BookTalk.org

IV-1- The theme of imperialism.

Introduction: imperialism and colonialism:

colonialism: control by one power over a dependent area or people.

imperialism: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.
(Merriam-Webster's Dictionary).


What do you think is the difference?



The theme of imperialism is introduced very early in the novella:

1- I find the reference to the Roman Conquerors on English soil intriguing:


pages 5 and 6 "Or think of a decent citizen in a toga... the powerless disgust, the surrender, the hate."


What do you thinK?


2- Then the narrator switches to "us", the Europeans: "Mind, none of us would feel exactly like this. What saves us is efficiency-- the devotion to efficiency. " page 6.


What do you think of the way these themes are introduced?

You really have me preoccupied, Ophelia.

At breakfast this morning - my husband said - 'what are you thinking about, you are unusually quiet?'

I said, ' The difference between Colonialism and Imperialism'.

He almost choked on his toast!!

I perceive colonialism as moving into another Country and culture - taking the land and imposing your own culture onto the indiginous population - ie. Colonising.

Imperialism I think of as moving into another country, but with no intention of settling - just making it a military or political base.

The Romans came here and pushed us about a bit, but they did not insist that we accept their religious beliefs. They did not seem to care about our belief system so long as we did not interfere in the politics.

I often wonder why the Romans came to Britain. I know they took the 'salt' from this area but I don't think they knew it was here before they came. It must have seemed like a cold and bleak place to them and I bet they were glad when they were posted elsewhere. The Vikings colonised here before that.

I suppose it could have been a strategic move to have an army here. They were a military power. They came here late in their Empire building - so perhaps it was just to keep the soldiers busy and stop them from getting bored!!!!

It was a different matter entirely with the British in Africa - didn't Rhodes Boyson trade smallpox infested blankets with the natives. Doesn't make you proud does it?

We didn't do anything quite so dishonourable in India - but that bit of empire seemed to stem from the East India Tea Company, perhaps commerce is not so heartless.

I was posting on another forum and grumbling because I have just lost my front tooth in a brawl with a pile of baking tins;


I said:

I am thinking about the difference between Colonialism and Imperialism for my book discussion group - takes my mind off my appearance anyway.

Blackers said:

(Colonialism is a practice and imperialism may be seen as the idea driving the practice).

Are you reading Conrad by any chance?

Colonialism is what plays out over the long term as a result of the imperialistic impulse--I can go with that distinction already provided. I, too, found it interesting that Marlow says that England was once a dark place, meaning, I suppose, that there was a conquering people present who saw it in just the way that the Europeans see Africa--as dark. Clearly the Africans would not see their own culture as dark, nor would have the Angles, Saxons, or Jutes (terms drilled into me that I have limited understanding of!).

Will

DWill - As an indiginous Anglo-Saxon - I can tell you that no, we don't see it as dark - but we definitely do see it as 'greyish'.

Sorry, couldn't resist.....

It is all this foreign travel you see - we now know that we are not the white man - we are pale blue compared to the rest of Europe!!! With the cold that is!!!!

DWill wrote:Colonialism is what plays out over the long term as a result of the imperialistic impulse--
Will

I think this is pretty much accurate. I think everyone here has a grasp on the difference between imperialism and colonialism. I'd imagine it can also be thought of that imperialism is the military component to expansion while colonialism is the mercantile component.

As for the Romans in Britain, by the time of Julius Caesar it seemed to most Romans that every worthy land was already "conquered" (conquered in the sense at least that Romans had already been there at least long enough to leave some sort of sign that they were there behind). Caesar needed to do something to make his name, hence expanding his expedition to the southern shores of Britain. Later, after more of Gaul and Germania had been truly conquered, Hadrian and subsequent emperors all sought the same as Caesar, furthering their name and imperium.

Ibid said:-

Caesar needed to do something to make his name, hence expanding his expedition to the southern shores of Britain.


Oy what do you mean Southern Shores!!!!! I live Uwp North. They were here - Chester - and even further up North at the divide between Scotland and England - Northumberland. I went to see a lovely little shrine to Mithras whilst there, ostensibly to visit the excavated Vindalanda - Fortress. Where there were remains of delightful messages home, from Roman soldiers - asking their Mums' to send them warm socks. Honestly - I am not making this up.

Love the Romans I do. We have a lot to thank them for.

Viz; Monty Python - The Life of Brian........seemed like a iconoclastic, heretical film.....but told a lot of truth.....Blessed are the Cheesemakers...mutter...mutter...mutter....The Cheesemakers? Why? The Greeks shall inherit the earth....The Greeks.....No, he said the meek......Oh well blessem....it's about time they got something.....etc. etc.

How we are prone to get it all wrong!!!!

I absolutely love the part of history which deals with the Romans in Britain!

Why did the Romans come?
For the reasons mentioned by Ibid, and because they were in the business of colonizing. By the time they reached Britain they were beginning to overextend themselves.
Officially, they went for the glory of Rome, but on a personal level they were after money.

I'll need some help with the following line, because I've read several versions of it and can only remember this one:

Every Roman Commander or official in Britain (or elsewhere) had come to make three fortunes: one for Rome, one for himself, and ... ?

Or: Every high official...one fortune to pay for his debts in Rome, one to pay for the bribes he had had to give to the right people in Rome in order to get his post.... You get the idea.


I loved the way Marlowe's first words are about the Romans (pages 4 to 6), because of my interest in the Romans in Britain, but because of the introduction and perspective it gives to the rest of the novel.

Penelope wrote:DWill - As an indiginous Anglo-Saxon - I can tell you that no, we don't see it as dark - but we definitely do see it as 'greyish'.

Sorry, couldn't resist.....

It is all this foreign travel you see - we now know that we are not the white man - we are pale blue compared to the rest of Europe!!! With the cold that is!!!!

I think what we 'palefaces' see, when we start reading the book is the 'gloom'.

The darkness, I think, is in the mind and heart - we're afraid of what we don't know.

Lemme' tell ya', if I was in a boat like that, and came cruising around to place like that, and a buncha' people started dancing and screaming, no matter what colour they are - I'd be afraid too.

It's the main reason I don't go to big rock concerts, the Stones, etc. I hate a swarm of screaming people.

When I was thirteen my grandfather offered me a choice of a radio for my room or tickets to go see Elvis - I chose the radio. I loved Elvis, but I didn't want to see him amongst a bunch of screaming teenagers.

To return to colonialism versus imperialism, I am reading an article by Gilles Cnockaert about the history of decolonization in France.
He writes that the French empire in Africa has not entirely disappeared and that "imperialism outlived decolonization" as France still has military bases in Africa for example.

Also, the US has sometimes been called "Imperialist", but has not been called a colonialist power as regards territories outside its own borders (as far as I know).