The Pros And Cons Of Western Imperialism
,geographers at the royal palace in Brussels (1876). Several years later he hired Henry Morton Stanley to be his right-hand man in Africa. For half a decade, Stanley traveled the Congo setting up posts, building roads, and persuading chiefs─practically all being illiterate─to sign treaties with Leopold. The treaties, some of which doctored to Leopold’s benefit, were then put to use by the Belgian monarch (Britannica).
Rubber was booming during that time, and the Congo free estate had one lucrative source of wild rubber, and it was the Landolphia vines in the Central African rainforest. Detachments of Leopold’s 19,000-man private army, the Force Publique, would raid into villages and hold women hostage, forcing the men to scatter into the rainforests …show more content…
French makes millions off West Africa, the United States benefits from oil tapped in from wars in the Middle East, the British still running India, South Africa, Australia and the West Indies, Spain from their past colonies in Latin America, and Portugal benefiting from Brazil and countries in Africa.
Even though wars and conflicts between humans have been going on for centuries, I can only agree to an extent. Conflicts between rival & local nations happen a lot, even though I disagree with war. Global invasion and exploitation is too far beyond, and really can’t even be justified. Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, Australia, South Asia and the Pacific had no relations or problems with Europe until European explorers discovered them and decided to use them. In common belief, it is not the same as neighboring tribes conflicting with each other.
The bad blood, poverty, racism, and inequality of today in our world could easily have been avoided with colonizers and imperialist simply having morals, and instead of taking things for their own, could have developed both the natives’ and their worlds in unison. A lot of wars could have been nonexistent if world leaders stop thinking with an iron
Rubber was booming during that time, and the Congo free estate had one lucrative source of wild rubber, and it was the Landolphia vines in the Central African rainforest. Detachments of Leopold’s 19,000-man private army, the Force Publique, would raid into villages and hold women hostage, forcing the men to scatter into the rainforests …show more content…
French makes millions off West Africa, the United States benefits from oil tapped in from wars in the Middle East, the British still running India, South Africa, Australia and the West Indies, Spain from their past colonies in Latin America, and Portugal benefiting from Brazil and countries in Africa.
Even though wars and conflicts between humans have been going on for centuries, I can only agree to an extent. Conflicts between rival & local nations happen a lot, even though I disagree with war. Global invasion and exploitation is too far beyond, and really can’t even be justified. Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, Australia, South Asia and the Pacific had no relations or problems with Europe until European explorers discovered them and decided to use them. In common belief, it is not the same as neighboring tribes conflicting with each other.
The bad blood, poverty, racism, and inequality of today in our world could easily have been avoided with colonizers and imperialist simply having morals, and instead of taking things for their own, could have developed both the natives’ and their worlds in unison. A lot of wars could have been nonexistent if world leaders stop thinking with an iron