Why It Was That Europe Colonised Asia and Africa in the Nineteenth Century - Literature review Example

Colonisation Name: Institute: Why it was that Europe colonised Asia and Africa in the nineteenth century, rather than Asia and Africa colonising Europe Introduction Towards the end 19th century, a handful of European countries bottled up nearly all countries in Africa. Given that this came subsequent to over three centuries of somewhat two-way trading activity amongst Africans and Europeans, Kwon (2011) maintain that it stands for a momentous exit in the history of world. Age of Imperialism according to Barrientos et al. (2009) as well had wide-range effects, which included the dissemination of European languages across the world, borders creation that flickered scores of subsequent disagreements, as well as the institutions construction that enabled globalization to take place. Therefore, Erjavec (2008) posits that so to establish why Europeans decided to invade African and Asia in the late 19th century, one should first analyse African, Asian, and European societies of 19th century. In the late 19th century, Debrie (2010) argue that the technological gap between Europeans and Africans was already available from 16th century, and it started widening at a more rapidly rate. The primary triumphant utilisation of gunpowder was at Constantinople in 1453 used by Ottoman forces, and its application diffused to Europe making it easy to invade Africa and Asia. What’s more, Europeans personalized the technology until guns became diminutive enough to be carried by foot territorial army or build up in ships. Erjavec (2008) maintain that they as well enhanced the economy and speed of firearms production; thus, becoming more abundant and making it easy to conquer weak nations in Africa and Asia. For that reason, the study seeks to explain why it was that Europe colonised Asia and Africa in the nineteenth century, rather than Asia and Africa colonising Europe. Scramble for Africa and Asia The push into Africa and Asia by European imperialist was aggravated by three key aspects; social, political, and economic. It had begun in the 19th century after the fall down of the slave trade profitability, its obliteration and subjugation, and the growth of the European industrialist (Kicza, 2004). The essentials of capitalist industrialization, which entailed the need for guaranteed raw materials sources, the hunt for definite markets as well as cost-effective investment channels, encouraged the European scramble as well as the division and ultimate invasion of Asia and Africa. Consequently the key stimulus for European invasion was the economic factor, but other factors according to Kicza (2004) played a crucial part in this process. Besides that, the political momentum anchored in the effect of inter-European supremacy struggles as well as domination competition. Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Germany, France, and Britain, were all competing for supremacy within politics of European power. This can be exhibited by the attainment of territories across the globe, including Asia and Africa. The final factor (social) came in consequence of industrialization, and Barrientos et al. (2009) highlight key social setbacks developed in Europe: joblessness, homelessness, poverty, social dislocation from rustic regions, and so forth. Such social setbacks developed partially for the reason that not every person could be taken in by the new-fangled capitalist industries. Therefore, one way to resolve this setback was to get hold of colonies and export what Debrie (2010) termed as excess population. This without doubt gave rise to the settler-colonies establishment in Africa and Asia, and which ultimately brought about the colonization of other parts in the world like America. Therefore it was the relationship of such factors (social, political, and economic) along with forces that initiated the scramble for Asia and Africa as well as the hyperactive endeavors by European political agents, armed forces, and commercial to set up and declare a stake in various parts of Africa and Asia. This scramble according to Wabgou (2012) was extremely powerful such that there were panics that it might have caused inter-imperialist disagreements and even hostilities. To avert this, Otto von Bismarck, the then German chancellor called for an ambassadorial summit of European nations in the late 19th century. It was during this conference a treaty was produced acknowledged as the Berlin Act, and it had provisions that guided the demeanour of the European inter-imperialist competition. Determinants of Colonization There is a small difference amongst historians based on process through which European powers started their conquest, some hold the view that they begun on islands and coastlines of Atlantic and Indian Ocean, and ultimately came to be in command of enormous territory swaths in the Africa and Asia. The colonialism age started with sea routes discoveries by Europeans around southern coast of Africa in 1488 as well as to the Americas in 1492. Afterward, through breakthrough, invasion, and settlement, the up-and-coming nation-states of the Dutch Republic, England, Spain, and Portugal, France lengthened their reach all over the world, diffusing European genes, culture, and institutions, as well as compelling or bringing on enormous cross-continental Africans and Asians movements. Before the end of colonization era, Erjavec (2008) posit that the Asian and African populations had completely been transformed. Prior to World War II, 40% of the land area in the world as well as 33% of its population was being colonized by European powers. An additional 33% based on territory, had been colonized for a while between the 15th and 19th centuries and had already come out as autonomous countries. In scores of instances, Debrie (2010) posit that it was not the formerly-colonized individuals who turned out to be sovereign, but instead the colonizers descendants, in order that the colonization process was by no means really upturned. In different instances, post-colonial inhabitants were mostly descended from people the European powers had imported as indentured labourers or slaves, or by aboriginal mixes, “colonizing and imported populations. Kwon (2011) posit that what is currently acknowledged as developing world or the Third World comprises overpoweringly of ex-colonies, which includes both individuals who experienced dramatic transformations like those in the America as well as those who did not like most in Asia and Africa. Luckily for our intentions, however, not every non-European country was colonized; thus, making it probable for historians to assess impact of colonisation by examining the countries colonized instead of those that were not. The colonial epoch impact according to Kicza (2004) is indirectly or directly acknowledged in a number of the most authoritative papers on long-term fiscal development. Barrientos et al. (2009) stress the significance of the European legal systems basis and how it helped the European nations conquer both Asia and Africa. Debrie (2010) attribute enormous cross-country productivity disparities to distinctions in social infrastructure, tooled by the percentage talking European languages. Debrie (2010) further maintain that the factor talents were vital in describing long-term economic achievement in the Asia somewhat by establishing the form of labour force as well as settlers drawn to various areas. Erjavec (2008) affirms that conflicting forms of organisations dating back to opposed means of European colonization justify a great deal of the cross-country deviation in present revenues. Latest contributions, like Kwon (2011) and Wabgou (2012), have stressed the colonization impact on relative development through the people movement as well as ensuing alterations in population composition. The above scholars and their argument justify why European powers were in a position to colonise African and Asia, and not vice versa. Still, only a few studies such as Debrie (2010) and Erjavec (2008) have managed to explain why Europe countries managed to make Asia and Africa their colonies: for instance, Debrie (2010) claim that Europe had all the need resources at their disposal, they Western Europe was industrialised earlier than Asia and Africa, and so they had technology to their advantage, and finally, the Europeans had firearms and were armed to the teeth unlike the Asians and Africans were still living in the stone age. Why Did Europe Colonize Africa and Asia? According to Barrientos et al. (2009), the 1880s marked the start of the colonial epoch in both Asian and African history. Whereas Europeans as well as Asians had reputable connection in a range of milieu for decades, the 1880s marked a key landmark in European approaches toward Asia and Africa. For decades, historians have searched through a variety of historical records in effort to unearth a perfect respond to the question: Why did European powers colonize Asia and Africa? Wabgou (2012) established that in every probability there exists no perfect answer to the above question. Instead, historians claim that a permutation of aspects featured notably in the administrative processes of those Europeans liable for Asia and Africa colonisation. Whilst one or two aspects could have been overriding in such processes of making decisions, it would be imprudent to dismiss other promising elucidations. To bring the key developments that justify Europe’s heightened participation in Asia and Africa, Barrientos et al. (2009) examined the role of technological, medicinal and Christianity advancements, as well as the entice of capitalist benefits. Foremost, Europe had a Christian revitalisation in the 19th century, and missionaries started to concentrate on the enormous proletariat with the objective of bestowing spiritual deliverance to the workforce as well as their families. Owing to their enormous achievements, Kwon (2011) claim that missionaries started to look further than Europe; thus, establishing missions all over Asia and Africa. It is worth noting that missionaries never doubled up as direct European imperialism agents, but still they attracted European powers deeper into Asia and Africa. In their endeavours to advocate Christianity, to diffuse European-style culture to Asia and Africa as well as to establish monogamy in Asian and African societies, Debrie (2010) indicate that missionaries time and again felt endangered by their warfare in Asia and Africa. Therefore, missionaries asked for intervention and protection from European governments. For instance, in Malawi missionaries recommended the British government to stop the slave trade through a string of letters, in response, the British government got involved in late 19th century; however, the stimulus for Britain to dispatch military personnel and become engaged Malawi affairs was not actually the persistent slave trade in Malawi. Rather Great Britain was worried about the existence of the Portuguese in the neighbouring Mozambique, so the missionaries’ letters simply acted as an appropriate justification to invade the region as well as set up interests of the British. Subsequently, European medical inventions as well as technological developments offered a means for Europeans to enter the Asia and Africa much more profoundly and successfully. What’s more, the quinine discovery as a prophylactic radically abridged the number of European nations dying of malaria in both Asia and Africa. For many years malaria, and to a smaller extent yellow fever, had upset European efforts at exploring the two continents and setting up a solid traction in those continents. Quinine being an unequivocal element of all s travel kit for Europeans, deliberations of death and life as a result of disease no more obstructed European purposes with regard to Asia and Africa. Kicza (2004) note that ssuch medicinal advancements were achieved by technological developments, which neither Africa nor Asia had in possession. Purposely, developments in weapons and metallurgy technology offered Europe with benefits that proved important in European colonial missions in Asia and Africa. Advanced arsenal technology surely did not prevent antagonism, but it evidently offered European powers with an advantage that enabled the comprehension of Europe’s goals. Both technological advances as well as medicinal discoveries reveal the innovations in engineering and manufacturing extremely distinctive of the industrial revolution. Why not Asia or Africa There were no less than five European nations (France, England, Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal) that had the ability of increasing trans-oceanic voyages for a number of this period -. Barrientos et al. (2009) argue that they were all hard-line nations frequently at conflict and in search of resources. For instance, Christopher Columbus patronized his plan to sail to China across Europe before receiving a support from Isabella and Ferdinand. Therefore rulers had power to closedown expeditions such as in China, Erjavec (2008) deem that there was nobody in Europe who had the power to do that, and a lot of nations were willing to finance expeditions in quest of trade and land. Additionally, such societies were all much more aggressive as compared to Asia and Africa. Before the colonisation epoch, there was a tradition in Europe of leaving and conquering one another and were ceaselessly a lot of fortune-hunters eager to leave in quest of loot and glory devoid of much concern in what the government desired. On the other hand, Asian wars, especially Chinese wars were based on being in charge of China itself, and were inclined to be less common, whilst Europeans had been fighting almost endlessly. Besides that, China leant to observe the world as China, in addition to some negligible secondary individuals (Japan and Vietnam) around the boarders that were not of value to bother with. Not even a single Chinese ruler attempted to conquer the rest of Asia and Europe; instead they were more concerned with China itself than the rest of the world. Europeans held the view that that there existed a restricted trade level, and so that their nations turn out to be authoritative they had to guzzle countless trading chances, in effect trade was deemed so imperative to an extent that some considered it as a form of war. Erjavec (2008) posits that a trading route to Africa and Asia through the oceans might have allowed Africans and Asians to get hold of an exclusive agreement for trading with the Europeans; thus, inspiring them to a point of enormous authority. However, European nations seized the chance earlier than Africans and Asians, and upon the breakthrough of the European powers jumped at the prospect to colonize both continents. Certainly, Asia and Africa were narrow-minded and homier than Europe, but importantly they had a unique cultural disparity. Asian's government has been extremely centralized for centuries; this has given rise to a culture that supports compliance and obedience. Europe esteemed such personalities also, but at that time they had an adventuresome strength of mind. This integrated with Christianity's proselytization backing; deprived living circumstances, as well as looking outwardly signified t that European nations believed that colonisation was a normal step they had to take. Conclusion In conclusion, it has been argued that the Industrial Revolution that took place in 19th century significantly heightened the technological and military power of the European countries; thus, facilitating them to lengthen their power over regions with enormous aboriginal populations such as Asia and Africa. Technological and military power enabled European nations to send troops together with Christian missionaries, officials, and commercial agents to the two continents. These continents were transformed into markets for Europe's industrial products as well as raw materials sources for those industries. The European nations put slavery to an end in the areas they inhibited and set the foundation for economic growth. Apparently, the industrial revolution armed the European powers with all needed resources to explore and conquer both African and Asia. But for Africans and Asians they never had the opportunity to colonise Europe or the rest of the world for the reason that they were more concerned with internal affairs, and lacked the spirit of adventuresome. References Barrientos, R., Kvist, L., Barbosa, A., Valera, F., Lopez-Iborra, G. M., & al., e. (2009). Colonization patterns and genetic structure of peripheral populations of the trumpeter finch (Bucanetes githagineus) from Northwest Africa, the Canary Islands and the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Biogeography, 36(2), 210-219. Debrie, J. (2010). From colonization to national territories in continental West Africa: the historical geography of a transport infrastructure network. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(2), 292-300. Erjavec, K. (2008). Discourse on the Admission of Slovenia to the European Union: Internal Colonialism. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 3(1), 36-52. Kicza, J. E. (2004). Comparing Empires: European Colonialism from Portuguese Expansion to the Spanish-American War. Renaissance Quarterly, 57(4), 1467-1468. Kwon, R. (2011). How the legacy of French colonization has shaped divergent levels of economic development in East Asia: a time-series cross-national analysis. Sociological quarterly, 52(1), 56-82. Wabgou, M. (2012). Colonization and decolonization in Africa and Asia in comparative perspectives. Astrolabio, 9, 35-61. Read More