What were the negative and positive effects of imperialism on China?

Answer 1

To be quite honest, there were no positive effects of China being conquered by foreign interests. True, the open door policy meant that China would trade with the world, but the Chinese didn't want to do that... ANYTHING that China was MADE TO DO DUE TO Imperialism only benefited those who conquered them.

The imperialism had one positive effect on China, that was to make people of China realise the emperor and bureaucrats didn't have the ability to safeguard the land and protect their safety.

The incompetence of governance brought China defeats in battles with the imperialists and unequal treaties to its people. The door of Chinese long lasting close economy was opened by cannons. Opium flowed in and treasure flowed out, increased the burden of the nation. The imperialists scrambled for spheres of influence with each other, torn apart the once completed territory, the country was at a crisis.

Under such circumstance, people couldn't undergo suffering the oppression from both inside and outside. They rose up for their own survival, powerless but numerous. They want their fate in their own hands. At that moment, the struggling against imperialism and feudalism was begun.

There was a famous map in the link below that depicts the spheres of influence and China's political situation during the imperialists invasion. It was in cartoon form and used animal images to represent fierce intruders controlling vast areas of China whilst corrupt Chinese bureaucrats still daydreaming inland. The comments around the map means 'the situation is clear at a glance, no more words are needed'.

Answer 2

Negatives- The British captured India in the guise of traders to loot the resources and wealth attacking the dignity, culture and character of Indians after making them slaves. Positives- For their own comforts and luxury developed the country with new gathered technologies after the country had been looted and ruined by the earlier invaders. India's ancient History is all of imperialism -of Kings and Rajas.

This is largely mis-informed. In fact "imperialism" doesn't start with the British. There are still those in Southern India who resent what they think is their "subjugation" by the incoming Aryans. There are many who dispute this account and want to insist that there was no real ethnic, linguistic or cultural differences between "Aryans" and "Dravidians".

Well documented are several waves of conquest by the Mughals, who were Muslim. The extent to which they forced Islam on the previously mainly Hindu populace if debated by scholars. However, it was not a period of peace between religions, and much of the inter-communal violence of later years has its roots in the Moghul conquest, one that boiled over recently was over the mosque/temple at Ayodhya.

When the Mughal invader Babur came down from Kabul in 1525, he first defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the battle of Panipat and then the Rajput King, Babur, took over a substantial part of northern India. One of his generals, Mir Baki Khan came to Ayodhya in 1528 and after reportedly destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site, built the " ... Babri Masjid.

Only a few years ago Hindu militants too over the site of the Mosque and pulled it down. I heard one say, "They took this from us 473 years ago and now we're taking it back."

As to slavery, and selling of slaves in the slave markets had been going on India for centuries, if not millennia before the British arrived on the sub-continent. This is in Wikipedia's article on slavery in India

During the raids of Mahmud of Ghazni in the 11th century, many chroniclers claim that his campaign of 1024 in which he sacked Ajmer, Nehrwala, Kathiawar, and Somnath was particularly successful in garnering more than 100,000 Hindu slaves for the Muslim general,

Slavery was a standard feature of the royal courts in India during the Mughal phase - and many of them were Hindu slaves of Muslim rulers - but not all.

By the time the British government took charge in India (as opposed to the East India Company) the slave trade had been illegal in Britain and her colonies for half a century and slavery had been officially abolished throughout the British Empire. Back to Wikipedia

The arrival of the British East India Company and the imposition of crown rule following the Indian Rebellion in 1857 along with the influence of the British anti-slavery society of William Wilberforce eventually brought slavery and the slave markets to an end in India.

Did the British take money and land from the people who had lived there before them? Yes - particularly money. Again, look at the Muslim Mughal invaders and ask if they had not done the same when they managed to build their great palaces and mosques, and then settled down to rule the Hindus.

The negative of imperialism in India cannot really assessed, since it depends which conquests of India you are talking about - or even failed conquests. The defeat of Tipu Sultan by the British was a result of him taking anti-British side in a larger struggle - not for independence, but between the French and the British over who was going to be top dog in India.

Tipu himself was only a second-generation ruler, whose father had seized power in Mysore and spent much of his reign at war with his Hindu neighbors over who was going to have spoils of the disintegration of Mughal rule. Were they modern enlightened rulers with a real sense of the worth of those who did not share their religion? It does not seem likely.

There are still those today who feel that the men in power in Delhi are foreign oppressors. Some are Muslims, who have a picture of a benevolent set of Muslim rulers throughout India, spreading enlightenment. There are separatists in the Assam region, who have been fighting for decades to get their own state. The Sikhs occasionally remind everyone that many of them would like to throw off foreign rule and establish a separate Sikh state. That cause led to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by one her Sikh bodyguards.

As for the positives: again it depends which imperial power you have in mind. If it's the British then I would say that we left in India some good things - there is the greatest railway network in the world, still a main link keeping all the parts of India together.

The British tried, with mixed success, to remove what they thought were social evils - sati (the burning of widows), temple prostitution, slavery amongst others.

Then they gave to India the English language. This has been of enormous value to India since it means that educated classes (and many others) from different ends of the country, and different cultural backgrounds can talk to each other. There are more than 400 "native" Indian languages - many not mutually comprehensible. Even the independence movement was made easier by the shared English language.

However, I do not think that the Indians would be semi-literate without the British. They already had centuries-old schools and even universities and in many languages there was a written culture. In fact Sanskrit - one of the oldest of Indian languages may yet turn out to be the "fountain-head" from which the "Indo-European languages, including French, German and English are derived.

However, the biggest damage done to India by "imperialism" is probably the split in Indian society between Muslims and Hindus - which is a legacy of an older invasion.

Answer 3

One of the positive effects of British imperialism in India is the widespread use of the English language. It has become the language of commerce and has had a positive effect on the subcontinent.

Answer 4

Imperialism's Negative Effects on AfricaNEGATIVE

Westerners monopolized resources, owning mines and ports and using all profits to pay for their own government.

They destroyed the African ruling system, kicking kings out or telling them to govern a certain way. They denied even the most educated, capable Africans top jobs in government.

Europeans did not emphasize general healthcare and limited Africans' access to education beyond primary level. This made it difficult for Africans to function in the modern world.

Imperialists changed borders between nations only for their own satisfaction and ruling purposes. They did not consider that they were mixing enemy tribes and destroying traditional territories. This ruined much of the unity among Africans.

Answer 5

Answer

Yes. It set a social framework in place that has provided education and health care for many of its' people. It has also had (limited) success in overcoming the Caste System. It provided a framework for the government to move toward a free society without falling into communism. All of the above has made India one of the fast growing economies in the world, thus better able to support themselves.

No. Imperialism drained India's vast resources and potential for growth. The East India Company was founded by the British to increase trade in India, but it only became a monopoly there. Through bribes, diplomacy, and manipulation of weak native rulers, it prospered, and the Indian people saw little or no profit. It eventually became the most powerful political force. This of course silenced any Indian majority. Furthermore, Britain was the only country to prosper from the trading. It destroyed India economically and politically. India became dependent on foreign money and influence because of Imperialism.