Week 3 Learning JournalYour Learning Journal is where you will post six insights every week, highlighting new knowledge you gained from both the reading assignments of the respective week and the vide

Chapter 21

In the nineteenth century, a new phase of Western expansion into Asia and Africa began. Whereas before 1800 European aims in the East could be summed up as ‘‘Christians and spices’’ and Western gold and silver were exchanged for cloves, silk, and porcelain, now European nations began to view Asian and African societies as markets for the prodigious output of European factories and as sources of the raw materials needed to fuel the Western industrial machine. This relationship between the West and African and Asian societies has been called the new imperialism (see the comparative essay on p. 545). The Motives The reason for this change, of course, was the Industrial Revolution. Now industrializing countries in the West needed vital raw materials that were not available at home, as well as reliable markets for the goods produced in their factories. The latter factor became increasingly crucial as producers discovered that their home markets could not absorb their entire output and that they had to export to make a profit. When consumer demand lagged, economic depression threatened. The relationship between colonialism and national survival was expressed directly by the French politician Jules Ferry (ZHOOL feh-REE) in 1885. A policy of ‘‘containment or abstinence,’’ he warned, would set France on ‘‘the broad road to decadence’’ and initiate its decline into a ‘‘third- or fourth-rate power.’’ British imperialists, convinced by the theory of social Darwinism that in the struggle between nations, only the fit are victorious and survive, agreed. As the British professor of mathematics Karl Pearson argued in 1900, ‘‘The path of progress is strewn with the wrecks of nations; traces are everywhere to be seen of the [slaughtered remains] of inferior races. . . . Yet these dead people are, in very truth, the stepping stones on which mankind has arisen to the higher intellectual and deeper emotional life of today.’’ 2 For some, colonialism had a moral purpose, whether to promote Christianity or to build a better world. The British colonial official Henry Curzon (CURR-zun) declared that the British Empire ‘‘was under Providence, the greatest instrument for good that the world has seen.’’ To Cecil Rhodes, the most famous empire builder of his day, the extraction of material wealth from the colonies was only a secondary matter. ‘‘My ruling purpose,’’ he remarked, ‘‘is the extension of the British Empire.’’ 3 That British Empire, on which, as the saying went, ‘‘the sun never set,’’ was the envy of its rivals and was viewed as the primary source of British global dominance during the second half of the nineteenth century. The Tactics With the change in European motives for colonization came a shift in tactics. Earlier, European states had generally been satisfied to deal with existing independent states rather than attempting to establish direct control over vast territories. There had been exceptions where state power was at the point of collapse (as in India), where European economic interests were especially intense (as in Latin America and the East Indies), or where there was no centralized authority (as in North America and the Philippines). But for the most part, the Western presence had been limited to controlling regional trade networks and establishing a few footholds where the foreigners could carry on trade and missionary activity. After 1800, the demands of industrialization in Europe created a new set of dynamics. Maintaining access to raw materials such as tin and rubber and setting up markets for European products required more extensive control over colonial territories. As competition for colonies increased, the colonial powers sought to solidify their hold over their territories to protect them from attack by their rivals. After 1880, the quest for colonies became a scramble as all the major European states, now joined by the United States and Japan, engaged in a global land grab. In many cases, economic interests were secondary to security concerns or the demands of national prestige. In Africa, for example, the British engaged in a struggle with their rivals to protect their interests in the Suez Canal and the Red Sea.

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 544). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

By 1900, almost all the societies of Africa and Asia were either under full colonial rule or, as in China and the Ottoman Empire, at a point of virtual collapse. Only a handful of states, including Thailand, Afghanistan, Iran, Ethiopia, and Japan, managed to escape internal disintegration or subjection to colonial rule. For the most part, the exceptions were the result of good fortune rather than design. Thailand escaped subjugation primarily because officials in London and Paris found it more convenient to transform the country into a buffer state than to fight over it. Ethiopia and Afghanistan survived not only because of their long tradition of fierce resistance to outside threats, but also because of their remote location and mountainous terrain. Only Japan managed to avoid COMPARATIVE ESSAY Imperialisms Old and New INTERACTION & EXCHANGE Originally,

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 545). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

the common fate through a concerted strategy of political and economic reform. The Colonial System FOCUS QUESTION: What types of administrative systems did the various colonial powers establish in their colonies, and how did these systems reflect the general philosophy of colonialism? Now that they had control of most of the world, what did the colonial powers do with it? As we have seen, their primary objective was to exploit the natural resources of the subject areas and to open up markets for manufactured goods and capital investment from the mother country. In some cases, that goal could be realized in cooperation with local political elites, whose loyalty could be earned, or purchased, by economic rewards or by confirming them in their positions of authority and status in a new colonial setting. Sometimes, however, this policy of indirect rule was not feasible because local leaders refused to cooperate with their colonial masters or even actively resisted. In such cases, the imperialists resorted to direct rule, removing the local elites from power and replacing them with officials from the mother country. In general, the societies most likely to actively resist colonial conquest were those with a long tradition of national cohesion and independence, such as Burma and Vietnam in Asia and the African Muslim states in northern Nigeria and Morocco. In those areas, the colonial powers encountered more resistance and consequently tended to dispense with local collaborators and govern directly. In some parts of Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and the Malay peninsula, where the local authorities, for whatever reason, were willing to collaborate with the imperialist powers, indirect rule was more common. Overall, colonialism in India, Southeast Asia, and Africa exhibited many similarities but also some differences. Some of these variations can be traced to differences among the colonial powers themselves. The French, for example, often tried to impose a centralized administrative system on their colonies that mirrored the system in use in France, while the British sometimes attempted to transform local aristocrats into the equivalent of the landed gentry at home in Britain. Other differences stemmed from conditions in the colonies themselves. The Philosophy of Colonialism To justify their rule, the colonial powers appealed in part to the time-honored maxim of ‘‘might makes right.’’ That attitude received pseudoscientific validity from the concept of social Darwinism, which maintained that only societies that aggressively adapted to changing circumstances would survive and prosper in a world governed by the Darwinian law of ‘‘survival of the fittest.’’ Some people, however, were uncomfortable with such a brutal view and sought a moral justification that appeared to benefit the victim. Here again, social Darwinism pointed the way. By bringing the benefits of Western democracy, capitalism, and Christianity to tradition-ridden societies, the colonial powers were enabling primitive peoples to adapt to the challenges of the modern world. Buttressed by such comforting theories, sensitive Westerners could ignore the brutal aspects of colonialism and persuade themselves that in the long run, the results would be beneficial for both sides (see the box on p. 547). Few were

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 546). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

as adept at describing this ‘‘civilizing mission’’ as the French governor-general of French Indochina Albert Sarraut (ahl-BAYR sah-ROH). While admitting that colonialism was originally an ‘‘act of force’’ undertaken for profit, he insisted that by redistributing the wealth of the earth, the colonial process would result in a better life for all: ‘‘Is it just, is it legitimate that such [an uneven distribution of resources] should be indefinitely prolonged? . . . No! . . . Humanity is distributed throughout the globe. No race, no people has the right or power to isolate itself egotistically from the movements and necessities of universal life.’’ 4 But what if historically and culturally the societies of Asia and Africa were fundamentally different from those of the West and could not, or would not, be persuaded to transform themselves along Western lines? In that case, a policy of cultural transformation could not be expected to succeed and could even lead to disaster. ASSIMILATION OR ASSOCIATION? In fact, colonial theorists never decided the issue. The French, who were most inclined to philosophize about the problem, adopted the terms assimilation (which implied an effort to transform colonial societies in the Western image) and association (implying collaboration with local elites while leaving local traditions alone) to describe the two alternatives and then proceeded to vacillate between them. French policy in Indochina, for example, began as one of association but switched to assimilation under pressure from those who felt that colonial powers owed a debt to their subject peoples. But assimilation (which in any case was never accepted as feasible or desirable by many colonial officials) aroused resentment among the local population, many of whom opposed the destruction of their native traditions. In the end, the French abandoned the attempt to justify their presence and resorted to ruling by force of arms. Other colonial powers had little interest in the issue. The British, whether out of a sense of pragmatism or of racial superiority, refused to entertain the possibility of assimilation and treated their subject peoples as culturally and racially distinct. India Under the British Raj FOCUS QUESTION: What were some of the major consequences of British rule in India, and how did they affect the Indian people? By 1800, the once glorious empire of the Mughals (MOOguls) had been reduced by British military power to a shadow of its former greatness. During the next decades, the British consolidated their control over the Indian subcontinent. Some territories were taken over directly, first by the East India Company and later by the British crown; others were ruled indirectly through their local maharajas (mah-huh-RAH-juhs) and rajas (RAH-juhs). Colonial Reforms Not all of the effects of British rule were bad. British governance over the subcontinent brought order and stability to a society that had been rent by civil war. By the early nineteenth century, British control had led to a relatively honest and efficient government that in many respects operated to the benefit of the average Indian. One benefit was the heightened attention given to education. Through the efforts of the British administrator Thomas Babington Macaulay (muh-KAHL-lee) (1800–1859), a new school system was established to train the children of Indian elites, and the British civil service examination was introduced (see the box on p. 549). The instruction of young girls also expanded, primarily in order to make them better wives and mothers for the educated male population. In 1875, a Madras (muh-DRAS or muh-DRAHS) medical college accepted its first female student. British rule also brought an end to some of the more inhumane aspects of Indian tradition. The practice of sati (suh-TEE) was outlawed, and widows were legally permitted to remarry. The British also attempted to put an end to the endemic brigandage (known as thuggee, which gave rise to the English word thug) that had plagued travelers in India since time immemorial. Railroads, the telegraph, and the postal service were introduced to India shortly after they appeared in Great Britain. Work began on the main highway from Calcutta to Delhi (DEL-ee) in 1839 (see Map 21.1), and the first rail network in northern India was opened in 1853. The Costs of Colonialism But the Indian people paid a high price for the peace and stability brought by the British raj (RAHJ) (from the Indian raja, or prince). Perhaps the most flagrant cost was economic. While British entrepreneurs and a small percentage of the local population reaped financial benefits from British rule, it brought hardship to millions in both the cities and the rural areas. The introduction of British textiles put thousands of Bengali women out of work and severely damaged the local textile industry. In rural areas, the British introduced the zamindar (zuhmeen-DAHR) system (see Chapter 16) in the misguided expectation that it would facilitate the collection of taxes and create a new landed gentry, who could, as in Britain, become the conservative foundation of imperial rule. But the local gentry took advantage of this new authority to increase taxes and force the less fortunate peasants to become tenants or lose their land entirely. British officials

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 548). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

also made few efforts during the nineteenth century to introduce democratic institutions or values. As one senior political figure remarked in Parliament in 1898, democratic institutions ‘‘can no more be carried to India by Englishmen . . . than they can carry ice in their luggage.’’ 5 The British also did little to bring modern science and technology to India. Some limited industrialization took place, notably in the manufacturing of textiles and jute (used in making rope). The first textile mill opened in 1856. Seventy years later, there were eighty mills in the city of Bombay (now Mumbai) alone. Nevertheless, the lack of local capital and the advantages given to British imports prevented the emergence of other vital new commercial and manufacturing operations. Foreign rule also had a psychological effect on the Indian people. Although many British colonial officials sincerely tried to improve the lot of the people under their charge, British arrogance and contempt for native tradition cut deeply into the pride of many Indians, especially those of high caste, who were accustomed to a position of superior status in India. Educated Indians trained in the Anglo-Indian school system for a career in the civil service, as well as Eurasians born to mixed marriages, often imitated the behavior and dress of their rulers, speaking English, eating Western food, and taking up European leisure activities, but many rightfully wondered where their true cultural loyalties lay (see the comparative illustration on p. 551).

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 549). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

Colonial Regimes in Southeast Asia FOCUS QUESTION: Which Western countries were most active in seeking colonial possessions in Southeast Asia, and what were their motives in doing so? In 1800, only two societies in Southeast Asia were under effective colonial rule: the Spanish Philippines and the Dutch East Indies. During the nineteenth century, however, European interest in Southeast Asia increased rapidly, and by 1900, virtually the entire area was under colonial rule (see Map 21.2). ‘‘Opportunity in the Orient’’: The Colonial Takeover in Southeast Asia The process began after the Napoleonic wars, when the British, by agreement with the Dutch, abandoned their claims to territorial possessions in the East Indies in return for a free hand in the Malay peninsula. In 1819, the colonial administrator Stamford Raffles founded a new British colony on the island of Singapore at the tip of the peninsula. Singapore became a major stopping point for traffic en route to and from China and other commercial centers in the region. During the next decades, the pace of European penetration into Southeast Asia accelerated. The British attacked Burma in 1826 and eventually established control there, arousing fears in France that the British might acquire a monopoly of trade in South China. In 1858, the French launched an attack against Vietnam. Though it was not a total success, the Nguyen (NGWEN) dynasty in Vietnam was ultimately forced to cede some territories. A generation later, French rule was extended over the remainder of the country. By 1900, French seizure of neighboring Cambodia and Laos had led to the creation of the French-ruled Indochinese Union. After the French conquest of Indochina, Thailand was the only remaining independent state on the Southeast Asian mainland. Under the astute leadership of two remarkable rulers, King Mongkut (MAHNG-koot) (1851–1868) and his son, King Chulalongkorn (CHOOluh-lahng-korn) (1868–1910), the Thai attempted to introduce Western learning and maintain relations with the

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 550). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

major European powers without undermining internal stability or inviting an imperialist attack. In 1896, the British and the French agreed to preserve Thailand as an independent buffer zone between their possessions in Southeast Asia. The final piece in the colonial edifice in Southeast Asia was put in place during the Spanish-American War in 1898 (see Chapter 20), when U.S. naval forces under Commodore George Dewey defeated the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. President William McKinley agonized over the fate of the Philippines but ultimately decided that the moral thing to do was to turn the islands into an American colony to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Japanese. In fact, the Americans (like the Spanish before them) found the islands a convenient jumping-off point for the China trade (see Chapter 22). The mixture of moral idealism and desire for profit was reflected in a speech given in the U.S. Senate in January 1900 by Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana: Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever, ‘‘territory belonging to the United States,’’ as the Constitution calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China’s illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. And we will move forward to our work, not howling out regrets like slaves whipped to their burdens, but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength, and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world. 6 Not all Filipinos agreed with Beveridge’s portrayal of the situation. Under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo (ay-MEEL-yoh ah-gwee-NAHL-doh), guerrilla forces fought bitterly against U.S. troops to establish their independence from both Spain and the United States. But America’s first war against guerrilla forces in Asia was a success, and the bulk of the resistance collapsed in 1901. President McKinley had his stepping-stone to the rich markets of China. The Nature of Colonial Rule In Southeast Asia, the colonial powers were primarily concerned with economic profit and tried wherever possible to work with local elites to facilitate the exploitation

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 551). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

of natural resources. Indirect rule was less costly than training European administrators and had a less corrosive impact on the local culture. In the Dutch East Indies, for example, officials of the Dutch East India Company (or VOC, the initials of its Dutch name) entrusted local administration to the indigenous aristocracy, who maintained law and order and collected taxes in return for a payment from the VOC. The British followed a similar practice in Malaya. While establishing direct rule over the crucial commercial centers of Singapore and Malacca, the British allowed local Muslim rulers to maintain power in the interior of the peninsula. ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION Indirect rule, though convenient and inexpensive, was not always feasible. In some instances, local resistance to the colonial conquest made such a policy impossible. In Burma, the staunch opposition of the monarchy and other traditionalist forces caused the British to abolish the monarchy and administer the country directly through their colonial government in India. In Indochina, the French used both direct and indirect means. They imposed direct rule on the southern provinces in the Mekong delta but governed the north as a protectorate, with the emperor retaining titular authority from his palace in Hue´ (HWAY). The French adopted a similar policy in Cambodia and Laos, where local rulers were left in charge with French advisers to counsel them. Whatever method was used, the colonial regimes were slow to create democratic institutions. The first legislative councils and assemblies were composed almost exclusively of European residents in the colonies. The first representatives from the indigenous population were wealthy and politically conservative. When Southeast Asians complained, the French official Albert Sarraut advised patience: ‘‘I will treat you like my younger brothers, but do not forget that I am the older brother. I will slowly give you the dignity of humanity.’’ 7 Only gradually and reluctantly did colonial officials begin to broaden the franchise. Colonial officials were also slow to adopt educational reforms. Although the introduction of Western education was one of the justifications of colonialism, officials soon discovered that educating local elites could backfire. Colonial societies often had few jobs for lawyers, engineers, and architects, leading to a mass of unemployed intellectuals ready to take out their frustrations on the colonial regime. As one French official noted in voicing his opposition to increasing the number of schools in Vietnam, educating the locals meant not ‘‘one coolie less, but one rebel more.’’ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Colonial powers were equally reluctant to take up the ‘‘white man’s burden’’ in the area of economic development. As we have seen, their primary goals were to secure cheap raw materials and to maintain markets for manufactured goods. Colonial policy therefore concentrated on exporting raw materials— teakwood from Burma; rubber and tin from Malaya; spices, tea and coffee, and palm oil from the East Indies; and sugar and copra (the meat of a coconut) from the Philippines. In some Southeast Asian colonial societies, a measure of industrial development did take place to meet the

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 552). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

needs of the European population and local elites. Major manufacturing cities like Rangoon in lower Burma, Batavia (buh-TAY-vee-uh) on the island of Java, and Saigon (sy-GAHN) in French Indochina grew rapidly. Most large industrial and commercial establishments were owned and managed by Europeans, however, or, in some cases, by Indian or Chinese merchants. COLONIALISM AND THE COUNTRYSIDE Despite the growth of an urban economy, the vast majority of people continued to farm the land. Many continued to live by subsistence agriculture, but the colonial policy of emphasizing cash crops for export also led to the creation of a plantation agriculture in which peasants worked for poverty-level wages on rubber and tea plantations owned by Europeans. Many laborers were ‘‘shanghaied’’ (the English term originated from the practice of recruiting workers, often from the docks and streets of Shanghai, by the use of force, alcohol, or drugs) to work on the plantations, where conditions were often so inhumane that thousands died. High taxes, imposed by colonial governments to pay for administrative costs or improvements in the local infrastructure, were a heavy burden for poor peasants. The situation was made even more difficult by the dramatic growth of the population as improved sanitation and medical treatment resulted in lower rates of infant mortality. The population of the island of Java, for example, increased from about a million in the precolonial era to about 40 million at the end of the nineteenth century. Under these conditions, the rural areas could no longer support the growing populations, and many young people fled to the cities to seek jobs in factories or shops. As in India, colonial rule brought some benefits to Southeast Asia. It led to the beginnings of a modern economic infrastructure and to what is sometimes called a ‘‘modernizing elite’’ dedicated to the creation of an advanced industrialized society. The development of an export market helped create an entrepreneurial class in rural areas. This happened, for example, on the outer islands of the Dutch East Indies (such as Borneo and Sumatra), where small growers of rubber trees, palm trees for oil, coffee, tea, and spices began to share in the profits of the colonial enterprise. Empire Building in Africa FOCUS QUESTION: What factors were behind the ‘‘scramble for Africa,’’ and what impact did it have on the continent? Before 1800, European economic interests in Africa had been relatively limited, providing little incentive for the penetration of the interior or the political takeover of the coastal areas. The slave trade, the main source of European profit during the eighteenth century, could be carried on by using African rulers and merchants as intermediaries. Disease, political instability, the lack of transportation, and the generally unhealthy climate all deterred Europeans from more extensive efforts in Africa. The situation began to change in the nineteenth century, as the growing need for industrial materials created a reason for the imperialist countries to increase their economic presence in the continent. The Growing European Presence in West Africa As the new century dawned, the slave trade was in decline, in part because of the efforts of humanitarians in several European countries. Dutch merchants effectively ceased trafficking in slaves in 1795, and the Danes stopped in 1803. In 1808, the slave trade was declared illegal in both Great Britain and the United States. The British began to apply pressure on other nations to follow suit, and most did so after the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815, leaving only Portugal and Spain as practitioners of the trade south of the equator. In the meantime, the demand for slaves began to decline in the Western Hemisphere. When slavery was abolished in the United States in 1863 and in Cuba and Brazil seventeen years later, the slave trade across the Atlantic was effectively brought to an end. It continued to exist, although at a reduced rate, along the Swahili coast in East Africa. As the Atlantic slave trade declined, Europeans became more interested in so-called legitimate trade. Exports of peanuts, timber, hides, and palm oil from West Africa increased substantially during the first decades of the nineteenth century, while imports of textile goods and other manufactured products rose.

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 554). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

European governments also began to push for a more permanent presence along the coast. During the early nineteenth century, the British established settlements along the Gold Coast and in Sierra Leone, where they set up agricultural plantations for freed slaves who had returned from the Western Hemisphere or had been liberated by British ships while en route to the Americas. A similar haven for ex-slaves was developed with the assistance of the United States in Liberia. The French occupied the area around the Senegal River near Cape Verde, where they attempted to develop peanut plantations. The European presence in West Africa led to the emergence of a new class of Africans educated in Western culture and often employed by Europeans. Many became Christians, and some studied in European or American universities. At the same time, tensions were increasing between Europeans and African governments. Most African states were able to maintain their independence from this creeping European encroachment, called ‘‘informal empire’’ by some historians, but the prospects for the future were ominous. When local groups attempted to organize to protect their interests, the British stepped in and annexed the coastal states as the British colony of Gold Coast in 1874. At about the same time, the British extended an informal protectorate over warring ethnic groups in the Niger delta (see Map 21.3). Imperialist Shadow over the Nile A similar process was under way in the Nile valley. There had long been interest in shortening the trade route to the East by digging a canal across the isthmus separating the Mediterranean from the Red Sea. In 1798, Napoleon had unsuccessfully invaded Egypt in an effort to cement French power in the eastern Mediterranean and open a faster route to India. French troops landed in Egypt and destroyed the ramshackle Mamluk (MAM-look) regime, but the British counterattacked and destroyed the French fleet. The British restored the Mamluks to power, but in 1805 Muhammad Ali (1769– 1849), an Ottoman army officer, seized control. During the next three decades, Muhammad Ali introduced a series of reforms to bring Egypt into the modern world. He modernized the army, set up a public education system (supplementing the traditional religious education provided in Muslim schools), and sponsored the creation of a small industrial sector producing refined sugar, textiles, munitions, and even ships. Muhammad Ali also extended

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 555). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

Egyptian authority southward into the Sudan and eastward into Arabia, Syria, and northern Iraq and even threatened to seize Istanbul itself. To prevent the possible collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British and the French recognized Muhammad Ali as the hereditary pasha (PAH-shuh) of Egypt under the loose authority of the Ottoman government. The growing economic importance of the Nile valley, along with the development of steam navigation, made the heretofore visionary plans for a Suez canal more urgent. In 1869, construction of the canal was completed under the direction of Ferdinand de Lesseps (fer-DEEnahn duh leSEPS), a French entrepreneur. The project brought little immediate benefit to Egypt, however. The construction cost thousands of lives and left the Egyptian government deep in debt, forcing it to depend increasingly on foreign financial support. When an army revolt against growing foreign influence broke out in 1881, the British stepped in to protect their investment (they had bought Egypt’s canal company shares in 1875) and established an informal protectorate that would last until World War I. Rising discontent in the Sudan added to Egypt’s growing internal problems. In 1881, the Muslim cleric Muhammad Ahmad (AH-mahd) (1844–1885), known as the Mahdi (MAH-dee) (in Arabic, the ‘‘rightly guided one’’), led a religious revolt that brought much of the upper Nile under his control. The famous British general Charles Gordon led a military force to Khartoum (kahrTOOM) to restore Egyptian authority, but his besieged army was captured in 1885 by the Mahdi’s troops, thirtysix hours before a British rescue mission reached Khartoum. Gordon himself died in the battle (see the Film & History feature on p. 557). The weakening of Turkish rule in the Nile valley had a parallel to the west, where local viceroys in Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers had begun to establish their autonomy. In 1830, the French, on the pretext of protecting shipping from pirates, seized the area surrounding Algiers and integrated it into the French Empire. In 1881, the French imposed a protectorate on neighboring Tunisia; only Tripoli and Cyrenaica (seer-uh-NAY-uhkuh), the territories comprising modern Libya, remained under Turkish rule. Arab Merchants and European Missionaries in East Africa As always, events in East Africa followed their own distinctive pattern. Whereas the Atlantic slave trade was in decline, demand for slaves was increasing on the other side of the continent due to the growth of plantation agriculture in the region. The French introduced sugar to the island of Re´ union (ray-yoo-NYAHN) early in the century, and plantations of cloves (introduced from the Moluccas) were established under Omani Arab ownership on the island of Zanzibar (ZAN-zi-bar). Zanzibar itself became the major shipping port along the east coast during the early nineteenth century, and the sultan of Oman, who had reasserted Arab suzerainty over the region after the collapse of Portuguese authority, established his capital there in 1840. The tenacity of the slave trade in East Africa—Zanzibar was now the largest slave market in Africa—drew Christian missionaries to the region during the middle of the century. The most renowned was the Scottish doctor David Livingstone (LIV-ing-stuhn) (1813–1873), who arrived in Africa in 1841. Because Livingstone spent much of his time exploring the interior of the continent, discovering Victoria Falls in the process, he was occasionally criticized for being more explorer than missionary. But Livingstone was convinced that it was his divinely appointed task to bring Christianity to the continent, and his passionate opposition to slavery did much to win public support for the abolitionist cause. Public outcries caused the British to redouble their efforts to bring the slave trade to an end, and in 1873 shortly after Livingstone’s death, the slave market at Zanzibar was finally closed as the result of pressure from London. Bantus, Boers, and British in the South Nowhere in Africa did the European presence grow more rapidly than in the south. During the eighteenth century, the Boers (BOORS or BORS), Afrikaans-speaking farmers descended from the original Dutch settlers of the Cape Colony, began to migrate eastward. After the British seized the cape during the Napoleonic wars, the Boers’ eastward migration intensified, culminating in the Great Trek of the mid-1830s. In part, the Boers’ departure was provoked by the British attitude toward the local population. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1834, and the British government was

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 556). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

generally more sympathetic to the rights of the local African population than were the Afrikaners (ah-fri-KAHnurz), many of whom believed that white superiority was ordained by God. Eventually, the Boers formed their own independent republics—the Orange Free State and the South African Republic, usually called the Transvaal (trans-VAHL) (see Map 21.4). Although the Boer occupation of the eastern territory was initially facilitated by internecine warfare among the local inhabitants, the new settlers met some resistance. In the early nineteenth century, the Zulus (ZOO-looz), a Bantu people led by a talented ruler named Shaka (SHAH-kuh), engaged in a series of wars with the Europeans that ended only when Shaka was overthrown. The Scramble for Africa At the beginning of the 1880s, most of Africa was still independent. European rule was limited to the fringes of the continent, such as Algeria, the Gold Coast, and South Africa. Other areas like Egypt, lower Nigeria, Senegal (sen-ni-GAHL), and Mozambique (moh-zam-BEEK) were under loose protectorates. But the pace of European penetration was accelerating. The scramble began in the mid-1880s when several European states, including Belgium, France, Germany, and Great Britain, engaged in a feeding frenzy to seize a piece of the African cake before the plate had been picked clean. By 1900, virtually all of the continent had

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 557). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

been placed under some form of European rule. The British consolidated their authority over the Nile valley and seized additional territories in East Africa (see Map 21.3 on p. 555). The French advanced eastward from Senegal into the central Sahara. They also occupied Madagascar and other territories in West and Central Africa. The Germans claimed the hinterland opposite Zanzibar, as well as coastal strips in West and Southwest Africa, and King Leopold (LAY-oh-polt) II (1835–1909) of Belgium claimed the Congo for his own personal use. Italy entered the contest in 1911–1912 and seized the territories that comprise modern Libya. What had sparked the imperialist hysteria that brought an end to African independence? Although trade between Europe and Africa had increased, it was probably not sufficient, by itself, to justify the risks and expense of conquest. More important than economic interests were the rivalries among the European states that led them to engage in imperialist takeovers out of fear that if they did not, another state would. As one British diplomat remarked, a protectorate at the mouth of the Niger River would be an ‘‘unwelcome burden,’’ but a French protectorate there would be ‘‘fatal.’’ Hence, as in Southeast Asia, statesmen felt compelled to obtain colonies as a hedge against future actions by rivals. Notably, the British solidified their control over the entire Nile valley to protect the Suez Canal from the French. Another consideration might be called the ‘‘missionary factor,’’ as European missionaries lobbied for colonial takeovers to facilitate their efforts to convert the African population. The concept of social Darwinism and the ‘‘white man’s burden’’ persuaded many that they had a duty to introduce the African people to the benefits of Western civilization. Even David Livingstone believed that missionary work and economic development had to go hand in hand, pleading with his fellow Europeans to introduce the ‘‘three Cs’’ (Christianity, commerce, and civilization) to the continent. How much easier that task would be if African peoples were under benevolent European rule! There were more prosaic reasons as well. Advances in Western technology and European superiority in firearms made it easier than ever for a small European force to defeat superior numbers (see the box on p. 560). Furthermore, life expectancy for Europeans living in Africa had improved. With the discovery that quinine (from the bark of the cinchona tree) could provide partial immunity from malaria, the mortality rate for Europeans living in Africa dropped dramatically. By the end of the century, European residents in tropical Africa faced only slightly higher risks of death by disease than individuals living in Europe.

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 558). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

Under these circumstances, King Leopold of Belgium used missionary activities as an excuse to claim vast territories in the Congo River basin—Belgium, he said, as ‘‘a small country, with a small people,’’ needed a colony to enhance its image. 8 The royal land grab set off a race among European nations to stake claims throughout subSaharan Africa. Leopold ended up with the territories south of the Congo River, while France occupied areas to the north. Rapacious European adventurers established plantations in the new Belgian Congo to grow rubber, palm oil, and other valuable export products. Conditions for African workers were so abysmal that an international outcry led in 1903 to the formation of a commission under British consul Roger Casement to investigate. The commission’s report, issued in 1904, helped to bring about reforms. Meanwhile, in East Africa, Germany annexed the colony of Tanganyika (tan-gan-YEE-kuh). To avert violent clashes among the great powers, the German chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, convened a conference in Berlin in 1884 to set ground rules for future annexations of African territory. Like the famous Open Door Notes fifteen years later (see Chapter 22), the conference combined highminded resolutions with a hardheaded recognition of practical interests. The delegates called for free commerce in the Congo and along the Niger River as well as for further efforts to end the slave trade. At the same time, the participants recognized the inevitability of the imperialist dynamic, agreeing only that future annexations of African territory should not be recognized until effective occupation had been demonstrated. No African delegates were present at the conference. During the next few years, African territories were annexed without provoking a major confrontation between the Western powers, but in 1898, Britain and France reached the brink of conflict at Fashoda (fuh-SHOH-duh), a small town in the Sudan. The French had been advancing eastward across the Sahara with the objective of controlling the regions around the upper Nile. British and Egyptian troops then marched southward to head off the French. After a tense face-off, the French government backed down, and British authority over the area was secured. Colonialism in Africa Having seized Africa in what could almost be described as a fit of hysteria, the European powers had to decide what to do with it. With economic concerns relatively limited except for isolated areas like the gold mines in the Transvaal and copper deposits in the Belgian Congo, interest in Africa declined, and most European governments settled down to govern their new territories with the least effort and expense possible. In many cases, this meant a form of indirect rule similar to what the British used in the princely states in India. INDIRECT RULE IN WEST AFRICA For British administrators, the stated goal of indirect rule was to preserve African political traditions. The desire to limit cost was one reason for this approach, but it may also have been due to the conviction that Africans were inherently inferior and thus incapable of adopting European customs and institutions. In any event, indirect rule entailed relying on existing political elites and institutions. In some areas, the British simply asked a local ruler to formally accept British authority. Sometimes the Africans did the

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 559). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

asking, as in the case of the African leaders in Cameroons who wrote to Queen Victoria: We wish to have your laws in our towns. We want to have every fashion altered; also we will do according to your Consul’s word. Plenty wars here in our country. Plenty murder and plenty idol worshippers. Perhaps these lines of our writing will look to you as an idle tale. We have spoken to the English consul plenty times about having an English government here. We never have answer from you, so we wish to write you ourselves. 9 Nigeria offers a typical example of British indirect rule. British officials maintained the central administration, but local authority was assigned to local chiefs, with British district officers serving as intermediaries. The local authorities were expected to maintain law and order

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 560). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.