• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent were humanitarian and missionary motives the most important reason for British expansion into Africa between 1868 and 1902?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

To what extent were humanitarian and missionary motives the most important reason for British expansion into Africa between 1868 and 1902? Although there had been British presence in Africa from the start of the 19th Century, with British areas of control including Cape Colony, Orange Free State and areas along the West coast, prior to 1880 Britain had in reality very few possessions in Africa. Only when the 'Scramble for Africa' was triggered did Britain, along with many other European great powers, begin its campaign for territorial acquisition. The fundamental motives for British expansion into Africa were essentially the economic interest Africa held for Britain and its entrepreneurs, the rivalry Africa created between the Great European Powers, its strategic value and what was commonly presented to the British public as being the most important motive, humanitarian purposes. For many, including Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, it was believed that Britain had a moral obligation to bring civilization and Christianity to the native population who were considered to be 'uncivilized' and racially inferior. Moreover, the Church strongly promoted the idea of missionary work in Africa; the Church encouraged the notion that a fundamental element of imperial occupation was the extension of Christianity which therefore was a motive behind imperialism in Africa. Many missionary societies were created such as the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel which conducted fund-raising activities and lectures. ...read more.

Middle

Until the 1880's Britain felt no real need to establish formal territorial control, instead it relied on an 'informal empire' in which they had established a purely economic influence. Britain had not wished for territorial control in Africa which they recognized absorbed time, people and money but rather economic exploitation at minimum cost. Yet British seizure of Egypt meant that other European nations began to show expansionist interest in the region which in turn threatened Britain's informal arrangement, particularly in West and Southern Africa. For example, Britain had an interest in Nigeria but a danger was that important trade along the River Niger would be under threat from French expansion in the area. Similar pressure came when Germany seized Togoland and the Cameroons in 1884 and the Belgians set up the Congo Free State in 1885. As a result the government granted a Royal Charter to the Niger Company, out of which eventually emerged the colony of Nigeria. It is unlikely that the government would have regarded the interests of the Niger traders very sympathetically had it not been for its determination not to allow France, Belgium and Germany from grabbing land which would threaten British trade, something which was of foremost importance to Britain and it would not allow to be compromised. The scramble in West Africa had also resulted in Berlin West Africa Conference which laid down rules for future annexation of territory. ...read more.

Conclusion

Britain also saw great potential for trade in East Africa; Zanzibar imported significant quantities of manufactured goods from Britain and India. It was a major trading point from which came ivory and leather goods and into which went textiles, brass and steel from Britain. Britain's primary interest was trade and economic gain. Without any economic potential in an area Britain was not interested in colonization, in contrast if a region held great economic investments, for example Egypt, Britain was quick to occupy the area despite its reluctance to extend formal control which it viewed as consuming time, people and money. In summary, Africa's economic potential was clearly the primary reason for British expansion into Africa 1868-1902. Britain was not a solely altruistic nation which became involved in the continent purely to help the people, instead it was driven by its own gains. It is true that rivalry from other great European powers was vital in turning British control in Africa from informal into solid occupation, however essentially Britain's determination not to allow other nations to grab land was to avoid threat to its trade and economic interests in a region. Moreover, Africa's strategic importance was also highly valued by Britain, yet once again its ultimate value lay in its path along the crucial route to India and therefore the protection of Britain's economic interest. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

3 star(s)

Response to the question

The student has a very good understanding of the terms of the question and achieves a balanced conclusion, but the level of detail is superficial at some points. The question stipulates a consideration of a variety of viewpoints and the ...

Read full review

Response to the question

The student has a very good understanding of the terms of the question and achieves a balanced conclusion, but the level of detail is superficial at some points. The question stipulates a consideration of a variety of viewpoints and the student has responded with that. However, there are more historical interpretations available on this topic, and if time contraints or word counts allow then the essay would improve with consideration of historians such as Schumpeter. The student is on task for the whole piece.

Level of analysis

The student clearly understands the nature of the historical debate around Britain's intervention in Africa. An improvement they could make is naming some historians or their ideas, as this would show a greater depth. For example, instead of simply referring to the strategic value of Africa, they could mention or even quote Gallagher and Robinson, who wrote extensively on that point. In terms of evidence, the chronological understanding is excellent and they use dates effectively. The essay would benefit from further detail in some areas: for example, when referring to Gladstone's policy of non-intervention, deeper exemplification could be achieved by referring to the Midlothian Campaign or his "six principles" of foreign policy. The essay strikes a relatively good balance of evaluative style over narrative style, the latter being inappropriate for A Level standard work. Any more exemplification would probably be too much. It is also important to note that the examples - such as Cecil Rhodes - are perfectly valid but they are the usual examples for this topic. The essay would benefit from further research and more unusual examples, which would demonstrate independent and wider research. Sweeping assertions that lack evidence, such as "of foremost importance to Britain", sometimes harm the essay. The conclusion is balanced.

Quality of writing

The student has adopted an excellent style of writing that is appropriate for the qualification. A particularly strong structural aspect is the summation of the conclusion in the introduction as it shows a clear line of argument. Use of terminology is good but the essay would benefit from words and phrases which show a developed understanding of key historical concepts, such as "causal factor" and "consequence". The paragraphing is fine. Some words such as "uncivilised" and "colonisation" are spelled with the American "z" which should not be copied unless your education system uses American English. The grammar is also very good, although the essay would read better if the student had started a new sentence before markers such as "in contrast", like in examples such as this - "Without any economic potential in an area Britain was not interested in colonization, in contrast if a region held great economic investments, for example Egypt, Britain...".


Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn

Reviewed by lordharvey 25/03/2012

Read less
Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Asses the most important factors that led to David Lloyd George(TM)s downfall in 1922

    It was seen as reckless behaviour by LG, risking war unnecessarily. The hurt after WW1 was still strong and to risk more British lives over such a pointless matter seemed ridiculous. Worse still, it was seen as a desperate attempt by Lloyd George to attract support and cling to power.

  2. Analyse the causes of the 1848 revolution in France.

    added more salt to the wounds. France was playing a junior partner to Britain, the traditional enemy. Louis-Phillipe was in a position where he could do no right. He wasn't in the position to adopt an aggressive foreign policy (that is aside from the fact that he didn't want to)

  1. Assess the impact of the period from 1969-1982 on the IRA/Sinn Fein and their ...

    Sunningdale Agreement, which devised a power sharing system in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Although this did no include Sinn Fein and quickly collapsed under pressure from loyalist strikes.13 In May 1974 British secretary of State Merlyn Rees legalised Sinn Fein as a political party.14 This was perhaps the beginning of

  2. To what extent did the hunger strikes in Northern Ireland become the most successful ...

    the People's Democracy wanted to join Sinn Fein after the hunger strikes, that would suggest that the strikes had been successful in gaining support eve from within other organistations in the nationalist community. In December 1969 the IRA (Irish Republic Army)

  1. "Though Forster's epigraph to the novel is 'Only Connect', he rather demonstrates the divided ...

    In Mrs. Wilcox, there is an acceptance of a Margaret-like mentality as opposed to a Henry-like mentality. This supernatural aura is also presented in Chapter 18. 'Mrs. Wilcox strayed in and out, ever welcome ghost; surveying the scene, thought Margaret, without one hint of bitterness.'

  2. The changing position of women and the suffrage question. Revision notes

    two bills at the same time regarding the changing status o f women would frighten MPs and neither bill would be passed. * After the failure of the 1867 reform act to include women in the extended franchise, it was deemed suitable to once again introduce the bill into Parliament.

  1. The changing position of women and the suffrage question

    Legislation that included free school meals for the poor, medical provision in schools and protected person?s status for children. ? All offered girls a better chance at gaining an education. Being educated was vital for girls to break into the male dominated ?public? world Education for Middle Class Girls A

  2. How close to revolution was Great Britain in the 1790s?

    And this is why in 1799 Pitt took the decision to effectively abolish all trade unions when he banned the ?combination? of men, and this helped to partly eliminate the danger of (dissatisfied) working men along with their union trying to cause trouble for the government, hence why many saw this as a very good measure taken by Pitt.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work