Rudyard Kipling's Defense Of Imperialism
In the late nineteenth century, Europe, Japan, and the United States were in a vicious rush to occupy more and more territory. They acquired parts of Asia and Latin America, and among the three of them, almost all of the African continent. This race of empires had many motivations, both economic and political. Many people had differing opinions on this surge of imperialism, some the most significant being J. A. Hobson, a British social critic and author of Imperialism, Rudyard Kipling, and Indian born newspaper correspondent, poet, and author of The White Man's Burden, Frederick Lugard, a British soldier, imperial administrator, and author of The Scramble for Africa, and Albert Beveridge, an American historian, representative, and author of Defense of Imperialism. These men had differing opinions of the goings-on
…show more content…
Though they all had their reasons, each saw imperialism as a way of fostering international growth and wealth, and as a way of spreading a unified world government and peace: Kipling through the unified rule of the white man; Lugard through giving the East African people jobs in exchange for using their land; and Beverage through America's supreme and Godly power. But who really profited from imperialism? Was it the down-and-out countries looking for a helping hand or the countries doing the helping that really gained? Our authors have differing opinions on this as well. Hobson, for example, firmly believed that only a few of the richest men in the imperialist state ever made any money from invading. The middle class and citizens of the occupied territory never saw a penny according to him. Kipling on the other hand believed that the occupied people got the better deal. Their life would be so much better now that a superior and more intelligent race has begun ruling them. Beveridge agreed, opinionating that the occupied peoples' lives would be much better with America as they're
Though they all had their reasons, each saw imperialism as a way of fostering international growth and wealth, and as a way of spreading a unified world government and peace: Kipling through the unified rule of the white man; Lugard through giving the East African people jobs in exchange for using their land; and Beverage through America's supreme and Godly power. But who really profited from imperialism? Was it the down-and-out countries looking for a helping hand or the countries doing the helping that really gained? Our authors have differing opinions on this as well. Hobson, for example, firmly believed that only a few of the richest men in the imperialist state ever made any money from invading. The middle class and citizens of the occupied territory never saw a penny according to him. Kipling on the other hand believed that the occupied people got the better deal. Their life would be so much better now that a superior and more intelligent race has begun ruling them. Beveridge agreed, opinionating that the occupied peoples' lives would be much better with America as they're