Author: Arnav Bhatnagar

Imperialism, a concept that made the world suffer. A statement that is agreed by a majority in the world at this time. I argue to defend some parts of Imperialism was needed to be brought. In class one point was made “what is the death toll which we are ready to overlook?”. To answer that question there is no death toll which can be overlooked but my point is that this was a consequence of people abusing power. To blame imperialism for this will be unfair, for the purpose simplicity I will keep my discussion to industrial and technological advances Imperialism was a concept which kept the West at an advantage as their way of life and govern was considered the norm for the world. This was a time when industrialization and technological advances was key. At this junction countries were ready to invade others for resources. This was when the ideas that imperialism which forced a rapid change in region where ideas had been stagnated were introduced. Through psychological understanding we know change is mostly viewed negatively. This resistance was met with force, which was not needed, but when these changes where adopted things were pointed to better future. I bring to my support China and Japan which moved to a direction with imperialistic ideas. These countries lead the country now in their economic and technological advances respectively. The ideas of industrialization and technological advances would have come to the East at a later time what imperialism was able to do was bring it to them faster. This was good and bad, as this was information that made less sense as life was different to the East. These ideas had to be adopted as if not taken control then other countries would deplete the country out of resources. A prime example is India. I will not get into more details as the conversation is never ending.

Imperialism though negative gave the East the resources to move to a better future if it was adopted.

1900s, a time when the world was at a need for cotton. A time when British power was still considered the rule of the world. This a time zone which is thought to be peak time for imperialism. Not because it was spreading like wildfire, but it was about to change forever. This junction was when thoughts of change were being put down, but action was less. We travel to place in South East Asia which was about to exploited for its cotton. Bombay, India. Considered by many the golden bird this region was now being looked at for two reasons. One was the Suez canal was now active so getting from Europe to India was less work and two now cotton need was high as other places had depleted their resources. This attention to Bombay changed the city to a hub of transport and India to a milking factory for raw materials. Investment was made for the soul purpose for profit. With the help of people on the ground in India, Britain was able to set up factories and pursue laws to increase production of cotton. This was done by giving loans to farmers which were unfair. This was a major shift in the labor market in India as the people who owned farmland were conned out of their land and new factory work became available. This made the labor more progressive for industrialization, but all this was not done for better for the region or the people. The profit mentality drove the land to the ground and was spark of social driven parties which wanted freedom.

Small changes lead to a big movement in India whose ground work was put down small things like cotton industry.

 

From the class discussion and the reading I do believe there exist another model to describe the narrative of world history.

I strongly disagree with model A has this is orientalism approach to world history which puts the East at a handicap.

If we have to decide on a narrative of world history, I believe it should not be biased towards one side. Which is why I agree with the model B ( exploitation to strategize for survival) partially. Model B still lacks a bit of information that in my opinion is a dark time for the world history. This time is somehow being ignored which is not right if we want to have fair narrative to world history. This is why I propose the Model Z.

Model Z
( Imperial power exploitation to fragmentation and distruption of the world)
I believe this is better narrative to world history as it does not divides the world.
We can see the rise of imperial powers and exploitation done by them not just a view of great but also as situational circumstances. We then need to understand how this effected the world and where we are now. We have come to a stage where we are not one Nation or even close to world Harmony in any sense. The disruption and fragmentation caused by historical events are still much prevailing and in many cases more deeper in the world.
One case I bring to my support my argument is the subcontinent of India. Where the British ruled for 200 years and exploited the region. British empire grew to heights from it’s colonies but when things came to end they left them in craves which were they had to claw back out. This was the story for the Indian subcontinent too. The region lived in harmony, though in fragmented kingdoms, but still in harmony. Through the rule of British, they created boundaries utterly out of no regard for the region. Sadly these boundaries are not being fought on heavily and has caused disruption in a high level. After British left there was biggest refugee movement seen by the world ever which was just between one border.
This case shows a deeper understanding of world history under the Model Z which does not divide the world but shows how historical events came about and how did these things were responded with.