Differences Between 16th and 19th Century Imperialism free essay sample

Without these empires nation building and trying to spread their ideals throughout these years I feel the modern world would be much different, this truly was one of the major cogs in the start of globalization. How was early imperialism different to that of the imperialism the world experienced at the end of the nineteenth century? How did each imperialistic state differ? Is imperialism still going on today? How has it shaped the world, as we know it? 19th Century Imperialism I do agree that imperialism finally got out-of-hand by the 1800’s, when the Western world seemingly had to control and dominate every continent populated whether it held even a morsel of value or not e. g. ‘The Scramble for Africa’. Millions of young people of working age were taken away from Africa and made into slaves; great social conflict has ensued ever since and still lingers to this day. â€Å"Slavery has taken a heavy toll on African development ever since the 16th century but finally stood a chance to develop properly once it was abolished throughout the globe during the twentieth century. We will write a custom essay sample on Differences Between 16th and 19th Century Imperialism or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page (Headrick). Even though the reputation of these nations was aggressive and callous they never allowed new, promising settlements to decay, rather they opened them up as valuable trading ports that flourished with all the global trade taking place at the time. â€Å"They invested heavily in their colonies and occasionally built impressive infrastructure ranging from schools to judicial systems. † (Headrick). This often benefitted the native inhabitants; old systems of command were thrown out with new, more effective methods of governance being put in their place. I’ve noticed that most of Britain’s colonies were very successful in comparison to other imperial empires such as France, Spain and Portugal. For example, the original thirteen colonies that Britain established on North America’s east coast have gone on to become the world’s main superpower, the United States of America. Britain’s colony in China, Hong Kong, has gone on to become Asia’s premiere financial center with Singapore (another British jewel) trailing just behind. Even Britain’s prisoners set up the only first-world country in the Southern Hemisphere, Australia! Compare this to Spain’s imperial efforts, for example Mexico is the only third world country in North America and has always struggled to overcome a legal system plagued with corruption. Why is it that the British colonies were so successful and the colonies of other countries such failures in comparison? I feel the answer to that is British law. British law has been a keystone in these colonies success. Their political ideals have helped sculpt the success stories of the modern world, albeit there have been some failures such as India and Rhodesia where there were civilians revolting against their new leaders. The British education system helped produce a new class of educated Africans and Asians that were able seek employment once they had completed their schooling. 16th Century Imperialism Imperialism in the fifteenth century was new and exciting, the rules were unwritten. People believed back then that the civilized world back owed it to the rest of the world to help educate and ‘liberate’ the people. They believed that they had created a society that was artistic, educated and above all, special. It was up to these nation states to ‘fix’ those that needed it, and according to the imperialists, everyone needed it. â€Å"Whites were superior to non-whites. One variation was ‘Rudyard Kipling’s idea of the ‘White Man’s Burden’. The white man had the burden and blessings of their superior civilization to the savages of the non-European world. †(Quilligan). It was said that people being colonized were biologically backward and not as evolved as their colonizers. Their savagery and reduced level of cultural evolution were illustrative of their inferior genetic advancement. But were they culturally inferior?