Why Europe Colonised Asia And Africa in the Nineteenth Century - Literature review Example

RUNNING HEAD: EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS THAT EUROPE COLONIZED ASIA AND AFRICA IN THE 19TH CENTURY RATHER THAN ASIA AND AFRICA COLONIZING EUROPE Explain why it was that Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century rather than Asia and Africa colonizing Europe Name Institution Date Introduction Colonization is basically a process of invading and subsequently taking over the autonomy of another, as a consequence, leading to the invaded land becoming a colony. The colonial encirclement of the globe has been an integral aspect of the European history dating back from the early beginning of the modern age to the decolonization period. As highlighted by Evans (2011), the 19th century witnessed the scramble for Africa and Asia by the major European powers in order to colonize much of the regions. In particular, Germany, Britain, Belgium, Italy, and France became successful in controlling a significant part of Africa, whereas the French, the British, the Dutch, the British and others battled for territories and resources in the Asian continent. In central Asia, for instance, the battle pitted Russia and the Great Britain. The reasons for the European powers’ colonization of Africa and Asia are as manifold and wide-ranging as the suppositions of history can allow. However, a significant question that many scholars have always tried to put forward in attempt to find answers to is why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not Asia and Africa colonizing Europe. It is within this backdrop therefore that this particular paper intends to provide an analysis as regards the reasons why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not Asia and Africa colonizing Europe. As already highlighted, the reasons why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not Asia and Africa colonizing Europe may be as manifold and wide-ranging as the suppositions of history can allow. It is possible that every assumption has some aspects of truth and holds an explanatory power. Even so, it is almost certain that a combination of these assumptions is best suited to explain why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not the vice versa. According to Drea (2012), it is also evident that in as much as most African and Asian societies fought intensely and bravely in order to maintain control of their societies and nations against the European colonialist strategies and military offensives, they finally lost out. In view of this, one of the assumptions put forward to explain why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not the vice versa is the fact that compared to Europe, Africa and Asia were not advanced in terms of technology. According to Hoffman (2002),there is no doubt that the European powers were advanced in terms of technology, tactics, and maneuverability ,a factor that is, without a doubt, argued to have helped pave way for the European powers to penetrate the Asian and African continents more deeply and efficiently. In actual fact, the European nations began their exploration as well as seeking to control other parts of the globe during the 15th and 16th centuries, a factor made possible due to their capabilities to direct sea routes. Their technological power was witnessed in terms of the extreme disparity existing between the warfare technologies used by the contrasting European, Asian and African forces. Africans, in particular, fought using spears, bows, calvaries, arrows, swords and old rifles, whereas the European forces fought using more lethal firearms, artillery guns, new rifles and machine guns (Iweriebor, 2011).This provided the European powers with added advantages that proved significant in their colonial ventures not only in the African continent but Asian as well. According to Iweriebor (2011), for instance, by late 19th century, the European powers had now established themselves in the colonies and could instigate war with very devastating impacts. The people of both Africa and Asia were incapable of providing any effective resistance to determine the colonialists. Naturally, weapons such as iron hulls, steam power and machine guns offered them intractable technological advantages. Goodman (2014) argues that it was indeed this technological advantage enabled small European numbers to conquer huge local armies. As a result, in direct battles, the Europeans forces frequently won. On the other hand, Hoffman (2002) highlights that despite the overwhelming odds, leaders from both the Asian and African continents kept on with their resistance of the European advance. Even though they managed to win a few battles, the indigenous people of Asia and Africa could not prolong persist conventional confrontations against the European forces. In majority cases, most successful confrontation was provided by guerillas (Iweriebor,) 2011). In point of fact, technology, and especially better-quality weapons technology definitely did not prevent resistance, but did clearly provide the European powers with an upper hand that facilitated their realization of their objectives. As the Saylor Foundation (2011) highlights, technological advances in Europe at that juncture reflected the novelties or innovations not only in manufacturing but in engineering which are very characteristic of industrial revolution. In general, it can therefore be argued that Africa and Asia could not colonize owing to the fact that they lacked good technology, a necessity for a grand-scale invasion of another continent. Another reason put forward to explain why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not the vice versa can be argued based on political power. African and Asian societies lacked the political power, a necessity for a grand-scale invasion of another continent. They lacked effective governmental institutions, skills and even experience (political power) hence could not colonize but be colonized (Kidner et.al, 2007). As Iweriebor (2011) highlights, the 19th century was generally an era that witnessed significant revolutionary transformations within Africa and Asia’s political geography. This period was exemplified by the downfall of old African and Asian kingdoms/empires as well as their re-configuration into various political entities. A number of these ancient societies were subsequently reconstructed forming new societies founded on different social and ideological premises. Consequently; these societies were now in a volatile state, with many of them turning out to be not only organizationally weak but politically unstable as well. They were thus not able to provide effective opposition against European colonialists owing to their lack of effective institutions and structures. With this, the European powers found it easy to control as well as operate the local government systems and structures either directly or indirectly using a selected local, privileged group (Iweriebor,) 2011). Owing to the fact that they were imposed as well as maintained through force, and without the governed consent, Africa and Asia colonies in no way had effective authority witnessed with normal governments. Secondly, the colonies were bureaucratic as they were overseen by military officials and civil servants appointed by the colonial governments. In general, it can therefore be argued that Africa and Asia, due to lack of political power seen through their lack of effective governmental institutions, skills and even experience, could not colonize. Lack of economic power forms another significant reason why Africa and Asia could not provide a grand-scale invasion of another continent, hence a key supposition as to why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not Asia and Africa colonizing Europe. According to Kidner et.al, (2007), Europe’s economic power which dates back to the 17th and 18th century, was as a result of the scientific as well as technological innovations. During this era, the European powers such as Britain had by the 19th century built many economic practices as well as structures essential for their economic expansion. Unlike Africa or Asia, financial facilities such as banks were already established, with banks offering loans for business people to increase their operations as well as invest in machinery. This economic power was centered on the mercantilism philosophy as well as the expansion of economic enterprises such as the plantation systems that significantly benefited Europe economically. According to the Michael Parenti Political Archive (2005, the European colonialists were mostly interested in plundering as well as honoring resources and glory. They accumulated resources through organized exploitation of not only labour but also through the penetration of foreign markets. They transformed and dominated the economies of both Asia and African nations they colonized, integrating financial and the productive structures, in so doing, creating a global capital accumulation system. This economic power did actually spearhead the European powers. The economic power without doubt provided them with not only the motive but also a means for a global empire, a factor that facilitated their reorganization of the Asian and African economies around their industrial societies, in what became referred to as the earliest form of globalization. By combining the economic and political power that they now possessed, they extended their scope through these particular advantages. This enabled them to inculcate their ideas, beliefs and even models, as a consequence, subsequently dominating the globe not only economically, culturally and even politically. Another significant supposition that explains why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not the vice versa is the level of civilization. According to McIntire & Burns (2009), Unlike Africa and Asian nations, European nations were long-established prior to their establishment in the two continents with their basis of the 19th century colonization laying on the advantage of early civilization. Actually, before the fight for liberation in Africa during the 1950s, the most commonly or widely portrayed image/picture about Africa in not only textbooks but the media as well was that of a continent with primitive and savage peoples, hence uncivilized (McNeese, 2013). Without a doubt this view point was symbolic of colonial control of Africa. According to Campbell & Power (2010), sufficient evidence reveals that all the European colonial powers did not actually visualize the African culture or history. In fact, writings by the Europeans who came to Africa prior to the actual European colonization revealed opinions of people determined to view Africa through cultural prisms and concluded that the continent of Africa was indeed backward and uncivilized. Due to this view point, Forji (2013) argues that the European powers justified their colonization of many African nations on the basis that it is actually its moral responsibility to uplift the African continent from the uncivilized state. Their pre-occupation with the skin colour as well as other physical characteristics as the measures of civilization was so strong and consistent, as a consequence, they strongly felt that colonizing was a right and they had an objective to civilize. Their reason for colonization was therefore strongly founded on not just ethnocentrism but cultural arrogance that made them regard anyone different from them as culturally inferior. In the case of the African continent, for instance, since they were not advanced in terms of technology or because their achievements were not yet documented, and hence not well-known to the world, the European powers believed it was now time to civilize and uplift the African continent. According to Campbell & Power (2010), those who wanted to cast the act of colonization in a favourable light asserted the interests of the European powers viewed the interests of those governed as alike, if not better, to those ruling. As such, the question of why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not Asia and Africa colonizing Europe can be answered based on civilization. In this case, the fact that Africans and Asians were culturally-retarded in terms of their technical abilities, attitudes and customs explains why they could not colonize other continents. In short, civilization was a necessity for a grand-scale invasion of another continent. As highlighted by Collins (2006), the two continents of Africa and Asia are ethically complex. Virtually all the countries are ethnically heterogeneous, as a result, creating and ensuring peaceful relations has been a significantly difficult issue in a greater part of these two continents, a factor that has affected their unity hence their incapability to colonize other continents. According to Levinson (1998), Africa and Asia were vast continents with various empires that kept invading each other, as a result, they could not send enough troops in foreign continents by sea, a factor that also explains why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not the vice versa. In fact, as highlighted by Collins (2006), in a number of territories disagreements among many African societies were bound hampering any effectiveness resistance against an outside enemy. On the other hand, according to Marker (2003), when the colonial powers had established themselves in the continent the situation worsened since they began creating situations that promoted ethnic rivalry. For instance, in Central Asia, immediately the Soviets established themselves, they created various boundaries, as a result, separating individuals from a similar ethnic group (the Tajiks) into divergent multiethnic regions. In the case of Africa, in 1880s, the British took advantage of the existing conflicts existing between the Ndebele people and their neighbouring communities to provoke conflicts in which they had to intercede and would eventually acquire an opportunity to assert control over the Ndebele land (Talton, 2011). This idea created a lot of conflicts emerging due to the artificial divisions. The European colonialists also favoured a particular ethnic grouping more than other groups within a particular region. This particular practice of favouring one ethnic group, or giving a particular ethnic group an elevated status within the colonial society not only did create but promoted inter-group rivalries as well (Talton, 2011). In general, due to the vast continents with various empires accompanied by rivalry amongst various ethnic groups it was difficult for Africans and Asians to send enough troops in foreign continents to facilitate the colonization process. As Romano (2010) highlights, lack of motivation to colonize could also explain why it was that Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century rather than Asia and Africa colonizing Europe. According to the Saylor Foundation (2011), unlike, Africa and Asia, the Europe nations were finding themselves in a situation whereby they were under immense pressure resulting from their expanding population. Energized by the industrial revolution during the 19th century, they instigated a new era of colonial expansion, aroused by the need for new regions for settlement and the discovery of more markets. The most significant motivation to colonize during this period was actually to strengthen their own respective nations so as to compete with other European powers. Africa and Asia, on the other hand, having huge amounts of resources ranging from vast pieces land to precious minerals, had no real motivation to inspire the need to colonize other continents. In this case, the lack of a need to colonize explains why Africa and Asia could not colonize other continents. Conclusion As highlighted above, the practice of colonization has no doubt been one of the most powerful forces within the globes history over the past centuries, in so doing, shaping up the whole continents in general. The paper has generally attempted to investigate the question as to why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century rather than Asia and Africa colonizing Europe .This has definitely come out as an interesting issue that many scholars have attempted to analyze with various views as to why Europe managed to colonize Asia and Africa in the 19th century and not the vice versa raised. Various reasons have been highlighted in the paper to explain why Europe colonized Asia and Africa in the 19th century rather than Asia and Africa colonizing Europe. The highlighted reasons include technological advantages, political power, economic power, levels of civilization and the motivation to colonize. References Collins. (2006).Clan Politics and Regime Transition in Central Asia, Cambridge University Press Campbell, D & Power, M. (2010).The Scopic Regime of “Africa” Drea, A. (2012).20th Century Europe: A Concise History, Xlibris Corporation Evans, R.(2011).The Scramble for Africa, Retrieved on the 22nd April, 2014 from Forji, A. (2013).International Law, the Civilizing Mission and the Ambivalence of Development in Africa: Conceptual Underpinnings, Journal of African and International Law Goodman, R. (2014). Strategy and Tactics, Military Hoffman, P.T. (2002).Why it was that Europeans conquered the rest of the world? The politics and economics of Europe’s comparative advantage in violence Iweriebor, E. (2011)."The Colonization of Africa."Africana Age. Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Retrieved on the 22nd April, 2014 from Levinson, D. (1998).Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook, Greenwood Publishing Group McIntire, S & Burns, W. (2009).Speeches in World History Facts on File library of world history, Infobase Publishing Michael Parenti Political Archive. (2005).Imperialism 101: Chapter 1 of against Empire by Michael Parenti, Retrieved on the 22nd April, 2014 from Marker, S. (2003).Effects of Colonization McNeese, T. (2013). History of Civilization: The Age of Progress, Lorenz Educational Press Kidner et.al. (2007).Making Europe: People, Politics, and Culture, Cengage Learning Talton, B. (2011).”African Resistance to Colonial Rule”. Africana Age. Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture Romano, M. (2010).CliffsNotes AP European History, 2nd Edition, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, The Saylor Foundation. (2011). “Why Did Europe Colonize Africa?” Read More