race struggle.
0コメント