choose one question to answer and answer it in 10 sentences

Week 6 European Imperialism

Thomas Daniell (1789-1840)

Charles Warre Malet, Concluding a Treaty in 1790 in Durbar with the Peshwa Maratha Empire

(1805)

Thomas Jones Barker (1815-1882)

The Secret of England’s Greatness (Queen Victoria Presenting a Bible in the Audience Chamber

at Windsor), c. 1863

*

Cover of a French textbook by Georges Dascher (c. 1900)

John Burke (c. 1843-1900)

General Roberts Inspecting the Captured Guns 1880

From the Kabul War Album

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The White Man’s Burden,

Take up the White Man's burden—

Send forth the best ye breed—

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need;

To wait in heavy harness

On fluttered folk and wild—

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden—

In patience to abide,

To veil the threat of terror

And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple,

An hundred times made plain.

To seek another's profit,

And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden—

The savage wars of peace—

Fill full the mouth of Famine

And bid the sickness cease;

And when your goal is nearest

The end for others sought,

Watch Sloth and heathen Folly

Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden—

No tawdry rule of kings,

But toil of serf and sweeper—

The tale of common things.

The ports ye shall not enter,

The roads ye shall not tread,

Go make them with your living,

And mark them with your dead!

Take up the White Man's burden—

And reap his old reward:

The blame of those ye better,

The hate of those ye guard—

The cry of hosts ye humour

(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—

"Why brought ye us from bondage,

Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden—

Ye dare not stoop to less—

Nor call too loud on Freedom

To cloak your weariness;

By all ye cry or whisper,

By all ye leave or do,

The silent, sullen peoples

Shall weigh your Gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden—

Have done with childish days—

The lightly profferred laurel,

The easy, ungrudged praise.

Comes now, to search your manhood

Through all the thankless years,

Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,

The judgment of your peers!

Jules Ferry, SPEECH BEFORE

THE FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Jules Ferry (1832-1893) was a French politician who twice served as premier during the Third

Republic, the name of the French government from 1871 until 1940. Ferry was an ardent

imperialist, and during his premierships France annexed Tunisia and parts of Indochina and

began exploring parts of Africa. In debates in the French National Assembly he frequently

defended his policies against socialist and conservative critics, who for different reasons

opposed French imperialism. The following selection from his speech on July 28, 1885,

summaries his reasons for supporting French expansionism and also sheds light on his

opponents' views.

Speech by Jules Ferry at the National Assembly

M. JULES FERRY Gentlemen, it embarrasses me to make such a prolonged demand upon the

gracious attention of the Chamber, but I believe that the duty I am fulfilling upon this platform is

not a useless one: It is as strenuous for me as for you, but I believe that there is some benefit in

summarizing and condensing, in the form of arguments, the principles, the motives, and the

various interests by which a policy of colonial expansion may be justified; it goes without saying

that I will try to remain reasonable, moderate, and never lose sight of the major continental

interests which are the primary concern of this country. What I wish to say, to support this

proposition, is that in fact, just as in word, the policy of colonial expansion is political and

economic system; I wish to say that one can relate this system to three orders of ideas: economic

ideas, ideas of civilization in its highest sense, and ideas of politics and patriotism.

In the area of economics, I allow myself to place before you, with the support of some figures,

the considerations which justify a policy of colonial expansion from the point of view of that

need, felt more and more strongly by the industrial populations of' Europe and particularly those

of our own rich and hard working Country: the need for export markets. Is this some kind of

chimera? Is this a view of the future or is it not rather a pressing need, and, we could say, the cry

of our industrial population? I will formulate only In a general way what each of you, in the

different parts of France, is in a position to confirm. Yes, what is lacking for our great industry,

drawn irrevocably on to the path of exportation by the (free trade) treaties of 1860, what it lacks

more and more is export markets. Why? Because next door to us Germany is surrounded by

barriers, because beyond the ocean, the United States of America has become protectionist,

protectionist in the most extreme sense, because not only have these great markets, I will not say

closed but shrunk, and thus become more difficult of access for our industrial products, but also

these great scares are beginning to pour products not seen heretofore into our own markets . . . .

It is not necessary to pursue this demonstration any further. . . .

. . . Gentlemen, there is a second point, a second order of ideas to which I have to give equal

attention, but as quickly as possible, believe me; it is the humanitarian and civilizing side of the

question. On this point the honorable M. Camille Pelletan2 has jeered in his own refined and

clever manner; he jeers, he condemns, and he says "What is this civilization which you impose

with cannon-balls? What is it but another form of barbarism? Don't these populations, these

inferior races, have the same rights as you? Aren't they masters of their own houses? Have they

called upon you? You come to them against their will, you offer them violence, but not

civilization. "There, gentlemen, is the thesis I do not hesitate to say that this is not politics, nor is

it history: it is political metaphysics. ("Ah, Ah" on far left.)3

. . . Gentlemen, I must speak from a higher and more truthful plane. It must be stared openly that,

in effect, Superior races have rights over inferior races. (Movement on many benches on the far

left.)

M. JULES MAIGNE Oh! You dare to say this in the country which has proclaimed the rights of

man!

M. DE GUILLOUTET This is a justification of slavery and the slave trade!

M. JULES FERRY If M. Maigne is right, if the declaration of the rights of man was written for

the blacks of equatorial Africa, then by what right do you impose regular commerce upon them?

They have not called upon you.

M. RAOUL DUVAL We do not want to impose anything upon them. It is you who wish to do

so!

M. JULES MAIGNE To propose and to impose are two different things!

M. GEORGES PERIN4 In any case, you cannot bring about commerce by force.

M. JULES FERRY I repeat that superior races have a right, because they have a duty. They have

the duty to civilize inferior races. . . . (Approbation from the left. New interruptions the extreme

left and from the right.) . . . .

That is what I have to answer M. Pelletan in regard to the second point upon which he touched.

He then touched upon a third, more delicate, more serious point, and upon which I ask your

permission to express myself quite frankly. It is the political side of the question. The honorable

M. Pelletan, who is a distinguished writer, always comes up with remarkably precise

formulations. I will borrow from him the one which lie applied the other day to this aspect of

colonial policy.

.. It is a system," he says, "which consists of seeking out compensations in the Orient with a

Circumspect and peaceful seclusion which is actually imposed upon us in Europe."

I would like to explain myself in regard to this. I do not like this word "compensation," and, in

effect, not here but elsewhere it has often been used in a treacherous way. If what is being said or

insinuated is that a republican minister could possibly believe that there are in any part of the

world compensations for the disasters which we have experienced,5 an injury is being inflicted . .

. and an injury undeserved by that government. (Applause at the center and left.) I will ward off

this injury with all the force of my patriotism! (New applause and bravos from the same benches.

)

Gentlemen, there are certain considerations which merit the attention of all patriots. The

conditions of naval warfare have been profoundly altered. ("Very true, Very true"')

At this time, as you know, a warship cannot carry more than fourteen days' worth of coal, no

matter how perfectly it is organized, and a ship which is out of coal is a derelict on the surface of

the sea, abandoned to the first person who comes along. Thence the necessity of having on the

oceans provision stations, shelters, ports for defense arid revictualling. (Applause at the center

and left. Various interruptions. ) And it is for this that we needed Tunisia, for this that we needed

Saigon and the Mekong Delta, for this that we need Madagascar, that we are at Diego-Suarez and

Vohemar6 and will never leave them! (Applause from a great number of benches.) Gentlemen, in

Europe as it is today, in this competition of so many rivals which we see growing around us

some by perfecting their military or maritime forces, others by the prodigious development of an

ever growing population; in a Europe, or rather in a universe of this sort, a policy of peaceful

seclusion or abstention is simply the highway to decadence! Nations are great in our times only

by means of the activities which they develop; it is not simply by the peaceful shining forth of

institutions" (Interruptions and laughter on the left and right) that they are great at this hour. . .

(The Republican Party) has shown that it is quite aware that one cannot impose upon France a

political ideal conforming to that of nations like independent Belgium and the Swiss Republic;

that something else is needed for France: that she cannot be merely a free country, that she must

also be a great country, exercising all of her rightful influence over the destiny of Europe, that

she ought to propagate this influence throughout the world and carry everywhere that she can her

language, her customs, her flag, her arms, and her genius. (Applause at center and left.)

John A. Hobson (1858-1940)

Hobson was an English economist and wrote one the most famous critiques of the economic

bases of imperialism in 1902.

It is open to Imperialists to argue thus: "We must have markets for our growing manufactures,

we must have new outlets for the investment of our surplus capital and for the energies of the

adventurous surplus of our population: such expansion is a necessity of life to a nation with our

great and growing powers of production. An ever larger share of our population is devoted to the

manufactures and commerce of towns, and is thus dependent for life and work upon food and

raw materials from foreign lands. In order to buy and pay for these things we must sell our goods

abroad. During the first threequarters of the nineteenth century we could do so without difficulty

by a natural expansion of commerce with continental nations and our colonies, all of which were

far behind us in the main arts of manufacture and the carrying trades. So long as England held a

virtual monopoly of the world markets for certain important classes of manufactured goods,

Imperialism was unnecessary.

After 1870 this manufacturing and trading supremacy was greatly impaired: other nations,

especially Germany, the United States, and Belgium, advanced with great rapidity, and while

they have not crushed or even stayed the increase of our external trade, their competition made it

more and more difficult to dispose of the full surplus of our manufactures at a profit. The

encroachments made by these nations upon our old markets, even in our own possessions, made

it most urgent that we should take energetic means to secure new markets. These new markets

had to lie in hitherto undeveloped countries, chiefly in the tropics, where vast populations lived

capable of growing economic needs which our manufacturers and merchants could supply. Our

rivals were seizing and annexing territories for similar purposes, and when they had annexed

them closed them to our trade The diplomacy and the arms of Great Britain had to be used in

order to compel the owners of the new markets to deal with us: and experience showed that the

safest means of securing and developing such markets is by establishing 'protectorates' or by

annexation....

It was this sudden demand for foreign markets for manufactures and for investments which was

avowedly responsible for the adoption of Imperialism as a political policy.... They needed

Imperialism because they desired to use the public resources of their country to find profitable

employment for their capital which otherwise would be superfluous....

Every improvement of methods of production, every concentration of ownership and control,

seems to accentuate the tendency. As one nation after another enters the machine economy and

adopts advanced industrial methods, it becomes more difficult for its manufacturers, merchants,

and financiers to dispose profitably of their economic resources, and they are tempted more and

more to use their Governments in order to secure for their particular use some distant

undeveloped country by annexation and protection.

The process, we may be told, is inevitable, and so it seems upon a superficial inspection.

Everywhere appear excessive powers of production, excessive capital in search of investment. It

is admitted by all business men that the growth of the powers of production in their country

exceeds the growth in consumption, that more goods can be produced than can be sold at a

profit, and that more capital exists than can find remunerative investment. It is this economic

condition of affairs that forms the taproot of Imperialism. If the consuming public in this country

raised its standard of consumption to keep pace with every rise of productive powers, there could

be no excess of goods or capital clamorous to use Imperialism in order to find markets: foreign

trade would indeed exist....

Everywhere the issue of quantitative versus qualitative growth comes up. This is the entire issue

of empire. A people limited in number and energy and in the land they occupy have the choice of

improving to the utmost the political and economic management of their own land, confining

themselves to such accessions of territory as are justified by the most economical disposition of a

growing population; or they may proceed, like the slovenly farmer, to spread their power and

energy over the whole earth, tempted by the speculative value or the quick profits of some new

market, or else by mere greed of territorial acquisition, and ignoring the political and economic

wastes and risks involved by this imperial career. It must be clearly understood that this is

essentially a choice of alternatives; a full simultaneous application of intensive and extensive

cultivation is impossible. A nation may either, following the example of Denmark or

Switzerland, put brains into agriculture, develop a finely varied system of public education,

general and technical, apply the ripest science to its special manufacturing industries, and so

support in progressive comfort and character a considerable population upon a strictly limited

area; or it may, like Greatr Britain, neglect its agriculture, allowing its lands to go out of

cultivation and its population to grow up in towns, fall behind other nations in its methods of

education and in the capacity of adapting to its uses the latest scientific knowledge, in order that

it may squander its pecuniary and military resources in forcing bad markets and finding

speculative fields of investment in distant corners of the earth, adding millions of square miles

and of unassimilable population to the area of the Empire.

The driving forces of class interest which stimulate and support this false economy we have

explained. No remedy will serve which permits the future operation of these forces. It is idle to

attack Imperialism or Militarism as political expedients or policies unless the axe is laid at the

economic root of the tree, and the classes for whose interest Imperialism works are shorn of the

surplus revenues which seek this outlet.

Germany Awake!

(Newspaper Advertisement), June 24, 1890:

The diplomacy of the English works swiftly and secretly. What they created burst in the face of

the astonished world on June 18th like a bomb---the German-English African Treaty. With one

stroke of the pen---the hope of a great German colonial empire was ruined! Shall this treaty

really be? No, no and again no! The German people must arise as one and declare that this treaty

is unacceptable! . . .The treaty with England harms our interests and wounds our honor; this time

it dares not become a reality! We are ready at the call of our Kaiser to step into the ranks and

allow ourselves dumbly and obediently to be led against the enemy's shots, but we may also

demand in exchange that the reward come to us which is worth the sacrifice, and this reward is:

that we shall be a conquering people which takes its portion of the world itself! Deutschland

wach auf!

Letter of Dr. Hugenberg, August 1, 1890

There are also still larger territories---one need only think of Central Sudan, the natural

hinterland of the Cameroons, the fate of which has not as yet been settled by any treaty. He who

seizes these territories quickest and holds fast the most tenaciously will possess them. Does

not everything, and especially the slowness with which the German government moves to assert

itself in colonial affairs, point to the fact that our fatherland, be it from one side or the other, will

not be spared a new war if it wishes only to maintain the position which it won in 1870? The

official memoir which has just appeared concerning the motives of the Anglo-German treaty,

leaves no doubt but that a certain indifference to colonial expansion exists in official places. In a

tone of contempt it has been said that "the period of hissing the flag and shooting at the treaty

must now be ended!" Similar reverses can be prevented in the future only if foreign countries

deal with a sensitive German nationalism!

Policies of the Pan-German League, 1898: 2.

Laying of a cable from Kiachow [China] to Port Arthur [Dairen, in Manchuria], with connection

with the Russian-Siberian cable.

3. Strengthening of the German foothold in Kiaochow.

4. German coaling and cable stations in the Red Sea, the West Indies, and near Singapore.

5. Complete possession of Samoa.

6. More subsidized German steamship lines to Kiaochow and Korea.

7. Understanding with France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands about the laying of an

independent cable from West Africa through the Congo to German East Africa, Madagascar,

Batavia, and Tongkin to Kiaochow.

8. Development of harbor of Swakopmund [in German Southwest Africa] and railroads to

Windhoek [the capital of the territory].

9. Securing of concessions for commerce and industry in Asia Minor. . .

22. Increase in the number of German consulates in the Levant, Far East, South Africa, Central

& South America. . .