How could one use Bagehot's writings to defend European Imperialism in the late 19th Century - Essay Example

How Bagehot’s Writing Supports the Idea of British Imperialism One could easily suggest and provide the following evidence for the idea that Walter Bagehot’s writings tend to advocate that British imperialism, and in fact imperialism in general, actually benefits and advances society. For instance, Bagehot relates that groups of people conquering other groups of people is merely the principle of “survival of the fittest” and that the dominant group’s gains in war benefit all of society in the big picture.

He illustrates that in conquering another group, the one group possesses something of importance that the other one doesn’t have. Therefore the trait that the strongest military group has is very important for society’s success in the future (Bagehot 46). In the case of British imperialism, Britain was more advanced in technology and weapons than the colonies they conquered. They had more powerful and more accurate guns which could also fire faster. Often the groups they conquered had no more advanced weaponry than arrows, swords, and armor.

This advantage led to the conquering of several colonies which greatly expanded British territory. Bagehot would view the British expansion as something that ultimately benefited society. As he states in his book Physics and Politics, “There is no lament in any classical writer for the barbarians” (41). In other words, “civilized” society has generally never felt sympathy towards weaker groups. In fact, it may be said that society owes the fact that it is “civilized” to the sum total of all its military conquests throughout the ages.

Bagehot also points out that Barbarians have never been completely overtaken like they were during English imperialism. He believes that this new dominance shows that Britain was actually more powerful than ancient races (45). Bagehot also states the “energy of civilization grows by the coalescence of strengths and by the competition of strengths” (42). In this sense, competition and therefore fighting for dominance is a good thing because it leads to greater strength for both the conqueror and the conquered.

The general thinking is that as a group is conquered and the conquerors culture is integrated into that group the group becomes stronger than they would have been on their own. Therefore, in this view, British imperialism would be viewed as something that benefited and improved the colonies they conquered. The view that the victor of a war is in fact the “better” man is a view that Bagehot illustrates. If the victor is the better man it would follow that this man is the more civilized and therefore the man who is best for society.

It was likely that British leaders shared this view at the time of British expansion. They probably felt that their way was the best way because they were more educated and more technologically advanced than the groups they conquered. It is probable that the predominant thinking of this time was that although imperialism involved death and some injustice, it was justified and because it would be a good thing for both parties in the end. The view that being the strongest in war is one of the best things for society may be considered a very “cold” and inhumane view, and one that could justify many atrocities against weaker groups by a dominant group who may feel that they are more superior to those they are conquering.

Therefore, the dominant group may justify mistreating or perhaps even wiping out an entire group of people. Yet Bagehot believes all of society’s military victories have led to our current society, one that has seen less discrimination against minorities and women and therefore more opportunities for them. He believes that the “energy” of military victories has led to a society with more opportunities and possibilities. Bagehot, however, cautions that war in itself is not the only driving force in the advancement of society; as he states, “war both needs and generates certain virtues, not the highest, but what might be called the preliminary virtues.

” Furthermore, he believes that certain moral virtues are capable of giving a group military advantages and therefore advancing society in a better moral direction (63). Works Cited Bagehot, Walter. Physics and Politics. Maryland: Ivan R Dee, 1999. Print.