Leveraging its advantages in technology and belief in its moral superiority the British were able to build and manage this vast empire through networks of trade, political governance and force (Mann and Roberts, 1991; Lawrence, 1996). The establishment and perpetuation of British legal institutions was an integral part of the colonial expansion and governance. POGG, therefore, was undoubtedly a creature designed by the British to exercise direct and indirect imperial control over its overseas territories (Yusuf, 2014). The success of this approach to expanding and maintaining an empire is evidenced by the fact that by it was the largest empire in world history. It eventually included large geographic area of Africa, Asia, North America and the Caribbean with its reach in global trade including close links with South America and other areas (Lawrence 1996).
Figure 1.2: The British Empire (colored red) as it was in 1921© (The British Empire in 1921, n.d)
This growth of the empire reflects both the transposition of British institutions and adaptation to the environment of the colonized lands. The British colonial institutional development reflected a policy which by 1839 focused primarily on constitutional rule and relations with the far-flung territories. Compared to the French Empire, the result was a more decentralized system designed to reduce any basis for rebellion or discord in the colony (Grier, 1999). The existence and persistence of a signature colonial institution
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
1. What is ‘imperialism’? How did 19th-century colonialism, empire building, high imperialism differ from those of earlier times: in particular from the colonialism of early- modern mercantilism (16th to18th centuries)?
After the French and Indian War, which resulted in a massive territorial gain and enormous expenses for the British government, the British attempts to reform the American Empire. Growing tensions between residents of Great Britain’s 13 North American colonies and the colonial government (British crown) lead to the American Revolution (History.com Staff, 2009). The British had three terms of reform that resulted in tighter controls over the colonies by eliminating royal officials corruptions, limit the areas where colonists could settle, and increase revenue (Schultz, 2013). Significant alteration in the colonial relationship must happen
Assess the significance of the role of individuals in bringing about the expansion and dismantling of the British Empire in Africa in the period 1870-1981
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.
Possibly one of the biggest revolutions during this time was the changes of government in the colonies. The colonies, under British rule, had lived under a Parliamentary Monarchy in which a King and legislative body known as parliament ruled equally. Parliament was in charge of legislating the British Empire while the King was in charge of enforcing laws of the Empire. Much like the United States’ government today these two bodies were acting as an Executive and legislative branch. The issue for colonists was that Parliaments being 3,000 miles away meant that they did not truly understand the dynamics of the colonies and could not possibly make sensible laws for the colonists. After the war Americans would have to figure out what type of government
The Imperialism is one of the greatest periods in Britain’s history. Throughout this period Britain enjoyed almost unchallenged dominance and expanded its imperial holdings around the globe. Britain experienced what is it to be the most powerful country and to have the biggest empire in the world. Thanks to the overseas possessions and trading posts established by Britain earlier, the British Empire became the largest empire in history.
One of the greatest empires that ever existed was the British Empire. (Dictionary.com, LLC, 2016) Following the Industrial Revolution, there was a race between European nations to acquire resources, claim land, and imperialise “primitive” nations. (British Empire, 2014) The British Empire looked to India to increase their wealth and power on a global level. Although British imperialism of India enriched some aspects of their culture such as the education system, imperialism did not benefit India due to the excessive violence and austere disrespect of Indian culture.
Examinations of domination in Egypt by Timothy Mitchell, India by Catriona Ellis, and French West Africa by B. Ọlatunji Ọlọruntimẹhin demonstrate how colonial powers believed it necessary to “adapt and use indigenous institutions and persons for its purpose.” European people viewed these countries as backward and uncivilized because their social orders were chaotic in comparison to Western society. At first, these native cultures embraced the promise of modernity the European powers brought, but they later came to understand such processes come with at hefty and violent price. Mitchell states that political unrest in the Egyptian empire gave British officials the opportunity to offer what appeared to be help in order to regain order
Egypt was a colony of Britain, British imperialism began in 1882. Egypt experienced suffocation of liberties. Egypt was ruled by Britain by indirect rule because Britain took control of the existing political structures and economies while the khedives provided native autonomy. Britain's interference with Egypt threatened Egypt’s social and political structure, especially the military. In 1881, Colonel Ahmad lead a rebellion against European intrusion. Britain then sent ships to Egypt to ensure their occupation over it. This reduced the size of the Egyptian army and Britain then their officers in command to control the Egyptian government. Britain made new laws for the Egyptians which included the restriction of Egypt's economic development
Empires with their self prophesied title, innately express the notion of expansion! Builders of empires through the ages have consistently shown the somewhat insatiable need to expand! It is this notion of expansion or more specifically the “necessity” for it (Leroy-Beaulieu, 1891), that seems a continual challenge for “empire builders” to control and therefore sustain. As an empire expands the ability to sustain, regulate and control its realm, provides continual challenges for local economies. With an obsession for treasures and profits over social health and sustainability (McClintock, 1995), “How, despite their “good intentions” did the British
Therefore, when these countries granted the African states their independence, “there were no territory-wide traditional institutions that could be resurrected at independence and used to identify legitimate conduct and condemn misconduct by a state’s new rulers (Jackson and Rosberg 437-38).” It’s also worth noting that the system of indirect rule that was used by the British may have contributed to the cultural embeddedness of the “big man” system. By using indirect rule, the British allowed the leaders of a colony to remain in place so long as they created a profit for the British. When the British left the colonies, this system may have been likely to remain since the leaders saw the profitability and already had the support of their own loyalists and
Some of the most renowned British individuals of the 18th and early 19th Centuries were writing and commenting on the early stages of imperialism in British history. While some were not pleased with the way the empire was introducing imperialism, the overall consensus was that the empire was advancing through trade and exploration. That being said, the various individuals in Jane Samson’s “The British Empire” provide interesting points of view that tell us how exploration merged with the introduction of free trade in the empire to create new opportunities for a developing Britain that is still present today.
Imperialist countries tightened their control by establishing localized governments.[footnoteRef:3] Some argued that industrial capitalism produced an excess of capital that was unable to find any profitable outlet in the domestic economy, which led to the search for new markets abroad, creating massive foreign investments.[footnoteRef:4] Further supported by the British Empire that could not find lucrative investment opportunities at home, due to changing patterns of consumptions, sought outlets abroad, and drove imperial expansion forward.[footnoteRef:5] It was argued, with the desire to achieve new colonies, that some countries made the decision to rule rather than to teach new colonies, by teaching them they would help to modernize their industries. Some countries had greater advancements than others. They argued that those with wealth should not be cheap, but emphasized “No tawdry rule of kings.”[footnoteRef:6] That those of wealth and power should fill the mouths with food by investing to “fill full the mouth of famine.”[footnoteRef:7] Humanity believed that it was man’s duty to educate and teach the new organized colonies how to be independent.[footnoteRef:8] With sending out settlers to oversee the local population, a nation is establishing its influence over how the new colony should function. Imperialism was one of the first driving forces that introduced by education and the horrors of the 20th century, without