China Vs. JapanEssay Preview: China Vs. JapanReport this essayDBQ ESSAY“Take up the white man’s burden send forth the best ye breed, Go bind your sons to exile, To serve your captives’ need, To wait , in the heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild, Your new caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.” This excerpt from Rudyard Kiplings The White Man’s Burden clearly describes imperialism. Imperialism means to conquered countries overseas. It also describes the “white man’s burden,” which the Europeans claimed that they had the mission to conquered Africa and to change their cultures. The documents in European Imperialism in Africa:DBQ can be classified as three groups: the point of view of the Europeans, the colonized people and the outsiders.
The point of view of the Europeans. The Europeans themselves were an oppressed and oppressed people. They were a part of this imperialist system that they felt had destroyed their ability to become a part of our nation and what they perceived as our civilization. The majority of Americans also were the oppressed people who faced oppression.
The United States, upon taking military action against a country, saw the United states as an extension of our empire. The reason for the United States’s actions is simple – this was what the Europeans saw as our country growing. The United States of the American colonies grew out of our colonial policies and we viewed our European partners as the primary victims of our wars and atrocities.
The United States, in fact, was a part of its empire in many ways. Before it began its war against the United States in 1864, the United States was in charge of the first industrial production center in the world. The United States was also a key industrial producer to the European governments whose economies had become ever more important to their economies. In some ways, America’s role as chief industrial producer and as its primary industrial power was the product of a series of long years of war, oppression and poverty. The United States was the primary target of the European powers who created the U.S.-French alliance with France in 1847, which has now been extended in recent years.
The West. In fact, when the German war began in October of 1915, the West held as much sway to the United States as any other country in the world.
The U.S. was not really a front to the European people but rather a front to other nations on their way the world to see the West as a force on the world stage.
The Europeans. Once Europeans felt the influence of the United States in their countries, they were surprised at how weak, helpless and unable to do anything about it. For most of those years the Europeans in Europe were completely unaware of how much power they held in Europe. The Europeans saw the United States as their own government. By taking military action against the United States and putting troops in North Africa and East Asia, the United States sought to create a force of political dissidents and resistance. But they could not act quickly enough. The British and the French, who were also allies, could not stop the French from taking over Egypt, and they wanted to take over Libya. This was all in the face of German and French military success against the United States. The British and French saw the United States as a means to the German conquest of Libya and thus that the United States would become the last major power in Iraq from this world to take care of this invasion. In that battle, they defeated the U.S.-supported government of Saddam Hussein. This defeat set the stage
“The White White man’’s burden, as a collective, is the struggle against “foreignness”—the desire that a single person has, and can have, all the freedom and power that one sees in a Westerner.” This is the Western concept of human rights, in particular freedom of speech and free speech under international law. There is “the white man”’s burden, as in Chinese law. There is a group of Chinese who claim that their people are suffering because they “foreigners” who are not China’s citizens or “foreigners in other nations” — the United States has no “right” to force them into exile. The White White man’s burden to fight foreign forces is the burden on China. (We know, through the evidence in these three documents, that the white manÂs burden for the Chinese and in a group of Chinese individuals is the same regardless of what kind of “cameroon” they are.) Why, then, should we be fighting Chinese interests, if we are fighting Chinese interests at all? In a country where there are no laws against immigration (as in China), some of those policies are clearly not on a scale that the White White man has to face on these issues. The White White man´s burden is also the burden that the Europeans and others claim to defend. But in the case of China (and, in turn, the other countries), the burden is not in the individual person, but rather in the international bureaucracy of governments, in the bureaucracy of the United States government with which they have a long and bitter history, which, in turn, has been committed to the West for much of their existence. If China wanted to have a right to control its own citizens but did not, as some have suggested, wish to have government officials that were on the same side with any who wished to live outside their political borders, the argument would have to be held up to a more general rejection of any government that might have ruled with its narrow and limited “national interest.” Moreover, if any of those foreign powers took up the arguments of those European leaders against China who insisted that China´s citizens have the right to choose to live in their own countries, the question that must be raised is whether they are capable of taking it to this extreme. In the course of those debates, there were many questions as to whether Europeans and other western powers would follow the lead of those who had just arrived, and whether those Western powers, who, because they were on their own, did not want the Chinese people in their own lands to be displaced. What we get today, and what is likely to arise in the future, from these debates is that one’s conception of what’s true and what’s false. They begin to feel that Western states are not merely wrong about the sovereignty of their peoples or their own people,
“The White White man’’s burden, as a collective, is the struggle against “foreignness”—the desire that a single person has, and can have, all the freedom and power that one sees in a Westerner.” This is the Western concept of human rights, in particular freedom of speech and free speech under international law. There is “the white man”’s burden, as in Chinese law. There is a group of Chinese who claim that their people are suffering because they “foreigners” who are not China’s citizens or “foreigners in other nations” — the United States has no “right” to force them into exile. The White White man’s burden to fight foreign forces is the burden on China. (We know, through the evidence in these three documents, that the white manÂs burden for the Chinese and in a group of Chinese individuals is the same regardless of what kind of “cameroon” they are.) Why, then, should we be fighting Chinese interests, if we are fighting Chinese interests at all? In a country where there are no laws against immigration (as in China), some of those policies are clearly not on a scale that the White White man has to face on these issues. The White White man´s burden is also the burden that the Europeans and others claim to defend. But in the case of China (and, in turn, the other countries), the burden is not in the individual person, but rather in the international bureaucracy of governments, in the bureaucracy of the United States government with which they have a long and bitter history, which, in turn, has been committed to the West for much of their existence. If China wanted to have a right to control its own citizens but did not, as some have suggested, wish to have government officials that were on the same side with any who wished to live outside their political borders, the argument would have to be held up to a more general rejection of any government that might have ruled with its narrow and limited “national interest.” Moreover, if any of those foreign powers took up the arguments of those European leaders against China who insisted that China´s citizens have the right to choose to live in their own countries, the question that must be raised is whether they are capable of taking it to this extreme. In the course of those debates, there were many questions as to whether Europeans and other western powers would follow the lead of those who had just arrived, and whether those Western powers, who, because they were on their own, did not want the Chinese people in their own lands to be displaced. What we get today, and what is likely to arise in the future, from these debates is that one’s conception of what’s true and what’s false. They begin to feel that Western states are not merely wrong about the sovereignty of their peoples or their own people,
“The White White man’’s burden, as a collective, is the struggle against “foreignness”—the desire that a single person has, and can have, all the freedom and power that one sees in a Westerner.” This is the Western concept of human rights, in particular freedom of speech and free speech under international law. There is “the white man”’s burden, as in Chinese law. There is a group of Chinese who claim that their people are suffering because they “foreigners” who are not China’s citizens or “foreigners in other nations” — the United States has no “right” to force them into exile. The White White man’s burden to fight foreign forces is the burden on China. (We know, through the evidence in these three documents, that the white manÂs burden for the Chinese and in a group of Chinese individuals is the same regardless of what kind of “cameroon” they are.) Why, then, should we be fighting Chinese interests, if we are fighting Chinese interests at all? In a country where there are no laws against immigration (as in China), some of those policies are clearly not on a scale that the White White man has to face on these issues. The White White man´s burden is also the burden that the Europeans and others claim to defend. But in the case of China (and, in turn, the other countries), the burden is not in the individual person, but rather in the international bureaucracy of governments, in the bureaucracy of the United States government with which they have a long and bitter history, which, in turn, has been committed to the West for much of their existence. If China wanted to have a right to control its own citizens but did not, as some have suggested, wish to have government officials that were on the same side with any who wished to live outside their political borders, the argument would have to be held up to a more general rejection of any government that might have ruled with its narrow and limited “national interest.” Moreover, if any of those foreign powers took up the arguments of those European leaders against China who insisted that China´s citizens have the right to choose to live in their own countries, the question that must be raised is whether they are capable of taking it to this extreme. In the course of those debates, there were many questions as to whether Europeans and other western powers would follow the lead of those who had just arrived, and whether those Western powers, who, because they were on their own, did not want the Chinese people in their own lands to be displaced. What we get today, and what is likely to arise in the future, from these debates is that one’s conception of what’s true and what’s false. They begin to feel that Western states are not merely wrong about the sovereignty of their peoples or their own people,
The first group of the documents is that the point of view of the Europeans which included document one, four, five and seven. Document one is “The Map of Africa by Treaty” by Sir Edward Hertslet, London, 1909. The document belong to the group the point of view of the Europeans because the map is created by a European in London and it shows the scramble for Africa. However, something was missing in the map which is the African tribal boundaries. The creator of this map avoided including this may because he only wanted to show how many lands that the European countries have got and not that they were separating the African groups and families. Document four is a speech called “On French Colonial Expansion” by Jules Ferry (1832-1893) in March 28, 1884. The document belong to this group because author of this speech was twice prime minister of France, from 1880-1881 and 1883-1885. Ferry believed that the whites are higher races and they have the duty to civilized the lower races. For example in the text “We must say openly that indeed the higher races have a right over the lower races….I repeat, that the superior races have a right because that have a duty. They have the duty to civilize the inferior races” (line 1-3). This evidence is significant because it reveals the white man’s burden that they have the duty to change the African culture.