Response to Notes on the British Empire
One interesting point among the notes is the introduction of the term colonial and the later context supplied. It is true that most Americans recognize colonial as a part of our nation’s history. Typically it is associated with a specific time period: the early years of our country. However, by providing a global context for the term, it shifts the audience from a cultural mindset to a global frame of mind.
Further, it is interesting to read the supplied definition of colonialism because the actual definition is not tied to a specific timeframe, as it typically is when Americans consider the term. Instead, the term colonial is specific to individual countries and can span different eras in history. Therefore, colonialism means different periods to different countries.
The variation in motivation between the Spanish and English along the Silk Road was a surprising point. The explanation that the Spanish sought gold and riches and the English sought textiles begins to explain a key difference between the two populations based solely on their impetus. Additionally, the comment on the sizes of the respective armies is surprising and one area where more information is warranted.
It was enjoyable and interesting to consider the distinction of exploited colonies and their intended uses by the British Empire. The use of a nation’s resources for its own gain warrants more information, particularly an explanation as to how such a large Empire could act that way. Also, a comment on the specific traits that moved an exploited colony to a hybrid colony would be helpful.
Finally, the parallel that is drawn between the actions which occurred in Rwanda in the 1800s and its influence on the horrific actions nearly two centuries later is intriguing.
