The Legacy of Imperialism in Southeast Asia
Imagine a tropical island paradise isolated from external influence or interference, with limited localized conflicts. Then a fleet of dark ships sail up to the golden beaches and land. These ships are filled with Europeans, who wish to take over this land for its strategic location and the plentiful natural resources that exist on the majestic lands of Southeast Asia. This straightforward scene, often exhausted at global locations, could be the start of a legacy of enormous impact and complication. A legacy is what is left behind by an event, a person, or a idea. Legacy can be composed of memories, physical differences, or different outlooks on life. Colonization typically refers to the movement of individuals from one country to another country to develop colonies. However, colonization strategies became increasingly sophisticated during the period of expansive European colonization. It become possible for Europeans to colonize vast areas with limited numbers of people and indirectly through local participants. European powers wanted the resources and location that Southeast Asia possesses, and they sought to take this land and these resources, often by force. European imperialism in Southeast Asia left a legacy of conquest, greed, and power over the people of Southeast Asia.
One legacy of European imperialism in Southeast Asia was the wars of conquest among the European powers vying for increased territory after their initial colonization. During the 1500s and 1600s, European powers seized control of large parts of Southeast Asia. This take over affected the lives of the natives of Southeast Asia and also the individual European colonizers. European corporations wanted lands so t...
... middle of paper ...
...rful countries- economically and politically. Knowing about the region’s history and specifically, the impact of outside powers on the region, is vital to successful interactions.
Works Cited:
Spielvogel, Jackson J. National Geographic, 2003. 644-679. Print.
.
Mr. Roda, . N.p.. Web. 12 Dec 2013.
.
Rey, Ty. N.p..
Web. 16 Dec 2013. .
Constance, Wilson. N.p..
Web. 12 Dec 2013. .
Beck, Roger b., Linda Black, Larry S. krieger, Phillip C. Naylor, and Dahia Ibo Shabaka.
.
Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support . We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.
Get StartedAlready have an account? Log in
Monthly Plan
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep
Yearly Plan
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep
Log in through your institution
Purchase a PDF
Purchase this article for $34.00 USD.
How does it work?
- Select the purchase option.
- Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal .
- Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.
journal article
Western Imperialism and Defensive Underdevelopment of Property Rights Institutions in SiamJournal of East Asian Studies
Vol. 8, No. 1 (JANUARY–APRIL 2008)
, pp. 1-28 (28 pages)
Published By: Cambridge University Press
//www.jstor.org/stable/23418650
Read and download
Log in through your school or library
Alternate access options
For independent researchers
Read Online
Read 100 articles/month free
Subscribe to JPASS
Unlimited reading + 10 downloads
Purchase article
$34.00 - Download now and later
Abstract
Thailand and Japan both faced the threat of colonialism in the latter half of the nineteenth century. While geopolitical vulnerabilities provided Japan with a critical impetus for defensive modernization, they compelled the Siamese state to pursue a strategy of defensive underdevelopment. To understand this paradox, the article explores how variations in the "unequal treaties" imposed on Japan and Siam by Western powers shaped state interests in a policy area of vital importance to the two countries' predominantly agricultural economies: the rural land rights regime.
Journal Information
Experts from around the globe come together in this important peer-reviewed forum to present compelling social science research on the entire East Asia region. Topics include democratic governance, military security, political culture, economic cooperation, human rights, and environmental concerns. Thought-provoking book reviews enhance each issue.
Publisher Information
Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org) is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the world’s leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. For more information, visit //journals.cambridge.org.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Journal of East Asian Studies
Request Permissions