According to Joseph Chamberlain, Rudyard Kipling, and Jules Ferry, the industrialized nations embarked upon imperialist ventures for economic, humanitarian, and political reasons. None of these authors' explanations or justifications for imperialism are convincing, especially in light of the damage done to Third World nations by exploiting industrialized nations. Chamberlain believes that imperialism is good for both the British and the Africans. However, he first argues against the view that spending on imperialist efforts should be spent on domestic causes instead. Chamberlain points out one foreign expense which he says is for a good cause--anti-slavery efforts--which would be lost if imperialism were cut back or done away with (Wall 2). He argument is not convincing because he does not directly deal with the basis of imperialism, which is the exploitation and control of foreign people. Imperialism is, in fact, a form of slavery itself, because the subjects of imperialism are not free to do as they wish while controlled by the British.
Chamberlain goes on to argue that policies of "expansion" (i.e., imperialism) have benefitted the British through trade income, which is no doubt true. However, he does not consider that the people controlled by the British suffered from such imperialist control. He argues, in fact, that the British brought "civilization" (Wall 2-3) to their subjects.
Chamberlain further argues that the British have committed to imperialism and that it is too late to reverse that policy. In any case, it is, he says, good for both the British [economically and as an expression of the British "spirit of adventure and enterprise" (Wall 2)] and the Ugandans, who were spared by British imperialism from their previous state of "anarchy and civil war" (Wall 4). In other words, Africans are savages, he is saying, and the white British saved them from killing one another. The British brought "peace" to Uganda (Wall...