This essay examines British colonialism from multiple perspectives, tracing its ideological foundations in mercantilism and claims of civilizing superiority alongside revisionist critiques of exploitation and cultural destruction. The paper surveys the colonial experiences of three major territories — the Americas, India, and Australia — through the lives of key figures: Lord Charles Cornwallis, Lord Robert Clive, and Captain James Cook. It also engages scholarly debate between Niall Ferguson's defense of the British Empire and postcolonial critics such as Edward Said and Partha Chatterjee, ultimately arguing that colonialism enabled the systematic transfer of wealth from the colonized world to Europe, underpinning modern capitalism at enormous human cost.
The argument surrounding the recent conflict in Iraq was two-sided: one side favored ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein; the other did not. Arguments from the anti-war side bordered on accusing the United States of being an imperialist and colonialist power — that America had become an occupying force seeking to impose its will on a weaker nation, a view that found favor among most Middle Eastern Islamic countries. Though this argument may prove philosophically and intellectually disingenuous, there is historical precedent for colonialist ambition. The Dutch, Spaniards, French, British, and, to a lesser extent, the Danish colonized most of the world for more than five hundred years.
The legacy we see today in the world's lingua franca, the English language, is testament to the fact that the British were largely victorious in the intra-imperialist wars. "Britannia" ruled the world for several centuries. Over the last century, most colonized countries attained independence. This legacy is also visible in the Commonwealth of Nations — countries that were, in the past, British colonies. The most recent colony to be returned to China was Hong Kong, amid much fanfare. Not all colonies, however, have attained independence: almost two decades ago, the British fought the Argentines to retain possession of the Falkland Islands, also known as the Malvinas.
Two of the key British possessions were what became the United States of America and, famously, the "Jewel in the (British) Crown" — India. The circumstances surrounding the creation and eventual relinquishing of both colonies are completely different. India was a civilization that had endured several millennia of history; the British initially entered as trading partners. In the Americas, European (mostly English) settlers came to the "New Country," where they had to contend with non-uniform groups of indigenous, Native American tribes. The new settlers, who had evolved an identity of their own, eventually grew tired of being dictated to by the government of the Old Country.
In this essay, the rationale for British colonialism is discussed from the perspective of other colonial powers in Europe. The European perspective was broadly favorable to colonialism, the primary — albeit unspoken — premise being the assertion of superiority. The revisionist perspective, by contrast, is one of revulsion toward imperialism. The lives of three symbols of colonial power are examined: Lord Robert Clive, an early Governor General of India; Lord Charles Cornwallis, the last British Governor General in America; and Captain James Cook, the discoverer and first foreign (non-Aboriginal) surveyor of Australia. Britain's history may extol these men's martial abilities and adventurous spirit, but their exploits also resulted in untold hardships in the colonies they helped establish.
In colonialism, one state claims sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries — often for economic supremacy over resources, labor, and markets. Supporters of colonialism argue that the colonizers are superior to the colonized, thereby justifying this form of rule, and that colonialist administration benefits the colonized by developing the economic and political infrastructure necessary for modernization and democracy. European supporters further claimed to have helped unify nations with disparate regions, bringing civilization to the so-called "savage." The British were assisted in their colonial ambitions partly because they became the seat of the Industrial Revolution, which enabled them to establish manufacturing infrastructure in different colonies — driven in part by the ready availability of raw materials that England, as a small nation, lacked. Critics have argued, however, that colonialism actually transferred wealth from the colonized to the colonizer and inhibited successful economic development, while also inflicting political, psychological, and moral damage on colonized peoples.
If one examines the archives of British colonialism, the stated rationale centers on mercantilism. The main goal was a "favorable balance of trade" (Smith and Skinner, 1999). The aims of mercantilism required that nations limit the importation of goods and services as much as possible so as to prevent the export of gold. Silver and gold were considered the resources that brought a nation wealth and power. Great Britain had four major aims in its mercantilist policy: to encourage the growth of a native merchant marine fleet; to protect English manufacturers from foreign competition; to extend that protection to agriculture, especially grain farmers; and to accumulate as much hard currency as possible.
Naval superiority was the decisive factor in Britain's preeminence among colonial powers. The concept of mercantilism was closely tied to the Navigation Acts. Their effect on the colonies was harmful. Consider some of the protectionist measures applied to the Americas: Virginia tobacco could only be sold in England; no foreign ship could dock in the Americas; goods could only be exported or imported in English ships; duties were assessed on goods at ports of entry and exit; and at one point, no wool, hats, or tobacco could be exported except through England. The Sugar Act was among the seeds that bore the fruit of the American War of Independence. Although the colonists did not object to these acts in principle, they went out of their way to avoid their consequences — refusing to pay duties and resorting to smuggling. Colonial governors could enforce these acts only with difficulty, and though various levels of authority were granted to naval officers, enforcement was expensive and ultimately impractical.
The case of India offers a different perspective on the mechanisms of colonial expansion. India's riches were incomparably greater than those of the European states, and this common knowledge drove explorers to seek it out. When the East India Company began its trading activities in the early seventeenth century, the wealth of India's natural resources gave the British a competitive advantage they had not previously enjoyed. Initially, relations between Indians and British were cordial — so lucrative was the trade that even India's insistence on accepting only silver or gold in return was tolerated. The burgeoning slave trade also proved highly profitable to the company.
By the middle of the seventeenth century, the East India Company was re-exporting Indian goods across the world. By the end of the century, silk and wool merchants in France and England were unwilling to accept competition from Indian textiles, and they successfully won restrictions on Indian purchases. This strained both the company and the revenues of Indian states. Suggestions emerged from Europe that trade could be restarted through the use of force. India thus became a new battleground for competing colonial powers. Mukherjee (1974) advanced the argument that there were compelling economic imperatives drawing the European India Companies toward imperialism: "monopoly rights assured the India Companies of the exclusive privileges of buying and selling, it did not guarantee that they could buy cheap. For that, political control was essential." Finally, in 1857, Queen Victoria declared all Indians her subjects.
Britain similarly annexed Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, while the French and British together ruled most of Africa. In the Americas, the British systematically colonized each territory during the seventeenth century, and the West Indies islands were also brought under British rule. Many nations did benefit from the industrial infrastructure left behind by the British. Ironically, while much is made of the enduring British monarchy, Britain was also the first nation to demonstrate to the world that democracy was the best form of governance. This ideal helped end entire eras of medieval serfdom. Revisionist theories would predict, however, that democracy as a concept was self-evolving and would have emerged in time regardless, and that colonialism's brutal suppression of freedom of expression — the very foundation of democratic rights — undermines any claim that the British brought democracy through colonization.
"Cornwallis, Clive, and Cook as colonial figures"
"Ferguson versus Said and postcolonial theory"
"Wealth transfer and the roots of modern capitalism"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.