Final answer:
Lugard's view on imperialism was generally positive, emphasizing the civilizing benefits, while Pearson acknowledged both potential benefits and problems. Paton was critical and focused on the negative impacts, especially in terms of racial inequalities. The three perspectives illustrate the complexity of the debate around imperialism's legacy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The perspectives of Lord Lugard, Lester B. Pearson, and Alan Paton on imperialism have both similarities and differences. Lugard, a proponent of British colonialism, believed that imperialism was a civilizing force that benefited the colonies through the introduction of modern economies, laws, and education. This viewpoint was partly shared by Pearson, who also saw the potential for positive impacts, especially in economic development; however, he also recognized the importance of eventual self-government and the problematic nature of colonial rule. On the other hand, Paton, a South African author and anti-apartheid activist, offered a more critical standpoint. He acknowledged the deep and often detrimental social changes brought on by imperialism, emphasizing the moral and ethical implications of colonial rule especially in the context of racial inequality prevalent in South Africa.
While Lugard highlighted the supposed benefits of imperialism and promoted the idea of the 'civilizing mission,' Pearson introduced a more nuanced view that included the recognition of colonialism's issues. Paton, distinctively, provided a more oppositional perspective to imperialism by illustrating its negative consequences on indigenous societies. These differences highlight the complexity of evaluating imperialism's legacy from various historical viewpoints.