Get help now

Essay on Should the British Empire Be a Source of Pride, Seeing How It Was Made?

Updated August 16, 2022
dovnload

Download Paper

File format: .pdf, .doc, available for editing

Essay on Should the British Empire Be a Source of Pride, Seeing How It Was Made? essay

Get help to write your own 100% unique essay

Get custom paper

78 writers are online and ready to chat

This essay has been submitted to us by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our writers.

Finance capitalism or finance oligarchy refers to the exportation and investment of capital, inactive and active, to countries with underdeveloped economies that results in a division of power. Furthermore, the control of finance capital is used to export capital. In regards to the British Empire, they needed new markets or new investments for profit. Thus, they sought economic opportunities in various locations globally. Specifically, in South America, the British were aiming for a policy of informal control over regions with the purpose of trade. In this instance, the British show the reason for expanding is solely for economic gain. Likewise, in Afro-Asia, the growth of production and export sales attracted the British. They took the lead in rubber and tin in Malaya and coca and palm products in West Africa, clearly demonstrates the Empires motives for expanding into these areas: their hunger for money. The British also used the export of capital to establish investments abroad through loans, which usually took advantage of the indigenous people. Moreover, finance capital profits off the interest and condition of such loans. This is highly evident in Egypt. In 1876, Egypt went bankrupt and, to help with stabilization, the British put them under ‘temporary occupation’. Through this ‘transitory’ period, the British made the Egyptians dependent on their finance capital, which allowed them to take over informally.

By the middle of the 19th century, Great Britain maintained, through these means, a massive amount of colonial possessions and monopolist locations in the world economy. Again, showing their insatiability. Although Darwin argues against the idea of expanding for profit, he makes a good case for it. Even before 1880, there was a tendency to invest overseas because of the low level of government borrowing at home driving the surplus incomes abroad. This demonstrates the need for new markets and new investments in underdeveloped areas along with the ultimate desire for profit. Lenin reveals how this contradicts claims of the humanitarian reasons behind expansion. The monopolistic system the British used allowed for the domination and exploitation of numerous small and weak nations rather than pushing for their liberty or goodwill. Here, Lenin shows how the Empire used the native people and their land for their own economic gain, rather than the benefit of the natives. Furthermore, this established the purpose of the dominions or the colonies: a place for domination of resources.

While some may argue against this claim, an example of this stems from George Orwell’s novel Burmese Days. George Orwell grew up in British India, learning and living the realities of the British Empire. From his own experience, he details the hypocritical behavior and beliefs of the Europeans throughout the novel. For example, Flory, an Englishman, states that the real reason the English are in Kyauktada is to make money rather than uplifting the natives. Here, Orwell establishes how the British use the ideal of the civilizing mission to mask their intentions of acquisitive capitalism. Continuing, Flory claims the British Empire is purely a ploy for giving trade monopolies to the English. In this instance, Orwell is connecting with Lenin. A monopoly results because of the concentration of production and, with the help of finance capital, causes global exploitation by the British.

Greedy capitalism is one reason behind expansion, but there is another aspect: instability of Empire. A main supporter of this claim is Antoinette Burton. Throughout her book, The Trouble with Empire, Burton argues against the traditional narrative of expansion, ‘Pax Britannica’, and claims that dissent was the foremost feature of the Empire. For example, once the British staked claims in Malakand, they faced ongoing challenges to their imperial conquest, so great, that Churchill had to downplay their significance. This demonstrates how common resistance was and, moreover, it reveals how big prestige was within the Empire: Churchill had to make the British appear as if they were easily winning to preserve their idea of dominance.

To exemplify this, Churchill reveals that prestige is greater when imperial security becomes more vulnerable. Here, Burton shows that Empire expands because they are anxious and insecure of their world position. Likewise, Burton utilizes the scramble for Africa to further her point. After the Bambatha rebellion, the British resorted to martial law, which was an embarrassment to the British government and a threat to the white settlers in the area. Resorting to martial law, military government, was a sign that they were failing. Typically, historians portray the scramble for Africa as the Empire at its height, while Burton effectively argues against this; she shows the severity in which the British tried to maintain power, furthering the idea that the British expanded because they were nervous and insecure. In any case, they feel the need to exert themselves more powerfully to compensate for these feelings.

The British used excessive violence against the indigenous people to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy. For example, they utilize the peace-by-fire policy in Afghanistan: a method of burning down villages to suppress the resistance. Furthermore, per Churchill, these villages were essentially fortifications, with every inhabitant being a solider. By equating the villages to army barricades, Churchill dehumanizes the natives and defends burning the villages because the native soldiers resided there. However, these villages were homes to civilians and the British ruthlessly burned them to the ground. Burton demonstrates who the real savages of the Empire are: the British. For the same reason, the China Opium Wars signaled the instability of Empire. After the British had ‘victory’, they used ritual humiliation, such as cutting off Chinese soldiers’ long hair, to prove their dominance. Thus, Burton has proof that they are anxious about the finality of victory, through excessive violence, which ultimately shows instability and insecurity within the Empire. Like Burton, Darwin demonstrates the British’s insecurity and instability, but in regards to other European powers.

For Burton, the British feel anxious and insecure due to resistance from the indigenous people, whereas Darwin believes these feelings stem from other European powers. For example, after the British were defeated by the Boer Republic, ‘Black Week’ in December 1899, they became defensive in their conduct moving forward. They were worried about their ability to dominate and maintain power, militarily. Due to this, they pushed themselves further to compensate for such a loss, which is evident in Russia, Germany, and the United States. Britain felt the need to match the growth of Russia’s naval strength because, if not, Russia had the power to hurt British control in India. Thus, revealing their anxiety and insecurity about losing power. Likewise, Germany demonstrated an agenda of naval expansion that threatened British sea-power.

Therefore, Germany was a significant threat to their claim on global power. Moreover, under president Theodore Roosevelt, the United States had a new commitment to naval power. The United States threatened Britain’s claim to superior naval power. In each case, Britain’s status as a number one power became progressively apprehensive and, due to this, it became more important to maintain an image of power. Overall, these two points combined demonstrate how unstable the Empire was and, due to that, why they tried to compensate by expanding further.

Thus, the Empire expanded due to greedy capitalism and instability. But, for Empire to expand, they needed to use certain methods, such as informal control, formal control, technology, and, in some cases, the theory of collaboration. According to Gallagher and Robinson, the empire expanded overseas using informal control, defined as acquiring dominions in strictly a constitutional sense. Therefore, informal control refers to controlling a place, through its people and financial investments, without claiming it as their own. For greedy capitalism to work, the Empire needed to use informal control. For example, in Latin America, the British government pursued exploitation to destroy the Spanish trade monopoly, allowing them to gain informal supremacy for commercial infiltration. Here, the Empire needed to allow Spanish America to be free, in some sense, to restore their influence and expand economically. By allowing them to retain some control, the British could intertwine their financial systems in such a way that prevented the indigenous from escaping their grasps. Thus, allowing them to expand.

However, when informal means failed, the empire used formal methods to achieve expansion. This is exemplified in the theme of expansion due to instability. Darwin defines formal control as the British’s ability to take total control of a territory by claiming it as their own, such as colonies of rule. Because empire also expanded due to anxiety and insecurity, formal control was used when meeting resistance, both indigenous and European. By claiming lands as their own, the British resorted to excessive violence as a way of keeping peace in their lands. Along with formal control, there is an aspect of technology that is key. To use force, the British needed the most advanced weapons and other forms of technology to maintain their power. While the indigenous armies were often much larger with significant knowledge of the terrain, the British used their superiority in terms of weaponry, especially firearms, to maintain formal control. Burton demonstrates this in several different instances throughout her book, ultimately showing how the British tried to use direct force, or formal control, to defeat native rebellions; ultimately, the British were trying to defeat their fears and their anxiety.

Likewise, Orwell presents the idea of weapons protecting formal control of the Empire in Shooting an Elephant. In this short story, the narrator decides to kill the elephant, shooting it once, and, seeing it still breathing, dispenses shot after shot into the animal. This demonstrates the excessive violence that the British used to threaten natives into submission and employ their power. Again, signifying how the empire used formal control as a means of expansion. Orwell also details the theory of collaboration. This theory rests on the idea that, for the British to expand, they needed the help of others, whether it be other European allies or the natives. In Burmese Days, Orwell uses the character of Dr. Veraswami, the Burmese doctor, to depict this. Dr. Veraswami cooperates and agrees with the British, which is evident in the way he speaks of the Empire: “fanatically loyal”, “zeal”, “admiration”, “noble”, “honor”. Thus, Dr. Veraswami represents the Empire’s ideal of how a colonized subject should collaborate with British goals in imperialism. Likewise, the Empire relied on other European forces for collaboration. This is evident in both the World Wars. For instance, in World War I, the British relied on France, Russia, Italy, and the United States. Without their help, Britain might not have been able to regain their empire status. Overall, the Empire needed collaboration from both natives and other Europeans] powers for expansion to work.

The Empire used the facades of the civilizing mission and easy victories with little resistance to perpetuate their power and cover their true intentions for expansion. Even Lord Salisbury, the British Prime Minister, saw the empire for what it was: filled with superficial philanthropy. While racism played a significant role within the Empire, it was not the main contention for expansion. One could argue that the British used racism to expand, but was not the reason behind expansion. Therefore, the Empire expanded, not for humanitarian reasons, but for economic gains and underlying insecurity. They used finance capitalism to export and invest capital in countries with underdeveloped economies, which resulted in a division of power. Through Burton, it is evident that the Empire was paranoid of potential threats to their power, which pushed them to seek further expansion. Similarly, the British also expanded because they feared other European powers. Consequently, the British expanded globally to prevent other powers from gaining strength that would threaten British hegemony. For expansion to occur, the British utilized means of formal control and informal control along with technology and collaboration. Through these methods, the British built their renowned Empire. But, should the British Empire be a source of pride, seeing how it was made?

Essay on Should the British Empire Be a Source of Pride, Seeing How It Was Made? essay

Remember. This is just a sample

You can get your custom paper from our expert writers

Get custom paper

Essay on Should the British Empire Be a Source of Pride, Seeing How It Was Made?. (2022, Aug 16). Retrieved from https://sunnypapers.com/essay-on-should-the-british-empire-be-a-source-of-pride-seeing-how-it-was-made/