Was the British Empire A Force For Good - 1100 Words

Was the British Empire A Force For Good? (Essay Sample) Content: Was the British Empire A Force For Good? Name: Institution Introduction There has been a continuing debate on the worldwide societies of the good or evil of the British Empire that ruled most of the world territories. Some argue that the British Empire brought about good ventures into the people they ruled and in most cases being criticized of bringing the evil things into the greater societal world. This is because the Empire had various activities some benefiting the societies surrounding their jurisdictions and others had negative impacts to the people. After gauging different activities carried out in the Empire, this paper has found a necessity to demonstrate the way British Empire was a force of evil, as demonstrated by Brunsman (2013). This research paper achieves to illustrate the different ways the empire is a bad force used to undermine and deteriorate the goodness of the people through different arguments. First, the British Empire st arted by conquering the territories where there were wealthy resources and work force that they used to exploit for the benefit of the British economy and prestige. Even though their steered the spread of innovated technologies to their colonies, they mis-used such important breakthrough to develop the local economies and improve the living standards of the colonized people. Instead, they used their advanced technologies to exploit the wealth of such territories and its citizens without their knowledge for their personal benefits. Moreover, the development of the infrastructures in the colonial territories was in bad motives, as it was a method of simplifying their way into the interior parts of the rich resources. In other worlds, the improvement of infrastructures was a method of making the exploitation easier to the agents of the British Empire. This includes creating effective accessibilities and transport of rich resources by establishing and constructing better roads and rails to transport heavy materials. The creation of better infrastructure also led to exploitation of local people, as it simplified the organization of the local population through the accessibilities enhancements of the commanding agents (Anker, 2001). The entrance of the British people wishing to invest in the colonial nations was freely allowed to access the resources and wealth of the local regions since they were only interested to build their own economy but not for the host territory (Kim, 2005). In this case, it demonstrated that British Empire was a force created for evil perceptions against the colonized nations and the local people. This is because they were not given an opportunity to grow their own economic status but benefited only the economy of the British Empire. Their bad faith can also be illustrated by their establishment of infrastructural facilities that they could easily navigate the flow of wealth and resources to simplify the transportation by the agents of Bri tish Empire. The evil motive of the British Empire to the rest of the world is the way it colonized people by oppressing the citizens of those specific colonial nations. This is through positioning their administrative centers in strategic areas where they can articulate their activities of interests at ease (Gilbert et al., 2003). This includes the way the colonizers carved the national rights of the colonized people through forceful integrations, marginalizing, and displacing various tribes and cultural diversities (Grasse, 2007). This eliminated the initial cultural and religious beliefs of the transformed societies in order to adopt the newly customs brought by British authorities. In most case, the British Empire used their own missionaries to introduce fundamental frameworks of introducing the British culture and religious educations through establishment of churches, schools, courts, or even prisons. Such institutions were established to ensure their mission of alienating t he cultural and religious believes were achieved. For example, the establishment of schools and churches aimed at educating the societies on the lifestyle of the British for conformity to their culture. In addition, they formed the administrative systems in various regions of the colonized territories to ensure every citizen in those countries follow their rules and regulations. The established court processes and prisons were aimed to punish the local citizens who ignore or break the rules enacted by the British authorities. In this case, their bad faith can be demonstrated, by the way, the local people founded the rebellions in order to seek the freedom to their own power, resources, and land (Gott, 2011). The rebellions resulted to the internal conflicts, especially between the colonized people and the people appointed by British mercenaries for administrative network. Therefore, the British Empire brought about the enmity and divisions among the peaceful societal world through the creation of institutions to oversee other citizens (Derber & Magrass, 2008). The divisions can be reflected the current civil conflicts among the citizens, especially in the scrabble of wealth and resources. Such internal conflicts can be seen in various African nations. The countries in the Middle East include Iraq, which had many ethnic challenges where conflicts are the order of the day (Tatlock, 2012). In Southern Asia, there were ethnic conflicts on Pakistan and India where Burmese had been killing Rhoyingas, as they were perceived to be brought by British agents from elsewhere. The ruling of the British Empire in their colonies always ended with a conflict that arose after the realization of their motives by the local citizens. For example, the Boers Wars, American War of Independence, the 1798 Irish Rebellion, the Kenyan’s Mau Mau Rebellion of 1952 to 1960 (Taylor, 2010). Another argument to illustrate the evil contribution by the British Empire is the fact that no colonizing imperial power has ever had the motivation of developing its subject. In this perception, the British Empire had no exception on claiming that it was a force of bad faith to the colonized countries. That is why it could do ...

Northwestern is a not a safety school (and neither is Northeastern)

Every year around this time, posts inevitably appear on College Confidential that go something like this: I applied to every Ivy, Stanford, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Nebraska, and I got rejected everywhere except my safety school. I have a 4.5 GPA, 35 ACT, and good activities. wasnt sure about HYPSM, but I thought I was totally set for Northwestern and Hopkins. What do I do Help!!!! This year, theres a whole long thread on the Parents Forum entitled Why applicants overreach and are disappointed in April, and I would strongly encourage anyone just beginning the college search to read through it, before the madness sets in and you fall in love (or your child falls in love) with a school that accepts only 5% of its applicants. That is, 5% overall the RD admission rate might in reality be closer to 2%. As a lot of CC posters have pointed out, there really are no match schools for students in this category. The most selective schools have single-digit acceptance rates, making them a crapshoot for all but the most spectacular (or most effectively packaged) applicants, and the marginally less selective ones are sufficiently concerned about yield protection  (i.e., Tufts syndrome) that theyre hardly a guarantee for high-stats applicants either particularly ones who dont attend feeder schools, apply early, or receive significant guidance about how to stand out. So heres a little reality check: In the last few years, admissions have gotten really, really competitive, in ways that people who applied to college in the 1980s (or even the 1990s) not infrequently have trouble wrapping their heads around. The fact that some schools are now rejecting upwards of 95% of their applicants does  not mean that a school with a marginally higher acceptance rate can be considered a safety. A 16% acceptance rate might look high compared to a 5% one, but a school that accepts 16% of its applicants still rejects 84% of them, and you cannot assume you wont be one of them. In other words, Northwestern (8.4%) may have been a backup school in 1985, but its not anymore. And Northeastern (27%) may have been a backup school in 1995, but its not anymore either. Furthermore, just throwing in as many apps as possible to competitive schools wont by itself raise your chances either. Applying to 10 schools with sub-15% admit rates does not necessarily mean that youll be accepted to one. Yes, sometimes the essays or the recommendations are a little lackluster (high grades and scores are a baseline requirement, not a golden ticket); sometimes the extracurriculars arent nearly as spectacular as they could have been. But sometimes there are just too many (thousands of) applicants and not enough places in the freshman class. Sometimes there just isnt room. Alas, this is what the online Common App hath wrought. So when you make a college list, you need to make sure its balanced: a few well-chosen reaches with acceptance rates in the 5-25% range; a few matches in the 25-50% range; and a few safeties that accept 50+% of their applicants, that you can afford, and where your scores fall above the 75th percentile. Ideally, you should have compelling reasons for applying to every single one of the schools on your list, and genuinely be willing to attend. If you cant even explain to your parents or friends why you want to attend the University of X, you certainly wont be able to explain it to an admissions committee. Provided you clear the basic hurdles, enthusiasm does countusually, at least.