Response To Imperialism

During the 1750’s to 1900’s after the fall of many absolute governments, a new ideology about governing emerged. This new idea consisted of creating governments whose powers were given by their peoples who were drawn together by a shared a common past, beliefs, and culture; said views eventually lead to nationalism which became a key factor for the growth of power of rising nations during this time period. Throughout this new process of nation building, acquisition of new territories, known as imperialism, was fundamental for the nation's prosperity. This is because besides national unity, the strength of each nation to protect itself from other powers depended on its economic power and expansion. This concept of imperialism materialized in …show more content…
One of which is the economic growth of the nations which conquered these territories. For instance, in the Americas the United States acquired huge amount of territories to the west by various purchases, wars and treaties. The result was a massive economic growth which put the U.S. at the same level as the other world powers; but this economic growth was not a direct response to the imperialist actions of conquering the territories to the west. Instead, it was caused by the civil war, sparked by the expansion, which at the end of the war caused greater national unity than ever before; allowing for greater industrial output and for giant companies such as Standard Oil and U.S. Steel to develop. Therefore, it could be said that imperialism in the U.S. triggered a series of event that lead to the country's massive economic changes. In Africa, a similar situation occurred. Many European nations conquered different parts of the continent of Africa, and all European nations enjoyed significant economic growth because of cheaply sourced resources in Africa. The conquering of Africa allowed European nations to gain a hold of rubber producing areas, which was valued at the time; and other raw materials such as coffee, tea, palm oil, and other resources which were crucial in increasing industrialization productivity. Moreover, the responses to imperialism in these two regions were also …show more content…
For example, the responses of resistance differed in the levels of success. In the Americas the Natives resistance was almost completely unsuccessful, as seen in the War of 1812, in all the Native surrendering of land, and in Tenskwatawa prophecies which claimed the American invaders would vanish if the Natives went back to the traditional ways. However, in the regions of Africa the native response of resistance was far more successful, such as the resistance of the Ethiopian Empire. The Ethiopian kingdom ruled by Menelik II was able to successfully avoid European colonization by securing weapons from various European countries by misleading the countries into providing them. This allowed him to equip his loyal army to defeat Italian troops in the Battle of Adwa. Therefore, it could be said the resistance in the Americas was not successful, but in Africa was to a degree. Additionally, another difference in the responses to imperialism in both regions is the use of the new territories. In the Americas the land acquired in the Western region of the continent was used as private farms, unlike in Africa in which the land was used to collect all valuable resources such as the one formerly stated. As a result, the response of the settlers in the new acquired lands is in the different ways in which they used it to meet their needs. Furthermore, there is also a difference in the