I like the simple story of Johnny at school who gets into trouble from his

teacher. “Where’s your homework?” “Sorry, sir, I couldn’t do it because

there was too much noise at home.” “What? Noise all evening? What kind of
noise?” Johnny said, “It was the television, sir. It was too loud and I couldn’t
do my homework”. The teacher was trying to be helpful: “Now Johnny. You
could have asked them to turn down the volume, surely?” “No, I couldn’t”,
he replied. “There was no-one else in the room”.
A colonial mentality is the internalized attitude of ethnic or cultural inferiority felt by people as a
result of colonization, i.e. them being colonized by another group.[1] It corresponds with the belief
that the cultural values of the colonizer are inherently superior to one's own.[2] The term has been
used by postcolonial scholars to discuss the transgenerationaleffects of colonialism present in
former colonies following decolonization.[3][4] It is commonly used as an operational concept for
framing ideological domination in historical colonial experiences.[5][6] In psychology colonial
mentality has been used to explain instances of collective depression, anxiety, and other
widespread mental health issues in populations that have experienced colonization.

Though both the words underline suppression of the other,

Colonialism is where one nation assumes control over the other
and Imperialism refers to political or economic control, either
formally or informally. In simple words, colonialism can be
thought to be a practice and imperialism as the idea driving the
practice.

Colonialism is a term where a country conquers and rules over

other regions. It means exploiting the resources of the conquered
country for the benefit of the conqueror. Imperialism means
creating an empire, expanding into the neighbouring regions and
expanding its dominance far.

Colonialism is termed as building and maintaining colonies in

one territory by people from another territory. Colonialism can
altogether alter the social structure, physical structure and
economics of a region. It is quite normal that in the long run, the
traits of the conqueror are inherited by the conquered.
Colonialism is a term used to describe the settlement of places
like India, Australia, North America, Algeria, New Zealand and
Brazil, which were all controlled by the Europeans. Imperialism,
on the other hand is described where a foreign government
governs a territory without significant settlement. The scramble
for Africa in the late 19th century and the American domination
of Puerto Rico and the Philippines can be cited as examples of
Imperialism.

In Colonialism, one can see great movement of people to the new

territory and living as permanent settlers. Though they lead the
life as permanent settlers, they still maintain allegiance to their
mother country. Imperialism is just exercising power over the
conquered regions either through sovereignty or indirect
mechanisms of control.

Coming to the origin of the two, Imperialism has a longer history

than Colonialism. While the history of colonialism dates back to
15th century, Imperialism has its origins dating back to the
Romans.

Colonialism has its origins when Europeans started to look

outside their country, pursuing trade with other nations. Though
colonialism can be attributed to the trade pursuits of a country,
Imperialism is just not like that and it involves individual
pursuits only.
Coming to the etymology, colony comes from the Latin word
colonus, which means farmers. Imperialism also comes from
Latin word imperium, which means to command.

Summary
1.Colonialism is a term where a country conquers and rules over
other regions. Imperialism means creating an empire, expanding
into the neighbouring regions and expanding its dominance far.
2.In Colonialism, one can see great movement of people to the
new territory and living as permanent settlers. Imperialism is
just exercising power over the conquered regions either through
sovereignty or indirect mechanisms of control.

Colonialism vs. Imperialism

In this article, we will define and differentiate colonialism vs imperialism. While the two words are
often used synonymously, we will examine the meanings of colonialism and imperialism, any
similarities between the two terms, and also discuss cases of historical imperialism vs. colonialism. We
believe the article on the difference between imperialism and colonialism will be helpful to students
of international relations, as the study both of these horrific practices that have existed in global
affairs.
What is the Difference Between Colonialism and
Imperialism?
The main questions that we will center this article around is that of “What is the difference between
colonialism and imperialism?” Therefore, in order to compare colonialism vs imperialism, we will
define each of the terms.
What is the definition of imperialism? Imperialism is understood as a policy of a country in which
that said country influences other countries or territories through military force, as well as other means
of power (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). So, the key point to understanding imperialism has to do with the
emphasis on the idea of overtaking others based on power. It is using their power to control others
outside of their state (New Encyclopedia of Africa, 2008, in galegroup).
What is the definition of colonialism? Colonialism is defined as a practice in which a power sets up
colonies or settlements elsewhere (in other countries or territories) (Singh, 2001) for the political and
economic benefit of the colonizing country. So, this state will often take over other areas, setting up
their own political and economic systems, with the intent of using the colonies’ materials, land, etc…
to benefit the colonizing country. So, the establishment of administrative influence over an area is a
type of imperialism (New Encyclopedia of Africa, 2008) that has been implemented in the history of
international relations.
Thus, a core difference between colonialism and imperialism is the idea compared to the practice or
implementation of the ideas. So, imperialism serves as the underlying ideas, whereas colonialism is an
established form of imperialism.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy differentiates colonialism vs. imperialism by saying that
“Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another.
One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is hard to distinguish it from imperialism.
Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms. Like colonialism, imperialism also involves
political and economic control over a dependent territory. The etymology of the two terms, however,
provides some clues about how they differ. The term colony comes from the Latin word colonus,
meaning farmer. This root reminds us that the practice of colonialism usually involved the transfer of
population to a new territory, where the arrivals lived as permanent settlers while maintaining political
allegiance to their country of origin. Imperialism, on the other hand, comes from the Latin
term imperium, meaning to command. Thus, the term imperialism draws attention to the way that one
country exercises power over another, whether through settlement, sovereignty, or indirect
mechanisms of control.”
So, it is not only about the idea of expansion in imperialism and colonialism, but also the way that the
entity is controlling others. In the case of imperialism, the state conquering completely takes the
territory into their own territory or empire. However, in the case of colonialism, the notion of the
existing state is not dismissed, but that colonized territory is now under the control, and the benefit of
the outside colonizing entity. In cases of colonialism, the colonizing state will send over administrators
to set up their own government and often economic structures, as well as citizens to go live and work
in the new colony (Koshal, 2015).
But even this differentiation between imperialism vs. colonialism depends on how scholars and writers
are using the terms. While we might think that there is either a separation on idea and practice when
discussing colonialism vs. imperialism, or the exact way that a power is controlling and ruling another
territory,
“The distinction between the two, however, is not entirely consistent in the literature. Some scholars
distinguish between colonies for settlement and colonies for economic exploitation. Others use the
term colonialism to describe dependencies that are directly governed by a foreign nation and contrast
this with imperialism, which involves indirect forms of domination” (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, 2012).
Part of this itself has to do with the shift in the definition of imperialism. The term “imperialism” itself
was not a very common one until the 1800s. With regards to which term was used to discuss the
British Empire, “Imperialism was understood as a system of military domination and sovereignty over
territories. The day to day work of government might be exercised indirectly through local assemblies
or indigenous rulers who paid tribute, but sovereignty rested with the British. The shift away from this
traditional understanding of empire was influenced by the Leninist analysis of imperialism as a system
oriented towards economic exploitation. According to Lenin, imperialism was the necessary and
inevitable result of the logic of accumulation in late capitalism. Thus, for Lenin and subsequent
Marxists, imperialism described a historical stage of capitalism rather than a trans-historical practice of
political and military domination” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2012).
Conclusion
In this article, we have discussed and compared imperialism vs. colonialism. We defined both terms,
explained differences, and also addressed points which include the fact that these two terms have
often been conflated with one another. We see that imperialism is the idea of expansion, and also the
attention to political influence, whereas in colonialism, it is a series of political and economic policies
that a colonizing country will implement on their colonial territory. As mentioned, in colonialism, the
state will bring along administrative units to govern the society and to receive the economic benefits,
sending these resources back to their home country. Again, “Colonialism is a term used to describe
the settlement of places like India, Australia, North America, Algeria, New Zealand and Brazil, which
were all controlled by the Europeans. Imperialism, on the other hand is described where a foreign
government governs a territory without significant settlement. The scramble for Africa in the late 19th
century and the American domination of Puerto Rico and the Philippines can be cited as examples of
Imperialism.”
Given the evil history of imperialism and colonialism in international relations, it is important to
understand these terms, and also to always speak out against this history, and any modern attempts
to push these ideas. As the video above discusses, notions of race and racism have been a part of
colonial and imperialism actions in history. Imperialists and colonialists have attempted to justify their
behaviour, all the while citizens in these countries continue to fight to resist these racist and
ethnocentric ideas.
Become a member

Sign in
Get started

Review of “Inglorious Empire:

What the British did to
India”, by Shashi Tharoor

Nikhil Garg

Follow

Dec 20, 2018 · 2 min read

Shashi Tharoor lays out the destruction that the English carried
out in India over centuries of East Indian Trade company rule
and then the British Raj — the lives lost due to famine, the
economic plundering, and the social divisions cultivated. In
economic terms, he cites research indicating that the debt owed
is on the order of $3 trillion; perhaps most starkly, India went
from over 20% of global GDP when the East Indian Trade
company entered the country, to less than 5% when it left.

Tharoor directly attacks the most common defenses made of

British Imperial rule in India: that it a) unified the country
under a single government; b) brought in railroads, modern
education and the English language; c) laid the groundwork for
a democratic, classically liberal society; and d) should be judged
by the standards of its time, not modern sensibilities. In the
process, he excoriates British figures such as Winston Churchill
and Rudyard Kipling, arguing especially that the former was
responsible for up to 3 million deaths during the Bengal
Famine.

He argues, weaving in both economic figures and quotes from

contemporary figures, that colonial rule’s sole purpose was to
enrich England. Any benefits it brought were accidental, and for
the most part the British slowed down or destroyed Indian
industrialization, education, and political unity. Though it is
hard to argue a counter-factual, he asserts that there is no
reason that the Indian sub-continent could not have
imported/used such things as various industrial technologies —
the brutalities of colonization are not a necessary condition for
modern education or railroads.

For a summary, watch the 15 minutes speech he gave at Oxford

on the same subject: Dr Shashi Tharoor MP — Britain Does Owe
Reparations.
“No wonder the sun never set on the British empire because even the God could not trust the

English in the Dark”.