Imperialism: good or bad?

It all depends on what you think is good. Look at the USA. With colonisation it's an industrial, democratic (sort of) world power. Without it would just be occupied by Indian tribes. So it depends on which you find preferable.

Or India. Without British Imperialism it is possible if not likely India wouldn't even be one country right now and would not be the rising power it is. Plus the Brits stopped the Indians burning widows, which is nice.

That's what I mean. Do the examples you mentioned of the abolition of the Indian practice of Sati and the globalization that came from the European empires fade into insignificance when compared to the slave trade or the German genocide in south-west Africa?

Genocide and slavery are not consequences of Imperialism alone though they may increase its scale. At the time of the Norman conquest it's estimated 1 in 10 of the people in England were slaves or the equivalent. Those things are definetly bad but don't reduce the benefits of Imperialism.

Most of the problems in Africa were not caused by Imperialism but by its abrupt end. It left most of Sub Sahara Africa without proper government which has led to the state it's in today.

I totally agree with what you're saying but it does make you wonder why imperialism does have such a bad reputation for slavery and sub saharan Africa even though, as you say correctly, they aren't consequences of imperialism?

I guess just because it was done in such an extreme and large scale manner. The British Empire only became exceptionally large after the end of the slave trade. The vast majority of the time the black slaves were sold to the Europeans by black slave traders anyway.

Yeah people tend to forget that the European traders were SOLD the slaves, and how Britain was the nation most active in ending the slave trade.

There were winners and losers of European colonialism. And it isn't as black and white as often portrayed- there were losers on the colonial side, and winners of the nations that were being colonised.

I think we're still too close to the era of European colonialism to make informed judgements on whether it was ultimately a good or bad thing. Strong emotions can often cloud objectivity. The good things that imperialism brought, like an end to barbaric practices like Sati, are offset by the sheer cruelty of events such as the Slave Trade. I think we need more time to pass before we can make a balanced judgement on imperialism, and I expect it to be much the same judgement as we have made on the Roman Empire- a brutal, cruel enterprise that ruined millions of lives, but whose huge impact is still felt and did result in some very good things for humanity, too.

The British Empire was almost entirely a good thing. It brought civilisation, Christianity, infrastructure (e.g. railways in India), democracy, health care and human rights (e.g. stop the Indian tradition of burning widows alive) to previously backward, godless, barbaric societies.

The British Empire was almost entirely a good thing. It brought civilisation, Christianity, infrastructure (e.g. railways in India), democracy, health care and human rights (e.g. stop the Indian tradition of burning widows alive) to previously backward, godless, barbaric societies.

Wow, are you attempting to fit in the largest number of assertions ever into one sentence ?

1) What's so good about Christianity? could you not consider it backward in itself, we're talking about a religion that is 2000 years old here.

2) 'Backward, godless, barbaric societies' - Were you raised in the 19th century or something ?

3) 'Human rights' - Ah yes, killing hundreds of natives in the name of cultural imperialism. Certainly motivated by principles of humanism.

1) The religions that Christianity will have replaced will have been just as old, if not older.

2) By any modern standards, the societies can only be considered as backward. Besides, British and American imperialism were both driven, in part, by 'the white man's burden' of bringing civilisation to the aforementioned 'godless' societies, which is a centuries old concept which was acceptable at the time.

3) Yes people would die when the natives resisted, but once they were conquered, a modern legal system would be established and the natives would enjoy the protection of the conquerors. And let's not forget that the natives weren't perfect either, the Black Hole of Calcutta springs to mind.

Basically, for me, the means don't justify the ends. If you want to help change other cultures then send missionaries, not armies. The positive ends that come about were arguably not even what the imperialists had in mind, let's face it, they were in it for the land, resources and money.