NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... he matter was settled amicably, the nations decided that they might as well get as much as they could to simply stop others. Thus both national rivalry and economic factors played major roles in the partition of Western Africa, turning it into a Scramble. The initial situation in East Africa was similar to that in the West, with business men rather than the British government, ostensibly leading the expansion. A major influence being the British East Africa Company, set up by a Sir William Mckinnon.
The purpose being to develop trade in the aforementioned region. It has been suggested that the British government only offered their support in retaliation to the German's offering support to a similar German outfit. A genuine concern for the safety of the businessmen? Possible alternatives, include the thought that it would perhaps be of strategic benefit, maintaining a presence in the area to keep Germany in check. Or, a more trivial thought is that it could have been for pride, a paranoid fear that Germany may gain more land than them, thus creating an image that they are more powerful.
Either explanation for British involvement has economics as a major factor, seemingly without the initial economic interest neither the German or British government would have had any interest in the region. It seems equally certain that neither government were there to make a huge profit, certainly the Americas and Asia were providing more attractive investment opportunities. Following a division of East Africa into 'spheres of influence' the British East Africa Company developed a substantial number of territories. In 1895 the company proved incapable of running the territories, so the British government took formal control. Companies usually fail because they are not making a profit, if this was the case, why would the British government wish to take control?
Surely they would fair no better than Mckinnon, whose business credentials were well recognised through the making of his personal fortune through the shipping trade. A possible reason for Britain taking formal control could be to the maintain the national unity which it is believed colonisation brought back in Britain. A suggestion supported with Disraeli's 'forward policy' of the 1870 's pursued in both Afghanistan and the Transvaal. If gaining colonies had caused moral in Britain to lift, then surely giving them up would risk moral dropping lower than it had been before the acquisition. Other suggestions for Britain taking control, include the national rivalries, which were seemingly prominent around the time. After a diplomatic battle with Germany to gain the spheres of influence, for them to just leave is going to reflect very badly.
Certainly such an image would greatly effect Britain's influence at any future negotiations. Another possibility includes the thought that perhaps the locals were not responding kindly, so the company was failing not because of a lack of trade, but rather a lack of co-operation. Evidence for such a suggestion is provided with Italy being defeated by Abbysinia in 1896. Noticeably, only a year after Britain had taken formal control of the eastern territories, perhaps the Africans were beginning to develop means to resist. Indeed it was resistance to imposed British imperialism in Pretoria, which brought about the Boer War. Britain's rule in the area being opposed by European settlers of Dutch origin known as the Boers.
The Boers had broken away from British rule in Cape Colony, making the Great Trek and founded new colonies which subsequently became the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. Britain, seemingly only bothered once the area was seen to be of economic value, with the discovery of gold and diamonds. Therefore, an obvious suggestion would be to see Britain as wanting to add Pretoria to their empire because of the economic benefits it would bring. The Utilanders were certainly there to make a profit, being mainly Britons who had streamed into the Pretoria area to participate in the gold mining, made to pay tax yet given no voting rights. Thus we now see a possible reason for Britain's desire to claim Pretoria, being a question of British pride, as Lord Sailsbury confirms in his report to Queen Victoria: 'we decline to admit that a small Dutch population shall be allowed in a state which is under Your Majesty's suzerainty to oppress a much larger number of British subjects'. Suggesting that if they did not take Pretoria it would be a sign of weakness, rather than providing great economic rewards, that the war cost over 200 million pounds, highlights this.
Again, Germany were in the region, thus highlighting further the influence which national rivalries may have had, providing the evidence for Fieldhouse's argument: 'may best be seen as an extension into the periphery of the struggle in Europe'. Moreover, rather than simply to remove thoughts of weakness on Britain's behalf, there appear to have been men on the spot, such as Joseph Chamberlain (colonial secretary), who saw the grievances of the Utilanders as an opportunity to finally establish imperial greatness of Britain: 'Whether the supremacy, which we have claimed so long and so seldom exerted, is to be finally established' Certainly other men on the spot, such as Cecil Rhodes saw the extension of the British Empire as a paramount. Indeed Rhodes dream was to bring the whole of the 'uncivilised world' under British rule. Rhodes position in the economic world, led to him being made prime minister of Cape Colony.
In his position as prime minister Rhodes was able to encourage British settlers to work in the Transvaal and demand equal rights. Thus we are able to see the bearing he had on the Boer War and the subsequent claiming of Pretoria. Another possible reason for the Boer War, was to avenge the humiliation of the attempted against coup of the Transvaal government, thus re-establishing the esteem for Britain's power and influence around the world. Again we can look to Rhodes, who it is believed was actually encouraging Jameson to carry out the raid.
That the Utilanders did not revolt, helps too emphasis the thought that the British government were not acting in the interests of the business men, they did not want protecting! Suggesting that Rhodes motives, were now imperialistic rather than economic. That Rhodes made his fortune from economic interests and that his fortune allowed him to gain influence in the area, highlights how vital economic factors were in establishing Rhodes position. Indeed, the economic interests of the Utilanders provided the excuse for his attempt to extend British Imperialism.
Reconsidering the initial question, with regards Egypt we see a combination of national rivalry and economic factors leading the way to the establishment of a colony. Britain was interested in the region for the trade routes, needing to take Egypt to maintain the trade routes, such action only needed because of the fear that France may get it and block off the trade routes. Without the one, there would not have been the other. A similar situation is displayed in both the East and West, if there had not been economic gains than there would be no initial interest and subsequently the national rivalries of Europe could not have been taken into the periphery.
The consequence of the national rivalries being the incoherent and illogical grabbing of land, the Scramble for Africa! In the South, we see economic factors providing fortuitous circumstances for further expansion. Expansion seemingly motivated by a desire for power and influence, rather than simple economic gains. Thus, in general conclusion we are able to state that economic factors were highly significant, however they were not the single cause of the 'Scramble', which, in most cases was clearly poly-causal. Confirming D.
Thomson's proposition that it was 'the combination of novel economic conditions with anarchic political relations'. Without economic factors there would have been no scramble, and without the national rivalries there would also have been no scramble! Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: power and influence, trade routes, prime minister, boer war, economic factors
Research essay sample on Power And Influence Economic Factors
