Racial Attitudes during Colonization

In order to fully understand the racial dynamic in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, a brief overview of imperial attitudes throughout the colonial period is necessary. The prevailing current in history is that the feeling of superiority by Europeans began with the Spanish conquest of the American continent. Judging from the writings of Cortez, the civilizations they encountered were, in their eyes, crude and hedonistic. In the eyes of the conquistadores, it was their duty not only to conquer ruthlessly, but to bring civilizing aspects and ways of life to these brutish cultures.

Attitudes of racial and cultural superiority surely did not stop with the Spanish. As free labor began to arrive in the New World either via indentured servitude or African Slavery, a hierarchical society began to develop based on race. As society matured, the presumed superiority of Europeans became largely ingrained in colonial society. This hierarchy was by no means confined to the Americas. British colonization of Africa and India exemplifies the arrogance of European colonialism. The Euro-centric attitudes that colonizers stubbornly adhered to mandated that African and Indian societies, much like the Americas, develop a racially based class system.

While it is widely established and accepted that colonization took on a racial dimension, there is also little doubt that European societies merely wanted their subject to 'be like them'. Thomas Macaulay articulated the goals of British colonial imperialism most succinctly: "We must do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, words and intellect." [citation] Surely, this is an interesting view of colonialism and one that is visible in almost every imperial society dating back to the Roman Republic/Empire. At some level, the British did not care about race, but of assimilation. Though they recoiled at the thought of Indians dining in the same clubhouse, playing cricket on the same field or drinking in the same establishment, they strove to develop a common thread between British and Indian societies.

So if it can be deduced that European colonialism was not only constructed on racial hierarchy but an inherent feeling of cultural superiority, how is this any different than global empire dating back to before the creation of the Roman Empire? I argue that the construction of a racial society was in fact a secondary aim of European colonialism from 1492-1947. Instead, like similar global empires throughout history, (Roman, Greek, Persian, Chinese) the primary pressure on subjugated societies was to transform itself into the conquering society. Imperial nations wanted the subjugated societies to believe what they believed, dress how they dressed and overall, take on the values and moral beliefs practiced and carried by the conquering culture.

The assertion that conquering cultures aimed for assimilation abroad leads to a broader and more difficult question on the European continent. Because numerous ethnic groups live in such close quarters throughout Europe, the quest or, better yet, pressure to assimilate with the more powerful group of people is not a phenomena exported, learned and developed through colonialism, but one that was quite common in Europe in the years preceding colonial expansion into racially diverse areas. It is also apparent that, to some degree, the pressure put on subjugated cultures in Europe is analogous to the pressure put on subjugated culture in places such as India, Africa or the Americas. In short, the overt attempts at cultural assimilation practiced by expansive European colonizing forces were only an extension of the cultural interactions at home.It is my opinion that attempts by Europeans to assimilate cultures such as the Jews or Gypsies into the European system are no different than later attempts to assimilate other cultures through formal means of imperialism.

Next Question: What was the extent of European cultural assimilation prior to and throughout the very early stages of colonialism?

Bearing the White Man's Burden

After reading Niall Ferguson's book Colossus and beginning War of the World, I've been doing some serious thinking about imperialism, the global system and its implications for the future of the globe. I would like to use this blog as a forum to think aloud and record my thoughts on these issues. Ultimately, I plan to return to school to finish my Ph.D. in imperial history after completing both my B.A. and M.A. in history at the University at Buffalo. Though work and an M.A. in U.S. Foreign Policy at American University in Washington consuming an inordinate amount of time, I find myself yearning to explore the questions of history that are currently hotly debated in light of the global situation in the Middle East. Here, through an ongoing series of posts, I hope to breakdown why a return to some form of an imperial system will eventually happen and why it is beneficial to the world and especially to the United States.

The message laid forth in the Rudyard Kipling poem "The White Man's Burden", popularized in McClure's magazine around the turn of the 19th century is as appropriate today as it was 100 years ago.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

Kipling's view of imperialism can be seen in two ways through this poem and other writings. The conventional argument is that Kipling is promoting both the cultural and moral imperialism at work in places such as Africa and India. Others argue that Kipling writes not only of the racially and culturally inferior subjects of empire, but also the servants of the empire who are forced to conform to the system in place. Though the second argument is an intriguing one, exploring Kipling's other writings makes the first explanation more credible.

The poem is often referenced as a symbol of the racial and cultural superiority advocated by proponents of imperialism. The motivation to colonize based solely on racial qualities is an assumption that I find somewhat questionable. Nor would it be accurate to say that racial behavior exported by colonizing nations was in some manner more extreme than the type practiced by its citizens at home. A quick look at European attitudes during the Victorian Age of imperialism reflects a society that drew clear lines based on religion and ethnicity. These characteristics are no different than the ones manifested by the men on the spot in India or Africa.

Undoubtedly, many colonizing societies were heavily influenced by Darwinian thought. These theories were practiced not only on the frontier, but also in the homeland. The Dreyfus Affair in France epitomized 19th century attitudes of racial differences and cultural superiority. In fact, throughout Europe, notions of racial and cultural superiority were abundant. Look no further than the aftermath of the First World War.

At the time, Europe was nothing more than a hodgepodge of highly combustible ethnic empires. Historically, pre-World War One Europe is written about as a 'powder keg waiting to explode.' The assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand ignited a pan-European war. Not only did the assassination set off a massive clash of arms, it blew the top off the simmering ethnic empires like the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empire. Not only did genocidal tendencies manifest themselves in Turkey, but a massive diaspora of Greeks, Muslims, Turks, Jews and Germans occurred throughout Europe.

The question here is; If, as the historical hypothesis states, racial and cultural superiority manifested themselves in its most extreme form only at the edge of the empire, why did forced migrations and outright genocide take place in the homeland of European imperial societies?