Imperialism... was is good or bad?

I always thought that Imperialism over Third World countries had negative impact, but some articles that I read supports the fact that Imperialism did made some good impacts, such as the estiblishment of railways, etc. What do you think?

The US hasn't done too badly.

Originally posted by Dan Carkner Well naturally Europeans would want to play up the positive aspects, heh heh :( I would say that it's extremely bad across the board, and that any positive things can't necessarily be attributed to Imperialism.  Take the example of Japan, it wasn't Colonized and yet it has long  been more advanced than countries which were given the "blessings" of colonization..

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 It has fascinated me that this group of forums is "All Empires" and almost everything having to do with empires is always referred to in the negative.

It's not that crazy, considering the experience of people subjected to imperialism has been very negative..

I gave the example of Japan as a country that adopted western ways and technology without having it forced on them by a colonial apparatus.  So if someone is saying "India/wherever would be backwards without the british empire", perhaps, or perhaps it would be at the level of Japan instead..

Originally posted by Spartakus pikeshot,the Imperial period is really interesting and positive,but mainly for the Imperialists.

Yes, you are right. I put the accent on Europeans. We should not forget that Arabs, Turks, Mongols and Russians were as imperialist like Europeans in the past.

The Age of Imperialism turned a bunch of isolated communities into a globe. People continued killing and exploiting eachother as they have done ever since the dawn of empire in the ancient river basins of Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus and the Far East.

The difference this time was a vast leap forward in technological innovation, social and political change to most regions of the globe.

What I find an excellant parellel to European imperialism of the last 500 years in the experience of West European peoples from roughly 200BC-400AD under the Romans. The Romans did indeed bring the sword and did many things for their own selfish aggrandizement. But in their wake came progress, the various small and unsophisticated tribal structures of communities in Western Europe were replaced - with extensive urbanisation, representative political assemblies, global trade, exposure to vast new theatres of learning and technology and many many other advancements. Once experienced, Western Europeans would never go back to the way it was before, not even with the shock of the collapse of Rome and the barbarian invasions.

Such it is with the new world and many of the less progressive areas of the Old World which were colonised, their outmoded institutions were replaced and now there is no going back. From the foundations established by exposure to the most dynamic nations on the planet, these former colonies may one day rise to prominence and strength, repeating the process established when thousands of years ago the legions of the SPQR advanced into Spain, Britain and France.

Originally posted by Constantine XI ..., repeating the process established when thousands of years ago the legions of the SPQR advanced into Spain, Britain and France.

Originally posted by Constantine XI The Age of Imperialism turned a bunch of isolated communities into a globe. People continued killing and exploiting eachother as they have done ever since the dawn of empire in the ancient river basins of Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus and the Far East. The difference this time was a vast leap forward in technological innovation, social and political change to most regions of the globe. What I find an excellant parellel to European imperialism of the last 500 years in the experience of West European peoples from roughly 200BC-400AD under the Romans. The Romans did indeed bring the sword and did many things for their own selfish aggrandizement. But in their wake came progress, the various small and unsophisticated tribal structures of communities in Western Europe were replaced - with extensive urbanisation, representative political assemblies, global trade, exposure to vast new theatres of learning and technology and many many other advancements. Once experienced, Western Europeans would never go back to the way it was before, not even with the shock of the collapse of Rome and the barbarian invasions. Such it is with the new world and many of the less progressive areas of the Old World which were colonised, their outmoded institutions were replaced and now there is no going back. From the foundations established by exposure to the most dynamic nations on the planet, these former colonies may one day rise to prominence and strength, repeating the process established when thousands of years ago the legions of the SPQR advanced into Spain, Britain and France.

Depends of what you consider "isolated".In the entire human history ,with very few exceptions,there were no isolated societes.The American continent might was isolated from the rest of the world,but there was ,certainly,a communication and probably trade among the different American societies.In the case of Africa,the myth of King Solomon and of the African Queen of Siba who came in Israel in a caravan ,simply shows that ,already from the Ancient Years,there was a trade route from Aithiopia to the Middle East.Also,before the Portugese arrive,there was a great trade network which connected Middle East,Iran,India and even China with the Eastern African coast.The Kingdom of the Great Zimbabwe exported goods and gold through the Suahili merchants and the cities in the Eastern African coast.Needless to say that when the Portugese arrived,they were astonished by the beauty of the  Coastal African cities ,which were destroyed after the Portugese took over all trade.

Concerning the technological innovation,it's sth positive ,indeed,but for a Western society.There were and continue to be societies which ,although technology has came to their lands,they prefer to live in their traditional way of life,because technological innovation ,simply,does not matter for them.Benduins are still living in tents in the desert and they are still riding camels,at least the majority of them.Many sub-saharan African tribes continue to live in hutches in small villages.The Noubians of Southern Egypt are still living in  traditional houses next to the river Nile.There are still native Americans who live in the Amazon river as their ancestors did,although many were forced to abandon their way of life because of the destruction of the forest,their main source of food and income.

Political change.Africa is politically,one of the most unstable areas in the entire planet.And it is not that Africans do not know how to govern themselves.Of course,there were kingdoms in Africa,such as Aithiopia,Mali,Great Zimbabwe.But there were also tribes with a "circular tupe of goverment" if i can use such expression.For example,the Nuer of Sudan solved,i do not know about now,their differences and problems inside the circle of their societies.Such ways were simply ignored and even destroyed by the colonial forces.

 Concerning war,you live in Australia.You must know that for the Maori war,until the British arrived, did not mean killing each other,but mainly a demonstration of power.

Maori wars did involve plenty of killing, and the winner ate the loser's heart. The Maoris were an extremely warlike people continuously engaged in inter-tribal conflict. If anything, British colonisation saw a rapid decline in Maori deaths in battle simply because peace was imposed by the British Crown.

I will recheck it then.Maybe i was wrong.

I still think that Western influence still had a decisive impact on the social, political and technological way of life of all people in the "New World".

There is no doubt that Western infuence had a desicive impact.What i argue is that this impact was and is not exactly that good.

But the world of today is divided into nation states and virtually every nation on earth participates in global trade, urbanisation and the new order of living introduced by Western pioneers over the past five centuries or so.

As you said ,the concept of nation state,global trade and urbanisation were introduced by Western pioneers to the colonies over the past five centuries.The problem is that although Europe reached to that point after a period of centuries,most colonies had to reach that level in a lesser than a century,more specifically in some decades.When a society develops so quickly,while it's social past is ignored,it's development will be bad.