19th century European Imperialism was predominantly negative.

I will first be listing the 5 fallacies in my opponent's sources and then continue on to listing the various theoretical flaws in my opponent's rationale. Also, I hope my opponent notes that he has not listed the actual source for his eight citation. This creates a problem for the entirety of his final point; that I may not be able to 100% certainty that Portugal avoided war due to British Imperialism and the passing of the Treaty of Windsor. There will be future rebuttal against his statement as to how the relations between Britain and Portugal pertain to the positivity of European Imperialism in the nineteenth century. Prior to rebuttals, I have listed the numerous arguments that both my opponent and myself have presented to the debate thus far. Pro: 1) The oppression of native lifestyles 2) Christianity; brainwashes next generations in metropoles and colonies 3) continuation of 1 due to technological advancement and Imperial ambition 4) Slavery 5) Neo-colonialism 6) Socio-economic oppression (during and after the 19th century) Con: 1) Healthcare advancement 2) Increase in education 3) Colonial market 4) Colonial Security Invalid sources: 1. The research in your third source does not apply to increasing the literacy rate in European colonies during the nineteenth century. To demonstrate an example of literacy to demonstrate the contrary to your argument, India, a major British colony epitomizing European Imperialism in the nineteenth century, had only a 12% literacy rate before their independence from British rule [1]. In congruence, underdeveloped countries - which were most often the regions controlled by Imperial rule (Africa, Indies and Pacific East specifically) – had extremely low literacy rates, some as low as 3%. Since 1870, more than 75% of the global population never experienced conventional education [2]. It is extremely disturbing to know that this figure exposes the fact that the regions which were experiencing the lowest literacy rates, and probably the worst living conditions, were the regions that were subject to the formal European Imperialism I have demystified in my original arguments. s://lh4. googleusercontent. com. .. ; alt="" width="624" height="445" /> (refer to my album entitled 'Debate pictures') 2. The study you used in your fourth source only applies to the global population, education and development of Post-World War 2. Although there is an indisputable connection between education and the quality of health, population, fertility and mortality, there was an absence of both education and literacy in the majority of colonies subject to the evils of nineteenth century European Imperialism. The majority of these colonies were the ones who were most easily manipulated, underdeveloped, and exploited by the highest number of various European powers. These regions include Africa, the West Indies and South/South-East Asia. In conclusion, your fourth source not only disregards this fact of nineteenth century European Imperialism, but fails to show the connection between education and its benefits before 1950. 3. Sanitation methods described in your sixth source would obviously be much different than what would've been practiced in a nineteenth century European colony. In accordance, this source shows no correlation between water sanitation and nineteenth century Imperialism or colonialism. Supplementary to this is the fact that many of the regions that were once colonies still experience extremely unhealthy levels of contaminated water and sanitation methods. This is stated several times in the introduction to your sixth source. This works against your original argument because it exemplifies the contamination that continues to poison the lives of thousands, perhaps millions, of native inhabitants who live within the regions once colonized by European Imperialists in the nineteenth century. 4. The content of your seventh source describes how only "some regions of sub-Saharan Africa" were producing high quality goods that Europeans imported from colonies. When you use this source, you disregard the remaining European powers intervening and their colonies in India, the Pacific East and the West Indies. I have made a corresponding rebuttal below, pertaining to the issue of European intervention in North Africa and how Islamic Arabs had demonstrated similar Imperialistic market installment centuries earlier. 5. [8] Source number 8 is not listed and thus, until further consultation, will not be considered in the debate until it is. Theoretical flaws and contradictions: 1. An increasing literacy rate did not synchronize to a legitimate desire to educate colonized peoples, but to improve the possibility economic ambition and prosperity. In a nineteenth century colonial setting, native peoples were learning the language of their Imperialist leaders, which applies to the oppression of native beliefs, language and culture. When there is a higher rate of literacy, industry also prospers [1. United Nations.5 ]. The goal from an imperialist perspective, which emanate from a selfish desire to require wealth for the metropolis, was that Imperialist leaders needed to teach their colonized peoples the language of the mother country to improve industrial ambitions. European Imperialists wanted to teach the language of the metropolis to communicate commerce more effectively. This was to seal the desire for more wealth. 2. There is an irony in your first statement about the Spanish investing in medical research in the Philippines and Americas to prevent smallpox. Many centuries prior to the discovery of the smallpox vaccination, Imperial conquistadors brought savage armies who had wiped out natives not only through violent aggression, but mostly by mistreatment and disease. Millions of natives had died from smallpox and fever brought on by drought, mistreatment and disease [2]. The goal from an Imperialist perspective was to deter the number of major metropolitan officials dying from smallpox to install a stronger colonial function. But did this vaccination serve as a complete reparation to the millions of natives who were abused, diseased and massacred beforehand? It is not about the vaccination, but the apprehension of natives resulting in horrible consequences. 3. In addition to the invalid information provided from sources 3 and 4, the example of a British installment of the state education system provides only one instance in a vast amount of other colonial comparisons where education was either not provided at all, or the education provided was only adequate enough to serve the needs of Imperial leaders. This was the case in most nineteenth century colonies and exemplified most effectively in the Belgian Congo after the Partitioning of Africa [3]. In this case, Belgium did not supervise or encourage any development of educating the native peoples of the Congo. From an Imperialist perspective, the influence of education, increasing the profit margin for metropolitan markets, proved beneficial for the installation and growth of foreign markets. In the specific case of the Belgian Congo, not only did King Leopold II show complete disregard for this concept (and perhaps couldn't afford to educate the colonized peoples), but also showed complete disregard for the compatibility between colonies and the metropole through literacy and education. King Leopold only provided enough ‘education’ to suffice the communication of commerce to exploit the land for selfish gain. 4. To disprove the argument upheld by your seventh source, the arrival of European Imperialism in Africa was not the first occurrence of Imperialism influencing a growing market for African goods. As early as the seventh century, Islamic Arabs had installed markets in North East Africa which also experienced an interest in steel, alcohol; and especially cloth and jewelry. When you state that this Imperialist intervention was 'extremely profitable for local leaders', you have not realized that this kind of affect also benefitted the 'local leaders' of Islamic Imperialists centuries before [4]. This proves that the installation of foreign markets in Northern Africa was solely done for the general purpose of industry and obtaining wealth, showing little regard for the health and wealth of native peoples-which can be connected to my reasoning in arguments 1, 4, 5 and 6. From an Imperialist perspective, competitive markets already existed against the Arab influence in Northern Africa before the nineteenth century. Therefore, European Imperialists had rationale for economic intervention to either install markets where there weren't already existing markets; or compete against Arab intervention to the East to build profits against the Middle East. In some cases, Imperialist market installation was only beneficial for local leaders; who were in fact the Imperialists. The idea of security for foreign investments is an obvious addition to Imperialism in general. This does not negate the fact that natives are apprehended from there autonomous ability to control their own profit and markets. It may also strengthen the idea that European Imperialists oppressed native beliefs and culture through a perceived European 'protection'. Installing vices upon the masses to seal economic ends of foreign markets and future profit should not qualify as 'security'. Source listing for Round 3 – Rebuttals and Refutations: 'Invalid sources': [1] <. https://en.wikipedia.org...; [2] <. https://ourworldindata.org...; 'Theoretical Flaws and Contradictions': [1] <. http://www.un.org...; [2] <. http://blogs.plos.org...; [3] <. http://www.ultimatehistoryproject.com...; [4] <. http://www.whyislam.org...;