As you know, the title phrase of this post refers to the global empires set up by Europeans between the 15th and the 19th centuries.Imperialism or European colonisation was heralded by the Spanish and Portuguese explorers in the early 15th century, a period known as the "Age of Discovery". We have all heard of Columbus and Magellan; there were many many more of them who spread out to discover "new lands"...the Americas, African coast, Middle east, India, eastern Asia and even Australia. Soon after, they were joined by the British, the French and the Dutch in direct competition in exploration (they actually started as pirate attacks on Spanish fleets loaded with riches obtained from the new lands...but soon they developed their own expeditions and settlements).
The Spanish colonialization was primarily for bolstering their economic status by trade and religious conversions; on the other hand, the British colonization was mainly aimed at "making new societies" as per the whims of the colonists and then began the enslavement of "native savages". British Imperialism, as it turned out, flourished over all others especially after Napolean's downfall and its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories.....!!
Decolonization began in earnest only in the 20th century. This interesting animated link here shows the rise and fall of British Empire. Over the hundreds of years of colonization, millions of people moved to and from the British colonies. There have been pros and cons of this Imperialization; on one hand spread of technology early on was one of the advantages, on the other, tension and discontent between the native and non-native settlers continues till date.
So now you may ask...why this discussion on the history of colonization, especially British Imperialism :)
Well, yesterday I watched this movie called Pocahontas (animated Disney movie) where the story backdrop is an English governor who is seeking gold and riches in the "new land" and is ready to sacrifice the savages inhabiting the land which is now "His".
What the discussion between me and my friend led to was......... human settlements evolved and developed at several places simultaneously across the globe... why was it then that the European settlements progressed and developed much faster than the others?? The civilizations may have arose across several parts of the world and grew too, but technological development was much faster here which empowered them to dominate the world....why was it so? I have not yet been able to find an answer to that yet. So....help!!!! :) and if you think that I have got some points wrong...feel free to point them out.
Jared Diamond has written a whole book to analyze that question! "Guns, Germs and Steel" is exactly about this question! Almost exactly, actually. Because I don't think he answers "why europe and not India?" He answers, "why Eurasia and not Africa/Americas/Australia?"
ReplyDeleteOhh......but I never did mean "why Europe and not India"....I meant why Europe and not the rest of the world.....He seems to have included Asia.... I need to read this one.
ReplyDeleteSince you have read the book, a few points on why it happened would be nice :)
ReplyDeleteno no. I didn't mean that you meant "why europe and not india" :P I meant that his argument explains it at he level of eurasia vs the rest of the world but not within eurasia necessarily. "India" just meant "any non european civilization of eurasia".
ReplyDeleteAs for a few points, I'll give you just one point which should be intriguing enough to encourage you to find the book. His basic thesis is based on the fact the Eurasia has the longest extended East-West Axis among all the continents. The cultural/technological manifestations of this simple geographic fact led to Eurasian culture dominating the world today. Basically, it is easier for technology to transfer along a latitude rather than across one, because the climatic conditions change much faster along a longitude. This means that any new invention/discovery that happened anywhere throughout the most populous areas of asia soon spread throughout the other regions unlike, say, Americas, where A Mayan invention would hardly travel more than a couple hundred miles due to constraints imposed by geography/climate.
Ok......so you mean to say that the geography of Eurasia is such that travel along a latitude was much easier than travel along a latitude in America? or Australia? or Africa? But then even in Eurasia....the transfer was mostly near the "current europe" region... not the middle east or russia.....But I guess I need to read the book to find out more.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not that in Eurasia travel was much easier. The original technology that needed to travel for people to settle and invent other things was agriculture and animal husbandry. And anything related to agriculture and animal husbandry becomes useless if the climatic conditions are very different. And climatic conditions change much faster along a longitude as compared to along a latitude. THAT's what made Eurasia make huge strides in technology and a headstart over others. i.e. the fact that Eurasia has a much longer East-West axis as compared to others. thousands of miles of regions with similar climates that were contiguous with each other.
ReplyDeleteOnce you discover agriculture and it travels to other closeby societies, then you settle down and invent "business". Once you start doing extensive business with other connected societies then that becomes a powerful channel of transfer of other ideas and inventions, rather than just the initial agriculture and animal husbandry.