Race and Empire

Jane Samson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317876045
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Geschichte
• Subtopic: Weltgeschichte

Readers at the beginning of the twenty-first century are probably more racially self-aware than any other generation has been. Like the relationship between gender and history, that between race and history is perceived to be of the utmost importance by young people and the older generation because it has left such a controversial legacy in the shape of hopes for multiculturalism, diversity, and tolerance.

This new Seminar Study provides an introduction to the intricate and far-reaching relationship between attitudes toward racial difference and imperial expansion. Imperialism is a topic that can be approached from many different angles. By concentrating on the topical issue of race, this book takes a very different approach from the more familiar political or economic studies of imperial expansion.

PART ONE

THE BACKGROUND

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

People make race. Differences in skin colour and other physical attributes exist, but on a spectrum rather than in neatly apportioned categories. For centuries, some theorists have noted that it was impossible to determine accurately where one physical type ended and another began. There were too many intermediate colours and forms. Today’s genetic science tells us that the situation is even more complicated than this: a person’s physical appearance may be no guide at all to ancestry. The ‘common sense’ belief in the possibility of a consistent, visual identification of race has been constantly questioned. This is why it is so important to emphasise the point that ‘race’ is a concept created by people rather than nature; it is people who decide how much African ancestry makes a person ‘black’, or whether ‘white’ people include Russians, Irish, or Jews. People differ physically from one another in various ways – this is a biological fact – but human beings decide what to make of those differences and how to classify and interpret them.

It is probably helpful to begin with some definitions. Humans seem always to have devised ways of making distinctions between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’, but the question is: are such processes inevitably racist, or is modern racism distinctive? Scholars have been examining the difference between ethnicity and race in order to begin to answer this question. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an ‘ethnic’ group as ‘having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics’ whereas a ‘race’ is ‘a group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin’ (OED Online). What this tells us is that ethnicity might or might not involve physical characteristics, but race always does. Ethnocentrism is not necessarily based on physically-based discrimination: ethnic groups might identify themselves by language, religion, or other characteristics. Racism, however, is always about physical difference.

The next question to consider is: how and when did physically-based forms of discrimination begin to predominate in European thinking about the world’s peoples? There is little agreement among scholars about exactly when racism began, but all would agree that it was evident by 1700. Many would link it to the development of the modern nation-state during the eighteenth century, when political states became increasingly identified with particular ‘nations’, or peoples. As we shall see, national identities shifted from an emphasis on royal subjecthood or religious affinities to ethnic ties. One aspect of the debate about the origins and nature of racism deserves special mention here. Too often, race is regarded as something possessed only by non-white people. The phrase ‘coloured people’ is a good example of this: non-whites have colour but, by implication, white people do not. As one scholar puts it: ‘as long as white people are not racially seen and named, they/we function as a human norm. Other people are raced, we are just people’ (Dyer, 1997: 1). Many scholars today would insist on the inclusion of ‘white’ as a colour, reminding us that race and racism are not one-way processes. By classifying non-Europeans in various ways, Europeans were classifying themselves as well.

What about the definition of ‘imperialism’ and ‘colonialism’? Imperialism can be defined as ‘an imperial system of government … esp. when despotic or arbitrary’ whereas colonialism is ‘an alleged policy of exploitation of backward or weak peoples by a large power’ (OED Online). ‘Colonialism’ seems more clearly linked with race, and has acquired a new popularity in recent years as a description of unequal power relations in everything from actual imperial rule to the attitudes that preceded it and lingered after its departure. I prefer ‘imperialism’ to ‘colonialism’ because it is broader in historical scope; ‘colonialism’ usually refers to the modern period. Also, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a timeline which stretches from a pre-colonial period, through colonialism, to today’s supposedly post-colonial era. In my opinion, imperialism has been remarkably varied and adaptive throughout human history, reflecting the circumstances of the day without necessarily being tied to territorial rule. Some scholars have even called human beings ‘imperial animals’ (Tiger and Fox, 1998: passim), suggesting that imperialism is both natural and inevitable. The purpose of this book will be to explain and contextualise different theories of race and empire, and the choices people made in order to favour some theories over others. Even if we really are ‘imperial animals’ (and that is debatable) we are also intelligent, morally conscious beings who can make choices about the way we conceptualise ourselves and others.

What was distinctive about modern imperialism, if anything? One notable characteristic is the widespread alienation of land from the control of indigenous populations. Ancient empires often relied on tribute and military service, favouring the maintenance of indigenous landholding and labour systems in order to maximise revenue. There was migration within and between ancient empires, but not a wholesale dispossession of indigenous populations and their replacement by large numbers of people from distant lands. There is also a question of scope. In ancient times, would-be imperial conquerors already knew the peoples that they hoped to conquer. All of this changed when the Americas and Europe encountered each other. Now, for the first time, vast territories and a wide range of cultures were included in empires that spanned the globe. This produced an increased sense of distance, both geographical and racial, between Europe and its colonies abroad.

Karl Marx was one of the first theorists to notice the relationship between modern capitalism and European imperialism, and his insights remain important whether or not one agrees with his political conclusions. Modern capitalism needs to maintain growth, and after the industrial revolution began in eighteenth-century Britain, the search for resources and markets increased. Overseas operations were financed by metropolitan capital, accelerating modern colonialism’s shift away from older notions of imperial tribute-gathering. Modern empires regarded their subjects very differently as a result of this shift. Colonised peoples had once been valuable in their own right, but modern imperial powers sometimes replaced them by others who provided a better return on investment, as in the replacement of indigenous labour by African slaves in the Americas, or the large-scale importation of Asian workers to colonies in Africa or the Pacific. Conditions in the colonies were manipulated where necessary in order to maximise profit. Advocates of this process were quick to point out that it provided increased opportunity for labourers, and that it ensured relatively low prices for consumers at home. Critics maintained that the process relied on racial and geographical inequalities, and on the relative powerlessness of producers and workers outside Europe and North America. Debate about these issues continues, although the word ‘imperialism’ is usually replaced by ‘globalisation’ these days, suggesting a new and (possibly) improved state of affairs, and disguising the deep historical background of many of today’s most serious problems in international relations.

Questions about the relationship between racism and imperialism are fraught with controversy. Many have believed that both of these things were the inevitable result of natural European superiority, and only fairly recently have these concepts been extensively criticised by people unwilling to take such superiority for granted. My own belief is that chicken-and-egg debates about which came first – racism or imperialism – are ultimately fruitless. Rather than a linear progression from one to the other, it is easier to imagine the two as part of a symbiotic relationship. Each needed the other; each supported the other.

When did racism and imperialism first begin to collude in this way? Some scholars would push racism back into the ancient world; others deny that modern racism has any counterpart. What is clear is that by 1700 the two things were already powerfully related. Unexpected encounters with new peoples in the Americas and the Pacific forced Europeans to create new ways of explaining physical and cultural differences. The rise of print culture, and rising literacy levels in the European world, gave these theories an audience of unprecedented size. For the first time, race relations became the subject of popular interest and, eventually, popular political pressure. There is no doubt that these features of the modern world enhanced the ability of race theory to interact with imperial rule.

There is another dimension to this debate. Is racism really the most important factor in imperialism? Might imperialism exist even if the rulers and the ruled share a common racial origin? English and Scottish colonisation in Ireland was not hindered by the fact that English, Scots, and Irish were all ‘white’. Other questions concern the role of class and gender issues. Are there cases in imperial history when race has been less important than social rank or gender? Some recent scholarship has drawn attention to alliances between upper-class gentlemen across the racial divide, as when Indian royal families sent their sons to Oxford and Cambridge, or when British knighthoods and other honours were shared with aristocrats in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Other work has pointed out the crucial role of gender, as when cross-racial sexual relations, including marriage, were far more acceptable for white men than for white women. As we will see, white women’s reproductive power was usually fiercely protected, suggesting that they were perceived as the guardians of racial purity.

Many historians would say that race relations were always less important to empires than making money. The issue of economics certainly helps to explain the rapid disintegration in the twentieth century of most of the modern territorial empires: they had become increasingly expensive to maintain. New regional trading organisations, and Cold War geopolitics, enabled countries to find materials and markets without the expensive business of imperial rule. Colonial nationalism was difficult and costly to suppress. Open racism was in decline in much of the West after the Second World War, but the reasons for both imperialism and decolonisation cannot be reduced to the single causal factor of racism. Spain’s empire in the New World had been accidental at first, created when unexpected continents stood between the Spanish crown and the riches it hoped to exploit in Asia. Racial attitudes certainly helped to facilitate and justify Spanish conquests, but it was the lucrative spice trade, not racism, which had propelled Columbus across the Atlantic. The exploitation of racial ‘inferiors’ was not necessarily the first priority of imperial powers. David Cannadine has suggested that in many cases there was a ‘homogenising convergence’ between metropolitan and colonial social structures, at least in the case of the British empire (Cannadine, 2001, 13). This convergence allowed useful connections to be built between men of similar class background and aspirations across the racial divide.

Is expansionism always racist? Critics of globalisation would say yes, pointing to ongoing structural inequalities between white and non-white people around the world. Some ask whether ‘decolonisation’ has ever really taken place. On the other hand, human rights advocates believe that European and North American influences can be beneficial. What seems clear is that the independence of many former colonies has not removed racism from the world stage, and the words ‘colonialism’ and ‘imperialism’ continue to appear on the opinion pages of newspapers and in political debate. Will race and empire always be with us? It might seem so, but my belief is that little is inevitable about human interaction. We make choices about ways of seeing one another, and choices about how to act on those conceptions. Perhaps the only way forward is to recognise the subjectivity of all our world-views, resisting calls to see each other only in one way or another: ‘us’ or ‘them’. To do this responsibly, it is essential to be better informed about the deep history of these ways of seeing one another, and their implications for our shared histories.

PART TWO

ANALYSIS

CHAPTER TWO

THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD

During the fifteenth century, Portuguese explorers sailed along the African coast, establishing trade relations and crossing the Indian Ocean to the markets of south and south-east Asia. Spain, Portugal’s great rival, sent its own navigators to Asia by what it believed to be a faster western route, not realising that the American continents stood in the way. These pioneering voyages vastly extended Europe’s commercial and political influence, bringing substantial new territories under European rule in the process. The largest of these colonies were in the ‘New World’ of America, and here the Spanish crown drew on Roman imperial doctrines to create the concept of a global Roman Catholic empire. This concept was reinforced by the Treaty of Tordesillas which divided the known world between Spain and Portugal in 1494. Latecomers to the Americas such as the British and Dutch, who were Protestant, had to find other ideologies for colonial rule. The most prosperous overseas operations, however, were the small trading depots established in Africa and Asia by various European nations. The Portuguese were eventually joined by the French, Dutch, English, and others as European nations scrambled to compete in a new era of globalised trade. In the process, they were forced to find ways of describing and explaining their intensifying encounter with non-Europeans.

RACE IN THE MIDDLE AGES

By the Middle Ages there had already been a shift away from the fairly tolerant polytheisms of the ancient Mediterranean world to the missionary faiths of Christianity and Islam. Distinctions between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ became more explicitly religious: Christians and heathens; Muslims and infidels. Berber Muslims from north Africa invaded Spain in 711, conquering most of it along with parts of south-western France. The ‘Moors’, as they became known, encouraged the development of a sophisticated culture in the Iberian peninsula. During the eleventh century, Christian leaders from northern Spain began a reconquest, but Moorish power lingered in some coastal areas, including the kingdom of Granada which remained under Muslim rule until 1492 (the same year that Columbus landed in the Caribbean). After the reconquest, royal and aristocratic families became very concerned with limpieza de sangre (‘purity of blood’), praising whiter complexions as evidence that particular families had not intermarried with Moors or Jews. Family trees were examined closely, and sometimes altered to disguise unacceptable miscegenation. It is difficult to see this process as anything but a physically-based system of discrimination: racism.

In the meantime, a series of Crusades had taken large numbers of European soldiers to the Middle East in an attempt to ensure that Christian holy places stayed under Christian rule. Historians have pointed out the role of European sectarian and political rivalry in the Crusades; Roman Catholic crusaders even sacked the Eastern Orthodox capital of Byzantium at one point. Many other people saw the crusades as an opportunity to expand commercial markets in the eastern Mediterranean. Atrocities were practised by both sides, yet many contemporary accounts by Christians praise the honourable conduct of their Muslim opponents. Nevertheless, the Conquest and Reconquest, along with the Crusades and various forms of commercial and political rivalry in north Africa, produced entrenched hostility between the Christian and Muslim worlds. One pioneering historian of Portuguese imperialism has suggested that centuries of conflict ‘kept alive the traditional Portuguese hatred of the Muslim’ and ‘predisposed them to regard all the followers of the Prophet as mortal enemies, whether they were Moors, Arabs, Swahili, Persians, Indians, or Malays’ (Boxer, 1963: 6).

Another group regarded as problematic by Europeans were the Jews. Scattered by the Romans during the first century, Jews had settled in Europe and elsewhere with varying degrees of success. Because Christians were forbidden to lend money for interest, Jews became associated with money lending, becoming a focus for the resentment and anxiety that always surrounds this necessary but unpopular activity. Jewish dietary restrictions inhibited social interaction with Christians, and intermarriage was relatively rare. Sometimes Jewish communities coexisted peacefully with Christians for centuries, only to find that they provided a convenient scapegoat for changing economic or political conditions. The periodic expulsion of Jews from various European cities during the Middle Ages combined with images of them as an alien people, suggesting that they were not truly European. Like the mutual hostility between the Christian and Muslim worlds, tense relationships between Christian and Jewish communities created longstanding patterns of suspicion and hostility that sometimes erupted into violence.

Were the traumas of Muslim rule, the Crusades, and the persecution of Jews the primary reasons for the development of racism in Europe? Current debates focus on the question of whether religion or skin colour was the most important difference between Europeans and others. One point of view insists on ‘the problem that dark skin … posed for a [Christian] culture that believed that God made man in his own image’ (Hall, 1995: 13). If black skin was perceived negatively, how could black people have been created in the image of God? Religious identities must indeed be taken seriously in their ability to challenge racial distinctions. Christianity is not a ‘western’ faith; Europeans had been converted by darker-skinned missionaries from the eastern Mediterranean and northern Africa. Some scholars contend that Christians conceptualised ‘the idea of the Moor and the Jew as infidels, unbelievers whose physical differences are signs (but not causes or effects) of their unbelief’ (Appiah, 1995: 278). This interpretation was reflected in medieval medical theories, which suggested that physical appearance could be affected by climate, or by shocks experienced during pregnancy. It also helps to explain Spanish racial fears following the Reconquest. It fails, however, to deal with the question of how non-European Christians should be regarded; a problem which became increasingly acute after Spain’s discovery of the Americas. Could Christianised Indians be regarded as equals?

THE SHOCK OF THE NEW WORLD

Christopher Columbus landed in 1492 on what he believed to be a south-east Asian island. After claiming the area for Spain, he remained convinced that he had discovered a western route to the ‘Indies’ (hence the name ‘West Indies’ for the Caribbean islands). It quickly became clear, however, that he and his successors had stumbled upon new and unexpected lands. Spain’s vast empire in the ‘New World’ was unprecedented, ov...