States of the world are quite like boys in a block. A trend every now and then is the source of ripples in their fabric of fraternity. If one guy throws the hat down the tree and looks awesome doing that, suddenly then, every guy wants to do that. Sooner or later, the hype fizzles out if there is a clear winner, or in some cases if there is no chance of an undisputed winner and they move on to something else.

History has had its fair share of ‘trends’.

It was space during the ‘60s, oil during the ‘90s and if we look at the starting of the 20th century, there was the Stock Market craze during the ‘20s and we all know how did that end up. Right now, nations are drooling at the very concept of nuclear energy; that’s good, right? (Although some chain reactions are quite much more energetic than the others)

So, this proves no matter in which decade we live there has always been a trend, good or bad.

Let’s take a deep breath now and focus on possibly the longest and the most widely participated trend in the history of mankind.

Imperialism.

There are two types of countries, Imperial countries and countries which have been subject to Imperialism. A country would easily fall into either of the categories.

Imperialism is derived from the Latin word Imperium which simply means ‘power’. Imperialism is the term used when a country extends its rule over other nations with an aggressive and dominant nature, usually for economic and political reasons.

Historians have enough reason to believe that the imperialistic mindset took over European nations between the late 19th century and the early 20th century, when there was great turmoil in their political and economic systems, courtesy for that would go to the fear for the spread of Socialism and a strong disliking towards the ruling monarchs. (Basically, for the Europeans, the cure for a civil war was a war with another nation. Bravado!)

Imperialism was merely a humble ideology, while the real culprit was Colonialism.

Colonialism is a reference to the policy of maintaining a colony for exploitation. Indigenous many are dominated by the minority foreign invaders. A colony is essentially an extension of the nation but the natives are second class citizens of their own nation and literally have no say in the way things are run.

The primary reason for the Europeans being able to colonize Third World nations is still being argued by historians. I personally believe that Europeans being exposed to various cultures of the same ethnic group prepared them militarily and psychologically for an Imperial mindset and the simple logic of “Survival of the Fittest”.

The Industrial Revolution in Europe rose the demand for raw goods and as the Europe had a “Protective Trade Policy”, they venture out to the horizons.

Soon European wars were fought not only in Europe, but in every nook and corner of the world. The Imperial Armies had recruits from colonies for fighting in the colonies. The Pound was rendered in Africa and so was the Franc in Asia. Pondicherry men became French teachers in Africa and English was the first language in Rhodesia. English Tea became a staple for Nawabs and the Chinese Warlords used German mercenaries.

In simple words,

Europe was no longer in Europe. It was everywhere.

Believe it or not, colonies were also the fuel for the outbreak of the World Wars. Kaiser William couldn’t bear the thought that the minuscule Belgium had the entire Congo, while he had to make do with fritters. Mussolini had a self-destructing slogan, “Italy must expand or perish” and went on to annex Ethiopia. The English and French expansion of Navy was considered hostile by German Empire, who in return expanded their Army. The truth, if it was for colonies’ annexation or in anticipation for a war remains a mystery

The French and English were enjoying swathes of territory around the world, while the other nations were primarily restricted to Africa (the notable exception being the Dutch East Indies).

Italy and Germany were unified in 1871. So, after sorting out their mess they decided to work their magic elsewhere; Africa.

Photo Credits: originalpeople.org

Italy was quite modest after the unification. They were content with trading with local tribes, but when the people around you are crazy it tends to rub off on to you too. The ‘Scramble for Africa’ (No, that is not a type of egg cooked specifically for Africans) had them stretching their legs to what is the modern-day Eritrea, Somalia and some authority of Libya.

Italy was quite modest after the unification. They were content with trading with local tribes, but when the people around you are crazy it tends to rub off on to you too. The ‘Scramble for Africa’ (No, that is not a type of egg cooked specifically for Africans) had them stretching their legs to what is the modern-day Eritrea, Somalia and some authority of Libya.

The German Empire was ironically the least bothered about their colonies in Africa until the World War I seized their colonies. They had quite a control over the enviable African coast in the West, South-West and the East.

The French had various fickle leaders till the World Wars, so their colonies had various purposes at various periods of time (a well-maintained Armada and strategic geographic location were added bonuses); but just for the for the fun of comparison; let’s look only at their African colonies. The French West Africa was the bastion of French colonialism in Africa. Famous for their gold reserves and exports of coffee and gold during the 19th century, today these nations are exporters of AIDS (Statistics are speaking, don’t judge me) and famous for their coup d’état. If it was up to me I would march straight to the Versailles and demand a blank cheque.

After the World War I, the League of Nations confiscated the territories of the Triple Alliance and distributed it among the victor nations. (Essentially that would be you gifting yourself a present and making a big fuss about your generosity since the League of Nations were more biased towards the Triple Entente).

The other colonies of the French and English in Asia also didn’t have a happy story. French had the modern-day Indo-China while the English had the mineral motherlode Indian subcontinent. They were certainly given more privileges than the African colonies. (French had an elaborate wing of government set up in Indo-China for governance while in Africa the reins were in the hands of the French East India Company who ran the show in a warlord style {the warlord style still hasn’t rubbed of yet}). Yet, they constantly opposed colonization and the Europeans were met with resistance right from day 1.

The Indian subcontinent got its independence in quite a peaceful manner, overlooking the most painful partition of nations and ethnicities in the history of time while Indo-China (primarily Vietnam) went for liberation guns blazing, fighting a war with three nations at the same time and uniting the other half of Vietnam in the end. (Off the record, I believe it was more of a Cold War issue involving Soviet Union and America with the Vietnams being a mere proxy; but for once let’s praise the Communists)

Other forms of imperialism are by establishing a protectorate, acquiring a leasehold to a region, tariff control of the nation’s revenue, obtaining franchise and establishing a Protectorate. (Honestly. the above mentioned are dead boring to understand if you aren’t a history buff and it just beats the bush around the message of “Hey! We own you!”)

The Mandate system is quite interesting though. It emerged at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 at the suggestion of General Jan Smuts of South Africa. (Interestingly, he was elected the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge in 1948) As per this, former colonies and other backward regions were assigned to League of Nations and were subject the Leagues’ restrictions as “mandatories”. This is yet again argued by historians if it is a legit form of Imperialism, but telling a ‘former colony’ to become a ‘colony of sorts again’ is something which is cracking me up the moment I am typing this. Personally, I call this ‘chutzpah’.

The Opium Trade is something off the charts. Basically, it is a mutually profiting trade triangle between India, China and England. England is the bully here; they wanted Chinese tea and silk but the Chinese were suspicious of foreign goods in their nation; (Yes, there was a time when quality control was a thing in China) so they accepted payment only in gold. The English were worried about the reducing gold reserves, so they came up with something else; getting Chinese addicted to Opium and forcing them to accept Opium in trade. Where was, the opium grown? *drumrolls* India!

Indians were forced to grow opium using sleazy EIC techniques and offers. Basically, it was either grow opium or lose ancestral property rights. The opium was then sold in China. The Emperor, alarmed at the growing imports, imposed heavy taxes towards opium essentially crippling their trade. The English angered by the response waged a war; not once, but twice. They grew opium in a foreign country, bought it at the cost of dirt, forced a country to buy it at gunpoint, exported tea to Her Majesty’s teacup. Probably, it would have been easier to colonize China than going through all this trouble; but who am I to judge? (On the contrary, Hong Kong was a British colony and Macau was Portuguese)

Colonialism is to be argued by a devil’s advocate (which I most certainly am not).

It has resulted in good and bad. I chose to avoid the ‘good side’ here because no matter how much you caramelize dung, it remains dung at the end of the day.

Let’s leave it at that, folks.