Analysis Of Brendon Piers Decline And Fall Of The British Empire

By the late 1800s, it would have colonies, dominions, and spheres of influence all over the world. The island of Britain itself acted as a sort of headquarters for these colonies, and many of their finished products were exported back to the homeland. Another use of Britain's wide influence was that it provided diverse raw materials and a plethora of markets for finished products, as well as safe ports for British ships. The country prospered as a whole because of its influence worldwide, and because of its central location with ports in the Atlantic Ocean. It was easily accessible for ships coming from the colonies. (Doc. 1) However, some believed the island was not big enough to reach success. In 1895, Cecil Rhodes said, "in order to save... the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines." (Doc. 3) Despite this doubt, Britain still managed to spread its influence and leave a mark the world would not soon

As with any argument though concerning matters of perspective, both our own status as outsiders, and that of Cox, being himself British born (FORA.tv 2007), lead credence to Cox’s assertion of an American empire, himself asserting the supposed obviousness of his thesis to anyone outside of the USA. Recognising and accounting for this though, the evidence offered about the many ‘non-standard’ forms of empire are still sound. Fisher (1984) highlights the success of British incorporation of local political structures into its empire, and Cox’s contention that American promotion of seemingly anti-imperial ideas of democracy and self determination are not in contradiction to its presiding over an empire are sound on examination of the underlying elements.

Being fully aware of the benefits of the slaves, the British elevated their importation and by the turn of the eighteenth century African slaves numbered in the tens of thousands in the British colonies (1). As the demands in tobacco increased, labor increased. Like the simple law of supply and demand. Ending of Royal African Company’s monopoly in 1698 encouraged more traders to enter the slave business -- thus making African slaves more accessible (4). As a result of their increased expense, their masters were stringent and determined to get as much out of them as possible thereby working them mercilessly (Faragher 2009, p. 83). Initially, the cost of slaves may have been more expensive but in the end the masters were able to keep them enslaved.

British imperialism lasted for hundreds of years and has had staggering effects in India that we can still see today. Britain initially became interested in India in the 1600’s; the government set up trading posts around the country because it was interested in the raw materials and resources available. At first Britain used indirect rule through Sepoys -- Indian soldiers -- but after the Sepoy Rebellion Britain had to step in to rule directly. Although British imperialism had positive effects such as eradicating immoral customs and paving the way for modern India, it also had numerous negative effects, such as by creating laws to better control Indians which left their government negatively impacted, taking from India with no concern for the

The article describes the “imperial pressures” 2 to end slavery put on the British post-United States Civil War by the United States creation of Liberia. There was a large anti-slavery movement in the early nineteenth century, and legislation did pass through, however, those who had benefitted from the British trade, figure such as Eddoo, who did not wish to lose all of their labor force, so slave owners worked to find a way around this new system. Although there were some native figures in politics, like James Hutton Brew, “Imperial activity in West Africa was conducted in part by the Sierra Leonean and Liberian settlers themselves, as well as by certain influential individuals acting on behalf of the colonial governments, anti-slavery societies, or their own interests”.2 Meaning, although there were Africans in government, the British still had supreme say and power over the colonies. The British government did eventually outlaw slavery, but “West African colonial governments’ and colonists’ imperial ideology of ‘Civilization, Commerce, and Christianity’’2 found loopholes around these new ordinances as seen in the Abina trial. Although slavery was technically ended in the early nineteenth century, due to the power and influences over the countries at the time, slavery was not ended until much

Britain became the vast and mighty Empire upon which the sun never set through the development and use of what is, in modern terms, referred to as Imperialism. The British approach to the colonization of India came out of: the European, specifically British, superiority mindset; the practical approach of attaining resources in return for modernization and “guardianship”; and the solidification of Britain as the world’s dominating force. Britain’s use of Imperialism, as a necessity to maintain its Empire, acted as the catalyst of the Indian Rebellion.

Industrialization added to Britain’s desire for raw materials and new markets and the British were motivated by this desire and looked for colonies to obtain. Adopting the policy of imperialism was economically beneficial for Britain, since it helped supply Britain with raw materials for industrial development, along with cheap food for Britain’s developing population. Britain chose to become imperialistic, because it would bring them prudent and economic benefits.

Within the NO portion the author states several things to support that imperialistic rule by Britain was not primarily economic. Industrial Europe required a highly specialized world, in which some areas would produce food for its industrial proletariat, others would produce raw materials for the industrial process, and the entire world would constitute a market for industrial goods. But to achieve this Europe needed to recast the world in its own image, to create the same infrastructures and similar institutions that would permit resources to be exploited and trade conducted (MacKenzie 99). This shows that imperialistic rule by Britain and other European nations was not solely economic but more so a way to gain materials, trade materials, and expand their cultures and receive outside cultural influence through imperialistic rule rather than using imperialistic

We traveled to the Americas aboard your ships, bought your goods, and fought in the name of Great Britain; we battled and died alongside your men as equals. Tirelessly we have aided every whim of Parliament, fooling ourselves and our children, telling fairytales to delude ourselves into thinking that laws passed were for the best. In such dire times, when food and money was scarce, we tried to find hope in your name, but it has come to light that you offer no safe haven for us, and wish only for tax upon tax. In theses times, it is necessary for us to reflect back on better times in the relationship between Great Britain and the colonies. The days in which we were separate, yet united, and the affairs of the colonies lay in our own hands; days when we were in control of our own lives. With such a time in mind, it is in the best interest of the peoples of both nations, that we consider the acts which define a tyrant.

The French and the English were bitter adversaries for many years. Throughout much of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Britain and France were engaged in many vicious power fights that repeatedly flared up into worldwide wars. Nevertheless the ultimate victory over the French came at an extraordinary price for Britain. Britain spent a fortune on the French and Indian War and couldn’t raise enough money to pull together a more intimidating fighting force; which forced Britain to extract funds from its colonies. However, the colonies felt that Britain was not effective in protecting them. This along with the advancement of distinct political entities among the colonies led to a feeling that the English were no longer necessary in these areas. Likewise after winning the war Britain no longer had to govern its land, but also their new land and the

The South African people lost their own government during the colonization because they were under the control of the British and the people were enslaved. It gave the South African people a very unfair feeling because they were living in their own country but controlled by someone else. When they first lost their own government, the people could not adapt to the new policy of slavery due to the loss of freedom. Even though a lot of people did not like it that way, they had to adapt to the policy as soon as possible in order to survive. They were also not used to be controlled by the rules that the British created. For example, the punishment of the slaves were strictly controlled by the British government. One of the policy was “The number of hours the slaves could be made to work was not limited,” which meant they had to work a lot everyday. In addition, slaves’ marriages were only allowed in 1824 after South Africa had regained independence in 1822. It showed that after South Africa was not colonized by the British, people had much more freedom than before. Therefore, the British colonization brought the South African people a very bad political impact by losing its own government, not being used to be controlled by the rules, and not being able to adapt to the new

The cultural ties to empire are not so easy to efface as the political ones. This is perhaps one of the most important lessons the world has learned from the mass movement towards independence on the part of European colonies in the past half-century. Even we Americans, more than two hundred years after having rejected the British monarchy and all it stands for, are forever poking our noses in the

     In a money hungry culture and society the people of Britain saw a way to

The first cause that I will discuss that led to British decolonization was its debt from back to back World Wars and the overall affect on the wars itself. World War 1 was costly to the British economy, but for World War 2, the economic losses were far heavier. World War 2 ate up Britain’s monetary reserves and a quarter of its stored wealth. Britain was also stripped of two-thirds of its pre-war export trade. This economic loss forced Britain into acquiring loans from the United States. This meant that after World War 2 Great Britain had emerged from war as a debtor nation with an empire still intact. The once great financial resources of Britain were devastated by the high cost of the wars and even the Great Depression before. Ultimately, this meant that Britain’s foreign policy could not be as extravagant as it was before the Wars.

However, within ten years of founding the Cape, the Afrikaners decided to import slaves. Again, this was not an uncommon occurance among colonies, especially if there was a vast amount of land with limited labour. Unless the government banned slavery from the start, as was the case in Australia, then the introduction of slavery was almost automatic. The Afrikaners did not treat the slaves inhumanely. A number of proclamations were set up in order to protect the slave owners and he slaves. Discussions took place to decide whether or not to continue the importation of slaves. There was some support for the notion of assisted immigration of free European labourers, but ultimately it was decided that “it would bring ruin upon the Cape, and merely add to the very serious state of poverty which already exists.”