Motivations and Justifications for European Imperialism

The spread of European imperialism throughout Africa and much of Southeast Asia and the Pacific was the most important development in world history during the late 19th century. It was fueled by Europe’s great advantages in weaponry and industrial productivity. Imperialism brought new domination, new exposure to European-dominated world markets, and new cultural contacts to the colonies involved, plus new needs for resistance and definitions of regional identity. For the Europeans, imperialism brought new economic opportunities but also additional responsibilities, and it unquestionably heightened militarism and nationalist rivalry.

Analysis of the motives of European imperialists is not the only question imperialism raises—the interactions with conquered peoples are even more complex and important—but it is intriguing. Motivations require assessment of conditions within Europe, on the part of governments, imperialist adventurers, and even ordinary people, many of whom supported imperialism enthusiastically. They built on beliefs about economic and military needs, but also intellectual developments such as the rise of social Darwinism with its arguments about racial competition. The result of the various sources of imperialist rhetoric was an array of justifications, not all of which were consistent; here is an obvious challenge to historical interpretation.

Analysis of the causes of imperialism also provides a partial entry into discussions about impact. Imperialists presented several different faces to the people in the colonies, from rank exploitation to humanitarian concern. It is important to consider the policy implications of the various arguments for imperialism, and the potential reactions of Africans or Asians to these policies.

I would like you to read a few documents in connection with motivations for imperialism. The first document is from a book by a British soldier, F. D. Lugard, published in 1893, defending the expansion of the empire in East Africa (you can read it by clicking here). The second document is from a speech by Jules Ferry, French prime minister, in 1884 (you can read it by clicking here). Finally, the third document is the famous poem by British author Rudyard Kipling (yeah, the same Kipling that wrote The Jungle Book, which, I hate to be a killjoy here, is full of imperialist propaganda), first published in McClure’s Magazine in February 1899 (you can read it by clicking here).

After you have read the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are Lugard’s main arguments for imperialism? Are the arguments entirely consistent? Would they lead to harmonious policies? How do Lugard’s arguments compare with those of Jules Ferry? Where do they overlap, and where do they differ? What aspects of the European and world economy in the 19th century helped provoke imperialism? Was imperialism economically beneficial to the European powers? How do Kipling’s arguments compare with those of Lugard and Ferry? What was the “white man’s burden?” How important were religious and humanitarian arguments in actually causing imperialism? How important were they in shaping how imperialism worked out in Africa? What kinds of arguments for imperialism would be most popular in Europe itself, and why? What attitudes toward Africans are suggested in the three documents? Are they entirely consistent? What do the arguments for imperialism suggest about potential African reaction? What kind of future did the imperialists envisage for Africa? How do their implicit forecasts compare with what actually happened in Africa in the 20th century? Your thoughts…