Download Document

Chapter 34: The Building of Global Empires (aka Imperialism)
Who: “Imperializers”— Basically all the western European nations (Great
Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Italy, Belgium), Russia, and later the
United States and Japan
Imperializer Individuals-Cecil Rhodes, Dr Livingstone, Henry Stanley, King Leopold
of Belgium, President Theodore Roosevelt
“Imperialized” –
-India
-Southeast Asia (regions were called the Dutch East Indies, Burma, French Indochina, Philippines,
Malay States)
-basically all of Africa (regions were called French West Africa, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Belgian
Congo, British East Africa, German East Africa, Portuguese West Africa, German Southwest Africa,
Union of South Africa), but NOT Ethiopia
-In the Pacific: Australia, New Zealand, and many small islands
Where: all over the world
LOOK AT THE MAPS ON PAGES 942, 946, and 950!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’M THE MAP I’M THE MAP
When: Modern Era, 1800s. Most imperialism took place in the late 1800s
This chapter is about how Europe used the tools, skills, knowledge, money, and power gained from their
explorations in the Early Modern Era to go out all over the world and basically take over and control other lands
in the Americas, Africa, Australia, and Asia during the Modern Era.
Objective I: Students can discuss the initial reasons for and beginnings of European imperialism, including
what made it possible and how.
1. Pg 934-935- What is imperialism and how does it differ from the empire-building of earlier time
periods in history?
Empires of course have existed since the Classical Era. But this type of empire-building is different—it refers
to “the domination of European powers—and later the United States and Japan as well—over subject lands in
the larger world.” It arose due to either force or trade and business practices that gave Europeans the upper
hand. Colonialism also has a different meaning. Back in the 1500s for example, colonialism was sending large
numbers of people to live in foreign lands. But, in the 1800s, it refers to “the political, social, economic, and
cultural structures that enabled imperial powers to dominate subject lands”, without necessarily having many
migrants move there (Bentley 935). They controlled the countries’ governmental policies, made their local
economies part of global capitalism, used European business practices, changing education, and encouraging
the spread of European culture.
2. Pg 936-938 – Analyze the motives for imperialism.
Europeans started to view imperialism as essential to the success of their country. Like pretty much
everything else in World History, it is safe to say the primary reasons for imperialism were economic. Due to
industrialization, they needed resources like rubber, tin, copper, and petroleum, which they could get from
South America, Africa, and Asia. They also thought that if they colonized, the colonies would be a great market
for the manufactured goods they were producing. But, it turns out the colonies did not buy a lot of these.
There were political reasons as well. Colonies could supply important ports and harbors for supplies or
potential military uses. The European countries competed with each other over colonization. The European
leaders also used imperialism as a way to take the focus off of communism and encourage patriotism.
Religious factors were involved also. There were many European missionaries who traveled to foreign lands
to preach the message of Jesus Christ. Most of course opposed imperialism as unfair and oppressive, but the
imperialists used the old “helping the heathens” and “saving their souls” lines to justify taking over their
lands and using them. The missionaries often unintentionally helped with communication, obtained vital
information, and provided places for meeting and distribution of European goods.
Some Europeans also felt it was their duty to help make those poor heathen countries more civilized,
bringing European culture and values into those lands. See Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden”
on pg 937.
3. Pg 938-939 – Describe what enabled Europeans to colonize large parts of the world and explain
how those things enabled them to colonize.
All the desire to imperialize in the world would not have made it happen without the tools and knowledge to
do so. Ever since gunpowder was introduced to Europe in the 13 th century, the nations of Europe were always
trying to obtain better weapons than their neighbors. Plus the industrial revolution brought many new
inventions and made production of goods much easier. The British used steam power to create more effective
ships armed with guns. These ships could easily infiltrate far into foreign lands, and the construction of canals
also helped this. Once on land, railroads help them keep control and manipulate local economies, since officials
could travel easily and ensure everything was the way they wanted and goods could be easily shipped.
Weapons helped Europeans impose their rule, and basically the native peoples were no match for European
guns. Communication also improved with better transportation and underwater telegraph wires.
Objective II: Students can describe the processes of and features of European Imperialism.
1. Pg 940-941 – Explain the progression of British rule in India.
The British started their presence in India back in the 17th century with the English East India Company. After
the Mughal emperor died, it started to decline, and the British took advantage of this Indian weakness to
expand its own claims in India. The merchants basically set up forts and started conquering, with both British
and Indian troops, called sepoys. The Sepoy Mutiny arose because the British distributed bullets covered in
paper with animal fat on them. The British told the sepoys to tear them off with their teeth, but the Hindu
Indians didn’t want to because they were afraid the fat came from cows, which Hindus consider holy, while the
Muslim Indians didn’t want to because they were afraid the fat came from pigs, which Muslims don’t eat.
Even though the British figured this out and changed the bullets, the sepoys rebelled. When both peasants and
elites joined them, the rebellion became quite big. But the rebels had different agendas and plans, so they could
not come together to fight against the British.
The British crushed this revolt and in response, Queen Victoria set up direct imperial rule in India. It was
administered by a viceroy and a British-staffed bureaucracy. The British made all domestic and foreign policy for
India. They transformed India by cutting down forests, encouraging valuable crops like tea, coffee, and opium
to be grown; building railroads, telegraph lines, canals, harbors, and irrigation systems to improve commerce
and agriculture and link India to the global economy.
While they did not promote Christianity very much, they made the elite children go to English-style rule
because they thought they would support the British when they grew up. They also suppressed Indian customs
like the sati, which is where widows would through themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre.
2. Pg 941-943 – Analyze the process of European imperialism in central and Southeast Asia.
Europe competed over central Asia, called the “Great Game”. Russia was also interested in India. Russia
and Britain explored into central Asia, in preparation for a future war with India (this war would never happen
due to the outbreak of WWI and the fall of the Russian dynasty). In SE Asia, the Philippines had been under the
control of Spain since the 16th century, and the Dutch East Indies (modern Indonesia) were under the Dutch
since the 17th. In both these places, the Europeans tightened their control. Britain took over Burma, Singapore,
and Malaya in the late 1800s. The French created French Indochina (modern Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) in
the late 1800s. The French, unlike the British, encouraged Christianity. The only part of SE Asia which wasn’t
under European control was Thailand (which means “the land of the free”) since the Europeans used it as a
buffer state to prevent conflict.
***Must Know***
3. Pg 944-948 – Analyze the process of European imperialism in Africa.
In Africa was the biggest incidence of imperialism. By 1875, Europe had only a limited presence in Africa—a
few small territories and trading posts. From 1875-1900, Europe basically took over the whole continent. In
order to do this, they had to have information about the interior of Africa, which came to them from explorers
like Dr Livingstone, a Scottish missionary and Henry Stanley, an American journalist who went in search of Dr
Livingstone. Especially useful was knowledge of the rivers which would help them infiltrate Africa. King
Leopold, in order to beat the other Europeans to it, took over the Congo region and used forced labor to
harvest rubber.
In South Africa, the Dutch East India Company had had a presence there since the 1600s. More Dutch
(called either Boers or Afrikaners) started moving to South Africa, so they had to expand into native South
African lands. They easily defeated them due to their better weaponry and enslaving them, plus they had the
help of smallpox (making connections?).
The British took over the Cape during the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815), so the Dutch had to move further
into Africa, defeating more native Africans. They considered their successes to be a sign that God was with them.
The Dutch having land was fine with the British, until they realized there were diamonds and gold there. The
movement of British miners onto Dutch land eventually caused the South African War (1899-1902, aka Boer
War). They locked up 100,000 Africans in concentration camps, which is weird since they weren’t even
involved, but racism sometimes just doesn’t make since. Actually most of the time. But anyway, The British
won, but hostilities still existed.
In order to settle the matter of who gets what and prevent future conflict, the Europeans met at the Berlin
West Africa Conference (1884-1885) split up Africa. Guess who wasn’t there? A single African. The Europeans
said any European state could make a colony as long as the land was “unclaimed” and they let the other
Europeans know. The Europeans were like Sweet! and went off to colonize. Their new guns easily beat the
Africans old guns and spears. They took over all of Africa except Ethiopia (LOOK AT THE MAP).
They thought it would be easy to control their colonies. They thought they could just go in, take over
everything, and use the people and their resources. They thought they would have no problems. They thought
wrong. Coming this summer to a theatre near you, Imperialism: A Major Pain in the … Just kidding.
The Europeans administered their colonies through either direct (mostly the French) or indirect (mostly the
English) rule.
Direct rule: Europeans were in charge of administrative districts and collected taxes, recruited for labor or the
military, and maintained law and order. They used boundary lines to divide up African groups to weaken them.
They wanted to have control over the Africans and “civilize” them. But there were obstacles to direct rule:
there were very few Europeans to actually have control, transportation and communication were slow, and they
didn’t understand native languages or cultures.
Indirect rule: As a result of all these problems with direct rule, some Europeans turned to allowing African
laws and customs to reign. Or what they thought were African laws and customs. Indirect rule worked in places
where the Africans already had strong structures set up, but elsewhere the Europeans misunderstood African
customs and it just created confusion and conflict, that later hindered the Africans’ ability to rebuild their
nations post-colonialism in the late 1900s.
4. Pg 949-951 – Explain the process of European imperialism in the Pacific Basin.
Captain James Cook explored Australia in the 1700s, and he was followed by large amounts of convicts.
Then came the sheep herders and gold miners in the 1800s. They also started settling in New Zealand. The
Europeans came in, spread their diseases, took over their “unused” land (like the Native Americans, the
Aborigines moved around and so left land unoccupied for some time, but it wasn’t like it was unused), evicted
the Aborigines and put them on reservations, forced them to sign unequal treaties, etc.
The Europeans also took over many Pacific Islands, using them as ports and sources of raw goods like sugar,
coconut, nickel, and guano—bird droppings used for fertilizer  Yea!
5. Pg 951-954 – Compare/contrast US imperialism with Japanese imperialism.
US
Both
Japan
-The US itself existed because of
-Were both
-Had industrialized due to the Meiji Reforms
European imperialism (remember, the
newly
-Japan resented the unequal treaties it had with
US was a colony)
industrialized
the US and European states, so it wanted to prove
-Like in Australia, they pushed the
countries eager
itself as a powerful country. It set up more
Native Americans onto reservations
to show
democratic structures and started imperializing
-In 1823 President Monroe issued the
themselves
-They took over some islands, and then turned
Monroe Doctrine which called the US
mighty on the
towards Korea, and made them sign the same kind
the “protectorate” of N and S
world stage,
of unequal treaty that Japan had to sign with the
America, which means that we had
but the US was
US (they’ve obviously never heard of the Golden
the right to interfere with whatever
a pretty new
Rule-or the Golden Horde…hahaha)
happened there
country,
-The Sino-Japanese War: Korea was rebelling
-The US acquired Alaska and Hawaii
whereas Japan
against foreign rule, and both China and Japan
as territories
was old
were fighting to maintain order and control. Japan
-The Spanish-American War (1898-
-Acquired new
declared war on China. The Japanese navy
1899): the US defeated Spain and
territories, but
destroyed the Chinese navy in 5 hours, and pushed
gained Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, and
Japan was
the Chinese completely out of Korea, making
the Philippines
more through
Korea a dependency of Japan. Japan also got
-The US wanted easier transportation
military
Taiwan and other islands. Japan then made
and communication between the
strength, and
unequal treaties with China
Atlantic and the Pacific, so President
the US through
-The Russo-Japanese War: Russia did not like all
Theodore Roosevelt encouraged
economic
the success Japan was having, so they started
Panama to secede from Colombia,
manipulation
fighting over Korea and Manchuria. The Japanese
and they the Panama Canal. A man, a
-Both emerged
navy also beat the Russian navy and gained more
plan, a canal - Panama!
as major
territory.
industrial
Japan had finally become a major imperial power!
powers
Domo arigato!
Objective III: Students can describe the effects of European Imperialism on both Europe and the lands that
Europe colonized.
1. Pg 954-956 – Describe the economic changes engendered by imperialism.
The European nations wanted natural resources and agricultural products, so they sought out and
reorganized colonies to become great producers of things like “timber, rubber, petroleum, gold, silver,
diamonds, cotton, tea, coffee, cacao” (Bentley 955). Sometimes this totally changed local economies and
production. For example, India had throughout most of history been the principal producer of cotton. When
the British took over, they had them grow it for export and built railroads to ship it. England then received the
cotton and made manufactured textiles with it. Therefore India was more encouraged to make the natural good
cotton rather than the finished product cotton. This reflects the trend of colonies becoming suppliers of raw
goods and consumers of manufactured goods that were made elsewhere.
Other effects were new crops introduced, creating new groups of laborers for different forms of production,
and higher quality goods being made to all classes, not just the elite.
2. Pg 956-958 – Describe the large-scale migrations that occurred as a result of imperialism.
LOOK AT THE MAP PG 957!!!!
There were 2 distinct patterns that occurred: Europeans moved to temperate regions where they were free
harvesters or industrial laborers and Asians, Africans, and Pacific Islanders moved to tropical and subtropical
lands where they were indentured laborers on plantations or manual laborers in mining or construction. These
two patterns completely changed many societies.
1800-1914-50 million Europeans left somewhat poor agricultural S and E Europe (Italy, Russia, Poland) as
well as Britain, Ireland, Germany. 32 million went to the US and worked in the factories of the NW US. They also
went to Canada, Argentine, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa to work as farmers or herders of in mines.
Most were free, but some were indentured servants, and most were helped by European imperialism to find
jobs.
1820-1914-2.5 indentured laborers left Asia, Africa, and the Pacific islands to work on plantations (since
slavery had been abolished, the plantations still needed laborers. Indentured servitude was a nice substitute).
Indentured servants sign a contract to work for 5-7 years, and in return their employer pays for them to travel
there, and provides them with food, shelter, clothing, and some pay. Most indentured laborers came from India.
Indentured servants went to the Americas, the Caribbean, Africa, and Oceania. After the Opium Wars, employers
sought workers from China. Same for Japan after the Meiji restoration.
The effects of these migrations demonstrated the global impact of imperial powers. The European
migrations were only made possible since there already existed European colonies in those temperate regions of
the world. Indentured laborers only migrated because the Europeans were able to recruit them and send them
to mines and industries that were already set up in their colonies. The mix of cultures was also huge, needless to
say. (So why did I just say it? Why do people say needless to say? I feel like Demetri Martin right now)
3. Pg 958-959 – Analyze the global social effects of imperialism.
Do not think the native peoples of the European colonies simply rolled over and said, “it’s all yours”. Oh
no. They revolted against foreign rule, “tyrannical behavior” (I love that phrase…it’s kind of an oxymoron),
European-style schools, high taxes, and economic control (Bentley 958). Many rebellions were based on native
religions. For example, the Sepoy Mutiny. Or the Maji Maji rebellion (1905-1906) in Tanganyika was led by a
prophet. They sprinkled themselves with “magic water” to protect them from German weapons. 75,000 died.
Still, even though their weapons were inferior, the native peoples all over the world kept rebelling, or they would
do subversive acts like boycotts, political parties, publishing anti-colonial newspapers, or preaching against
colonial rule. Imperialism brought people of very diverse cultures, classes, races, customs, and backgrounds into
frequent and close contact. The people not only fought against the Europeans, but sometimes between tribes
against other workers of different races, especially after the large labor migrations.
“Scientific racism” arose, which sought a scientific justification for European superiority. They classified
Africans as “unintelligent and lazy” and Europeans as “intelligent, noble, and morally superior to others”
(Bentley 959).This is totally ridiculous, but it shows that they are trying to justify that they are better.
Some also misinterpreted Darwin’s survival of the fittest to mean that, since the Europeans were able to
take over the other lands, they must be better than those other races, so they are entitled to rule over them and
entirely justified in doing so. This is called Social Darwinism.
Most people, however, didn’t need some scientific reason to be racist. They just were, based on
perceptions or their interpretations of personal experience. Like if one black person does something wrong, all
of them must be morally inferior.
Don’t think it was just white people who were racist. No, it was the imperial countries (who mostly
happened to be mostly white, except for Japan) who were racist against the “imperialized”. Japan was also
very racist against the Koreans and the Chinese and considered it their duty to “help civilize their little Asian
brothers” (Bentley 960).
4. Pg 960-962 – Explain how nationalistic and anti-colonial movements sprang up in imperialized
countries as a result of foreign rule.
Other aspects of fighting back against the imperial authorities were nationalistic and anti-colonial
movements. In response to the imposition of foreign customs, the native people fought back with nationalism,
or feeling proud of and supporting their own ethnicity and cultural background. They also sometimes
transformed that national identity to press for more reform. For example, the “father of modern India”, Ram
Mohan Roy called for a mixture of European science and Indian, Hindu tradition. India was a hotbed for reform
societies, and these increasingly called for independence, greater Indian control, freedom, equality, etc. (I do
wonder wherever they got these ideas from….could it be because they had been educated by the Europeans
who were probably teaching them Enlightenment values???? Hmm, no it’s probably just some weird historical
coincidence.) The most important of these groups was the Indian National Congress, “founded in 1885 with
British approval”—oh if only they could have known what would happen about 80 years later…But don’t we
all wish that? It was supposed to be a forum for educated Indians to voice their opinions on things like poverty,
wealth, trade policies, relief strategies for crises like famine (or the lack thereof—see picture pg 961). They later
pressed for Indian self-rule while Britain still technically held it as a colony, and they joined up with the All-India
Muslim League (it’s like MLB but for cricket, just kidding). Muslims were about 25% of the population.
By popular demand, the British allowed some Indians some voting rights. But the movement was too strong
and they insisted on immediate independence, using demonstrations, boycotts, and sometimes violence like
bombings and assassinations. This would provide a strong foundation for the eventual independence from
colonial rule in 1947!!!! Go India! This Indian independence movement also later would inspire other lands. “IN
ALMOST ALL CASES THE LEADERS OF THESE MOVEMENTS WERE EUROPEAN-EDUCATED ELITES WHO
ABSORBED ENLIGHTENMENT VALUES AND THEN TURNED THOSE VALUES INTO AN ATTACK ON EUROPEAN
COLONIAL RULE IN FOREIGN LANDS” (Bentley 962, emphasis mine). Ahh, history. Gotta love the irony.