History Tutorial Week 4: Imperialism

th
(1) New Imperialism of the late-19 century/ Partition of Africa
- Central question: why did this happen?
- Technological innovations:
o Growth of railways in Europe and colonial areas (Hedrick, 49-50)
 Lower costs, high speeds, greater reliability (Hedrick, 51); opened markets
to international trade (89)
o Ships and Shipping (Hedrick)
 Declining freight rates 1873-1908 (21)
 Increasing volume of world trade 1850-1913 (23)
 Steamers became preferable to sail ships since 1850s (24)
 Impact of Suez Canal (estb. 1869) (25-27) : Helped Britain especially
 Shipbuilding boom 1890s (29) : general fleet renewal due to new tech.
 New infrastructures and organizations: communications helped;
conference system (37)
o Guns (See Hedrick, “The Breechloader Revolution”): 1860s-1890s: European
infantryman can fire lying down regardless of weather, with target up to half mile
away. Helped conquer Asia and Africa.
- J.A. Hobson’s thesis: Imperialism is driven by commercial and financial interests (with
complicity from government and universities) and sold to a bloodthirsty, spectating
public that was attracted to jingoistic heroism. (“military-industrial-complex conspiracy
argument”)
o “The new imperialism differs from the older, first, in substituting for the ambition
of a single growing empire the theory and the practice of competing empires, each
motivated by similar lusts of political aggrandizement and commercial gain;
secondly, in the dominance of financial or investing over mercantile interests”
(Lenin quoting Hobson, Imperialism, VII, 114)
o Peripheral expansion with intent to populate is an old type of colonialism (8-10).
Only Russia still does it post 1880 in Asia. (10, 14).
o A new type of colonialism since 1880s (11):
 New British imperialism characterized by crown colonies: neither
responsible government nor representative institutions (12). Nowhere
extended the political and civil liberties of the mother countries to new
territories. An expansion of autocracy (13). Climate unsuitable for
resettlement, populated by “lower races”.
 New colonial acquisitions did not yield Britain much commercial value
either (13-15). Didn’t make sense as outlet for Population growth either.
o Real motive: “the business interests of the nation as a whole are subordinated to
those of certain sectional interests that usurp control of the national resources and
use them for their private gain” (16) These business interests are “parasites upon
patriotism” (29).

1
  Sir Thomas More: “Everywhere do I perceive a certain conspiracy of rich
men seeking their own advantage under the name and pretext of the
commonwealth” (16)
 Economic motives: public money on ships, guns, military… (18): big
firms and manufacturers benefit. Relieves the congestion of the home
market and provides employment. (19)
 Foreign investment played a role (20): high income derived as interest.
(23) This happened not just in Britain but also in FR, GRMY, US and
other capitalist states.
 The worst are the financiers (26) who speculate in the money market
“These great businesses—banking broking, bill discounting, loan floating
company promoting – from the central ganglion of international
capitalism” and control national policy. They have interest to create new
public debts, to float new companies, and to cause constant considerable
fluctuations of values. So they have interest in imperialism ( and war).
 The Press is involved in the conspiracy: manipulate public opinion (28,
40)
 Over production played a role in fueling imperialism (32-33).
 Lofty ideals, too, were sold to the public to justify imperialism (34).
 Statesmen, political cliques, members of the possessing class and
academic circles (40) assist in its conspiracy (36) QUOTE!
• A blood-thirsty, sports-loving, adventure-inclined public bought
into the “spectatorial lust of jingoism “and supported imperialism.
(37-39)
• Another rephrase of thesis on page. 43.
- Nicholas Mansergh’s thesis: Imperialism is motivated by political, not economic
considerations. Expansion overseas was a means to the end of preserving the balance of
power in continental Europe, and not an end in itself.
o Bismarck’s agency: political maneuvers: at first pit France against England and
Italy.
 Domestic impasse in France post 1870 defeat (115); Bismarck encouraged
France to expand overseas as a distraction. (116)
 England was dependent on German goodwill due to its vulnerable hold of
Suez Canal (116-117)
• Bismarck wants to reinsure Germany in the West against French
aggression.
 Significance of Heligoland (owned by Britain) to Germany (117
 Bismarck shifts to pursue active imperial policy since 1883 (118)
• Angra Pequena development leads to German South-West Africa
(118) with positions in the Cameroons, New Guinea, and a
foothold in East Africa
• Political deliberation of Germany contrasted with private-
enterprise-led British expansion. (119). Germans don’t populate
Africa. (119)

2
  German attempt at French-German “friendship” ends in failure when
Ferry gets ousted (119); leads to German rapprochement with England.
o 1885-89: height of the scramble for Africa: German-England front (120)
 Links England closer to Germany and the Central powers (Triple alliance)
 Mediterranean Agreement of 1887: England, Italy and Austria to preserve
the status quo in the Mediterranean
 Anglo-German colonial settlement in Africa 1890: Germany gets
Heligoland and England gets some East Africa.
o Russian expansion in Asia: encouraged by Germany to distance Russia from
England and to distract from Europe. (121)
o Jameson Raid and the South African War:
 President Paul Kruger of the Transvaal instigated English-German tension
(to Germany’s favor). Britain provoked to condemn Germany’s instigation
of Boer hostility of Britain.
 Led to Jameson Raid ’95-‘96 (British initiative that played to the hands of
Germany”)
• Kaiser’s inflammatory telegram to Kruger. (122)
• Failed plan for European Alliance (123) because it doesn’t interest
France
• Outbreak of South African War in 1899 (123)
 Britain gets estranged from Europe.
 “The colonial policies of the continental states were formulated in the light
of the European balance of power and designed to serve European ends.
When they no longer served those ends the colonial scene slips
unobtrusively into the background.” (124)
- Robinson and Gallagher’s thesis: (See “The Partition of Africa” ) : A combination of
African factors sparked by proto-nationalist movements resulted in the partition of
Africa. European powers merely reacted. Imperialism was an involuntary side-effect of
partition, not its cause (74).
o The breakdown of the Khedivate in the Egyptian revolution 1879-82
 Prelude: France’s reluctant intervention in Tunis 1881 (76-77). Ended with
Treaty of Bardo, making Tunis a French protectorate. “The basis of the old
system of informal control had gone for good, swept aside by political and
religious revolt from below.”
 Breaking point/ beginning of imperialism: Suez crisis in Egypt 1891
 Arabi Revolt against the khedive since 1879; British and French tried to
placate Arabi to no avail. Britain had many reasons NOT to intervene in
Egypt (79) but did anyway when Suez access was threatened (80).
 “[The British] had gone to restore the status quo ante Arabi and discovered
that it no longer existed. They had come to restore a khedive and found
him a cipher without the authority of British bayonets. And so they had
gone in and they could not get out” (81).
 Also: the Mahdist Revolt (1881-99): Britain “forced into the position of
being the protectors of Egypt” (81).

3
  Egypt as Britain’s “veiled protectorate” changed continental diplomacy;
brought Germany into the fray.
• Bismarck arranged Franco-German entente on West-African
questions; backed Leopold’s Congo Free State (86-87).
• Given the insignificance of these scraps of land, a lot of thought is
put into their division (88).
 Berlin Conference of 1884: Franco-German entente in place, Granville of
Britain not in full control of Egypt, Franco-British agreement to pump
loan into Egypt
• Outcome of coastal partition (89): nobody really cared; “territorial
claims should depend on effective occupation, this magical phrase
was left so vague that it meant almost nothing”; wanted to commit
to nothing.
• Nevertheless, the West African Scramble embroiled Europe closer
to African politics due to a rivalry for commercial options. 1880s
statesmen draw the borders of Africa but left private hands to
develop. (99)
 French foray (91-93; 93-94); British objective to get out(93-94)
 Ethiopia and the Italians (97-103/113); increasingly entanglement (103-)
• Colonial authorities wanted no more than informal control but
demands of proto-nationalists would not let it rest (116)
o The Rise of the Transvaal; Jameson Raid; Boer War (118-123)
 Britain attempted to reconcile with Kruger; repeated Gladstone’s mistake
over Arabi. Repeat theme of outcome belied the intent. Hence “the taking
of the Rhodesia’s and the conquest of the Transvaal came about from a
process of colonization in which the struggles between Afrikaners and
British nationalists had receded beyond imperial control. (123)
o “Much of this imperialism was no more than an involuntary reaction of Europe to
the various proto-nationalisms of Islam that were already rising in Africa against
the encroaching thralldom of the white men.” (75).
o This new imperialism in Asia and Africa “were mainly designed to plaster over
the cracks in the old empires… they were not the objects of serious national
attention” (124). One of the side effects of European expansion “had been to
water down or to crack open the casings of societies governed hitherto by
traditional modes”. The social mobility and the opening of frontiers engendered
resulted in increasing tension. Meanwhile, the West’s scope for creative
intervention of the old kind was closing down. These proto-nationalist
awakenings were partially results of “cuffing [natives] out of the postures of
tradition and into the exchange economy and the bureaucratic state”.
o “Imperialism has been the engine of social change, but colonial nationalism has
been its auxiliary. Between them, they have contrived a world revolution.” (125).
- Lenin’s take: (See Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism. All paginations, which
include the section number, refer to V.I. Lenin. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of
Imperialism (New York: Penguin Books, 1916). [Good partial summary, see first
sentences of VII]

4
o Section I: Free competition gave rise to growth of industry and rapid
concentration of production: features of capitalism (I, 13). Today leads to
monopoly (with combines, cartels and syndicates, trusts), which transforms
capitalism into imperialism (19)
 History of monopoly (19-20):
• 1860-80s: highest stage, apex of free competition; embryonic
stage.
• 1973: wide zone of development of cartels. Transitory
• Late 19th century economic boom and crisis of 1900-03 ; cartels
common.
 “Cartels come to an agreement on the conditions of sale, terms of
payment, etc. They divide the markets among themselves. They fix the
quantity of goods to be produced. They fix prices. They divide the profits
among the various enterprises, etc. (21)
 “Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is immense
progress in the socialization of production. In particular, the process of
technical invention and improvement becomes socialized.” (24): an
estimate of all resources became known, capacity of market also known,
labor is monopolized. “Capitalism in its imperialist stage arrives at the
threshold of the most complete socialization of production” (25) but the
problem is appropriation remains private.
• Ways to compel adherence to the cartel (25-26)
• Benefits speculators. (27) Overflow of capital leads to risky
overseas investment. (29). Crises accelerates tendency towards
concentration and monopoly (30).
o Section II: The concentration of banks
 From modest intermediaries into monopolies (that combine) (32) and
concentrate all capital and revenue into an international capitalist
economic unit: centralization and decentralization(36).
 Allows banks to control scattered capitalists (38)
 Decreasing importance of the Stock Exchange (44); “personal union”
between banks, industry, and the state (47)
 Jeidel: “ ‘ …It was the crisis of 1900 that enormously accelerated and
intensified the process of concentration of industry and banking,
consolidated that process, for the first time transformed the connection
with industry into the monopoly of the big banks and made this connection
much closer and more active.’ ” (53)
o Section III; Financial oligarchy
 The holding system extends monopolists’ power and allows them to
engage in shady enterprise (57); high profit rate helps consolidate the
financial oligarchy (65).
 Penetrates all spheres of public life (69).
 Ownership of capital is increasingly separated from the application of
capital to production… “Imperialism, or the domination of finance capital,
is that highest stage of capitalism in which this separation reaches vast

5
 proportions. The supremacy of finance capital over all other forms of
capital means the predominance of the rentier and of the financial
oligarchy; it means the crystallization of a small number of financially
powerful states from among all the rest” (71)
 Britain, US, France and Germany own 80 percent of the world’s finance
capital in 1910. (73).
o Section IV: Export of Capital became a common feature.
 “Superabundance of capital” : A new monopoly emerged where
monopolist capitalist combines in all advanced capitalist countries and a
few rich countries with intense accumulation of capital occupy a
monopolist position. (74-75)
 Uneven development and wretched conditions of the masses a
fundamental condition of capitalism. Capital exported to backward
countries [think India] (75) and used to stipulate export of commodities
(79).
o Section V: Capitalist combines divide the world market and forms international
cartels; their sphere of influences expands; super monopoly (81)
o Section VI: Great powers divide the world such that in the future only redivision
is possible (94). [Especially relates to imperialism]
 “It is precisely after that period [60s and 70s, apex of old, free-market
capitalism] that the ‘ boom’ in colonial annexations begins, and that the
struggle for the territorial division of the world becomes extraordinarily
keen. It is beyond doubt, therefore, that capitalism’s transition to the stage
of monopoly capitalism, to finance capitalism, is bound up with the
intensification of the struggle for the partition of the world” (95).
 Imperialist thought popular in Britain: Cecil Rhodes and Joseph
Chamberlain (96-97). Rhodes quote (97).
 Colonialism is motivated by monopolies’ need to control all sources of
raw material (101-102) “The more capitalism is developed, the more the
need for raw materials is felt, the more bitter competition becomes, and
the more feverishly the hunt for raw materials proceeds throughout the
whole world, the more desperate becomes the struggle for the acquisition
of colonies. ”
• Also motivated by necessity of exporting capital (104)
• As Hilferding puts it, “finance capital does not want liberty, it
wants domination” (104)
 The non-economic superstructure that grows up on the basis of finance
capital stimulated colonial conquest: domestic discontent need outlet
abroad (105)
 Division of the world into colony-owning countries and colonies; national
dependence (105)
o Section VII: Imperialism as a special stage of capitalism [great summary and
data]:
 Five essential features of imperialism (110-112)

6
 • Concentration of production and capital developed such that
monopolies play key role in economic life
• Merger of bank capital with industrial capital, creating finance
capital of a financial oligarchy
• The export of capital
• Formation of international capitalist monopolies
• Territorial division of the world among greatest capitalist powers
o Section VIII: The parasitism and decay of capitalism
 Development of patents under capitalist monopoly retards technical
progress (124) leading to decay and stagnation.
 World becomes divided into few usurers and large number of debtors
(126)
• The rentier state: sign of parasitic capitalism.
• Opportunism and working-class movement becomes increasingly
irreconcilable. (136).
o Section IX: The critique of imperialism (critique of Hobson and Kautsky)
o Section X:
o Four forms of monopoly: (1) monopolist capitalist combines, cartels, syndicate
and trusts. (2)
 Four forms of monopoly: (1) monopolist capitalist combines, cartels,
syndicate and trusts. (2) Monopolies that captured raw materials. (3)
Monopoly of banks; (4) monopoly from colonial policy.
 These developments intensified contradictions of capitalism.
 Imperialism is “capitalism in transition” ; “moribund capitalism” (161).

(2) British India

- Question: How did the Britons manage to rule a vast land and massive population?
- Indian railroads: the costliest construction project undertaken by any colonial power in
any colony (Hedrick, 53) ; the world’s top rail network since 1890 but the only colony
with rails that failed to industrialize during the railway boom (Hedrick, 56); Victorian
fascination with railroads (89), part of the enlightenment project (Hedrick 58, 63, 87);
o guaranteed dividend and its critics, (65, 71, 68);
o Positive local reception of railroads (Hedrick 62)
o Lack of coordination between local and Britain govts (Hedrick 72); famines due
to bad transportation (74); British quality at British price (75)
o Good degree of private control of railways (76); petty corruptions.
o Deterioration since 1914: a symbol of British misrule (79)
o Bottom-line: all the railroad policies are geared to benefit Britain, not India (91).
- Sepoy Mutiny, 1857 (Hedrick 64): northern India: Bengal Army violently revolted
against British officers when they thought their religious practice is threatened (Wurgaft
4). Demonstrated military advantage of railways (68). Railways helped consolidate hold
over India; less revolts after 1858. (Hedrick 87). A month later, Kanpur Massacre: the
British officers mass-murdered Indian civilians in revenge. (Wurgaft, 5). Reign of terror
in the countryside (Ibid.).

7
 o Significance: reinforced British’s suspicion of natives; legitimized racial and
moral condemnation. Deincentivized to reform (Wurgaft 6).
- British shipping:
o Helped by Suez Canal (Hedrick, 25-27); had 57% of ships in the world in 1911;
Peninsular & Oriental company (quasi-official) (40)
o British supremacy at sea: due to weakness of Britain’s rivals (Hedrick 42);
merchant ships paid profit, affluent London money market; flexible organization;
large fleet, cheap coal (for use and export), cheap telegraphic info. (43)
 Owning India helps: lots to export. India’s trade surplus with Britain
balanced Britain’s deficit with Europe. (44): allowed Britain to perpetrate
dying domestic industries and underdevelopment of India. (44-45).
- Famine problems: (Woodruff, 100): caused by stubborn overly-confident authority
(ibid.,101)
o Orissa 1866; Temple’s famine in Behar 1874; North-West in 1868, ’96, 1907
o Authority of British India’s doctrinal commitment to free-market liberalism
problematic (101)
o John Lawrence tried to save lives (102); worked.
o “The liberality of 1873-74 was due to the mistaken optimism of 1866 and led in
its turn to greater austerity in 1878.” The Madras government wanted to import
grain to keep down prices but were told not to interfere with trade.
o 1880: progressive solutions (103); canal system, civil engineering, town-planning
(111-113)
o Hindrances: caste prejudices (105); petty corruption (106)
- Attempts at reform in India:
o Mostly before 1857
o Continuity: paternalistic and authoritarian (Wurgaft, 19)
o Conservative strands (Wurgaft, 20-21
o Marquis of Dalhousie, 1848-56: rails, electric telegraph, uniform postage, canal
and road projects, no infanticide and widow-burning etc. (Hedrick 61)
Motivation (Ibid., 64).(Hedrick, 88-89)
o British leadership in latter half of the 19th century perceived its role in opposition
to political reform (Wurgaft 6-7) : Lord Curzon (1898-1905) defused political
demand with administration reforms: Indian Civil Service.
- Political and social development/ Native political demands
o Proclamation by the Queen 1857: ended East Indian Company’s Rule; begins
Crown Raj. Promises to Indian subjects unfulfilled.
o In the last third of 19th century: British policy to foster an Indian aristocracy of
wealth in order to curb the influence of Western-educated Bengali middle-class
(Wurgaft, 26-27)
 Vernacular Press Act, 1878 (Wurgaft, 27)
 Organization of National Congress: national movements by middle-class
lawyers (Wurgaft 28)
o Demand for responsible judicial and administrative system: equal access to
government positions. (Wurgaft 28-29).

8
 o Ibert Bill, introduced 1883: proposal to expand Indian judges’ jurisdiction over
British subjects (Wurgaft, 30). Outrage in Britain and in Anglo-Indian
community; Resulted in a watered down version (Ibid., 32; Sinha, 98).
 Seen as assault on white women in India. Natives as effeminized, unfit to
try British subject. Thinks Indian women degrades the female sex”;
“otherness” (Sinha, 99). See native men as posing physical threat (Sinha,
100).
 “pure passionless white women as helpless victims of lascivious native
males” (Sinha, 105)
 Memsahib’s fierce participation in opposition (Sinha, 99, 106); social
boycott, meetings, entrance in political life (ibid., 106)
 Henry Beveridge (reformer, pro-Ibert Bill) (Sinha, 110-111); wife Annette
Akroyed Beveridge against Ibert Bill
 Pride of race mixed with pride of womanhood (Sinha, 112)
o British land tenure system promote a loyal native landholding upper class at the
expense of Indian traditional structure of peasantry (Wurgaft, 39).
o Bureaucratization of British administration; domestication of Anglo-Indian social
life (Wurgaft, 41).
- Motivation:
o Commitment to laissez-faire liberal government in Britain. Rule by select
aristocracy who believe they are acting in a disinterested way. Fulfilling the
Platonic ideal: “The English Guardians certainly believed there was something in
their composition that distinguished them from the people they ruled; they were
forbidden to own land in India or to take part in trade; they were governed by
their elders on exactly Plato’s principles” (Woodruff, 76).
o Do- good intent
 Marquis of Dalhousie (Hedrick, 64); Brunton (Hedrick 69;).
 Wurgaft 3.
 Messiah-like: Lawrences and Herbert Edwardes. Wurgaft 36.
 See Woodruff piece on officers trying to solve famine. Lawrences, Kisch.
 T. B. Macaulay, 1835: English as the superior language: cultural
supremacist attitude
 Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden”
o Change in attitude in mid-19th century: Permanent Raj: “Once the target of
reformers, India had now become the hope of reactionaries excited by the desire
to rule rather than reform, concerned with British might, not Indian hopes… the
ideology of permanence clearly exerted a strong pressure on British and thought.”
(Francis Hutcins quoted in Wurgaft, 3)
 Reform attitude (Wurgaft, 3-4) : “a benighted people” that ” had to be
compelled toward the light”
o Before 1840s, British policy focused on urban centers: with goal of self-
government as a distant but eventual objective (Wurgaft 11) ; post Mutiny, shift
focus to northern frontier (Punjab region)

9
 o Significance of the Punjab region: linked to politics of imperial expansion,
Russian menace, mystical exoticism, British-led improvements well-received
(Wurgaft, 33-35).
 Henry and John Lawrence: high-performing administers; exceptional
(Wurgaft, 35-37.
o Post- mutiny: authoritarianism reinforced by Orientalist stereotype: Lord Lytton,
Lord Mayo (Wurgaft, 23-24): authority dependent on force
o Post- mutiny (next 50-years): very static (Woodruff, 75):
o Wurgaft’s summary: 53.
- Stereotypes about Indians:
o Hedrick, 66.
o Hedrick 88: As caste barriers eroded, Europeans saw only divide between Hindus
and Muslims
o Growing in influence of Darwinian thought: Wurgaft: initially thought Indians
‘immorality were due to “relative backwardness”; after 1857, blamed it on racial
deficiency (Wurgaft, 8) ; hierarchy of race.
o Contrast between Bengal stereotype (weak and effeminate ) and sturdy, dignified
peasants of Punjab (Wurgaft, 13, 27).
o Maud Diver: core of India cannot be rationalized nor expunged: the epitome of
the great heart of India herself is “aloof, long-suffering, and illogical to a degree
inconceivable by western minds.” (Wurgaft, 15).
o “Changeless East” (Wurgaft, 22) : native attraction to strength and authority: Ex.
Lord Lytton (Ibid., 23).
o Rigid stereotypes held by the British characterized by selective obliviousness
(Wurgaft, 44-48) : Shortcomings in the Indian character: indifference to order,
sexual depravity, and passivity.
o Zenana: the temptation of the forbidden. (Wurgaft, 52-53).
- Anglo-Indian community:
o Insular in latter half of the 19th century (Wurgaft 7)
o Viceroy is distant from the real India: “He is a being so heterogeneous from us.
He is the centre of a world with which he has no affinity… He, who is the axis of
India… is necessarily screened from all knowledge of India. He lisps no syllable
of any Indian tongue; no race or caste or mode of Indian life is known to him..”
(Woodruff, 77)
o Typical junior field officer: Woodruff, 79. Young. Highly educated in theory.
Lonely with no one to relate to. Meant to do well.
o Victorian values: sexual taboos, moral-self-consciousness
o Considered themselves as “the incarnation of austerity, courage, and self-
control”(Wurgaft, 10)
o Opposition to Ibert Bill (Wurgaft, 30-31/ see Sinha and Ibert Bill section above)
Anglo-Indian Defense Association in Calcutta. Sees Indian as “other” (Ibid., 31)
o Arrival of memsahib (wives of officers) (Wurgaft, 42)
o “instant aristocracy” (Wurgaft, 42)
o “The cult of character… was built upon a sense of national superiority, a
confidence bred by commercial and political expansion. Yet only the claim of

10
 moral and racial superiority… could support the exclusive mandate to order
Indian political life.. [This] depended as much on the projection of conflicting
emotional states onto native society as it did on the realistic depiction of a
paysage moralisé. ” (Wurgaft, 46)
o British Women: [see Sinha and Paxton pieces and the Ibert Bill section above]
 Flora Annie Steel: feminist and racist, classist, cultural supremacist; wife
• Fail to realize the source of her privilege and its limitations as a
wife (Paxton, 163-165)
• Sees female sexuality as a destructive force; self-hatred
 Annie Besant: feminist and transcends bias; estranged from husband and
independent
• Recognizes its own middle-class position and subtly renounced it.
Opt for marginality over complicity in patriarchy (Paxton, 168).
• 1917 Women’s Indian Association (Paxton, 172)
• Promotes tiered suffrage system (Paxton, 173)
• Still a believer in the danger of female sexuality (Paxton, 174).
 Both called to respond to dichotomy of being loyal or disloyal to British
Civilization (Paxton, 161)

11