What do you guys think?

Question:

What do you guys think?

In the bid for colonies, did smaller nations benefit from colonization or suffer exploitation at the hands of larger, imperialistic nations?

Explain if you know this..that would be great

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I think you have to be a bit cold about the point of view and only consider it from the point of 18th and 19th century eyes. If you do this, you will likely say the answer is that the smaller nations benefited from colonization. If you view it through modern eyes, then your answer will likely be a resounding vote for colonial exploitation of what we now call the developing nations.

Of course, the answer will forever remain complicated. There are too many variables in the question. In some cases, the colonized country got intangible benefits in exchange for raw material.

The classic example is India. "Colonized" by Great Britain. In exchange for their materials, India got a common language, a common justice system, a Western form of government that enables India to rightly claim they are the largest democracy in the world. Of course, India is hardly a small nation as your question leads the reader to consider.

What about the Phillipines? There too they have a common language, a Western style democracy, a common justice system, a capitalist style economy as legacies of a U.S. territory/colony.

The salient issue is that we shall never know how it would have gone had the Imperialist powers not imposed their will. If I am not mistaken, Thailand remains one of the few Asian nations where total domination by a European power did not take place.

Rudyard Kipling, a very learned man, and ardent colonialist, argued for colonization as a force the Europeans were obligated to pursue by the decree of virtue. In a particular poem, "Take up the White Man's Burden, he exhorts the U.S. to colonize the Phillipines.

Besides, without colonization, where would George MacDonald Fraser ever obtained material for Flashman?