Rudyard Kipling's Defense Of Imperialism

In the late nineteenth century, Europe, Japan, and the United States were in a vicious rush to occupy more and more territory. They acquired parts of Asia and Latin America, and among the three of them, almost all of the African continent. This race of empires had many motivations, both economic and political. Many people had differing opinions on this surge of imperialism, some the most significant being J. A. Hobson, a British social critic and author of Imperialism, Rudyard Kipling, and Indian born newspaper correspondent, poet, and author of The White Man's Burden, Frederick Lugard, a British soldier, imperial administrator, and author of The Scramble for Africa, and Albert Beveridge, an American historian, representative, and author of Defense of Imperialism. These men had differing opinions of the goings-on
of the time, and had very different motivations for thinking the way did. The first question to consider is why these nations strove to make colonies in such undeveloped countries. According to Hobson and Lugard, the answer is simply monetary. The governments (in particular, the British government) came into these countries for various reasons and invested so much, that to not take advantage of whatever resources they possessed would be an injustice. Hobson considered this to be horrible and treacherous, but Lugard saw it as a needed way to continue the British empire. But to Kipling and Beveridge, the motivation is far more important than simple money. Kipling believed that the white man had a genetic duty to rule the subordinate races. This was a popular mind-set at the time and Kipling firmly up-holded the belief that it must be done. Beveridge's opinion was that America was God's country and had the duty to spread its freedom and democracy across the world. These countries were ruled by vicious monarchies who needed America's help. Besides, Germany, France, and England were doing it, so what right didn't the American people have to take advantage of that trade and economy while simultaneously rescuing a civilization in need? These authors saw this cult of imperialism from many different points of view. Hobson couldn't stand the thought of invasion for your own means. His thinking was that imperialism was primeval. He considered it as an ever-expanding cycle of imposition and greed, fueled by the wealth it creates for the few. But the other three authors were the polar opposite.
Though they all had their reasons, each saw imperialism as a way of fostering international growth and wealth, and as a way of spreading a unified world government and peace: Kipling through the unified rule of the white man; Lugard through giving the East African people jobs in exchange for using their land; and Beverage through America's supreme and Godly power. But who really profited from imperialism? Was it the down-and-out countries looking for a helping hand or the countries doing the helping that really gained? Our authors have differing opinions on this as well. Hobson, for example, firmly believed that only a few of the richest men in the imperialist state ever made any money from invading. The middle class and citizens of the occupied territory never saw a penny according to him. Kipling on the other hand believed that the occupied people got the better deal. Their life would be so much better now that a superior and more intelligent race has begun ruling them. Beveridge agreed, opinionating that the occupied peoples' lives would be much better with America as they're
support. Lugard on the other hand thought the real proprieter of all this was the people of the imperializing state. They would gain land, commerce, and trade far beyond what they had before, all the while stabilizing their economy. Without this, he believed, the British Empire would fall. These four writers were contemporaries in their time and were simply a representative of the people. Thousands of people had the same opinion of these happenings. Our authors simply put it to paper. Imperialism, it is obvious, was a very controversial subject.