How far do you agree with the view that cultural imperialism was the main reason explaining the expansion of Britains Empire in Africa in the years 1870-1899?

Similarly, economic interests also aided to trigger expansion into Africa. There was plenty of interest in West Africa, due to the “highly protitable”14 trade in cocoa and palm oil, led by George Goldie. Palm oil was used as “an industrial lubricant”4 and for the manufacture of soap and in the late nineteenth century; this was a “thriving”4 consumer growth industry. In addition, the fact that Goldie established a monopoly over the collection of palm oil highlights the greed over African resources.   This shows that potential profits and economic prospects certainly played a role in deciding which parts of Africa were worthy of interest, and so, I think it is a bigger factor than cultural imperialism. This is further proved by the expansion of British settlements in Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast, despite the fact that in 1865, the parliamentary select committee had forbidden them to expand any further in West Africa, highlighting the determination driven by potential economic gain. Furthermore, in December 18844, major European powers met in Berlin to reach a settlement of the boundaries, trade and rules in West Africa. This made way for the treaty in 1885, which was signed by the European powers, agreeing that free trade should be enforced in West Africa, as well as recognising “the British economic interests on the Niger”4. This arrangement “speeded up”4 the partition of Africa, as it meant that the European powers could now claim territory with ease – they were free to grab African land, and all they had to do next, was to inform the other powers that the land was in “effective occupation”4. The fact that the British made sure that their economic interests were recognised shows that economic interests must’ve been a major factor in the expansion in Africa, otherwise, surely, they wouldn’t make such an effort to protect their interests. Therefore, it proves that cultural imperialism was nowhere near as important as the economic aspects when it comes to colonisation, as they did not take as many steps regarding imperialism, compared to the steps taken to safeguard their economic priorities in certain parts of Arica.

It is important to point out that this is not an isolated case – the British did exactly the same thing on the other side of Africa, thus putting more weight on the argument focussing on economic aspects behind expansion in Africa. The “major” British interest in East Africa was trade with the island of Zanzibar, immediately showing economic interest. The Imperial British East Africa Company was set up by Sir William McKinnon, as he believed that east Africa had “enormous economic potenetial”13, and so he was hoping to attract investment in East Africa through his company. In 1884, McKinnon became aware of a rival German East Africa company, and as a result of this, to protect the British interest in the area; East Africa was divided by “diplomatic agreements into British and German ‘spheres of influence’”13. This is another example of the steps taken by the British to protect their interests in a certain area of Africa. This interest was fuelled by economic potential, and not cultural imperialism. As Pugh points out, the mere hope of finding wealth provided “sufficient motive for some enthusiastic imperialist entrepreneurs”. A classic example of this was Cecil Rhodes, who wrongly assumed there would be more gold and diamonds would be discovered in Transvaal. This shows that economic development opportunities and trade were a priority, and even the slightest potential economic gain was enough to spark interest in Africa. It shows that it was not cultural imperialism, but economic greed that even led the British to negotiate with rivals, and so, cultural imperialism was not the main reason behind colonisation.

A more important factor was competition from other European rivals. Compared to the role played by cultural imperialism and economic potential, France, Germany and King Leopold of the Belgians all “played much more prominent roles”2. Firstly, the British occupation of North Africa, i.e. Egypt, was primarily due to the fear of Ottoman possessions falling into the “hands of rival European powers”, which in turn, would pose a threat to the British interest in Egypt. The British policy towards Egypt made clear that the British were greatly concerned about  other European rivalry – Lord Palmerston clarified that the British did not “want to have Egypt”1, but wanted it to be “attached to the Turkish Empire, which is security against it belonging to another European power”1. This proves that cultural imperialism was not the main reason for taking over Africa; the drive for the ”deliberate exploitation” of Africa and its resources was from the “fear that other powers would grab them”,  which in turn would make Britain weaker in comparison.

In addition, the ‘Fashoda incident’ reinforces my argument, as it almost led to war between rivals France and Britain, and illustrates the extent Britain was prepared to go to, in order to protect their interests in an area which represented “unexploited market”2. It is not fair to say that cultural imperialism was the main reason behind expansion in Africa, because in the 1880’s, competition from other European contries proved to be the catalyst behind taking over Africa. For example, the British push into east Africa was prompted by German activity in the region, which “convinced the British to claim their own sphere of influence”9. This tells us that there was an attitude of fierce competition, and not an attitude driven by potential profits or cultural imperialism. The expansion in East Africa in particular, undermines any argument that may be suggesting expansion was driven by economic factors - Kennedy states that the move into East Africa had “little evidence” of economic gain, proving that an economic explanation” is “not wholly convincing”. Finally, in 1882, Leopold signed a treaty with several west African rulers, which led to the establishment of the Congo Free State, which “developed a thriving rubber industry”, and this progress and ambition worried the British, who were starting to feel like they were lagging behind, and therefore, in February 1884, they also signed a treaty with Portugal, which recognised “the ancient right of Portugal to the mouth of the Congo River”2. This shows that Britain only took the initiative to claim rights over territory when they realised that they were “being squeezed out by the European’s scramble”. Therefore, in my opinion, I think it is fair to say that rivalry was one of the biggest factors driving the expansion of the British Empire, as if it wasn’t for the competition Britain was facing, they may not have expanded so rapidly in such a short space of time.

On the other hand, although cultural imperialism, economic potential and European rivalry were both certainly factors in British expansion, according to historian Martin Pugh, the “most obvious motive” was strategic. For decades, Britain had been acquiring “buffer zones”6, such as Burma and the Punjab in order to “protect her vulnerable Indian Empire"6. This shows that British interest in Africa was fuelled by the fact that certain parts of Africa would serve to strengthen their hold over their existing Empire. The French’s dramatic investment in Africa, the Suez Canal, opened in 1869, and immediately led to a “large influx of British investment”1. This is because Egypt occupied a “vital point on the route to india”6 and it created a quick and easy route to Britain’s “prime” colony, which was often referred to as “crown jewel” and the “keystone of the Empire”.The British were not reluctant to show their interests in Egypt, particularly after the completion of the Suez Canal, and therefore offered “enourmous”1 loans to the Egyptian government, which was used towards economic development. However, by 1879, Egypt had a foreign debt of £100 million, and was in a “debt crisis”1, which may have been due to the “corrosive effects of western economic interests”.  This was to the misfortune of the Egyptian government, but for the British, it gave them the golden opportunity to take over a part of Africa that would strengthen their Empire, as well as restore financial stability to the Egyptian economy. This shows that cultural imperialism was not the main reason behind the interest in Egypt –Egypt was so appealing because it was the chance to strengthen Britain’s hold over India. However, this can also be seen as economic greed -

This argument is strengthened by the British acquisition of Sudan – they were willing to take over as much of Africa if it meant that Britain was “defending her traditional interest in the route to India”. After gaining Egypt, by extension, it was arguable that Sudan was a big part of Egypt’s security, and that there was now a risk that a “hostile power”6 could pose a threat to British shipping in the Indian Ocean. Therefore, Britain recognised the importance of the East African coast, and in the late 1890’s, they annexed the Sudan, which also served as revenge for General Gordon’s death, and led to the ‘Fashoda incident’, where the French finally agreed to Sudan becoming a British ‘sphere of influence’. This demonstrates the powerful strategic and slight political motives behind the expansion in Africa, while also showing that cultural imperialism was not the main factor, but a contributing factor.

In conclusion, I think Britain became involved in the ‘Scramble for Africa’ due to a mixture of potential power, politics, crafty strategic motives, and economic greed. The Suez Canal is a classic example of this – they wanted to safeguard their power so they were against the Suez Canal falling into the hands of a rival. They wanted to trade with Egypt, thus highlighting economic aspects, and also, they wanted to add security to their prized possession – India. Similarly, I think all phases of the ‘Scramble for Africa’ contain many aspects. Although cultural imperialism played a fair role in this, I think it was not the main player in this game of African territory, as it would’ve gone ahead without it. Also, I think economic factors were never more important to the British than rivalry, but it is important to note that they never “flinched from defending British economic interests whenever and wherever they were felt to be threatened”, which clearly states that economic interests were never overlooked. All in all, I think the main factor is a balance between rivalry and strategic factors, closely followed by economic factors, and lastly, cultural imperialism.