In the late 1800’s Europeans and Americans sought out land in Asia and Africa to expand political empires. This unstoppable and in most cases unwanted influence was call imperialism. Native people from Africa and Asia responded in many ways but these responses can be categorized in two different groups. People who welcomed the change that came with imperialism were called modernizers and the people who opposed imperialism were called traditionalists. I feel that the response of the people classified as modernizers to imperialism was more effective than the people who clung to traditional ideas and culture. This is my personal opinion for four reasons. Reason number one being that imperialism from the West was too advanced to be opposed.
…show more content…
“The battle took place on September 13, at Tel el Kebir, where the British decimated almost all of Egypt’s army in roughly forty minutes” (Oren, 2007). Over and over again revolts from traditionalists arose and all most all of the time Western imperialists prevailed. That is why the modernizers who accepted change benefited with less bloodshed and gained more of an alliance with the West instead of being forcefully taken over.
Modernizers were stronger because they realized that no matter their attempts imperialism was a force they could not overcome. The leaders who did not fight, but instead invested thought in the potential political growth faired off better than the traditionalists. Although Western imperialism sought out to benefit the Western people the most, natives who negotiated had more freedom than the traditionalists who were over all taken over. Such as in India with what is called by both the Great Mutiny and the Great Revolt. This is another example of native people coming together to fight off western influence. After the defeat the result was “Britain ruled India much more tightly. Moreover, the British in India were much more aware that they were an occupying power and mixed less with the Indian elite” (McKay, Hill, Buckler, Ebrey, Beck, Crowston, & Wiesner-Hanks, 2009). It makes sense that modernizers were willing to learn from imperialism rather than concentrate on repressing western influences had more control over their own lands.