To What Extent Was Colonial Development Driven by Domestic Concerns - Essay Example

?To what Extent was Colonial Development Driven by Domestic (Coloniser) Concerns, Rather than the Interests of the Colonised? It is explicitly seen that colonialism was a process that was geared towards making an improvement in the colonised states. It was a process where technologically advanced countries took control over less technologically advanced states. This, in the end, instilled the culture of development in the colonised countries. The colonised countries had to learn development aspects from the colonialists. Though this was costly, the colonials were determined to make an improvement to the lesser states which did not have progressive cultures. However, these activities were instilled to ensure the colonials developed their interests, and did not prioritise the interests of the colonised states. The colonised states had little or no control over these activities, which clearly indicates that colonisation was directed towards expanding the interests of the colonising countries. There are many aspects where the interests of the colonising countries were prioritised than the interests of the colonised countries. These are reflected from the economic focus, political environment and social interaction. Though the colonised countries had their fair share of advantages, most of these activities were directed towards strengthening the economic, political and social standing of the colonising countries (Havinden and Meredith, 1993:23). For instance, the French had a massive advantage in taking over their colonies. They exchanged cheap commodities with resources that were regarded as expensive. For instance, they brought knives and other commodities, while taking resources such as fur, cotton and other cash crops that were vital in production of other commodities. Though Africans gained, the European territories and other colonisers had greater stakes (Fieldhouse, 1986:42). As such, the European countries and other colonisers developed their economies at a faster rate, while the colonised countries did not record the same developments. In addition to this, the colonising countries destabilized the traditional values and customs of the colonised countries. They did not have intensions of understanding the customs and values of the colonised countries, and imposed their own. In the late years of the 1800, European powers felt the urge to invade, occupy and colonise some territories in Africa. This was a period that expressed the need for Europe to control the African territories as they were unexploited places in the world. The African continent was rich in resources, but there were not optimised and fully used. In their own vision, the European countries wanted to instil formal imperialism in the African continent, as it was a basic thing that lacked. They developed the best way to implicate the formal imperialism by fully eradicating the informal imperialism. This clearly shows that Africans were still stuck to their native ways, which was not impressive, especially to the colonisers. The people that were colonised had their own way of life, which was considered a backward trend. To eradicate such, they decided to colonise to instil formal way of life (Mahoney, 2010: 230). This meant that the Africans and other territories that would be colonised would follow the trends of the colonial powers. They would instil various ways that would increase production, performance and economic reliance of these territories. In actual sense, the colonials came with their strategies, economic plans and prospective that would be given to these territories. In using these trends that were introduced, the African territories and other territories that were colonised would improve (Fieldhouse, 1986:27). However, all this was not done as a mutual agreement. Though some territories collaborated with the invasion of these Europeans, they did not consent to the invasion of the colonial driven development strategies. Since the European countries had the financial muscle and a streak of resources, they were better placed to change the colonised countries. In making this happen, they had to indulge both military influence and economic dominance. These were crucial strategies that would record a positive outcome in their quest to control these economies and territories. Since the colonised countries and territories did not have the economic muscle to repel the colonisers, they were supposed to respect and obey the new rules and directives that were instilled. As such, they did not have control over any of the activities. This included governance, controlling economic activities and even management of their own funds. Therefore, they were only supposed to live according to the directives and rules that had been set by the colonial powers, which were the governing forces. With such prevalence in the colonised territories, most of the development activities were colonial driven, with less reflection to the interests of the colonised territories. This is due to the vast control they had over the colonised powers, as they were seen to have power and pressure to control these territories. With such strong power in their hands, the colonised parties and territories had to obey all the directives as mentioned by the European powers. Though some territories tried to repel the colonisation, they did not have the pressure and power to fully repel the European powers. They ended up losing such battles, and were forced to obey the laws of the colonial powers. The sub-Saharan Africa was considered the largest market at that time in Africa. Since this was a lucrative market, the European powers had vast interests in gaining control over this market. They had concrete information on the benefits they would accrue once they had control over the market. This was an attractive investment to Europe as they saw the positivity in gaining control over the market. At that time of colonisation, Britain was in an economic crunch and had to structure innovative manoeuvres that would guarantee its economy to sprout back. During this time, there was a long depression, which was affecting the economies of these countries. Countries like Britain, Germany and France were deeply concerned with the economic basin and needed a strategy to help ease the consequences. These countries developed growing economic deficits and the balance of trade was slowly dilapidating (Mahoney, 2010:233). In this time, their balance of trade was not impressive and needed immense action against the situation that was proving to be adverse. Since their options were minute, they decided to engage the sub-Saharan market as a solution. Since they had garnered control over the sub-Saharan market, the European countries decided to engage this market as a demand for its products and goods (Havinden and Meredith, 1993:9). Since the sub-Saharan market was large, it would be a better solution that would ensure the trade surpluses were traded in Africa. With such key interests in developing their own trade surplus, the African market developed a great demand for the products that were from the European countries. In these activities, it is openly displayed that the European powers were driven by their own interests to make the sub-Saharan market a demand for its products. This was a drill that would solely benefit the producing countries. The control over the sub-Saharan market was in the interests of the colonial powers and not in the best of interests to the colonised territories. To begin with, the European colonials had a deficit of trade in their markets. This was a situation that recorded an imbalance of trade in their economies. To improve their economies, they had to look for a market that would create a demand for their products. They decided to trade their goods and products in the sub-Saharan market, which proved to be a ready market. With such activities in their trade, they record positive balances of trade, as the business was booming. They continued to supply their goods and products to the market as it was growing with demand. However, this was only benefiting the European territories in their trade. With the increased dumping of goods from the European countries, the African territories were on the receiving end. Many of these goods were made from European countries, which meant that most of the beneficiaries were from Europe. In actual sense, most of the manufacturers in Europe had to make their sales in the African markets, as they had lots of supplies dumped in the sub-Saharan market. However, the African manufacturers did not have a point in selling their goods and products (Fieldhouse, 1986:42). Since the induction of supplies from Europe, the goods and products that were produced from and within Africa were neglected in the market. They sold very few products since their demand was affected by the products from the European countries. This was a retrogressive approach as many of the producers in the African continent did not have a demand for their products. According to economies in a market, when a producer has a lesser demand for the products, there is a loss in the offing. With such activities in the market, the African producers were forced out of this business as they made exorbitant losses. In this scenario, it is openly seen that the European countries were interested in their balance of trade. In improving their balance of trade, they decided to use the African territory. As such, it ended up killing Africans manufacturers and native producers as they were counting losses (Fieldhouse, 1986:28). For instance, in the late 1940’s the West African region was dominated by colonial economies with a handful of foreign import and export firms. As such, the Africans did not penetrate into the market economy (Fieldhouse, 1986:47). During the colonial times, Britain and other European countries had a stable financial muscle. In these times, countries that had a stable financial muscle were advantaged as they had various investments that could be positive. As such, countries that had a strong financial muscle were vital in developing to the top. However, Britain considered its investments and decided to embark on developing open markets in Africa. For instance, the invisible financial exports from Britain were lucrative and made the country develop at a speedy rate (Fieldhouse, 1986:33). With a reflection to this, the European territories decided to increase their capital investments outside the African territories (Fieldhouse, 1986:41). This included Africa and other colonies that were regarded as lucrative markets. On the other hand, African investments showed little interests. This was due to the huge injection of foreign capital, which challenged the investments that were done by Africans (Fieldhouse, 1986:41). With the increasing investments in the African colonies, it is openly seen that the European colonisers were interested in increasing their financial muscle by increasing capital investments in African colonies. In many cases, these investments were dominated by white settlers. These were settlers that needed to have a high stake in the African states, and had to use their influence to control the developments. For instance, increasing the capital investments in Africans was not meant to benefit the Africans. The increase in capital investments was to increase the gains and stake of the European countries. Similarly, the capital investments were to be used by the colonisers and white settlers in ensuring their capital markets were in constant growth (Mahoney, 2010: 221). With the availability of capital investments, the white settlers had avenues of getting more money to invest in the African continent. With such a large capital investments, they extended their creativity by developing various markets. These markets were formed to be complete hubs for the demand of their products. For instance, they had to develop further to make better markets, which included the Middle West, south Asia and the Southeast Asia (Havinden and Meredith, 1993:15). These were developed markets that could make a lucrative business. Though they were lucrative businesses, the proceeds were not meant to benefit the Africans. In many instances, the Africans depended on the European capitalists. The European countries had developed were only assisting Africans countries with their needs. There were few Africans that were capitalists as they did not have the financial muscle (Fieldhouse, 1986:32). As a matter of fact, the capitalist developments were solely in the interests of the colonisers and European countries. In the same direction, European countries discovered that investments outside Europe and the neighbouring countries were more lucrative as it had high stakes. This was due to the costs that were incurred in the formation of these markets. For instance, the markets in the African territory had low costs, which resulted into high profits. There were cheap material, vast supply of raw materials, low transportation costs, limited competition and a demand for the products. Therefore, the production costs were low as compared to the European market. This was a great point to the European countries as they decided to exploit the African continent. Though this was a part of improving the African continent, all the interests were on the side of the governing powers. For instance, they considered the fact that the European market was depleting its supply of raw materials. However, they did not regard the same pricing and quality. Some of these raw materials that were in abundant supply in Africa were cotton, sisal, tea, oil and cocoa. As such, the European territories benefited from the African territories as they had massive demand. A perfect example is explained from the British East India Company which established stations across India. This was an extension of the trading interests of Britain, which increased the profitability of the company. Even after independence, the African states recorded low levels of production, since they did not have crucial developments to perfect their production (Fieldhouse, 1986:53). Though the production costs of these products and goods were cheap in the African continent, the European powers had to get the best out of the business. Since the Africans country had these resources, they increased their production. However, there was little that was accorded to the African continent in terms of developments and uplift. The European countries continued to develop their own countries from the proceeds garnered in Africa and other colonised states. With such activities, it was seen that the European industry was dependent on the African colonised states’ support. Their economy was dependent on the resources that were produced in Africa. Therefore, their development depended on Africa’s production and resources. The European and other colonial powers were interested in the regime, and inducted their own governance. Initially, all the colonised countries and territories had their governance. Though the governance was not formal, most of the activities in these territories were controlled. This is from the economic activities to social-political activities. These countries had their own way of controlling their territories and maintained their living. Though it was not up to standards, they lived according to their production. However, the European countries and other colonial countries were interested in their governance. They decided to weed out the native governance and instil their own type. With such manoeuvres, they were able to control the economy, politics and social life of the colonised countries and territories. This was solely in the interests of the colonising countries. They had their interests which would only be achieved if they took over the leadership of these territories (Havinden and Meredith, 1993:12). Though the Africans wanted to maintain their leadership, the colonials decided to induct their own type of leadership. Therefore, such leadership was not in the interests of Africans. It was designed to ensure the colonials had the power to control these territories for their benefit. As a fact, Africans and other colonised territories had their own governments long before the colonials interrupted. In summing up, colonialism had its ups and downs on both sides. It brought civilisation, development, technological advancement and formal education. With all these developments, the colonised states were meant to benefit. However, the high stakes of the benefits were directed to the colonising countries. They used their colonial powers to control the colonised territories to fully benefit. For instance, they strengthened their balance of trade by selling their products in the African market. Though this was a positive induction, it crippled the products that were produced from within. This deteriorated the balance of trade in the Africans continent. Secondly, they forced the colonised states to use their way of governance. Though this was a positive encounter, the colonised states were contented with their way of governance. Thirdly, colonial countries used the resources that were produced from these countries to develop their economy. This was followed by exploitation of the colonised countries by feeding them with cheap products. This was a way of maximising their gains at the expense of the colonised countries. In addition to this, the colonising states used their global political influence to change the colonised states. This not only increased the global political power of the colonising states but also increased their control over other countries. References Fieldhouse, D.K. (1986). Black Africa 1945-1980: economic decolonisation and arrested development, London, Unwin Hyman. Havinden, M. & Meredith, D. (1993), Colonialism and development: Britain and its tropical colonies, Routledge, London. Mahoney, J. (2010). Colonialism and postcolonial development: Spanish America in comparative perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University. Read More