Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Imperialism: Crash Course World History #35. According to John Green, imperialism was largely driven by economic concerns. Small numbers of Europeans (and ...
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 7
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Imperialism: Crash Course World History # Timing and description Text
discuss 19th century imperialism. So the 19th century certainly didn’t invent the empire, but it did take it to new heights, by which we mean lows, or possibly heights, I don’t know, I can’t decide. Roll the intro while I think about it.
An animated, colorized image of the Qianlong Emperor speaks: Yeah, I don’t know, I’m still undecided, let’s begin with China. When last we checked in, China was a thriving manufacturing power, about to be overtaken by Europe, but still heavily involved in world trade, especially as an importer of silver from the Spanish empire. Europeans had to use silver because they didn’t really produce anything else the Chinese wanted, and that state of affairs continued through the 18th century. For example, in 1793, the Macartney Mission tried to get better trade conditions with China and was a total failure. Here’s the Qianlong Emperor’s well-known response to the British, “Hither to all European nations “including your own country’s barbarian merchants “have carried on their trade “with our celestial empire at Canton. “Such has been the procedure for many years, “although our celestial empire possesses all things “in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders.”
John green points to a drawing of Poppies on the chalkboard; a drawing depicts an Opium den in China A drawing of British gunships firing, destroying a Chinese ship But then Europeans, especially the British, found something that the Chinese would buy... opium. By the 1830s, British free trade policy unleashed a flood of opium in China, which threatened China’s favorable balance of trade. It also created a lot of drug addicts. And then in 1839 the Chinese responded to what they saw as these unfair trade practices with a stern letter that they never actually sent. Commissioner Lin Zexu drafted a response that contained a memorable threat to “cut off trade in rhubarb, silk, and tea, “all valuable products of ours without which foreigners could not live.” But even if the British had received this terrifying threat to their precious rhubarb supply, they probably wouldn’t have responded because selling drugs is super lucrative. So the Chinese made like tea partiers, confiscating a bunch of British opium and chucking it into the sea. And then the British responded to this by demanding compensation and access to Chinese territory where they could carry out their trade. And then the Chinese were like, “Man, that seems a little bit harsh,” whereupon the British sent in gunships, opening trade with Canton by force.
a painting depicts the Treaty of Nanjing Chinese General Yijing made a counterattack in 1842 that included a detailed plan to catapult flaming monkeys onto British ships—Stan, is that true? All right, apparently the plans actually involved strapping fireworks to monkeys’ backs and were never carried out, but still! Slightly off topic, obviously I don’t want anyone to light monkeys on fire. I’m just saying that flaming monkeys lend themselves to a lot of great band names, like the Sizzling Simians, Burning Bonobos, Immolated Marmoset... Stan, sometimes I feel like I should give up teaching world history and just become a band name generator. That’s my real gift. Anyway, due to lack of monkey fireworks, the Chinese counterattacks were unsuccessful, and they eventually signed the Treaty of Nanjing, which stated that Britain got Hong Kong and five other treaty ports, as well as the equivalent of $
Imperialism: Crash Course World History # Timing and description Text
A photo of two swords from the 16th^ century Artwork depicts Africans with the many weapons they had at their disposal Photographs of steam ships Drawing of the Quinine plant Also, while in the 16th century Europeans did have guns, they were pretty useless, especially without horses. So most fighting was done the old-fashioned way, with swords. That worked pretty well in the Americas, unless you were the Incas or the Aztecs, but it didn’t work in Africa, because the Africans also had swords, and spears, and axes. So as much as they might have wanted to colonize Africa in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, Africa’s mosquitoes, microbes, and people were too much for them. So what made the difference? Technology. First, steam ships made it possible for Europeans to travel inland, bringing supplies and personnel via Africa’s navigable rivers. No horses? No problem. Even more important was quinine medicine, sometimes in the form of tonic water, mixed into refreshing, quintessentially British gin and tonics. Quinine isn’t as effective as modern anti-malarial medication, and it doesn’t cure the disease, but it does help moderate its effects.
A drawing of a British soldier holding the Maxim machine gun Harp music plays, a gold chair and fireplace roll into view. John Green sits in the gold chair and opens the compartment above the fireplace. Photo of the Captive Flying Machine at an amusement park But of course the most important technology that enabled Europeans to dominate Africa was guns. By the 19th century, European gun technology had improved dramatically, especially with the introduction of the Maxim machine gun, which allowed Europeans to wipe out Africans in battle after battle. Of course, machine guns were effective when wielded by Africans, too, but Africans had fewer of them. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter? And my chair is back! An open letter to Hiram Maxim. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s Darth Vader! What a great reminder of imperialism. Dear Hiram Maxim, I hate you. It’s not so much that you invented the Maxim machine gun, although obviously that’s a little bit problematic, or even that you look like the poor man’s Colonel Sanders. First off, you’re a possible bigamist. I have a long standing opposition to bigamy. Secondly, you were born an American but then became a Brit, thereby metaphorically machine gunning our founding fathers. But most importantly, among your many inventions was the successful amusement park ride, the Captive Flying Machine. Mr. Maxim, I hate the Captive Flying Machine. The Captive Flying Machine has resulted in many a girlfriend telling me that I’m a coward. I’m not a coward, I just don’t want to die up there! It’s all your fault, Hiram Maxim, and nobody believes your story about the light bulb. Best wishes, John Green.
Paintings depict war between Europeans and Africans All right, so here is something that often gets overlooked. European imperialism involved a lot of fighting and a lot of dying. And when we say that Europe came to dominate Africa, for the most part that domination came through wars, which killed lots of Africans and also lots of Europeans, although most of them died from disease. It’s very, very important to remember that Africans did not meekly acquiesce to European hegemony. They resisted, often violently, but ultimately they were defeated by a technologically superior enemy. In this respect, they were a lot like the Chinese, and also the Indians, and the Vietnamese, and... you get the picture.
colonized by European powers. I mean, even Belgium got in on it, and they weren’t
Imperialism: Crash Course World History # Timing and description Text Artworks depict Japan at war; Thailand, Iran, Afghanistan; Drawing of the Mongols with a speech bubble “we’re the exception!”; video of Mongols riding on horseback, dragging bodies behind them even a country at the beginning of the 19th century. I mean, Belgium has enjoyed, like, 12 years of sovereignty in the last three millennia. Notable exceptions include Japan, which was happily pursuing its own imperialism, Thailand, Iran, and of course Afghanistan. Because no one can conquer Afghanistan, unless you are, wait for it, the Mongols. (music playing) It’s tempting to imagine Europe ruling their colonies with the proverbial topaz fist, and while there was always the threat of violence, the truth is a lot more complicated. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.
Animation: a European colonist speaks with an Indian ruler; Indian troops fighting for Britain A European colonist clinks glasses with an Indian ruler In most cases, Europeans ruled their colonies with the help of, and sometimes completely through, intermediaries and collaborators. For example, in the 1890s in India, there were fewer than 1,000 British administrators supposedly ruling over 300 million Indians. The vast majority of British troops at any given time in India, more than two-thirds, were in fact Indians under the command of British officers. Because of their small numbers relative to local populations, most European colonizers resorted to indirect rule, relying on the governments that were already there but exerting control over their leaders. Frederick Lugard, who was Britain’s head honcho in Nigeria for a time, called this “rule through and by the natives.” This worked particularly well with British administrators, who were primarily middle-class men but had aristocratic pretensions, and were often pleased to associate with the highest echelons of Indian or African society. Now, this isn’t to say that indigenous rulers were simply puppets. Often, they retained real power. This was certainly true in India, where more than a third of the territory was ruled by Indian princes. The French protectorates of Morocco and Tunisia were ruled by Arab monarchs, and the French also ruled through native kings in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
Indian artwork depicts a ruler being held in a throne For the most part, Europeans could almost always rely on their superior military technology to coerce local rulers into doing what the Europeans wanted. And they could replace native officials with Europeans if they had to. But in general, they preferred to rule indirectly. It was easier and cheaper. Also, less malaria. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So while we can’t know why all native princes who ruled in the context of European imperialism put up with it, we can make some pretty good guesses. First of all, they were still rulers. They got to keep their prestige and their fancy hats and, to some extent, their power. Many were also able to gain advantages through their service, like access to European education for themselves and for their children. Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, was the son of an Indian high official, which made it possible for him to study law in England. And we can’t overlook the sheer practicality of it. The alternative was to resist, and that usually didn’t work out well. I’m reminded of the famous couplet, “Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun, and they have not.”
But even with this enormous technological advantage, it wasn’t always easy. For example, it took 25 years, from 1845 to 1870, for the British to fully defeat the Maori on New Zealand because the Maori were kick-ass fighters who had
Imperialism: Crash Course World History # Timing and description Text ones, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. Remember, you can get this shirt, the Mongol shirt, or our poster at DFTBA.com. Speaking of which, as we say in my hometown, 00:13:27: 00:13:29:15 don’t forget to be awesome.
