The Value of Imperialism to European Countries up to the Early 20th Century [History notes]

A candid discussion on European imperialism with beautiful notes in a paragraph format.

Around the late 19th and early 20th centuries, European powers reached what some call the “Age of Imperialism” (Schmiechen, 1999): a time when European countries were heavily engaged with gaining as much political and economic control over as much territory as they could.  They focused their attention on distant lands such as Africa and Asia for colonies, even competing against each other for them, much like what the students did in class with the imperialism game.  But why did European countries adopt a policy of imperialism?  Quite simply, the territorial gains from a policy of imperialism would have strategic and economic benefits for the imperialistic country, and it would allow them to rule over ‘inferior’ races.  It would be economically beneficial to be imperialistic since colonies would be able to supply the imperialistic country with resources and a place for companies and consequently, the country, to gain profit.  Establishing colonies would be beneficial strategically as the colony could be used to restrict the movement of enemy ships and protect trade routes.  Colonies also allowed an imperialistic country to rule over those that they believed to be ‘inferior’ because some believed that they were the “best governing race the world had ever known” (Howarth, 2000).  These three reasons are the core reasons for the adoption of imperialism in Europe.

Adopting a policy of imperialism was extremely beneficial economically for European countries.  It helped supply the mother country with resources.  For example, Great Britain depended heavily on Egypt to protect its trade routes from India, which were of high importance since they carried raw materials for industrial development and cheap food for Britain’s expanding population.  This would become even more evident and important in World War I because it takes quite a bit of food to feed and equip an army.  The British alone had 711,000 men in their army.  Besides resources, imperialism helped countries since companies from within the imperialistic country could use colonies to increase their wealth, and consequently, their country’s wealth.  Companies began to push their countries to expand at an ever-increasing pace for the purpose of profit.  An excellent example would be the British East India Company.  Slowly but surely, it managed to bring India under British control by defeating the Mughal Emperor, for example, and managed to establish a foothold by 1757 since they defeated Indian forces at Plassey.  In the end, after famine and the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the company was absorbed by the British government because it was not gaining much profit, and it was slowly losing control of India.  As you can see, once the British East India Company lost its value, it was taken over by the government to maintain control of India, which was very important economically.  Without a doubt, colonies were extremely valuable economically for an imperialistic country.

Colonies in strategic locations would have many benefits for an imperialistic country.  First of all, it restricted the movement of enemy ships.  This is one of the reasons that bottlenecks such as Morocco and Egypt were quickly snatched up by imperialistic countries (France and Britain, respectively), especially during the imperialism game.  French control of Morocco restricted the movement of Triple Alliance ships in the Mediterranean because they could not easily exit out of the Mediterranean.  Germany was afraid of French control of the Mediterranean and aggressively tried to stop French control of Morocco, but it was forced to back down at both Moroccan Crises because the British supported the French.  Judging from the lack of major naval battles in and around the Mediterranean, it seems that the Central Powers decided that French control of the Mediterranean after the Second Moroccan Crisis was too intimidating, especially with the bulk of the French navy in the Mediterranean since Britain agreed to patrol the North Sea.  However, Egypt is a bit of a different story.  In a surprise attack in February 1915, the Ottoman Empire tried to invade Egypt by sending troops to attack Egypt to get the Suez Canal.  It even tried to get some Muslims in Egypt to revolt to help their cause.  Perhaps they felt trapped since the French and the British controlled both exits of the Mediterranean, and it was affecting their trade.  Unfortunately for the Ottoman Empire, they were defeated by the British and were forced to retreat.  Clearly, the Ottoman Empire realized the strategic importance of this particular colony, but they were unsuccessful in conquering it.  In the imperialism game, countries that passed by these two colonies had to pay the country that owned them, which shows the strategic location of those colonies had benefits.  Not only were colonies important for restricting the movement of enemy forces, but also they helped secure vital trade routes.  Since trade routes would have had to pass by colonies in strategic locations, like Cape Colony/Rhodesia, it would have been beneficial for an empire, such as Great Britain, to get one of these colonies to secure their trade routes to prevent economic problems.  Great Britain, for example, depended on trade routes from India that passed by strategic colonies like Egypt for resources and money.  The Ottoman attack on Egypt was also meant to cut off Britain’s “jugular vein” (Woodward, 2002), which was the Suez Canal.  If the Ottoman Empire had succeeded, it would have affected the flow of resources and wealth from Asia to Britain, potentially crippling Britain’s economy, since the British relied on cheap food and raw materials from India and Asia.  Without the Suez Canal, trade ships would have had to potentially go around the entire continent.  Clearly, strategic colonies had many benefits for an imperialistic European nation.

Although there were economic and strategic benefits to imperialism, imperialistic countries believed that they were superior and thus meant to rule over others.  To rule over ‘inferior’ races, they had to adopt a policy of imperialism.  For example, Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary of Britain, declared that “the British race is the greatest governing race the world has ever known” (Howarth, 1979) to widespread agreement from many Britons.  Clearly, Chamberlain and the British believed that they were meant to rule over “districts as large as Europe from the barbarism and the superstition in which they had been steeped for centuries” (Boyd, 1914).  However, the British were not the only people who believed in this.  Joseph Arthur de Gobineau of France believed that a ‘master’ race, the Aryan race (what we now call Caucasian), was meant to rule over others, and that it was the most advanced scientifically.  A combination of these two ideas may have encouraged the leaders of imperialistic countries in the “Age of Imperialism” (Schmiechen, 1999) to aggressively pursue imperialism to govern over what they deemed to be ‘inferior’ races, like blacks and Asians in Africa and Asia, respectively.  Even though the United States is not part of Europe, it also believed that it was meant to rule over others and used the idea of “Manifest Destiny” to justify their expansion westward.  First coined by John L. O’Sullivan in 1845, it was first used to express O’Sullivan’s views that the United States should expand across North America for the purpose of “free development of our yearly multiplying millions” (Unknown, 2008).

(American Progress by John Gast, 1872)

The painting above helps reinforce the point that imperialistic countries believed that they were meant to rule because they were superior.  The Americans in the painting are depicted to be advanced and moving westward, led by an angelic being, while the ‘inferior’ First Nations people and animals are shown to be fleeing from the Americans.  Arguably, European countries believed in some kind of European manifest destiny: that European countries were meant to expand because they were more advanced and for “free development” (Unknown, 2008).  Clearly, countries (and not just European countries) believed they were meant to rule over people because they were ‘superior’, and to rule over these ‘inferior’ races, they had to adopt a policy of imperialism.

The popularity of imperialism among European countries, which led to the “Age of Imperialism” (Schmiechen, 1999), may be due to the lack of strong opposition from the inhabitants of colonies.  Strategic location, trade route security and a sense of ‘superiority’ were the primary motivators, but the lack of opposition encouraged imperialistic countries to take over an increasing amount of land.  An example would be India.  After the British defeated the Mughal Emperor and secured a monopoly on trade in India, there was not much discontent until the British offended them by supposedly using fat from cows and pigs to grease rifles, which were both sacred animals to the Indians.  This led to the Sepoy Rebellion in May 1857.  Even though the rebellion was crushed, it showed that the Indians were relatively content with regards to British control of India, until the British offended them with the aforementioned rifle greasing issue.  It seems that the people already living in a colony did not seem to be too worried about being taken over by an imperialistic country, even though they would be controlled by the imperialistic country, and the imperialistic country’s language, beliefs and values would most likely be placed ahead of the inhabitants’ own language, beliefs and values.  For example, using India again, the British made English the official language of India, which aggravated the population, but they were never truly on the verge of rebellion until 1857.  Likewise, in the imperialism game, colonies did not seem to actively resist the individuals from an imperialistic country, like Great Britain, who showed up on their shores.  Granted, it was to speed up the game, but it seems to reflect the general attitude of the inhabitants of colonies.  Perhaps colonies did not object too much because they believed that they would receive some benefits, such as trained individuals (eg. doctors), security and investment from the mother country, partly because people from the mother country would need these services.  After all, the people who represented the mother country in the colony (eg. British East India Company management in India) would eventually need these services.  For example, if the Germans decided to suddenly invade India, the British would have to send ships to India to fight off the German invaders.  Even though it appears that being a colony may have benefits, it is also likely that the people living on colonies simply did not mind.  After all, they were more important issues to worry about, such as putting food on the table.  It appears that imperialistic European countries took advantage of apathy towards imperialism and the belief that the mother country would help their colonies to plant their flag on a colony.

Another reason why imperialism may have been adopted by so many European countries is that some political philosophers laid the seeds for widespread imperialism.  Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that people should be controlled by a sovereign who would control human selfishness; this belief could be used by imperialistic countries to justify their control of colonies.  Furthermore, he basically believed that freedom was when all basic human needs were met; this allowed imperialistic countries to force their beliefs (eg. Britain changed official language of India to English) while claiming that the people on the colony were ‘free’ because their basic needs, like food and shelter, were met.  Likewise, Jean Jacques Rousseau also believed that people should be controlled by government for the greater good, too.  His belief that no one should question the leader because their actions were always right helped imperialistic countries justify whatever they did.  For example, the British could justify their use of fat from cows and pigs to grease rifles as being ‘right’, because according to Rousseau, the government (the leader) could never be wrong.  Clearly, imperialistic countries used the ideas of political philosophers who agreed with them to support their policy of imperialism.

It is quite probable that European countries became imperialistic because it would bring them strategic and economic benefits.  The imperialism game highlighted the strategic value of colonies like Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, since ships had to pass by it to go to colonies like India, and the economic value of colonies like Cape Colony/Rhodesia, which had many benefits in terms of money and resources, such as diamonds.  European countries also felt that they were meant to rule.  For instance, French control of Morocco would allow them to control trade entering and exiting the Mediterranean, and it allowed them to rule over what Gobineau called ‘the negroids’, which were the most primitive race according to him.  In fact, if European countries did not adopt a policy of imperialism, World War I may have turned out to be a minor European war, since the playing field would have been limited exclusively to Europe because they would not have conquered any territory outside of Europe.  There would be less raw materials and cheap resources because colonies outside of Europe would not exist, and many crises, like the Moroccan Crises, would have been avoided.  There still would have been a war because of the secret alliances, for example, but the scale would have been reduced.  The result of this scaled-down war would obviously be less devastation and destruction, but it would have also meant that technology would have advanced at a slower pace.  An example would be the dreadnought, which would not have been created if Great Britain was involved in a minor European war instead of a major one.  It appears that by adopting a policy of imperialism, European powers unknowingly increased the scale of World War I and the speed of technological advancements.

Works Cited

Unknown.  9 The First World War, 1914-18.  Unknown.  Unknown.  Unknown. (pp. 40)

Unknown.  “Arthur de Gobineau: Biography from Answers.com”.  Unknown.  Answers Corporation.

September 26, 2008.  <http://www.answers.com/topic/arthur-de-gobineau>.

Boyd, Charles W.  Mr. Chamberlain’s Speeches (Boston, 1914) Vol. II.  Unknown.  Unknown.  Unknown.  (pp. 1-6)

Retrieved from <http://www.lclark.edu/~campion/hist328/imp-speeches.htm>.

Christison, Matt, Malcolm Walker, and Victor A. Lelinski.  Challenges of Citizenship.  Unknown. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons Canada Ltd.

Couture, J.C., Dennis Nosyk, and Jim Parsons. A Changing World: Global Political and Economic Systems.  Unknown. Edmonton: Reidmore Books Inc.

Gast, John.  American Progress.  1872.  Unknown.  September 25, 2008.

Retrieved from <http://www.usm.maine.edu/anes/images/gallery/gast-american-progress-lg.jpg>.

Howarth, Tony, and Josh Brooman.  Twentieth Century History.  2^nd ed. New York: Longman Inc., 2000.  (pp. 7-8, 10)

Lincoln, Daniel, and Jacob Lewis.  “Indian Imperialism 1498-1740″.  1997. The Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences & the Arts.  September 25, 2008. <http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/humanities/worldstud/97-98/imper/india/early.htm>.

Lincoln, Daniel, and Jacob Lewis.  “The Sepoy Mutiny”.  1997.

The Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences & the Arts.  September 25, 2008.

<http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/humanities/worldstud/97-98/imper/india/sepoy.htm>.

Unknown.  “Manas: History and Politics, British India”.  Unknown.

University of California, Los Angeles.  September 25, 2008.

<http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/BrIndia.html>.

Unknown.  “Manas: History and Politics, East India Company”.  Unknown.

University of California, Los Angeles.  September 21, 2008. <http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/EAco.html>.

Unknown.  “Manifest Destiny – MSN Encarta”.  2008.  Microsoft Corporation.

September 25, 2008.  <http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568247/Manifest_Destiny.html>.

Nisbet, Robert A.  History of the Idea of Progress.  Unknown.  Unknown.  September 24, 2008.

<http://books.google.ca/books? id=VCT1aoR0VggC&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=An+Essay+on+the+Inequality+of+the+Human+Races&source=web&ots=kdp2KIZzOG&sig=EopbgIR9_ef5g1gNw1PaljaiRUE

&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=12&ct=result#PPA289,M1>.

Unknown.  “Political Philosophies”.  Handout.  Unknown.

Schmiechen, James.  A History of Western Society, 6^th ed. Study Guide vol. II.  6^th ed.

Boston: Houghton, 1999. (pp. 441-442)

Unknown.  “The U.S.-Mexican War . Prelude to War . Manifest Destiny: An Introduction | PBS”.        March 14, 2006.  KERA – Public Television and Radio for North Texas.

September 24, 2008.  <http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_introduction.html>.

Walsh, Ben.  GCSE Modern World History.  2^nd ed.  London: John Murray Publishers, Ltd., 1996.

Woloch, Nancy, and Paul E. Johnson.  “United States History – MSN Encarta”.  2008.

Microsoft Corporation.  September 25, 2008.  <http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500823_12/united_states_history.html>.

Woodward, David R.  “BBC – History – The Middle East during World War One”.  March 31, 2002.

British Broadcasting Corporation.  September 21, 2008. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/middle_east_01.shtml>.

Related posts:

1. Factors Leading to Confederation (of Canada) [History notes]
2. Response to the Treaty of Versailles [History notes]
3. Fall of New France and Formation of Canada [History notes]
4. The Rise and Fall of New France [History notes]
5. Comparison between the Declaration of Independence and “Common Sense”: Elements of Republicanism [History notes]