Late-Nineteenth Century European Imperialism with Regards to European Empires - Essay Example

?Compare and contrast two explanations of late-nineteenth century European imperialism with regards to two European empires in at least two parts of the world, from c1850 to 1914. The colonisation of India by Britain and the colonisation of Tunisia by France are often explained using similar language but they can be seen in two different ways. First of all it is possible to see them as examples of the same phenomenon, with very similar results. Secondly, it is possible to see them as different processes with completely different results. This paper explores each of these possible approaches, and then compares the two colonial situations to show that Britain was stronger in its colonial activities in India than France was in its colonial activities in Tunisia. The British conquest of India began in the middle of the eighteenth century and played a major part in this country’s rise to world dominance in the nineteenth century. Because Britain had an excellent Navy and a spirit of exploration and conquest, the first settlers there quickly set up businesses to supply the factories at home with raw materials. Britain had just begun a period of great economic expansion at home, which has come to be called “the industrial revolution.” The East India Company was created to build up trade in goods like spices and cotton, and Britain soon relied upon this country for the supply of many goods. The East India Company was a private organization but it received a lot of support from the British government. It grew into a major cultural influence as well, aiming to educate the Indian population in English ways. Britain’s colonial influence extended far across the huge territories of India. Some of the profits from trade were used to introduce new technologies into India like roads and telegraphs, and even a vast railway network. The purpose was to support the colonial trade system, but an important side-effect was a shift in the culture of India for the native people there. Some historians see the colonisation of India in terms of bringing progress to the whole world, especially economic progress: “no organization in history has done more to promote the free movement of goods, capital and labour than the British Empire in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries” (Ferguson: 2004, p. xxi) From this perspective, the brutal oppression of Indians who did not accept British rule is seen as an unfortunate price that had to be paid for this great progress. It is astonishing that so few British people managed to control such a huge land, for example in the period 1860-1905, “there were seldom more than 100,00 of them (European people) scattered among a population of over 250 million, and most were British soldiers who lived in cantonments concentrated in the northern half of the country.” (Ferguson, 2004, p. 341) The British government supplied troops to keep control over areas where uprisings occurred, for example in Bengal, which quickly became a centre for British influence. (Marshall: 2005, p. 241) A key factor in the success of the “Jewel in the Crown” of Queen Victoria’s empire was this partnership between business and government for purposes which benefited them both. This economic analysis is a convincing explanation of Britain’s great success in colonising the whole subcontinent of India. The colonisation of Tunisia by France is seen also by some historians as an incoming advanced nation bringing civilisation and progress to a backward country. The colonial attitudes are the same, and Africa was seen as a great prize which could be easily taken. There was a great rush by many European countries to take what they could: “The partition of Africa took little more than 20 years. It began with the French occupation of Tunisia in 1881…” (Wesseling: 2004, p, 148) France began to impose a political structure that fitted in with its centralist approach to government. Tunisia, along with Algeria and Morocco, became an extension of the French department system. At this late stage, more than a century after the height of Britain’s conquest of India, the situation for colonising countries was quite different. Colonising countries had to deal with a lot more interference from each other, especially around the Mediterranean coast area. Tunisia was a small country with strategic importance, and this caused a lot of conflict between competing European interests. There were insufficient funds for full economic expansion, and in Tunisia the rewards from this kind of venture were significantly less promising than the vast treasures of India. Tunisia had only about a million inhabitants, and an economy based on agriculture. Former Turkish rule had not made much economic impact, and there were few cities or industries to speak of.. Instead of a commercial and military supervision, the French introduced a bureaucratic system of civil servants, trained and led by French nationals. The approach was described at first as “peaceful penetration” (Wesseling: 2004 , p. 149) but it soon changed into a militarised situation when France felt the need to create solid boundaries against the danger of rebellion from inside Tunisia and the danger of interference from competitors outside Tunisia. The motivation for colonisation of Tunisa quickly became therefore political and strategic, in a military sense, rather than economic. Tunisian citizens grew resentful about taxation being levied upon them from France, without any demonstrable benefit from the connection: “ the more that colonialism penetrated underdeveloped societies, drew them into a global network of trade and finance, and brought them into contact with western ideas, the more this provoked an indigenous reaction.” (Kennedy, 1987, p. 287) The strategy of educating a local civil service also produced resistance among educated classes, and this resulted in legal and political challenges of a much more organised type than the mass uprisings in India. In conclusion, therefore, the colonial relationship between Britain and India was quite different from the later colonisation of Tunisia by France. It was driven by economic forces, and there was every incentive for the colonising country to invest in infrastructure there. In contrast, the motivation for France’s invasion of Tunisia was political, with far less obvious benefits to either France or Tunisia, and so it was destined to be a weaker relationship. References Ferguson, N. 2004. Empire: How Britain made the Modern World. New York: Basic Books. Marshall, P.J. 2005. The Making and Unmaking of Empires. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kennedy, P. 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Harper Torchback. Wesseling, H. L. 2004. The European Colonial Empires: 1815-1919. Pearson Education. Read More