Although colonialism and imperialism seem to be two very similar terms, colonialism refers to the settlement of one country (or parts of it) by another, while imperialism is the economic and/or political control of a country by another. Both are driven by a desire for economic prosperity and power. Beginning with the Ancient Greeks, numerous superpowers began establishing colonies abroad to stimulate trade by establishing oversees markets for imports and exports. During the time of the Industrial Revolution, European nations, especially Great Britain looked outside of its realm for markets and raw materials, thus leading to an increase in European colonization of other lands. The colonization in turn brought Europe great wealth, and with such wealth comes power. They acquired great power in the form of respect and admiration from other nations, and they struck fear in the hearts of the indigenous population, who they could in turn exploit without limits. Eventually, the American Revolution came around, Britain lost its North American colonies, so it began to turn its attention to other more “primitive” lands.
Europeans soon began to establish a presence in Africa. As its markets were expanding, goods were being produced rapidly, so they needed a good, cheap labor force. So in the 18th and 19th centuries, Europe got involved in the slave trade, as part of the triangular trade route between Africa, Europe, and North America. Europe then realized that its own natural resources were depleted, and Africa was rich with useful raw materials. This was incredibly beneficial to wealthy nations, as it was cheap to gather the materials since they would exploit the indigenous people, and they acquired everything they needed for their own markets. At the time, France was also interested in Africa as a way to redeem itself after being defeated at Waterloo in 1815 . European pride certainly compromised their morals as they began to exploit the indigenous Africans without mercy. One of the most lucrative natural resources was rubber, and diamonds, now a very controversial gem.
Although most of colonization and imperialism was driven by a desire for land, natural resources, power, and wealth, the British developed a different reason behind imperialism. In 1899 Rudyard Kipling, a British poet, wrote a poem titled “The White Man’s Burden.” Basically, they believed that it was their duty, and a somewhat heavy burden, to take control of other countries politically, in order to enlighten them and teach them how to be civilized, steering them away from savagery. This seemingly “humanitarian” approach appears to have been nothing but a justification for their deeply entrenched greed that would be fulfilled no matter what stood in their way.
Good explanation of the primary reasons of exploitation for resources and cash. I did not that fact about the French and Waterloo - intersting. I like how you address the attempted justification by the White Man's Burden. Do you think anyone actually believed it?
ReplyDeleteI really liked your explanation of the differences between colonialism and imperialism; although connected, they are actually quite different. Your points about the draw of natural resources as a cause of colonization were especially apt. I also wonder if you think that some nations may have wanted to colonize to compete with others? I think I read something about that before.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see the "White Man's Burden" type reference in there, that's something I would not have thought of. It's interesting that you talk about Waterloo; I don't know much about that topic, but it definitely could have been one of the reasons for France's interventions.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Europeans used the White Man's Burden as justification for their actions, so they probably "lied" to themselves to make their actions seem humane. Certainly economic and political competition was a reason behind imperialism. The more they colonized, the more resources they gained, and in turn the more power they achieved.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the posts above the reference to "The White Man's Burden" is a very interesting insight. The term "The White Man's Burden" is seemingly ironic because the various countries felt it was their duty and burden to claim land for the "good of world expansion" when in reality their conquests weren't burdens but instead rewards for their exploration and power. I agree with Madison that you very clearly described the difference incolonialism and imperialism. I think that the various countries believed heavily in their duty to expand but I am not sure if everyone agreed that expansion was necessary.
ReplyDeleteAlthough to be fair, the longer the countries were colonized, the more stable they have tended to be these days.
ReplyDeleteit's not an excuse for their actions, but it is an unintended result.
Do you think that colonizing was worth it? or do you think that Africa as a whole would have been better off with any at all?
I think the consequences of colonization in Africa are much heavier than the pros. While you do have a point, perhaps the colonized countries appear stable from one point of view and excludes the opinion of those who originally inhabited the country?
DeleteI agree with Rayna. History is always written by the winners, and many times the losers voice is not heard. I think that imperialism in Africa is a very similar situation. Those who are oppressed, do not have a voice, or any say in their exploitation.
DeleteI really liked your contrast between colonialism and imperialism. I believed the contrast helped to explain your facts later on. However, do you think that the European nations would suspend their morals for the sole act of being proud with themselves? I do agree the conquest of Africa soon became a contest of sorts between European nations, however, I don't believe their pride single-handedly got the better of them.
ReplyDelete