Chapter 2 Review Questions Answer Key

Imperialism and the Colonial Experience
  1. In common usage, “imperialism” refers to the era of European expansion that began in the 16th century when Europeans created empires of trade in the Americas and Asia and, to a lesser extent, Africa. African territory did not, for the most part, come under imperial control or witness colonization (outside of Algeria and South Africa) until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The word “imperialism” itself refers to a political system by which colonies are ruled from a central seat of power in the pursuit of largely if not entirely economic goals. The relationship of imperialism and colonial rule with development has drawn great interest from scholars, politicians, and policy-makers alike, and many have sought to explain how European imperial expansion led to or prevented development in those areas of the world now considered to be developing countries. Few would question that colonial rule had an impact on economic development in colonized territories, but there is no consensus on just what kind of development European imperialism (and colonialism) brought about in Africa, the Americas, and Asia. [pp. 27-8]
  2. Many scholars believe that economic motives linked to the Industrial Revolution launched the classic “high” imperialism of the second half of the nineteenth century. According to this view, the expansion of European empires was undertaken as part of a search for new markets: economic returns within Europe were dwindling, and industrial capitalism had to search abroad for new investment opportunities and consumers. Renewed expansion and the creation of new colonies were thus necessary because most of Europe still practised protectionist trade policies. [p. 26]
  3. In the same way that an earlier generation of colonial policy-makers had aimed to foster cultural transformation and “evolution” in Indigenous societies in keeping with a belief that the European model presented a natural path to progress, colonial planners now demonstrated faith that an economic makeover would set African societies on a similarly inevitable path. The increasingly advanced degree of political mobilization in postwar African colonies made colonial administrations wary of overly forceful implementation and occasionally responsive to African opposition to some projects. The turn toward development of Indigenous societies came at a time when the inevitability of Indian independence was becoming clear, but in Africa, colonial rulers saw development plans in part as a way to return the mercurial genie of nationalist sentiment back into its bottle. Such efforts only made more visible an inherent contradiction of colonial rule: if Africans and Asians were indeed so different (and inferior) as to need domination “for their own good,” how could they possibly take advantage of new investments and opportunities now offered as the justification of colonial over-rule? Those who sought to extend empire’s twilight only found greater challenges after World War II as people in the colonies embraced the principles on which the Allies had fought, such as rights to freedom from foreign domination and national self-determination. [p. 36]
  4. Nationalist sentiment, which flourished at the end of the nineteenth century, played an important role in driving colonial expansion. Thus, the emergence of Germany and Italy as unified states was a key factor, especially for France, an older imperial power now concerned with its German neighbour’s new expansionary activity. Nearly all of Europe’s nations, however, were preoccupied with attaining the degree of prestige and sense of greatness they believed was their due. This explanation is often deployed to account for the outsized role played by Belgium and Portugal, two small and relatively minor European powers whose involvement in the “scramble for Africa” had no clear connection to political or economic interests, yet both countries ended up with vast African colonies. [p. 27]
  5. The Dutch and English soon created chartered companies—the Dutch and English East India companies—in an effort to enlist private investment in the service of empire. The English East India Company, established in 1600, was followed 70 years later in British North America with the formation of the Hudson’s Bay Company, which had effective control over all the lands draining into Hudson Bay. The French organized similar companies in an effort to compete, while the Portuguese Crown retained more direct control. The recruitment of private capital by the English and Dutch proved a shrewd decision, for it broadened the financial base for expansionary activity and provided a sturdier platform that better withstood the cut and thrust of imperial rivalries. [p. 28]
  6. Some scholars target the period from 1870 to 1914 as the era of “high” imperialism. In this era of “high” im­perialism, Africa occupied centre stage, with Belgium, England, France, Germany, Portugal, Italy, and Spain all establishing African colonies, albeit the last two lim­ited to comparatively small territories. The last two decades of the nineteenth century saw Europeans burst forth from scattered coastal enclaves, some of which they had held for centuries, to seize the entire continent, except for Ethiopia. Many scholars believe that economic motives linked to the Industrial Revolution launched the classic “high” imperialism of this period. According to this view, the expansion of European empires was undertaken as part of a search for new markets: economic returns within Europe were dwindling, and industrial capitalism had to search abroad for new investment opportunities and consum­ers. Renewed expansion and the creation of new colo­nies were thus necessary because most of Europe still practised protectionist trade policies. Another approach also focuses on Europe but combines political and economic factors to explain the rapid expansion of empire. According to this view, “Great Power” rivalry, most especially among Britain, France, and Germany, drove Europeans to seize territories as yet unclaimed in Southeast Asia and Africa. European leaders saw the opportu­nity to expand as part of a zero-sum game, and in light of the tensions and rivalries that existed in crowded Europe, none were content to wait while any of their neighbours moved ahead, especially after the discov­ery of diamonds (1867) and gold (1886) in South Africa. Associated with the Great Power explanation is the belief in the important role played by national­ist sentiment, which flourished at the end of the nineteenth century. Thus, the emergence of Germany and Italy as unified states was a key factor, especially for France, an older imperial power now concerned with its German neighbour’s new expansionary activity. Nearly all of Europe’s nations, however, were preoccupied with at­taining the degree of prestige and sense of greatness they believed was their due. [pp. 26-7, 31]
  7. The theory posited by English scholar John Hobson and also strongly associated with Vladimir Lenin (the Russian revolutionary and theorist who helped to end the rule of Russia’s Romanov dynasty and launch the October Revolution in 1917, bringing forth the Soviet Union), believes that economic motives linked to the Industrial Revolution launched the classic “high” imperialism of this period. According to this view, the expansion of European empires was undertaken as part of a search for new markets: economic returns within Europe were dwindling, and industrial capitalism had to search abroad for new investment opportunities and consumers. Renewed expansion and the creation of new colonies were thus necessary because most of Europe still practised protectionist trade policies. This economic explanation offers an appealing logic, and the emphasis on the role of capitalism dovetails neatly with the eventual exploitation, most especially of African labour, that followed during the era of “high” imperialism. The Hobson–Lenin thesis nonetheless has its critics, among them economic historians who point to the limited investment made in the new overseas colonies, as well as other scholars who find the model places too much importance on impersonal economic structures in general and ignores any role Asians and Africans may have played in particular. [pp. 26-7]
  8. Throughout the colonial period, imperial powers remained ambivalent about the endeavour and sought to use private chartered companies for expansion as well as to govern on the cheap through indirect rule. Despite important differences across countries, the colonial experience has played an important role in structuring developing societies in the post-colonial world. Indeed, the first concerns for “development” emerged as the colonial powers responded to national struggles for self-determination after World War II. Political and economic inequalities between individual countries (and within them) and world regions, often with origins in the imperial era, continue to figure in relations between the Global North and South. Finally, many of the questions and themes in development—including, but not only, the importance of gender, culture, and indigeneity; accounting for sustainability and environmental impact; and the effect of politics, such as socialism and capitalism and the state in general—have clear antecedents in the “pre-history” of development during the colonial era. [p. 39]
  9. Southern Europe’s interactions with largely Muslim traders were an important factor in Portuguese and Spanish decisions to embark on the seafaring explorations that led to Europe’s more direct contact with a wider world. The kingdoms of Portugal and Spain had only been established following the centuries-long military reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula (completed in 1492), territory the Christian rulers had seized from its Muslim occupants. This foundational conflict was one impulse that led the Spanish and Portuguese to confront their North African neighbours. Accordingly, in 1415 Portuguese forces invaded Ceuta, a city whose wealth made it known to the Portuguese as the “flower of all other cities of Africa.” The assault was successful, and following their conquest and occupation of the city, the Portuguese learned more about the sources of its great wealth, such as its access to a gold trade that came from points south of the Sahara northwards into the Mediterranean world. The motives for expansion were thus at once political-religious, born of a competitive tension with Muslim neighbours, and economic, owing to ambitious Europeans’ desire for more direct access to goods—not only gold but spices and textiles as well. The desire for more direct trade with African and Asian societies, eliminating Muslim middlemen, was fulfilled in the vast seaborne expansion during the sixteenth century. Spain and Portugal established their previously unplanned presence in the Americas and created footholds in Africa and Asia. They were soon joined by the French, the English, and the Dutch, leading to several centuries of expansion, occupation, and competition among the European empire-builders for control over these far-flung sources of wealth, power, and glory. [p. 25]
  10. An approach to explaining the rapid expansion of empire focuses on Europe but combines political and economic factors. According to this view, “Great Power” rivalry, most especially among Britain, France, and Germany, drove Europe’s statesmen in a rush to seize territories as yet unclaimed in Southeast Asia and Africa. European leaders saw the opportunity to expand as part of a zero-sum game, and in light of the tensions and rivalries that existed in crowded Europe, none were content to wait while any of their neighbours moved ahead, especially after the discovery of diamonds (1867) and gold (1886) in South Africa. Although a desire to secure access to strategically important industrial inputs, such as rubber, or to gain control over areas long believed to possess great riches, such as parts of tropical Africa, was not irrelevant, this understanding emphasizes the imperial powers’ race to keep pace with their neighbours. [p. 27]
Back to top