Imperialism and empire-building is ALWAYS bad

Defining Imperialism and Empire-building We need to separate modern imperialism from ancient empire-building because scholars traditionally define the first as an economic relationship where indigenous populations still have a stake in local governance and the second as a complete dethroning of the local political authority, not just transactional but a direct territorial relationship. While an imperialistic nation’s power supersedes local authority and controls the production, supply, and development of local economic resources, that nation typically does not directly govern. My opponent’s opening argument does not distinguish the two, but for simplicity’s sake, I will only defend modern imperialism. Given the resolution dictates “AND,” if I prove that imperialism is NOT always bad -- i.e. sometimes it’s a good thing-- then I should win this debate. Here we go: Imperialism Diminishes Poverty and Discrimination Imperialism has traditionally targeted countries that underutilize their raw resources, like nations in Africa and South Asia. Roads, bridges, mines, rigs, lumber mills, farms, and a whole slew of other economic fixtures and infrastructure are built at the dominant nation’s expense, and while slavery typically characterized old empire-building, European powers ultimately found this unsustainable and hired help to create a productive and paid workforce, lifting entire populations out of poverty. Capitalism helps break down petty distinctions, like the caste system under British Raj.1 In fact, India owes much of its modern economy to lot work done by Great Britain.2 Nations dominated by European political powers in the 18th and 19th centuries typically did not have the technical resources to harness their own economic potential. This is why imperialism became necessary to the modern economy. Even 21st depictions of imperialism, like so-called cultural neocolonialism and globalizing market forces, has helped created international social mobility, destroy dictatorships, and raise democracies from the cinders of those oppressive systems.3 You only need to look as far as Southern and Eastern Europe in the late 20th century and the Middle East in the 21st century to see the ever increasingly positive impulse that has been produced by American and Western European cultural hegemony. Imperialism Discourages Violence I want to dispel the notion that Britain is responsible for the current India-Pakistan conflict. The geographical partition did not cause this group to hate each other, because the religious animosity and racial antipathy existed before the British exerted influence. In fact, before the partition, Hindus and Muslims frequently initiated targeting killings, brawls, and pogroms against the other sect.4 But more importantly, economic globalization sparked by the infrastructural gains of early imperialism has created a network of trading partners and democratic allies, expanding the middle class and decreasing impetuses for war. It is no coincidence that the rise in globalization has correlated to a decrease not just in the number of wars but the intensity of war in the last half century. Globalization allows nations to acquire goods and power by trade rather than by territory and force. [1] http://www.ggdc.net... [2]http://www.bbc.co.uk... [3] Daniel, “Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle,” 20 April 2007, http://www.freetrade.org... [4http://en.wikipedia.org...