Alexander Grinberg
Understanding Modern Imperialism
Osterhammel’s “Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview” addresses a significant topic, colonialism, and imperialism. Both topics are multifaceted and played an essential role in the development of many nations. Unfortunately, while some played the role as the imperial or a colonizer, the others were on the receiving end. Osterhammel argued that the root of colonization was a system through domination with the “notion of expansion of a society beyond its original habitat” (Osterhammel, p.4). He also notes that there were various permutations within his six forms of expansion. Osterhammel draws on the Roman Empire as a classic example of “empire-building” as well as the Dutch and their use of colonies for their financial prowess. His first goal is to define and compare ancient imperialism/colonialism with its “modern” counterparts. Secondly, Osterhammel attempts to showcase the distinctiveness between ancient and modern imperialism/colonialism.
Osterhammel’s defines imperialism/colonialism and attempts to categorize its various flavors. He describes colonialism as a “relationship of domination between an indigenous (or forcibly imported majority and a minority of foreign invaders)” (Osterhammel, p. 16). Typically, the relationship between a growing empire and its interests are that of conflict. The defending nation is forced to accept the presence of a new stronger entity. Typically, the focus of an empire is the acquisition of more resources and possibly infused with a leader’s individualistic dreams of domination and expansion. Likewise, colonialism had a mother country where its newfound colonies act as branches supporting the host. For example, the primary purpose of many Caribbean colonies was to provide commodities that would primarily benefit the host/mother country. Osterhammel draws distinctions through examining the psychological changes and justifications behind ancient and early modern imperialism/colonialism.
Compared to ancient imperialism/colonialism, its early modern successor relies on justifying its system. Osterhammel notes that early modern imperialism/colonialism “is based on the will to make ‘peripheral’ societies subservient to the ‘metropolises’” (Osterhammel, p. 15). He argues that empires would need to justify their control and their relationship with their colonies. For example, the “White Man’s Burden” was amongst the countless pieces of literature put forth to justify colonization in the early modern era. It was the duty of the empire to help and civilize. While yes, we have seen examples of such justification in ancient history with “Hellenization,” however early modern imperialism is much more reliant its propaganda. As such, various nations experimented with means of control without overbearing the colony. Nations attempted to maintain informal colonies where they controlled the host through trade dominance, while others relied on an iron fist.
Burbank and Cooper, examine early modern colonialism and the motives of these western-colonizing powers. Unlike ancient imperialism, early modern colonialism placed Europe into a “competitive world of empires – a small number of them – each drawing on supranational resources” (Burbank and Cooper, 314). These powers worked against each other, trying to grow their prestige and economic prowess while maintaining some balance of power. Africa is just one example of vast territory divided by smaller western powers. As technology evolved, these European powers had an easier time conquering numerically superior nations.
Daniel R. Headrick argued in his paper that the development of technology in an age of early modern imperialism made conquest much easier and even more appealing. ve hours the strongest and best-armed savage army yet arrayed against a modern European power had been destroyed and dispersed, with hardly any difficulty” (HeadrickHeadrick addresses in his argument that change in technology also changed local resistance tactics. Locals relied on guerilla warfare over direct assaults (260). In fact, the Anglo
King Leopold’s control of the Congo is one example of some of the brutal methods used to control a colonized province. Hochschild focuses on the Congo in his book, King Leopold’s Ghost. He argues that “A major reason he (King Leopold) was able to get his hands on so much is that other countries thought that they were giving their approval to a sort of international colony… open to traders from all of Europe” (Hochschild 86). In reality, King Leopold administered a harsh regime with the support of his created Force Publique, a military unit composed of willing Congolese and Belgian officers. Under his rule, millions were brutalized. While his method of control even shocked the British and French, these other nations weren’t innocent either. Control of a colony in the early modern era proved to be a harsh and a horrid time for the locals. Hochschild states that “in all of Africa, the colonizers wrote the school textbooks; together with widespread book banning and press censorship, this accomplished the act of forgetting for the written record…textbooks for Africans praised Leopold” (Hochschild 299). Belgium’s behavior in the Congo would lead them to restructure their control and later, organize a strong propaganda campaign and censorship program to reinforce their rule.
While Osterhammel outlined the differences between ancient and early modern imperialism, individuals like Hochschild and Burbank/Cooper showcased to the reader the gritty nature of colonialism. Europeans used every available means to control their populations, through class warfare such as in India, to mass mutilations in the Congo by King Leopold of Belgium. This was a period where the ‘great powers’ took territory as part of the great game, an almost game board competition between empires where colonies were game pieces to be used and maneuvered. Unfortunately, it would take two world wars to disrupt this order and remove these European powers, but not before leaving a trail of destruction.
Working Definitions
Colonialism: This is a form of imperialism where there is a relationship between the local population and the host country. The local population is subservient to the host country.
Imperialism: It is a national policy the enforcing the position that the host country must put all efforts in maintaining and growing its trans-colonial empire.
Colony: The local entity that has been dominated by the stronger host country.
Empire: it’s broken into a formal, an informal empire, or a non-colonial “determinant” influence. A formal empire is where the local political structure is removed, and replaced with a new administrative entity representing the host country. An informal empire is where there is quasi-colonial control. The weak local state is left but falls under the host’s sovereignty. The host country acts as a “big brother,” protecting the weak country in exchange for certain policies and economic changes. The weak country is nothing more than a client state. In a non-colonial determinant influence, the relationship between the powerful host and the local country is that there is an unequal balance of power. The host country has a much stronger political and economic prowess, which influences the local country’s politics.
Colonialist Ideology: Osterhammel breaks down this concept into three components: “Anthropological counterparts: the construction of inferior ‘other-ness,’” belief in mission and guardianship, and utopia of non-politics. The first point argues the notion that there is a difference, both physically and mentally, between the Europeans and their non-European counterparts. We see studies in eugenics as well as pseudoscience like phrenology. It was a racist belief that Europeans are genetically superior to other people. The second point is simply the belief in the right and duty of the civilized conquerors to rule. The last point loses weight after WWI. However, this utopia was the idea of removing politics from governance and treating colonization solely as an administrative and an economic matter.
Cylindro-conoidal bullet: The cylindro-conoidal bullet was developed and moved small arms away from muzzle loading weapons. This created two important effects, increased rate of fire and effective range. As the colonizing powers fought the locals, they were able to use fewer soldiers and yet achieve the same results. These types of bullets further developed rifling.
“Steamers”/Steamboat: Headrick mentions the steamboat in that it allowed Europeans to sail up a river and more quickly throughout Africa. This enabled quicker expansion and trade growth.
Maxim gun: The Maxim gun was one of the earliest machine guns in military history. As a fully automatic weapon, not fully modernized armies were completely devastated. Headrick quotes Churchill who pointed out that these weapons ended battles shortly with devastating losses to the enemy.
Smokeless powder: this development completely changed warfare. As it was smokeless, soldiers could easily see what they were aiming. At the same time, this required armies to adopt early camouflage and “earth color” fatigues as they realized that bright uniforms make easy targets.
Questions for Further Inquiry
- Was there a silver lining to colonization?
- Was “might makes right” an ethical decision for a state to follow?
About the Image
My image is a painting of “the white man’s burden.” In this picture, we see a clash between “civilization” and “barbarism.” Like in the essay, this painting glorifies the dangerous task that the British Empire undertook in civilizing its indigenous “savages.”