British E.G. King Thibaw Of Burma example essay topic

1. How important were economic factors in explaining the colonisation of South east asia by the West in the 19th century? Economic factors: 1. Colonies = profit Desire for profit since earliest Spanish colonization- Dutch and British trade and profit motivated- although America and France had different motivations colonies needed to access raw materials e.g. tin in Malaya access to China, most market in Asia, given by colonisation of Vietnam 2.1 Merchant pressure Need to ensure trade concessions Some states reneged on trade agreements, e.g. Burma Frequent attempts made by British to ensure King's cooperation, sent Residents, but King ignored all agreements, even extorted from merchants. Therefore merchants put pressure on Crown government to coloni se Burma, only way for them to retain privileges and concessions. 2.2. Economic momentum- Led to competition among merchants for bigger markets- Competition caused by imperialist profit-gaining More concessions wanted once they are given- imperialism and trade factors had cumulative effect 3.

Safeguarding Trade and Stability Anarchy and instability disrupted trade, colonisation helped prevent this. e.g. Burma King Thibaw was a weak king, responsible for anarchy e.g. Tonkin Black flags from China caused trade disruption made protecter ate by French Pirate bases colonized too. Pirates attacked trade vessels. e.g. Aceh, colonized by Dutch 4. Economic Competition Placed importance on economic fear of losing out to one another in trade. Only colonisation gave solid footing in region and a share in trade e.g. possibility of Germany's interest in Northern Malaya concerned British e.g. King Thibaw of Burma gave many trade concessions to French, British annexed Burma pari tally to shut French out. 5.

New markets for goods 1870's onwards, more and more European countries industrializing. Competition existed among European countries. Imposed tariffs on imported goods to protect embryonic industries. So Euro countries looked to cheaper Asian markets to sell goods and acquire raw materials.

Political factors: 1. Status and Prestige France equaled acquisition of Indochina with increased prestige This due to past humiliation from defeat in Franco-Prussian war, produced great determination to retain prestige in rest of world through colonisation. 2. Protection of existing empire good example would be British colonisation of Arak an in Burma and later rest of Burma. Done to prevent turmoil in Burma from 'spilling over' into adjacent India, their empire. Would have serious implications on trade Proximity to 'turbulent frontiers' enough. e.g. Strife in Perak / Selangor.

Secret society conflicts spread to Chinese secret societies in Straits Settlements branches. Protection from other European countries. Colonisation of Burma due to fear that French would border India if it gained control of it. Idealogical factors: 1. Religious reasons France and Spain French colonized Vietnam to protect French missionaries from persecution of Emperor Tu Duc. Intervention could also serve to create Christian communities in Vietnam.

By 1800's though, religious reasons only applied to France. 3/4 of worlds' missionaries came from France. 2. Secular Reasonscivilising motive, 'white man's burden " Only one country took this, America. Worked hard towards eventual independence and progress for Philippines. Had to hold up belief in freedom and liberty.

But economic motivation also came into play. Burma colonized to remove 'barbaric' practices. Used as excuse for conquest of Burma because this responsibility only arose after colonisation. Shows civilisation was rather used as an after-colonisation justification.

Weighing factors: Economic motivation most important. Idealogical motivation not strong enough to be justified for only 2 countries were motivated by religious reasons and civilisation was used as an excuse for economic motivation. Political motivation tied back to economic motivation because as seen from the example of Burma, British colonized it to protect its trade in India. Disruption of trade, which is economically affects the European powers, was the main fear was behind the political motivations Therefore, economic motivation must be the most important, even though it can be argued that the refraining of returning economically worthless colonies shows that economic motivation was not the most important reason.

But in my opinion this is just a guise for their economic motivation so as not to be mocked at by other European countries and reveal their true selfish motivation of having economic dominance.