Is Imperialism Worth it? (793-804)

So today in class we talked a lot about the difference between Imperialism and Expansionism- and I realized that the difference between them is practically nothing. Although- in my mind, Imperialism has a more negative connotation than Expansionism. Of course the first country than comes to my mind when the word expansionism comes up is Russia- and this chapter in the book does mention Russian Imperialism. Apparently, throughout the 19th century Russia had been acquiring territory after territory: Georgia, Bessarabia, Turkestan, and Armenia. However, issues begin to arise when Russian imperialism butts heads with a different country that is also expanding its empire into 'unknown' land. Russia almost got into a war with Britain TWICE: once in 1881 when the Russia troops were occupying the 'territories in the trans-Caspian region' and again in 1884-1887 ' when the tsar's forces advanced to the frontier of Afghanistan' (803). These big powers like to acquire new land and they definitely like to maintain and protect their already acquired land- therefore in 1875 when Russian expansion into Mongolia and Manchuria ran into Japanese expansion- all hell broke loose (i.e. they went to war). Russia basically got humiliated because its huge imperial army had met its match and then the navy was sent halfway around the world to help reinforce the struggling army, only to be ambushed and sunk by the 'better-trained and -equipped Japanese fleet' (803). 

While reading this chapter and learning about the Great Mutiny of 1857 in India (which was the center of the British Empire)- I thought to myself, why expand? Why risk everything if you have the chance to lose it all? Colonizing another people and taking over another country takes a lot of effort, skill in keeping the 'other people' calm, pragmatism, military force, and a lot of money. When the British Empire went into India (at first the British Easy India Company was in control- they had their own military, the right to collect taxes on land from Indian peasants, and had legal monopolies over trade in all goods) they had to use both direct and indirect rule, by making alliances with local leaders. However, the problem was that a lot of English wanted to 'westernize' India and therefore get rid of its culture and fix its religion. These kind of changes to India's fundamental state of being- upset a lot of people. A lot of different kinds of people rebelled and it took Britain over a year to quell the rebellion: "British leaders were stunned by how close the revolt had brought them to disaster and were determined never to repeat the same mistakes" (794). After the revolt, the British East India Company was terminated and the crown took over- afterwards India was "left to indigenous princes, who were subject to British advisors" (794). I don't know- it just seems like such a hassle to have to maintain power and stability within this colonized nation. I mean I understand the reasons for imperialism: search for new markets, beat out the competition, want more resources to help feed the future economy, it is our 'duty/mission/burden' to expand- I'm just saying that imperialism seems like it causes more trouble than good. Of course, maybe as I read on this opinion of mine will change.