New Imperialism of the late 19th-early 20th century
Overview
New Imperialism, New Colonization
Imperialism is an ancient concept, and it can take on many different forms. Countries that are imperialist expand their power by physically expanding their territory, and by extending their political, social, and cultural practices and beliefs into the territory they acquire.
Learning Objectives
- Examine the similarities and differences between European imperialism in the 16th century, and in the 19th century.
Key Terms / Key Concepts
imperialism: practice of claiming territory and then spreading the parent country’s beliefs and culture into the territory
Fin de siècle: French term for “turn of the century” that often invokes a sense of stagnation
metropole: the parent country in colonization
New Imperialism: late 19th century form of European imperialism
civilizing mission: crude term used by New Imperialists that claimed to colonize in order to bring “civilization” to poor, suffering, and backward populations.
European Imperialism: Background
In the 15th-16th centuries, the first wave of European imperialism exploded due to technological innovations and Renaissance ideals. Rivaling European nations sought ways to assert their authority over their neighbors, and their power on the world stage. For these reasons, voyages bound for the Far East began from across Western Europe, particularly Spain and Portugal. They sought increased trade in luxury goods, particularly spices, rugs, and gems from China and India.
Christopher Columbus’ voyage to the Caribbean would set in motion a chain of events that would galvanize European imperialism. His “discovery” of the New World prompted Spain and Portugal, and later France and England, to journey to the Americas. The goal was not only to procure wealth from these unknown regions, but also to assert their power on the world stage through colonization.
During the first wave of European imperialism, Spain colonized most of Central and South America, as well as Florida and much of the present-day American southwest. Portugal claimed Brazil, while New France was established in much of Canada and the American Midwest. England’s success, by comparison at the time, was much smaller in North America. However, it would not be long before England’s eyes turned to colonization in parts of the Pacific and Africa. To secure these colonies, Europeans relied not on trade, by military technology and combat. As historian Jared Diamond famously quipped, colonization (particularly of the New World) was achieved through “guns, germs, and steel.”
New Imperialism in the 19th Century
A peculiar mood set across Western Europe in the mid-late 1800s. This mood was of two natures: one that focused on industrialization and increased production, and one that worried that countries had progressed as far as they could.
The Napoleonic Wars had ended at the start of the century, and Europe had seen relative peace and stability. Societies had progressed and developed. But by the l860s and 1870s, there was a feeling that societies had developed as much as they could. As a result, many nations felt a sense of stagnation during the latter half of the 1800s. Some Europeans, undoubtedly, wondered if their countries would regress, having reached what they perceived as the zenith of their success. These thoughts are characterized as part of the Fin de siècle of the 19th century. Across Western Europe, there was a sense that countries must develop and progress or lose their place in the sun.
While some Europeans believed they had developed as far as possible, others focused on the very pragmatic needs of industrialization. Across Western Europe, industrialization soared. Industrial output surged and brought wealth to Europe. But because of mass industrialization, European natural resources rapidly diminished. Forests, mineral resources, and coal deposits were depleted. Realization of this fact further exacerbated the worry that, perhaps, European countries had reached the top of their development.
In 1871, a newly-united country emerged in Europe: Germany. An industrial and intellectual powerhouse, Germany threatened to become the most prosperous country in Western Europe. England responded to this potential threat by tapping into their colonial resources.
By the 1880s, each of the Western European nations had begun a mad campaign to expand their territorial possessions abroad. This “scramble” to acquire colonies took place for two reasons: to secure natural resources, and to demonstrate a country’s power on the world stage. As this wave of new imperialism began in the 1870s-1880s, rivalry between European nations surged, as too did nationalism.
For the parent country, called a metropole, the purpose of colonies was to make money. Simultaneously, colonization had the secondary purpose of encouraging nationalism. European heads of state struggled with a central question: how could they sell colonization to their publics?
Their solution was the concept of civilizing missions. European governments espoused the argument that Africa, and much of Asia and the Pacific were backward, uncivilized, tribal areas. Colonization of such regions, it was claimed, would bring industry, culture, and Christianity to these impoverished and suffering people. The idea of Europeans colonizing through civilizing missions became a core component of New Imperialism. In popular European rhetoric, the Europeans would act as the light of the world and end suffering for millions.
Impact
The tragic reality of new imperialism is that it produced innumerable, horrible consequences for the world. Nearly all of Africa was colonized. Large portions of Southeast Asia and the Pacific were similarly carved up among European nations, also. Resistance to European colonization was suppressed by far superior European military technology such as breech-loading rifles, heavy artillery, and machine guns. The idea of civilizing missions proved no more than a thin effort to raise support for colonization at home. New Imperialism would uproot and destroy communities around the world, and also establish one of the underlying, but root causes of World War I.
Primary Source: Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League 1899
The American Anti-Imperialist League was founded in 1899, after the United States occupied Cuba and Puerto Rico and the Philippine Islands. The Filipinos revolted against American rule in February 1899, and were suppressed in 1902 after a bloody, ruthless guerrilla war. Most Americans supported overseas expansion, but many of the nation's most illustrious citizens were appa11ed by American imperialism. In 1899, they founded the American AntiImperialist League in order to campaign, unsuccessfully as it turned out, against the annexation of the Philippines.
Platform of the American Antilmperialist League (1899)
We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is "criminal aggression" and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our Government.
We earnestly condemn the policy of the present National Administration in the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in those islands. We deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, whose bravery deserves admiration even in an unjust war. We denounce the slaughter of the Filipinos as a needless horror. We protest against the extension of American sovereignty by Spanish methods.
We demand the immediate cessation of the war against liberty, begun by Spain and continued by us. We urge that Congress be promptly convened to announce to the Filipinos our purpose to concede to them the independence for which they have so long fought and which of right is theirs.
The United States have always protested against the doctrine of international law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-goveming state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people. The United States cannot act upon the ancient heresy that might makes right.
Imperialists assume that with the destruction of self-government in the Philippines by American hands, all opposition here will cease. This is a grievous error. Much as we abhor the war of "criminal aggression" in the Philippines, greatly as we regret that the blood of the Filipinos is on American hands, we more deeply resent the betrayal of American institutions at home. The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our own household. The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is to destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals.
Whether the ruthless slaughter of the Filipinos shall end next month or next year is but an incident in a contest that must go on until the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are rescued from the hands of their betrayers. Those who dispute about standards of value while the foundation of the Republic is undermined will be listened to as little as those who would wrangle about the small economies of the household while the house is on fire. The training of a great people for a century, the aspiration for liberty of a vast immigration are forces that will hurl aside those who in the delirium of conquest seek to destroy the character of our institutions.
We deny that the obligation of all citizens to support their Government in times of grave National peril applies to the present situation. If an Administration may with impunity ignore the issues upon which it was chosen, deliberately create a condition of war anywhere on the face of the globe, debauch the civil service for spoils to promote the adventure, organize a truthsuppressing censorship and demand of all citizens a suspension of judgment and their unanimous support while it chooses to continue the fighting, representative government itself is imperiled.
We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for the forcible subjugation of any people . We shall oppose for reelection all who in the White House or in Congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American ends. We still hope that both of our great political parties will support and defend the Declaration of Independence in the closing campaign of the century.
We hold, with Abraham Lincoln, that "no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. When the white man governs himself, that is self-government, but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government-that is despotism." "Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."
We cordially invite the cooperation of all men and women who remain loyal to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
From Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University
"Platform of the American Antilmperialist League," in Speeches, Correspondence, ard Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, ed. Frederick Bancroft (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1913), p. 77, note 1.
Attributions
Images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons