BRITISH INDIA AND THIRD GENERATION IMPERIALISM

---

In the United States , where by far the largest number of European emigrants went, acquisition of space for development by white immigrants entailed activity on two fronts: During a large part of the 19th century, the United States remained alert to the danger of encirclement by Europeans, but in addition the search for more fertile land, pursuit of the fur trade, and desire for ports to serve commerce in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans nourished the drive to penetrate the American continent.

The most pressing points of tension with European nations were eliminated during the first half of the century: The expansion of the United States, however, was not confined to liquidating rival claims of overseas empires; it also involved taking territory from neighbouring Mexico. Diplomatic and military victories over the European nations and Mexico were but one precondition for the transcontinental expansion of the United States.

In addition, the Indian tribes sooner or later had to be rooted out to clear the new territory. At times, treaties were arranged with Indian tribes, by which vast areas were opened up for white settlement. But even where peaceful agreements had been reached, the persistent pressure of the search for land and commerce created recurrent wars with Indian tribes that were seeking to retain their homes and their land.

Room for the new settlers was obtained by forced removal of natives to as yet non-white-settled land—a process that was repeated as white settlers occupied ever more territory. Massacres during wars, susceptibility to infectious European diseases, and hardships endured during forced migrations all contributed to the decline in the Indian population and the weakening of its resistance. Nevertheless, Indian wars occupied the U. The annexations during this new phase of imperial growth differed significantly from the expansionism earlier in the 19th century.

While the latter was substantial in magnitude, it was primarily devoted to the consolidation of claimed territory by penetration of continental interiors and more effective rule over indigenous populations and only secondarily to new acquisitions. On the other hand, the new imperialism was characterized by a burst of activity in carving up as yet independent areas: This new vigour in the pursuit of colonies is reflected in the fact that the rate of new territorial acquisitions of the new imperialism was almost three times that of the earlier period.

Thus, the increase in new territories claimed in the first 75 years of the 19th century averaged about 83, square miles , square kilometres a year. As against this, the colonial powers added an average of about , square miles , square kilometres a year between the late s and World War I — By the beginning of that war, the new territory claimed was for the most part fully conquered, and the main military resistance of the indigenous populations had been suppressed.

Economic and political control by leading powers reached almost the entire globe, for, in addition to colonial rule, other means of domination were exercised in the form of spheres of influence, special commercial treaties, and the subordination that lenders often impose on debtor nations.

European colonial activity (1763–c. 1875)

This intensification of the drive for colonies reflected much more than a new wave of overseas activities by traditional colonial powers, including Russia. The new imperialism was distinguished particularly by the emergence of additional nations seeking slices of the colonial pie: Indeed, this very multiplication of colonial powers, occurring in a relatively short period, accelerated the tempo of colonial growth.

Unoccupied space that could potentially be colonized was limited. Therefore, the more nations there were seeking additional colonies at about the same time, the greater was the premium on speed. Thus, the rivalry among the colonizing nations reached new heights, which in turn strengthened the motivation for preclusive occupation of territory and for attempts to control territory useful for the military defense of existing empires against rivals.

The impact of the new upsurge of rivalry is well illustrated in the case of Great Britain. Relying on its economic preeminence in manufacturing, trade, and international finance as well as on its undisputed mastery of the seas during most of the 19th century, Great Britain could afford to relax in the search for new colonies, while concentrating on consolidation of the empire in hand and on building up an informal empire.

On the other hand, the more that potential colonial space shrank, the greater became the urge of lesser powers to remedy disparities in size of empires by redivision of the colonial world. The struggle over contested space and for redivision of empire generated an increase in wars among the colonial powers and an intensification of diplomatic manoeuvring. But, by the last quarter of that century, Britain was confronted by restless competitors seeking a greater share of world trade and finance; the Industrial Revolution had gained a strong foothold in these nations, which were spurred on to increasing industrialization with the spread of railroad lines and the maturation of integrated national markets.

Moreover, the major technological innovations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries improved the competitive potential of the newer industrial nations. The late starters, having digested the first Industrial Revolution, now had a more equal footing with Great Britain: This new industrialism, notably featuring mass-produced steel, electric power and oil as sources of energy, industrial chemistry, and the internal-combustion engine , spread over western Europe, the United States, and eventually Japan.

To operate efficiently, the new industries required heavy capital investment in large-scale units. Accordingly, they encouraged the development of capital markets and banking institutions that were large and flexible enough to finance the new enterprises. The larger capital markets and industrial enterprises, in turn, helped push forward the geographic scale of operations of the industrialized nations: Not only did the new industrialism generate a voracious appetite for raw materials, but food for the swelling urban populations was now also sought in the far corners of the world.

Advances in ship construction steamships using steel hulls, twin screws, and compound engines made feasible the inexpensive movement of bulk raw materials and food over long ocean distances. Under the pressures and opportunities of the later decades of the 19th century, more and more of the world was drawn upon as primary producers for the industrialized nations. Self-contained economic regions dissolved into a world economy, involving an international division of labour whereby the leading industrial nations made and sold manufactured products and the rest of the world supplied them with raw materials and food.

The complex of social, political, and economic changes that accompanied the new industrialism and the vastly expanded and integrated world commerce also provided a setting for intensified commercial rivalry, the rebuilding of high tariff walls, and a revival of militarism. Of special importance militarily was the race in naval construction, which was propelled by the successful introduction and steady improvement of radically new warships that were steam driven, armour-plated, and equipped with weapons able to penetrate the new armour.

The new militarism and the intensification of colonial rivalry signalled the end of the relatively peaceful conditions of the midth century. The new imperialism also represented an intensification of tendencies that had originated in earlier periods. Thus, for example, the decision by the United States to go to war with Spain cannot be isolated from the long-standing interest of the United States in the Caribbean and the Pacific.

The defeat of Spain and the suppression of the independence revolutions in Cuba and the Philippines gave substance to the Monroe Doctrine: Possession of the Philippines was consistent with the historic interest of the United States in the commerce of the Pacific, as it had already manifested by its long interest in Hawaii annexed in and by an expedition by Commodore Matthew Perry to Japan The new imperialism marked the end of vacillation over the choice of imperialist military and political policies; similar decisions to push imperialist programs to the forefront were made by the leading industrial nations over a relatively short period.

This historical conjuncture requires explanation and still remains the subject of debate among historians and social scientists. The pivot of the controversy is the degree to which the new imperialism was the product of primarily economic forces and in particular whether it was a necessary attribute of the capitalist system. Serious analysts on both sides of the argument recognize that there is a multitude of factors involved: The problem, however, is one of assigning priority to causes.

The father of the economic interpretation of the new imperialism was the British liberal economist John Atkinson Hobson. In his seminal study, Imperialism, a Study first published in , he pointed to the role of such drives as patriotism, philanthropy, and the spirit of adventure in advancing the imperialist cause. As he saw it, however, the critical question was why the energy of these active agents takes the particular form of imperialist expansion.

But it was rational, indeed, in the eyes of the minority of financial interest groups. The pressure of capital needing investment outlets arose in part from a maldistribution of income: Moreover, the practices of the larger firms, especially those operating in trusts and combines, foster restrictions on output, thus avoiding the risks and waste of overproduction. Because of this, the large firms are faced with limited opportunities to invest in expanding domestic production. The result of both the maldistribution of income and monopolistic behaviour is a need to open up new markets and new investment opportunities in foreign countries.

It also examined the associated features of the new imperialism, such as political changes, racial attitudes, and nationalism. The book as a whole made a strong impression on, and greatly influenced, Marxist thinkers who were becoming more involved with the struggle against imperialism.

The most influential of the Marxist studies was a small book published by Lenin in , Imperialism , the Highest Stage of Capitalism. While Hobson saw the new imperialism serving the interests of certain capitalist groups, he believed that imperialism could be eliminated by social reforms while maintaining the capitalist system. Lenin, on the other hand, saw imperialism as being so closely integrated with the structure and normal functioning of an advanced capitalism that he believed that only the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, with the substitution of Socialism, would rid the world of imperialism.

Lenin placed the issues of imperialism in a context broader than the interests of a special sector of the capitalist class. According to Lenin, capitalism itself changed in the late 19th century; moreover, because this happened at pretty much the same time in several leading capitalist nations, it explains why the new phase of capitalist development came when it did. This new phase, Lenin believed, involves political and social as well as economic changes; but its economic essence is the replacement of competitive capitalism by monopoly capitalism, a more advanced stage in which finance capital, an alliance between large industrial and banking firms, dominates the economic and political life of society.

Competition continues, but among a relatively small number of giants who are able to control large sectors of the national and international economy. It is this monopoly capitalism and the resulting rivalry generated among monopoly capitalist nations that foster imperialism; in turn, the processes of imperialism stimulate the further development of monopoly capital and its influence over the whole society.

Like Hobson, Lenin maintained that the increasing importance of capital exports is a key figure of imperialism, but he attributed the phenomenon to much more than pressure from an overabundance of capital. He also saw the acceleration of capital migration arising from the desire to obtain exclusive control over raw material sources and to get a tighter grip on foreign markets.

He thus shifted the emphasis from the general problem of surplus capital, inherent in capitalism in all its stages, to the imperatives of control over raw materials and markets in the monopoly stage.

With this perspective, Lenin also broadened the concept of imperialism. Because the thrust is to divide the world among monopoly interest groups, the ensuing rivalry extends to a struggle over markets in the leading capitalist nations as well as in the less advanced capitalist and colonial countries. This rivalry is intensified because of the uneven development of different capitalist nations: Other forces—political, military, and ideological—are at play in shaping the contours of imperialist policy, but Lenin insisted that these influences germinate in the seedbed of monopoly capitalism.

Perhaps the most systematic alternative theory of imperialism was proposed by Joseph Alois Schumpeter , one of the best known economists of the first half of the 20th century. Unlike other critics, however, Schumpeter accepted some of the components of the Marxist thesis, and to a certain extent he followed the Marxist tradition of looking for the influence of class forces and class interests as major levers of social change. In doing so, he in effect used the weapons of Marxist thought to rebut the essence of Marxist theory.

A survey of empires, beginning with the earliest days of written history, led Schumpeter to conclude that there are three generic characteristics of imperialism: They evolved from critical experiences when peoples and classes were molded into warriors to avoid extinction; the warrior mentality and the interests of warrior classes live on, however, and influence events even after the vital need for wars and conquests disappears. But for these factors, Schumpeter believed, imperialism would have been swept away into the dustbin of history as capitalist society ripened; for capitalism in its purest form is antithetical to imperialism: Yet despite the innate peaceful nature of capitalism, interest groups do emerge that benefit from aggressive foreign conquests.

Under monopoly capitalism the fusion of big banks and cartels creates a powerful and influential social group that pressures for exclusive control in colonies and protectorates, for the sake of higher profits. But according to Schumpeter, it is an artificial graft on the more natural competitive capitalism, made possible by the catalytic effect of the residue from the preceding feudal society. Schumpeter argued that monopoly capitalism can only grow and prosper under the protection of high tariff walls; without that shield there would be large-scale industry but no cartels or other monopolistic arrangements.

Because tariff walls are erected by political decisions, it is the state and not a natural economic process that promotes monopoly. Therefore, it is in the nature of the state—and especially those features that blend the heritage of the previous autocratic state, the old war machine, and feudal interests and ideas along with capitalist interests—that the cause of imperialism will be discovered.

The particular form of imperialism in modern times is affected by capitalism, and capitalism itself is modified by the imperialist experience. Specialized studies have produced a variety of interpretations of the origin or reawakening of the new imperialism: These reasons—along with other frequently mentioned contributing causes, such as the spirit of national and racial superiority and the drive for power—are still matters of controversy with respect to specific cases and to the problem of fitting them into a general theory of imperialism.

For example, if it is found that a new colony was acquired for better military defense of existing colonies, the questions still remain as to why the existing colonies were acquired in the first place and why it was considered necessary to defend them rather than to give them up. Similarly, explanations in terms of the search for power still have to account for the close relationship between power and wealth, because in the real world adequate economic resources are needed for a nation to hold on to its power, let alone to increase it.

Moreover, it is carried forth in the midst of a complex of political, military, economic, and psychological impulses. It would seem, therefore, that the attempt to arrive at a theory that explains each and every imperialist action—ranging from a semifeudal Russia to a relatively undeveloped Italy to an industrially powerful Germany—is a vain pursuit. But this does not eliminate the more important challenge of constructing a theory that will provide a meaningful interpretation of the almost simultaneous eruption of the new imperialism in a whole group of leading powers.

European nations and Japan at the end of the 19th century spread their influence and control throughout the continent of Asia. Russia, because of its geographic position, was the only occupying power whose Asian conquests were overland. In that respect there is some similarity between Russia and the United States in the forcible outward push of their continental frontiers. But there is a significant difference: On the other hand, the Russian march across Asia resulted in the incorporation of alien cultures and societies as virtual colonies of the Russian Empire, while providing room for the absorption of Russian settlers.

Previously, Russian influence in its occupied territory was quite limited, without marked alteration of the social and economic structure of the conquered peoples. Aside from looting and exacting tribute from subject tribes, the major objects of interest were the fur trade, increased commerce with China and in the Pacific, and land. But changes in 19th-century Russian society, especially those coming after the Crimean War —56 , signaled a new departure. Second, the emancipation of the serfs , which eased the feudal restrictions on the landless peasants, led to large waves of migration by Russians and Ukrainians—first to Siberia and later to Central Asia.

This process of acquisition and consolidation in Asia spread out in four directions: This pursuit of tsarist ambitions for empire and for warm-water ports involved numerous clashes and conflicts along the way. Russian expansion was ultimately limited not by the fierce opposition of the native population, which was at times a stumbling block, but by the counterpressure of competitive empire builders, such as Great Britain and Japan. Great Britain and Russia were mutually alarmed as the distances between the expanding frontiers of Russia and India shortened.

One point of conflict was finally resolved when both powers agreed on the delimitation of the northern border of Afghanistan. A second major area of conflict in Central Asia was settled by an Anglo-Russian treaty to divide Persia into two separate spheres of influence, leaving a nominally independent Persian nation.

As in the case of Afghanistan and Persia, penetration of Chinese territory produced clashes with both the native government and other imperialist powers. With this as a stepping-stone, Russia took over the seacoast north of Korea and founded the town of Vladivostok. But, because the Vladivostok harbour is icebound for some four months of the year, the Russians began to pay more attention to getting control of the Korean coastline, where many good year-round harbours could be found.

Attempts to acquire a share of Korea, as well as all of Manchuria, met with the resistance of Britain and Japan. Further thrusts into China beyond the Amur and maritime provinces were finally thwarted by defeat in in the Russo-Japanese War. The evolution of the penetration of Asia was naturally influenced by a multiplicity of factors—economic and political conditions in the expanding nations, the strategy of the military officials of the latter nations, the problems facing colonial rulers in each locality, pressures arising from white settlers and businessmen in the colonies, as well as the constraints imposed by the always limited economic and military resources of the imperialist powers.

All these elements were present to a greater or lesser extent at each stage of the forward push of the colonial frontiers by the Dutch in Indonesia, the French in Indochina Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia , and the British in Malaya, Burma, and Borneo. Yet, despite the variety of influences at work, three general types of penetration stand out.

One of these is expansion designed to overcome resistance to foreign rule. Resistance, which assumed many forms ranging from outright rebellion to sabotage of colonial political and economic domination, was often strongest in the border areas farthest removed from the centres of colonial power. The consequent extension of military control to the border regions tended to arouse the fears and opposition of neighbouring states or tribal societies and thus led to the further extension of control.

Hence, attempts to achieve military security prompted the addition of border areas and neighbouring nations to the original colony. A second type of expansion was a response to the economic opportunities offered by exploitation of the colonial interiors. Traditional trade and the free play of market forces in Asia did not produce huge supplies of raw materials and food or the enlarged export markets sought by the industrializing colonial powers.

For this, entrepreneurs and capital from abroad were needed, mines and plantations had to be organized, labour supplies mobilized, and money economies created. All these alien intrusions functioned best under the firm security of an accommodating alien law and order. The third type of expansion was the result of rivalry among colonial powers. When possible, new territory was acquired or old possessions extended in order either to preclude occupation by rivals or to serve as buffers for military security against the expansions of nearby colonial powers.

Where the crosscurrents of these rivalries prevented any one power from obtaining exclusive control, various substitute arrangements were arrived at: The penetration of China is the outstanding example of this type of expansion. In the early 19th century the middle part of eastern Asia Japan, Korea, and China , containing about half the Asian population, was still little affected by Western penetration.

By the end of the century, Korea was on the way to becoming annexed by Japan, which had itself become a leading imperialist power. China remained independent politically, though it was already extensively dominated by outside powers. Undoubtedly, the intense rivalry of the foreign powers helped save China from being taken over outright as India had been. China was pressed on all sides by competing powers anxious for its trade and territory: Russia from the north, Great Britain via India and Burma from the south and west, France via Indochina from the south, and Japan and the United States in part, via the Philippines from the east.

The first phase of the forceful penetration of China by western Europe came in the two Opium Wars. Great Britain had been buying increasing quantities of tea from China, but it had few products that China was interested in buying by way of exchange.

BBC News Navigation

And because of a rapidly increasing demand for tea in England, British merchants actively fostered the profitable exports of opium and cotton from India. In light of the economic effect of the opium trade plus the physical and mental deterioration of opium users, Chinese authorities banned the opium trade. At first this posed few obstacles to British merchants, who resorted to smuggling. But enforcement of the ban became stringent toward the end of the s; stores of opium were confiscated, and warehouses were closed down. British merchants had an additional and longstanding grievance because the Chinese limited all trade by foreigners to the port of Canton.

The Chinese capitulated in after the fleet reached the Yangtze, Shanghai fell, and Nanking was under British guns. The resulting Treaty of Nanking —the first in a series of commercial treaties China was forced to sign over the years—provided for: Other countries soon took advantage of this forcible opening of China; in a few years similar treaties were signed by China with the United States, France, and Russia.

The Chinese, however, tried to retain some independence by preventing foreigners from entering the interior of China. Western merchants sought further concessions to improve markets. The Western powers took advantage of the increasing difficulties by pressing for even more favourable trade treaties, culminating in a second war against China —60 , this time by France and England.

Characteristically, the Western powers invading China played a double role: The Tientsin treaties provided, among other things, for the right of foreign nationals to travel in the interior, the right of foreign ships to trade and patrol on the Yangtze River , the opening up of more treaty ports, and additional exclusive legal jurisdiction by foreign powers over their nationals residing in China. Treaties of this general nature were extended over the years to grant further privileges to foreigners.

Is Britain to blame for many of the world's problems? - BBC News

Furthermore, more and more Western nations—including Germany, Italy, Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and Austria-Hungary—took advantage of the new opportunities by signing such treaties. By the beginning of the 20th century, some 90 Chinese ports had been opened to foreign control. While the Chinese government retained nominal sovereignty in these ports, de facto rule was exercised by one or more of the powers: In most of the treaty ports, China leased substantial areas of land at low rates to foreign governments.

The foreign settlements had their own police forces and tax systems and ran their own affairs independently of nominally sovereign China. In response to these indignities and amid growing antiforeign sentiment, the Chinese government attempted reforms to modernize and develop sufficient strength to resist foreign intrusions.

Steps were taken to master Western science and technology, erect shipyards and arsenals, and build a more effective army and navy. The reforms, however, did not get very far: Also, it is likely that the reforms were not wholehearted because two opposing tendencies were at play: In any event, preliminary attempts to Westernize Chinese society from within did not deter further foreign penetration; nor did the subsequent revolution succeed in freeing China from Western domination.

Toward the end of the 19th century, under the impact of the new imperialism, the spread of foreign penetration accelerated. Germany entered a vigorous bid for its sphere of influence; Japan and Russia pushed forward their territorial claims; and U. But at the same time this mounting foreign interest also inhibited the outright partition of China.

Any step by one of the powers toward outright partition or sizable enlargement of its sphere of influence met with strong opposition from other powers. It became generally accepted after the antiforeign Boxer Rebellion in China. With the foreign armies that had been brought in to suppress the rebellion now stationed in North China, the danger to the continued existence of the Chinese government and the danger of war among the imperialist powers for their share of the country seemed greater than ever.

Agreement on the Open Door Policy helped to retain both a compliant native government and equal opportunity for commerce, finance, and investment by the more advanced nations. Japan was the only Asian country to escape colonization from the West. Even more important, it moved onto the same road of industrialization as did Europe and the United States. And instead of being colonized it became one of the colonial powers. Japan had traditionally sought to avoid foreign intrusion.

For many years, only the Dutch and the Chinese were allowed trading depots, each having access to only one port. No other foreigners were permitted to land in Japan, though Russia, France, and England tried, but with little success. The Japanese, well aware of the implications of foreign penetration through observing what was happening to China, tried to limit Western trade to two ports.

In , however, Japan agreed to a full commercial treaty with the United States, followed by similar treaties with the Low Countries, Russia, France, and Britain. The treaty pattern was familiar: Despite the absence of a commonly accepted theory, two factors were undoubtedly crucial. On the one hand, the Western nations did not pursue their attempts to control Japan as aggressively as they did elsewhere. In Asia the interests of the more aggressively expanding powers had centred on India, China, and the immediately surrounding areas.

When greater interest developed in a possible breakthrough in Japan in the s and s, the leading powers were occupied with other pressing affairs, such as the Indian mutiny, the Taiping Rebellion, the Crimean War, French intervention in Mexico, and the U. International jealousy may also have played a role in deterring any one power from trying to gain exclusive control over the country.

The civil war culminated in in the overthrow of the Tokugawa government and the restoration of the rule of the Emperor. The nub of the changeover was the destruction of the traditional feudal social system and the building of a political, social, and economic framework conducive to capitalist industrialization. The new state actively participated in the turnabout by various forms of grants and guarantees to enterprising industrialists and by direct investment in basic industries such as railways, shipbuilding, communications, and machinery. The concentration of resources in the industrial sector was matched by social reforms that eliminated feudal restrictions, accelerated mass education , and encouraged acquisition of skills in the use of Western technology.

The ensuing industrialized economy provided the means for Japan to hold its own in modern warfare and to withstand foreign economic competition. Soon Japan not only followed the Western path of internal industrialization, but it also began an outward aggression resembling that of the European nations. First came the acquisition and colonization of neighbouring islands: At this point rival powers interceded to force Japan to forgo taking over the southern Manchuria peninsula.

Still, pressure by Britain and the United States kept Japan from fulfillment of its plan to possess Manchuria outright. By the early 20th century, however, Japan had, by means of economic and political penetration, attained a privileged position in that part of China, as well as colonies in Korea and Taiwan and neighbouring islands. By the turn of the 20th century, the map of Africa looked like a huge jigsaw puzzle , with most of the boundary lines having been drawn in a sort of game of give-and-take played in the foreign offices of the leading European powers.

The division of Africa, the last continent to be so carved up, was essentially a product of the new imperialism, vividly highlighting its essential features. The notion of "benevolence" was developed in the — era by idealists whose moralistic prescriptions annoyed efficiency-oriented colonial administrators and profit-oriented merchants. The most successful development came in the abolition of slavery led by William Wilberforce and the Evangelicals, [99] and the expansion of Christian missionary work.

The Treaty of Waitangi , initially designed to protect Maori rights, has become the bedrock of Aotearoa—New Zealand biculturalism. One of the most controversial aspects of the Empire is its role in first promoting and then ending slavery. In the 18th century, British merchant ships were the largest element in the "Middle Passage", which transported millions of slaves to the Western Hemisphere.

Most of those who survived the journey wound up in the Caribbean, where the Empire had highly profitable sugar colonies, and the living conditions were bad the plantation owners lived in Britain. Parliament ended the international transportation of slaves in and used the Royal Navy to enforce that ban. In , it bought out the plantation owners and banned slavery. Historians before the s argued that moralistic reformers such as William Wilberforce were primarily responsible.

Historical revisionism arrived when West Indian historian Eric Williams , a Marxist, in Capitalism and Slavery , rejected this moral explanation and argued that abolition was now more profitable, as a century of sugar cane raising had exhausted the soil of the islands, and the plantations had become unprofitable. It was more profitable to sell the slaves to the government than to keep up operations. The prohibition of the international trade, Williams argued, prevented French expansion on other islands.

Meanwhile, British investors turned to Asia, where labor was so plentiful that slavery was unnecessary. Williams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. The high profits from the slave trade, he said, helped finance the Industrial Revolution. Britain enjoyed prosperity because of the capital gained from the unpaid work of slaves. Since the s, numerous historians have challenged Williams from various angles, and Gad Heuman has concluded, "More recent research has rejected this conclusion; it is now clear that the colonies of the British Caribbean profited considerably during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

Richardson further challenges claims by African scholars that the slave trade caused widespread depopulation and economic distress in Africa but that it caused the "underdevelopment" of Africa. Admitting the horrible suffering of slaves, he notes that many Africans benefited directly because the first stage of the trade was always firmly in the hands of Africans.

European slave ships waited at ports to purchase cargoes of people who were captured in the hinterland by African dealers and tribal leaders. Richardson finds that the "terms of trade" how much the ship owners paid for the slave cargo moved heavily in favour of the Africans after about That is, indigenous elites inside West and Central Africa made large and growing profits from slavery, thus increasing their wealth and power.

Thomas Babington Macaulay — was the foremost historian of his day, arguing for the "Whig interpretation of history" that saw the history of Britain as an upward progression always leading to more liberty and more progress. Macaulay simultaneously was a leading reformer involved in transforming the educational system of India. He would base it on the English language so that India could join the mother country in a steady upward progress.

European expansion since 1763

Macaulay took Burke's emphasis on moral rule and implemented it in actual school reforms, giving the British Empire a profound moral mission to civilize the natives. Yale professor Karuna Mantena has argued that the civilizing mission did not last long, for she says that benevolent reformers were the losers in key debates, such as those following the rebellion in India, and the scandal of Governor Edward Eyre 's brutal repression of the Morant Bay rebellion in Jamaica in The rhetoric continued but it became an alibi for British misrule and racism.

No longer was it believed that the natives could truly make progress, instead they had to be ruled by heavy hand, with democratic opportunities postponed indefinitely. The central tenets of liberal imperialism were challenged as various forms of rebellion, resistance and instability in the colonies precipitated a broad-ranging reassessment Much of the debate took place in Britain itself, and the imperialists worked hard to convince the general population that the civilising mission was well underway.

This campaign served to strengthen imperial support at home, and thus, says Cain, to bolster the moral authority of the gentlemanly elites who ran the Empire. Mark Harrison argues that the history of public health administration in India dates from the assumption of Crown rule in Medical experts found that epidemic disease had seriously depleted the fighting capacity of British troops in repressing the rebellion in and insisted that preventive measures were much more effective than waiting for the next epidemic to break out.

They applied the best practices as developed in Britain, using an elaborate administrative structure in each colony. The system depended on trained local elites and officials to carry out the sanitation improvements, quarantines, inoculations, hospitals, and local treatment centers that were needed. For example, local midwives were trained to provide maternal and infant health care. Propaganda campaigns using posters, rallies, and later films were used to educate the general public.

BELRA, a large-scale program against leprosy, had policies of isolation in newly established leper colonies, separation of healthy children from infected parents, and the development in Britain of chaulmoogra oil therapy and its systematic dissemination. In the 18th century, and even more so in the 19th century, missionaries based in Britain saw the Empire as a fertile field for proselytizing for Christianity. Congregations across Britain received regular reports and contributed money.

Much of the enthusiasm emerged from the Evangelical revival. After the revolution an entirely distinct American Methodist denomination emerged that became the largest Protestant denomination in the new United States. After the Americans broke free, British officials decided to enhance the power and wealth of the Church of England in all the settler colonies, especially British North America Canada. Missionary societies funded their own operations that were not supervised or directed by the Colonial Office.

Tensions emerged between the missionaries and the colonial officials. The latter feared that missionaries might stir up trouble or encourage the natives to challenge colonial authority. In general, colonial officials were much more comfortable with working with the established local leadership, including the native religions, rather than introducing the divisive force of Christianity.

This proved especially troublesome in India, were very few local elites were attracted to Christianity. In Africa, especially, the missionaries made many converts. By the 21st century there were more Anglicans in Nigeria than in England.

Christianity had a powerful effect far beyond the small circle of converts--it provided a model of modernity. The introduction of European medicine was especially important, as well as the introduction of European political practices and ideals ideals such as religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, colonial reforms, and especially liberal democracy. They tried to upgrade education, medical care, and sponsored the long-term modernization of the native personality to inculcate European middle-class values.

Alongside their churches they established schools and medical clinics, and sometimes demonstrated improved farming techniques. Many were trained as physicians, or took special courses in public health and tropical medicine at Livingstone College, London. Furthermore, Christian missionary activities were studied and copied by local activists and had an influence upon religious politics, on prophetic movements such as those in Xhosa societies, on emerging nationalism in South African and India, the emergence of African independent churches, and sometimes upgrading the status of native women.

Historians have begun to analyze the agency of women in overseas missions. At first, missionary societies officially enrolled only men, but women increasingly insisted on playing a variety of roles. Single women typically worked as educators. Wives assisted their missionary husbands in most of his roles. Advocates stopped short of calling for the end of specified gender roles, but they stressed the interconnectedness of the public and private spheres and spoke out against perceptions of women as weak and house-bound. In the colonies that became dominions, education was left primarily in the hands of local officials.

The Imperial government took a strong hand in India, and most of the later colonies. The goal was To speed up modernization and social development through a widespread system of elementary education for all natives, plus high school and eventually university education for selected elites. The students were encouraged to attend university in Britain.

Much of the older historiography, as represented by The Cambridge History of the British Empire , covers the detailed month-to-month operations of the Imperial bureaucracy. More recent scholarship has examined who Were the bureaucrats, and the governors, and the role of the colonial experience in their own lives, as well as their families. The cultural approach asks how bureaucrats represented themselves And enticed the natives to accept their rule. Wives of senior bureaucrats played an increasingly important role in dealing with the local people, and in sponsoring and promoting charities and civic good will.

When they returned to Britain they had an influential voice in shaping upper-class opinion toward colonization. Historian Robert Pearce points out that many colonial wives had a negative reputation, but he depicts Violet Bourdillon — as "the perfect Governor's wife. Some British colonies were ruled directly by the Colonial Office in London, while others were ruled indirectly through local rulers who are supervised behind the scenes by British advisors, with different economic results as shown by Lakshmi Iyer In much of the Empire, large local populations were ruled in close cooperation with the local hierarchy.

Historians have developed categories of control, such as "subsidiary alliances", "paramountcy", "protectorates", "indirect rule", "clientelism", or "collaboration". Local elites were co-opted into leadership positions, and often had the role of minimizing opposition from local independence movements. Fisher has explored the origins and development of the system of indirect rule. The British East India Company starting in the midth century stationed its staff as agents in Indian states which it did not control, especially the Princely States.

By the s The system became an efficient way to govern indirectly, by providing local rulers with highly detailed advice that had been approved by central authorities. After , military more and more often took the role; they were recruited and promoted officers on the basis of experience and expertise.

The indirect rule system was extended to Many of the colonial holdings in Asia and Africa. Economic historians have explored the economic consequences of indirect rule, as in India [] and West Africa. In Zanzibar became a protectorate not a colony of Britain. Prime minister Salisbury explained his position:.

The condition of a protected dependency is more acceptable to the half civilised races, and more suitable for them than direct dominion. It is cheaper, simpler, less wounding to their self-esteem, gives them more career as public officials, and spares of unnecessary contact with white men. Colonel Sir Robert Groves Sandeman — introduced an innovative system of tribal pacification in Balochistan that was in effect from to He gave financial allowances to tribal chiefs who enforced control, and used British military force only when necessary.

However the Government of India generally opposed his methods and refused to allow it to operate in India's North West Frontier. Historians have long debated its scope and effectiveness in the peaceful spread of Imperial influence. Although environmental history was growing rapidly after , it only reached empire studies in the s. He argues that imperial forestry movement in India around included government reservations, new methods of fire protection, and attention to revenue-producing forest management.

The result eased the fight between romantic preservationists and laissez-faire businessmen, thus giving the compromise from which modern environmentalism emerged. In recent years numerous scholars cited by James Beattie have examined the environmental impact of the Empire. The efficient use of rivers through dams and irrigation projects was an expensive but important method of raising agricultural productivity.

Searching for more efficient ways of using natural resources, the British moved flora, fauna and commodities around the world, sometimes resulting in ecological disruption and radical environmental change. Imperialism also stimulated more modern attitudes toward nature and subsidized botany and agricultural research. Since the s, historians have tended to concentrated on specific countries or regions. The American Lawrence H. Gipson — won the Pulitzer Prize for his monumental coverage in 15 volumes of "The British Empire Before the American Revolution", published — In recent decades numerous scholars have tried their hand at one volume surveys including T.

Mercantilism, Diplomacy and the Colonies Obviously from their titles a number of writers have been inspired by the famous The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 6 vol. They found the key to understanding the British Empire in the ruins of Rome. David McIntyre, The commonwealth of nations: Origins and impact, — U of Minnesota Press, provides comprehensive coverage giving London's perspective on political and constitutional relations with each possession.

Ireland, in some ways the first acquisition the British Empire, has generated a very large popular and scholarly literature. Until the late 20th century, historians of Australia used an Imperial framework, arguing that Australia emerged from a transfer of people, institutions, and culture from Britain. It portrayed the first governors as "Lilliputian sovereigns".

The historians been traced the arrival of limited self-government, with regional parliaments and responsible ministers, followed by Federation in and eventually full national autonomy. This was a Whiggish story of successful growth into a modern nation. That interpretation has been largely abandoned by recent scholars.

The process of settlement is now regarded as a violent invasion of a rich and subtle indigenous culture, the colonists' material practices as destructive of a fragile environment, their aesthetic response to it blinkered and prejudiced, the cultivation of some British forms timid and unresponsive. Many other historians followed his path, with the six volume History of Australia by Manning Clark published —87 telling the story of "epic tragedy":. Since the s a " history war " has been fought in Australia by scholars and politicians. Interest in the study of Australian history has plunged, and some schools and universities have sharply cut it back.

Historians have used the founding of Australia to mark the beginning of the Second British Empire. Michael Roe argues that the founding of Australia supports the theory of Vincent T. New Continents and Changing Values that a goal of the second British empire was to open up new commerce in the Far East and Pacific.

However, London emphasized Australia's purpose as a penal colony, and the East India Company was hostile to potential commercial rivals. Nevertheless, says Roe, the founders of Australia showed a keen interest in whaling, sealing, sheep raising, mining and other opportunities for trade. In the long run, he says, commerce was the main stimulus for colonization. Canadian historian Carl Berger argues that an influential section of English Canadians embraced an ideology of imperialism as a way to enhance Canada's own power position in the international system, as well as for more traditional reasons of Anglophillia.

Berger identified Canadian imperialism as a distinct ideology, rival to anti-imperial Canadian nationalism or pro-American continentalism , the other nationalisms in Canada. For the French Canadians, the chief debate among historians involves the conquest and the incorporation into the British Empire in For example, it enabled Quebec to avoid the French Revolution that tore France apart in the s.

Another example is that it integrated the economy into the larger and faster growing British economy, as opposed to the sluggish French economy. The optimistic school attributes the backwardness of the Quebec economy to deeply ingrained conservatism and aversion to entrepreneurship. In recent decades there have been four main schools of historiography in how historians study India: Cambridge, Nationalist, Marxist, and subaltern. The once common "Orientalist" approach, with its image of a sensuous, inscrutable, and wholly spiritual India, has died out in serious scholarship.

Washbrook, [] downplays ideology. The Nationalist school has focused on Congress, Gandhi, Nehru and high level politics. It highlighted the Mutiny of as a war of liberation, and Gandhi's 'Quit India' begun in , as defining historical events. This school of historiography has received criticism for Elitism. The Marxists have focused on studies of economic development, landownership, and class conflict in precolonial India and of deindustrialisation during the colonial period. The Marxists portrayed Gandhi's movement as a device of the bourgeois elite to harness popular, potentially revolutionary forces for its own ends.

Again, the Marxists are accused of being "too much" ideologically influenced. The "subaltern school", was begun in the s by Ranajit Guha and Gyan Prakash. It focuses on the colonial era before and typically emphasises caste and downplays class, to the annoyance of the Marxist school. More recently, Hindu nationalists have created a version of history to support their demands for "Hindutva" "Hinduness" in Indian society. This school of thought is still in the process of development. Eck in her India: A Sacred Geography argues that the idea of India dates to a much earlier time than the British or the Mughals and it wasn't just a cluster of regional identities and it wasn't ethnic or racial.

Debate continues about the economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was actually raised by conservative British politician Edmund Burke who in the s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray continues this line of attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India.

Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of , which killed a third of the people of Bengal. Rejecting the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, British historian P.

Marshall argues that the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. The British largely delegated control to regional Mughal rulers and sustained a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.

Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.

The first historical studies appeared in the s, and followed one of four approaches. The territorial narrative was typically written by a veteran soldier or civil servant who gave heavy emphasis to what he had seen. The "apologia" were essays designed to justify British policies. Thirdly, popularizers tried to reach a large audience, and finally compendia appeared designed to combine academic and official credentials. Professional scholarship appeared around , and began with the study of business operations, typically using government documents and unpublished archives. The economic approach was widely practiced in the s, primarily to provide descriptions of the changes underway in the previous half-century.

The Slave Trade and the Scramble The American historian William L. Langer wrote The Diplomacy of Imperialism: The Second World War diverted most scholars to wartime projects and accounted for a pause in scholarship during the s. By the s, many African students were studying in British universities, and they produced a demand for new scholarship, and started themselves to supply it as well. Oxford University became the main center for African studies, with activity as well at Cambridge, and the London School of Economics.

The perspective from British government policy-makers or from international business operations, slowly gave way to a new interest in the activities of the natives, especially in a nationalistic movements and the growing demand for independence. The major breakthrough came from Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher , especially with their studies of the impact of free trade on Africa. The historiography of South Africa has been one of the most contentious areas of the British Empire, involving a three-way division of sharply differing interpretations among the British, the Boers, and the black African historians.

After many years of conflict and warfare, the British took control of South Africa and historians began conciliatory effort to bring the two sides together in a shared history. An influential large-scale effort was made by George McCall Theal , who wrote many books as school teacher and as the official historian, such as History and Ethnography of Africa South of the Zambesi 11 vol, — In the s, historians using missionary sources started presenting the Coloured and African viewpoints, as in W. Macmillan, Bantu, Boer and Briton: Modern research standards were introduced by Eric A.

Walker — , who moved from a professorship at the University of Cape Town to become the Vere Harmsworth Professor of Imperial and Naval History at the University of Cambridge, where he trained a generation of graduate students. The dominant approach in recent decades is to emphasize the roots of the liberation movement. By the s, historians were exploring comparative race relations in South Africa and the United States from the late 19th century to the late 20th century.

Accessibility links

Opposition to imperialism and demands for self-rule emerged across the empire; in all but one case the British authorities suppressed revolts. However, in the s, under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin , George Washington and Thomas Jefferson , it came to an armed revolt in the 13 American colonies, the American Revolutionary War. With military and financial help from France and others, the 13 became the first British colonies to secure their independence in the name of American nationalism.

There is a large literature on the Indian Rebellion of , which saw a very large scale revolt in India, involving the mutiny of many native troops. It was suppressed by the British Army after much bloodshed. The Indians organised under Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru and finally achieved independence in They wanted one India but the Muslims were organized by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and created their own nation, Pakistan , in a process that still is heatedly debated by scholars. Millions died and millions more were displaced as the conflicting memories and grievances still shape subcontinent tensions, as Jisha Menon argues.

Historians of the empire have recently paid close attention to 20th-century native voices in many colonies who demanded independence. Kenya saw severe violence on both sides. For example, the radical nationalist Kwame Nkrumah in led Ghana to become Britain's first African colony to gain independence, and others quickly followed.

At an intellectual level, anti-imperialism appealed strongly to Marxists and liberals across the world. Both groups were strongly influenced by British writer John A. Hobson in his Imperialism: Historians Peter Duignan and Lewis H. Gann argue that Hobson had an enormous influence in the early 20th century that caused widespread distrust of imperialism:. British historians of the Second World War have not emphasized the critical role played by the Empire in terms of money, manpower and imports of food and raw materials.

As Ashley Jackson has argued," The story of the British Empire's war, therefore, is one of Imperial success in contributing toward Allied victory on the one hand, and egregious Imperial failure on the other, as Britain struggled to protect people and defeat them, and failed to win the loyalty of colonial subjects.

In addition, the colonies mobilized over , uniformed personnel who serve primarily inside Africa. Historians continue to debate when the Empire reached its peak. At one end, the insecurities of the s and s are mentioned, especially the industrial rise of the United States and Germany.

The Second Boer War in South Africa, angered an influential element of Liberal thought in England, and deprived imperialism of much moral support. Most historians agree that by , at the end of the First World War, permanent long-term decline was inevitable. The dominions largely had freed themselves and began their own foreign and military policies. Worldwide investments had been cashed in to pay for the war, and the British economy was in the doldrums after A new spirit of nationalism appeared in many of the colonies, most dramatically in India.

Yet the creation and perpetuation of Hindu—Muslim antagonism was the most significant accomplishment of British imperial policy: Partition left behind a million dead, 13 million displaced, billions of rupees of property destroyed, and the flames of communal hatred blazing hotly across the ravaged land. No greater indictment of the failures of British rule in India can be found than the tragic manner of its ending.

Nor did Britain work to promote democratic institutions under imperial rule, as it liked to pretend. Instead of building self-government from the village level up, the East India Company destroyed what existed. The British ran government, tax collection, and administered what passed for justice. Indians were excluded from all of these functions. Democracy, in other words, had to be prised from the reluctant grasp of the British by Indian nationalists.

It is a bit rich to oppress, torture, imprison, enslave, deport and proscribe a people for years, and then take credit for the fact that they are democratic at the end of it. A corollary of the argument that Britain gave India political unity and democracy is that it established the rule of law in the country. This was, in many ways, central to the British self-conception of imperial purpose; Kipling, that flatulent voice of Victorian imperialism, would wax eloquent on the noble duty to bring law to those without it.

Historiography of the British Empire

But British law had to be imposed upon an older and more complex civilisation with its own legal culture, and the British used coercion and cruelty to get their way. And in the colonial era, the rule of law was not exactly impartial. In the entire two centuries of British rule, only three cases can be found of Englishmen executed for murdering Indians, while the murders of thousands more at British hands went unpunished. Punch wrote an entire ode to The Stout British Boot as the favoured instrument of keeping the natives in order.

Political dissidence was legally repressed through various acts, including a sedition law far more rigorous than its British equivalent. The penal code contained 49 articles on crimes relating to dissent against the state and only 11 on crimes involving death. Of course the British did give India the English language, the benefits of which persist to this day.

The English language was not a deliberate gift to India, but again an instrument of colonialism, imparted to Indians only to facilitate the tasks of the English. In his notorious Minute on Education , Lord Macaulay articulated the classic reason for teaching English, but only to a small minority of Indians: The language was taught to a few to serve as intermediaries between the rulers and the ruled. The British had no desire to educate the Indian masses, nor were they willing to budget for such an expense.

• Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath
• Minerals, Metals and Sustainability: Meeting Future Material Needs
• Mobilizing for Peace: Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and South Africa: C
• The Philosophy of Natural Magic
• INTERSTELLAR - A Series of Science Fiction Adventure Stories - 2 - Cascade