Samuel

How did the character of European imperialism change in

the course of the period?


In dealing with a question which deals with the history of the entire globe over around a century of
time, there are always going to be exceptions to every generalisation. There was no overriding,
universal agenda or plan of imperialism which took place uniformly at any time. Instead, we must try
to examine the competing individual imperialist states; seeing how they interacted and how they
changed. Overall we can see that European imperialism involved policies of relative economic
freedom and self-determination until the later part of our period, when they became more
restrictive and centralised.

Although it was not a major factor in the transformation of the character of European imperialism
over the course of this period, the increase in missionary activity during the nineteenth century must
be considered as a form of imperial activity. The number of Protestant missions which were created
in Africa from 1886 to 1895 was twenty-three, which was three times the level that had been
achieved in any decade before. Although missionaries did not see themselves as the precursor for
European dominance of a region, they opened up hitherto unknown areas for imperial ambition and
often provided the first contact for non-European people with European culture, beginning the
process of westernisation of the indigenous people. They were sometimes supported by the state
power of their own nations for instance, France occupied the Saigon Delta in spite of severe
opposition from the Indo-Chinese people because of persecution of French Catholic missionaries
and they played a role in expanding the sphere of influence of European countries. While the
quantity of missionary activity increased significantly over the period, it was not different in quality
to the missionary activity which had begun in the seventeenth century. Nevertheless, missionaries
played a pioneering role throughout the period and a crucial one in the development of European
imperialism. They not only shaped overseas territories but also influences domestic public opinion.
Along with explorers, missionary accounts of their time in foreign lands were the primary means by
which societies in Europe were informed about the condition of the countries which they occupied.
The ideal of the Christian evangelist bringing a message of salvation to the fallen savage was a
powerful one which would shape public perception. The colonies were seen as backwards,
uncivilised, in need of the education and belief systems which had become established in Europe.
Imperialism was therefore identified as a service performed by the conquerors, seeking to better the
lot of those they governed. Lastly, missionary activity created social elites within the colonies a
small group of indigenous people would abandon their traditional beliefs and customs in favour of a
Western, Christian lifestyle and culture. While not radically innovative, missionary activity should not
be overlooked as a source of and an influence on imperialism during this period.

The most important way in which the character of European imperialism changed over the course of
the long nineteenth century was that there was a dramatic shift in imperialist attitude from largely
unplanned expansion until approximately 1880 to active and deliberate annexation of colonial
territories. In the early part of our period, Americas Monroe Doctrine became a severe limiting
factor on imperialist activity in the western hemisphere, while Great Britains naval dominance
prevented true competition between the great powers of Europe on the seas. Nevertheless,
Samuel
between 1800 and 1878, the area covered by European empires expanded by 6,500,000 square
miles. Yet this dramatic expansion was almost entirely unpremeditated on the part of European
states. Even though there were some instances in which internal factors prompted acquisition, such
as the Catholic party in France pushing for Tahiti in the 1840s, new territory was mostly added as a
measure to consolidate already existing holdings the pressure to expand the imperial domain came
from external considerations to the basic European society. The French occupation of Algeria is one
example of this, because what was at first supposed to be a localised endeavour for a particular
purpose (taking Algiers to try to suppress piracy) ballooned into complete colonisation of an area
vastly beyond the scope of the initial undertaking. The British claiming of New Zealand is another
instance of that kind of reluctant formal annexation of a territory prompted by external factors, in
this case the increasing tension and conflict between Maoris and settlers. It is important to note that
before German imperialism was transformed, European imperialism was absolutely not carried out
on a basis of deliberate annexation and effective occupation of territory. For a couple of centuries
empires had been ruled with a large degree of self-autonomy, as long as the colony was compliant
with the demands of the rulers, and this did not change in the first part of our period.

However, after 1882 there was a clear and definite change in the character of European imperialism
to become much more deliberately expansionist and with a corresponding increase in the number of
participants in imperialism. In purely territorial terms, from 1878 to 1914 8,653,000 square miles
were added to European empires. Identifying the causes of the rapid increase in rate of growth and
the change in the nature of imperial rule allows us to see the ways in which the character of such
imperialism changes. Traditional interpretations have been along the lines of economic or nationalist
necessity. Another approach is to see the extension of imperialism as a reaction to developing crises
in colonial territories. These explanations do have some truth in them, but they are not conclusive in
themselves. Rather, the expansion and transformation of European imperialism in this period was
specifically caused by the impact of Bismarck beginning to claim imperial status for the German
Reich and the ensuing German claims to territory, even though the wider explanations do have some
role. The new situation which developments in Germany precipitated saw colonies as tools to be
used on the increasingly competitive global stage. Colonies were not desired so much for their
economic as for their political and diplomatic usefulness. Whereas beforehand, European states had
been content to leave unclaimed territory as independent, after Bismarcks declaration in favour of
expansive imperialism there was a drive towards explicitly and sometimes pre-emptively claiming
specific territory. As a result of this, most of Africa, Oceania and Asia had been claimed by a
European power by 1890. In addition, the process of holding an imperial domain had changed:
territories with clearly demarcated boundaries had to be annexed and occupied in a way which had
not been necessary previously because of the increased aggressive competition between powers
(partly based on nationalist tendencies). The change in the character of European imperialism over
this period led to the first attempts to systematically convert the economic dominance of the great
powers into territorial annexation and colonial administration of a kind which was unprecedented.

As a result of the increasing importance of the manner in which colonies were governed to the
colonial power, there was a change in the governmental style with which the colonies were ruled. To
protect their interests and to try to alleviate the financial burden of imperialism, the colonisers were
forced to occupy their territory more effectively than they had done before. Efficient taxation and
financial systems were needed to collect revenue and allow exploitation of natural resources, while
Samuel
police and defence forces were established to enforce order. The new colonies had to be pacified, as
they were in small wars such as the Boer War and conflicts between the British and indigenous
Africans or in the German suppression of indigenous insurrection in Tanganyika. Increased political
control was also necessitated by the fact that hostile contact between imperial powers in the
colonies was becoming more common. Britain and France came close to war over the control of
Siam and parts of south-east Asia from 1893 onwards and over the partition of East Africa from
Egypt to Uganda in 1898. Another threat to imperial control of territory which resulted in tighter
governmental control of such territory was the development of imperial powers outside of Europe.
The United States was able to annex areas such as Puerto Rico, while China and the Ottoman Empire
(to a minor extent) and Japan (more significantly, especially with regard to Russian ambitions) could
resist European imperialism. There was a general shift from a climate of relative economic freedom
and free trade towards protectionism, especially from the 1890s onwards, while colonial ministries
were developed to handle the growing task of managing burgeoning empires. As another
generalisation, government of the colonies tended to move away from direct rule to a supervised
form of self-government. This was particularly pronounced in British territories but also in French
and German domains as well. This specialisation reflects the acceptance of the fact that the
complexity of managing states within the framework of an empire had increased significantly, and so
individual ministries were needed to run each individual country.

Another way in which the character of European imperialism had changed in this period is found in
the way in which empires became a more significant topic of political conversation and there was
more popular attention on issues relating to imperial power. Technological advancement, especially
within the military, combined with expanded colonial conquests had increased the already-steep
divide between the imperialisers and the colonies. This inequality, largely seen as the result of racial
differences identified by the development of racial science by the mid-nineteenth century, was
seen to be the key dividing factor within humanity in the nineteenth century, and attempts were
made to use evolutionary biology and neo-Darwinism as explanations. The rise of nationalist politics
towards the end of the nineteenth century partly resulted in an increase in public perception of race
as a barrier between men, and these views influenced imperial policy to an extent when they had
either previously not been a factor or had not been articulated as much. Unless they were able to
match Europeans militarily, as did the Japanese and the Ottomans (up to a point), peoples outside of
Europe were seen as inferior, feeble, barbarian and unable to govern themselves with the maximum
utility. As a justification for imperialism, it was decided that Europeans had a duty to dispense
adequate justice and government and even that having an empire was actually a sacrifice on the
part of the European people! In many quarters, imperial rule being seen as a service to the
barbarians and the ensuing sense of superiority towards the colonials was hugely popular hence
the colonial exhibitions and the rise of racially-based nationalism. There is a case for saying that
popular imperialism became so significant that it actually forced Bismarck to promote the
development of a German empire in the 1880s when beforehand he had been decidedly lukewarm
and even antipathetic towards such a policy. Overall, we see a remarkably concentrated (by and
large from the 1880s to around 1905) and effective burst of pro-imperialist public opinion which
simply did not exist on the same scale earlier in the period. Popular attitudes which had remained
largely consistent were expanded in significance for a relatively brief time, and this marked a key
shift in the character of European imperialism.

Samuel
In conclusion, Bismarcks policy shift in the early 1880s towards building a German empire was the
spark behind the change in character of European imperialism to become more competitive and
much more of a significant political issue towards the end of our period. Competition resulted in
increased formalisation of colonial boundaries and the development of more effective and
authoritarian government. While it has not been possible to discuss more local versions of
imperialism, such as the conflict in aims of the German Volkisch movement and more universalist
imperialist aims, we can see that European imperialism changed significantly. The emphasis on
political control, rather than exploiting the colonies for material gain, shows how empires had
become a new tool of diplomacy and politics. Ultimately, the increased bellicosity which marked this
period would be one of the key causes of the First World War and the clash of empires which it
involved.

Bibliography
MS Anderson, The Ascendancy of Europe
Robert Gildea, Barricades and Borders
Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire
DK Fieldhouse, The Colonial Empires
Matthew P Fitzpatrick (ed.), Liberal Imperialism in Europe
WO Henderson, The German Colonial Empire