| During the nineteenth century, many Western powers scrambled
for new territories in Southeast Asia and Africa. Governing by either indirect
or direct rule, the Western powers controlled the governments and economies
of their colonies. Some territories resisted colonial rule, but most early
resistance movements failed.
The New Imperialism
-
Under new imperialism, European countries began to seek additional
territory.
In the nineteenth century, a new phase of Western expansion
began. European nations began to view Asian and African societies as a
source of industrial raw materials and a market for Western manufactured
goods.
The Scramble for Territories
In the 1880s, European states began an intense scramble
for overseas territory. Imperialism, the extension of a nation’s
powerover other lands, was not new. Europeans had set up colonies and trading
posts in North America, South America, and Africa by the sixteenth century.
However, the imperialism of the late nineteenth century,
called the “new imperialism” by some, was different. Earlier, European
states had been content, especially in Africa and Asia, to set up a few
trading posts where they could carry on trade and perhaps some missionary
activity. Now they sought nothing less than direct control over vast territories.
Motives for Imperialism
Why did Westerners begin to increase their search for
colonies after 1880? There was a strong economic motive. Capitalist states
in the West were looking for both markets and raw materials such as rubber,
oil, and tin for their industries. The issue was not simply an economic
one, however. European nation-states were involved in heated rivalries.
They acquired colonies abroad in order to gain an advantage over their
rivals. Colonies were also a source of national prestige. To some people,
in fact, a nation could not be great without colonies.
In addition, imperialism was tied to Social Darwinism
and racism. Social Darwinists believed that in the struggle between nations,
the fit are victorious. Racism is the belief that race determines
traits and capabilities. Racists erroneously believe that particular races
are superior or inferior.
Racist beliefs have led to the use of military force against
other nations. One British professor 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.”
Some Europeans took a more religious and humanitarian
approach to imperialism. They believed Europeans had a moral responsibility
to civilize primitive people. They called this responsibility the “white
man’s burden.” To some, this meant bringing the Christian message to the
“heathen masses.” To others, it meant bringing the benefits of Western
democracy and capitalism to these societies.
What were four primary motivations
for the new imperialism?
REVIEW & DO
NOW
Answer the following questions in your spiral notebooks: |
| . |
. |
|
|
Colonial Takeover
-
Rivalries for overseas territories led to Western dominance
of Southeast Asia.
The new imperialism of the late nineteenth century was evident
in Southeast Asia. In 1800, the Europeans ruled only two societies in this
area: the Spanish Philippines and the Dutch East Indies. By 1900, virtually
the entire area was under Western rule.
Great Britain
The process began with Great Britain. In 1819 Great Britain
sent Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles to found a new colony on a small island
at the tip of the Malay Peninsula. Called Singapore (“city
of the lion”), in the new age of steamships, it soon became a major stopping
point for traffic going to or from China. Raffles was proud of his new
city. He wrote about Singapore to a friend in England: “Here all is life
and activity; and it would be difficult to name a place on the face of
the globe with brighter prospects.”
During the next few decades, the British advance into
Southeast Asia continued. Next to fall was the kingdom of Burma
(modern Myanmar). Britain wanted control of Burma in order to protect its
possessions in India. It also sought a land route through Burma into south
China. Although the difficult terrain along the frontier between Burma
and China caused this effort to fail, British activities in Burma led to
the collapse of the Burmese monarchy. Britain soon established control
over the entire country.
France
France, which had some missionaries operating in Vietnam,
nervously watched the British advance into Burma. The local Vietnamese
authorities, who viewed Christianity as a threat to Confucian doctrine,
persecuted the French missionaries. However, Vietnam failed to stop the
Christian missionaries. Vietnamese internal rivalries divided the country
into two separate governments—the north and the south. France was especially
alarmed by British attempts to monopolize trade. To stop any British move
into Vietnam, the French government decided in 1857 to force the Vietnamese
to accept French protection.
The French eventually succeeded in making the Vietnamese
ruler give up territories in the Mekong River delta. The French occupied
the city of Saigon and, during the next 30 years, extended their control
over the rest of the country. In 1884 France seized the city of Hanoi and
later made the Vietnamese empire a French protectorate—a
political unit that depends on another government for its protection.
In the 1880s, France extended its control over neighboring
Cambodia, Annam, Tonkin, and Laos. By 1887, France included all of its
new possessions in a new Union of French Indochina.
Thailand—the Exception
After the French conquest of Indochina, Thailand
(then called Siam) was the only remaining free state in Southeast
Asia. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, British and French
rivalry threatened to place Thailand, too, under colonial rule. Two remarkable
rulers were able to prevent that from happening. One was King Mongkut
(known to theatergoers as the king in The King and I), and the other
was his son, King Chulalongkorn. Both promoted Western learning
and maintained friendly relations with the major European powers. In 1896
Britain and France agreed to maintain Thailand as an independent buffer
state between their possessions in Southeast Asia.
The United States
One final conquest in Southeast Asia occurred at the
end of the nineteenth century. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War,
United States naval forces under Commodore George Dewey defeated
the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay.
Believing it was his moral obligation to “civilize” other
parts of the world, President William McKinley decided to turn the Philippines,
which had been under Spanish control, into an American colony. This action
would also prevent the area from falling into the hands of the Japanese.
In fact, the islands gave the United States a convenient jumping-off point
for trade with China.
This 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. And just beyond the Philippines are China’s
unlimited markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not abandon
an opportunity in [Asia]. We will not renounce our part in the mission
of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world.”
—Senator Albert Beveridge, 1900
The Filipinos did not agree with the American senator.
Emilio
Aguinaldo (ah•gee•NAHL•doh) was the leader of a movement for independence
in the Philippines. He began his revolt against the Spanish and went into
exile in 1898. When the United States acquired the Philippines, Aguinaldo
continued the revolt and set himself up as the president of the Republic
of the Philippines. Led by Aguinaldo, the guerrilla forces fought bitterly
against the United States troops to establish their independence.
The fight for Philippine independence resulted in three
years of bloody warfare. However, the United States defeated the guerrilla
forces, and President McKinley had his stepping-stone to the rich markets
of China.
What spurred Britain to control
Singapore and Burma?
REVIEW & DO
NOW
Answer the following questions in your spiral notebooks: |
| . |
. |
|
|
Colonial Regimes
-
European countries controlled the governments and economies
of their colonies in Southeast Asia.
Western powers governed their new colonial empires by either
indirect or direct rule. Their chief goals were to exploit the natural
resources of the lands and to open up markets for their own manufactured
goods.
Indirect and Direct Rule
Sometimes a colonial power could realize its goals by
cooperating with local political elites. For example, the Dutch East India
Company used indirect rule in the Dutch East Indies. Under indirect
rule, local rulers were allowed to keep their authority and status
in a new colonial setting. This made access to the region’s natural resources
easier. Indirect rule was cheaper because fewer officials had to be trained
and it affected local culture less.
However, indirect rule was not always possible. Some local
elites resisted the foreign conquest. In these cases, the local elites
were replaced with British officials. This system is called direct
rule. For example, Great Britain administered Burma directly through
its colonial government in India. In Indochina, France used both systems.
It imposed direct rule in southern Vietnam, but ruled indirectly through
the emperor in northern Vietnam.
To justify their conquests, Western powers spoke of bringing
the blessings of Western civilization to their colonial subjects, including
representative government. However, many Westerners came to fear the idea
of native peoples (especially educated ones) being allowed political rights.
Colonial Economies
The colonial powers did not want their colonists to develop
their own industries. Thus, colonial policy stressed the export of raw
materials. This policy often led to some form of plantation agriculture.
Peasants worked as wage laborers on the foreignowned plantations. Plantation
owners kept wages at poverty levels to increase profits. Conditions on
plantations were often so unhealthy that thousands died. Also, peasants
bore the burden of high taxes.
Nevertheless, colonial rule did bring some benefits to
Southeast Asia. A modern economic system began there. Colonial governments
built railroads, highways, and other structures that benefited native peoples
as well as colonials. The development of an export market helped create
an entrepreneurial class in rural areas. In the Dutch East Indies, for
example, small growers of rubber, palm oil, coffee, tea, and spices began
to share in the profits of the colonial enterprise. Most of the profits,
however, were taken back to the colonial mother country.
How did colonial powers justify
their rule?
REVIEW & DO
NOW
Answer the following questions in your spiral notebooks: |
| . |
. |
|
|
Resistance to Colonial Rule
-
Native peoples had varying levels of success resisting colonial
rule in Southeast Asia.
Many subject peoples in Southeast Asia resented being governed
by Western powers. At first, resistance came from the existing ruling class.
In Burma, for example, the monarch himself fought Western domination. By
contrast, in Vietnam, after the emperor had agreed to French control of
his country, a number of government officials set up an organization called
Can Vuoug (“Save the King”). They fought against the French without the
emperor’s help.
Sometimes, resistance to Western control took the form
of peasant revolts. Under colonial rule, peasants were often driven off
the land to make way for plantation agriculture. Angry peasants then vented
their anger at the foreign invaders. For example, in Burma, in 1930 the
Buddhist monk Saya San led a peasant uprising against the British colonial
regime many years after the regime had completed its takeover.
Early resistance movements failed. They were overcome
by Western powers. At the beginning of the twentieth century, a new kind
of resistance began to emerge that was based on the force of nationalism.
The leaders were often from a new class that the colonial rule had created:
westernized intellectuals in the cities.
In many cases, this new urban middle class—composed of
merchants, clerks, students, and professionals—had been educated in Western-style
schools. They were the first generation of Asians to embrace the institutions
and values of the West. Many spoke Western languages and worked in jobs
connected with the colonial regimes.
At first, many of the leaders of these movements did not
focus clearly on the idea of nationhood. Instead, they simply tried to
defend the economic interests or religious beliefs of the native peoples.
In Burma, for example, students at the University of Rangoon formed an
organization to protest against official persecution of the Buddhist religion
and British lack of respect for local religious traditions. They protested
against British arrogance and failure to observe local customs in Buddhist
temples. Not until the 1930s, however, did these resistance movements,
such as those begun in Burma, begin to demand national independence.
Explain three forms of resistance
to Western domination.
REVIEW & DO
NOW
Answer the following questions in your spiral notebooks: |
| . |
. |
|
|
|
