The task of differentiating between the racial theories of the 19th and 20th centuries can seem somewhat insurmountable. To the fullest extent, Britain was at the foremost frontier of the so-called “new” imperialism, and with it came, philosophers as well as politicians, many of whom had their ideals of what the British dominion should look like. This paper will attempt to distinguish and compare some of the more well-known theories and ideologies such as “Social-Darwinism”, “Manifest destiny” and “Liberalism” as well as put them in context with actual issues that arose during the early 19th century concerning the Indian East India Company
The age of “new” imperialism is to a certain degree a natural consequence of an expanding Western civilization, brought up by the industrial age, as well as the fact that the world would altogether seem smaller due to expansions on systems such as railroads and telecommunications. During this period, two prominent characters are worth mentioning. Cecil Rhodes, and Benjamin Kidd. These men are known today mostly as racist imperialists of one of the most heinous times in British history, but during the late 19th century they were pioneering. They both believed firmly in the expansion of the British empire, and the opportunities granted to them by the rise of the industrial age. Like many of their contemporaries, they believed that Western civilization was at the top of both physical and social order, although for different reasons.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
For Cecil Rhodes, who was raised in a broken home with essentially no one to look up to, it became imperative for him to pursue life by his means through scrupulous bartering and trading in southern Africa, to obtain wealth within the diamond mining industry. With this, he was soon able to buy out the competition and amass himself wealth equalling that of the Rothschilds. Rhodes would come to see himself as essential within the ideology of “manifest destiny”, “He believed that the British were marked out by God for worldwide dominion; he yearned for the reunification of the Anglo-Saxon races and the recovery of the United States; and he imagined himself as the Man of Destiny who brought all this about.” (Cannadine, David 1998, 209) Rhodes was undoubtedly a narcissistic megalomaniac, and his reasoning lies heavily in the fact that he felt that Britain was destined to one day, colonize the entirety of Africa, mostly because there was no room for these “lesser civilizations” in his mind.
Benjamin Kidd on the other hand, was somewhat more tentative in his approach to race politics. He leaned heavily on what we know as “social Darwinism”, which was a way of justifying the subjugation of non-western civilizations due to inferior cultural, and logical “evolution”. Kidd was however on many accounts quite opposite to Rhodes. Kidd sees two different sides of the human character, the intellectual and the religious side, the intellectual side is in his own opinion innately greedy and egotistical while the religious character is what drives the social functions between humans in a fashion that is fit for the further evolvement of the species.
Since man became a social creature the development of his intellectual character has become subordinate to the development of his religious character. It would appear that the process at work in society is evolving religious character as a first product, and intellectual capacity only so far as it can be associated with this quality. (Kidd, Benjamin 1894, 245)
What drives the human condition, is that we can socially adjust through what is first and foremost a religious matter. Although Kidd was certainly a racist on par with Rhodes and many of his other contemporaries, what differentiates him from Rhodes is that his views on why the English race was superior stems more from what he sees as the ability to suppress the intellectual characteristics that would have no gain for the community or the future of the country, rather than believing that England was somehow “destined” to conquer.
Before the times of Cecil Rhodes and Benjamin Kidd, there was yet another, completely different argument as to how and why, Britain should (and should not) intervene with other races and states. John Stuart Mill in his short essay “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” written in the context of the construction of the Suez Canal and the Crimean War, describes intricately, what he sees as Britain´s role, concerning interference in a foreign state’s affairs. Mill stands in contrast to both Rhodes and Kidd, Mill was one of the most influential thinkers regarding liberalism. He believed that the individual has a right to freedom within their realm and that state-wide control over certain citizens is not merited. This is, of course, if you take things at face value, Mill also believed in what is known as “paternal liberalism” which essentially justifies the actions of a third-party nation to intervene between two conflicting states, in the case that the conflicting parties are deemed “barbarous”. His view of British imperialism was that Britain´s aim with the colonies was not from an imperialistic standpoint, but rather the betterment of the people, as well as helping states grow into what could be deemed fair civilizations, “Any attempt it makes to exert influence over them, even by persuasion, is rather in the service of others, than of itself: […]” (Mill, John Stuart 1859, 252). Concurring with both Mill and Rhodes in the fact that Britain is sovereign to many non-western countries, he deviates when it comes to what he sees as appropriate for Britain to intervene in. The wave of new imperialism should, according to Mill, not be to conquer, but to set an example and to help these. The fact is, that Mill sees this no less as an intervention, but rather as assisting its neighbors caught within “oppressive” systems.
An important factor within paternal liberalism was the relations between Britain. The East India Company and India as a whole. The pressure to take up more responsibility for the Indian natives arose not concerning civilizing them as a people, but rather regressing from the exploitation that had been so apparent in the first place, “The extravagant and demoralized lifestyles of the East India Company servants, combined with their ruthless exploitation of native material resources, had begun to raise serious and alarming questions in England about the morality of the British presence in India” (Viswanathan, Gauri 1987, 4). Suddenly there was a new issue for the British parliament and one where they could certainly not sit idle, especially concerning a colony of importance such as India. It is important to note the difference between the effects of paternal liberalism, and Anglicanism. While paternal liberalism, as stated earlier seeks out the supposed “betterment” of foreign states, the ideology essentially allows “civilized” to exist with fair sovereignty insofar as Britain has no reasonable interest in them. Anglicanism, however, supposes that a colony or state should be rightfully within British rule, traditions, and faith. This was not to be deemed the case with India, at least in the early 19th century. Anglicanism grew out of the discontent from the rise of oriental languages within the native population and stood in stark contrast to what we know as “Orientalism”, Anglican believers promoted the use of Western education over Eastern, while Orientalists, who were historians of Asian languages, literature, religion etc. promoted the idea that forcing native people to live under western education would in turn alienate the eastern colonies.
As we know today, India would eventually become heavily Anglicised, but one of the starting points for this was the reason that British rule had to intervene in the first place. the exploitation of the native population was seen as a direct result of the accommodation of native culture, according to the new governor of the Indian colonies, Lord Cornwallis, “In his view the official indulgence towards Oriental forms of social organization, especially government, was directly responsible for the lax morals of the Company servants.” (Viswanathan, Gauri 1987, 4). Therefore, we can see Anglicanism and Orientalism not as opposites, but rather as a consequence of Britain having to politically keep their legitimacy as a colonial empire.
“New” imperialism for the British empire was a point in history where the world would come to see some of the greatest pioneers in history, as well as some of the most grueling and heinous crimes committed against humanity. “New” imperialism came at the brink of the industrial revolution and with it came Britain, the biggest political power at the time. To suggest that people such as Cecil Rhodes and Benjamin Kidd, and with them, their separate views on race, were nothing more than the natural progression of time would be foolish. Rhodes, Kidd, Mill, and many others are impossibly intriguing, in the sense that human psychology is intriguing. To truly explain why and how they came up with their ideas and theories around imperialism would be impossible, but to gain an insight into one of the most important eras in “recent” history, which for the time, was very well documented, is remarkable. India seems to be one of the many remnants still marked by the era and we can to this day, still very vividly see the change that Britain had brought, not just upon the country, but unto the world itself.
Stuck on your essay?
