Question

The imperialism which took place in the 19th century was caused by several reasons. Which of the following is not one of them?
Answer

Need for raw goods and materials

Competition among nations for land resources

Learning new customs from other cultures

Desire to spread religion

Answer 1

Difficult. I would say either of the last two could be the answer sought. I doubt the British imperialism was intended to bring home Indian culture, but in fact it did -- you can get Indian food in London just as easily and of equal quality as you can in Mumbai. On the other hand, 19th century imperialism had no serious intention of spreading religion. Seventeenth and eighteenth century did, but that's not what's asked. But perhaps the questioner is a little ignorant of the changes between the 17th and 19th century, in which case the third is probably the best answer.

Answer 2

I would say "learning new customs from other cultures. Remember, imperialism is all about profit so a need for raw goods and materials is a must. During that time period, the nations also competed and having the most land holdings all over the world signified power. There was also a desire to spread religion to "barbarians" of foreign lands. (As a Christian I am appalled by their actions that have wiped out the cultures of others or threatened their existence).

One simple rule for imperialism is the 4 Ps. Profit, Piety, Patriotism, Power.

Answer 3

Imperialism was not profitable, j814wong. Quite the contrary, in fact: the maintenance of an empire was extremely costly to the home country, requiring as it did the support of armies (or at least armed forces) overseas and a strong blue-water navy.

This is obvious from the fact that German and French imperialism collapsed after the First World War, which impoverished both nations, and British imperialism collapsed after the Second World War, which did the same for England.

Nor was spreading religion relevant to 18th century imperialism, as is evidenced by the fact that the major religion in India is not Anglicanism. You may be thinking of Spanish colonization in Central and South America in the 17th and 18th century -- the conquistadors, et cetera. There are many profound differences between the 17th and 19th centuries, and between Cortez in Mexico and the British Raj.

You are certainly more correct in adducing world influence ("patriotism" and "power") and concerns about economic security. (The modern worry about "our oil addiction" is the 21st century equivalent.)