Britain’s Relationship With Its African Empire In The Period 1870 †1981

Assess the significance of strategical concerns in influencing Britains relationship with its African conglomerate in the period c1870 c1981 The last common chord decades of the nineteenth century proverb an unmitigated wave of amplificationist policy followed by about, if not each(prenominal) of the major European powers over the African continent, and so has been dubbed as the Scramble for Africa. France, Belgium, Portugal, Germ any(prenominal), Italy and Britain all laid aim to vast swathes of African earthly concern and by the turn of the century controlled roughly ninety per cent of the continent. The question this essay seeks to say is why this scramble was triggered. on that point be a variety of assembly lines that assume been put front by historians the scotch melodic lines are the most important as the vast approachability of frequently requisite and highly prized goods (precious metals, diamonds, metals, ivory, wield oil, etc. ) would ensure a genera tive market. The second most important figure could be argued as one of the follow wind triggers for the Scramble for Africa was the strategic ingredients of the Africa Continent, in term of the surety of hand streets and of valuable assets. overly the civilisedisation and evangelisation argument plays a role, precisely largely as an appeaser for the British public.Upon completion of the Suez Canal in 1869, British affair in Egypt increased, as the canal receptive up a much more(prenominal) effective trade route to the embellish in the Crown India. The Suez Canal drastically decreased the time taken for ships to opinion poll from Britain to India, from a six week pilgr public figure that entailed navigating the Cape, to a two week journey, resulting in better improvements in communications in the midst of the Viceroy and Whitehall and greatly increasing the wampum of trading companies as shipments could be make more frequently.The importance of the Suez Canal to Britain was predominate the Nationalist Rebellion in 1882 saw the occupation of Egypt by British forces, in order to protect the European state (an estimated fifty European civilians were killed in the rebellion), and most importantly, to protect, and brinytain control of, the Suez Canal. The strategic need behind this was to reinforce British inte tarrys in the champaign, especially trade with Egypt as any unrest in the area could affect British trade with the rest of its empire.Furthermore, the Canal was a significant touch base to India, which held absolute importance to the British. Protection of the canal, therefore, ensured protection of India. As well as that, the poove Empires sphere of act upon was expanding to envelop Egypt, which, if occurred, would wee-wee been a intemperate blow to British supremacy as a vital trade get in touch for its Empire, Britain would have to have secured the safety of the Suez Canal, which could have resulted in war with the Ottoman E mpire, or a treaty and/or a tariff imposed, a move that would have severely damaged Britains image of glorious isolation.The occupation of some(prenominal) African nations can likewise be seen to have been motivated by lofty strategy. The Berlin Conference in 1885 set a precedence that would change the face of purple refinement. Most empire building had antecedently been an in strainingal process the creation of trade posts, creating and strengthening of ties with local traders/chiefs etc. the conference, sign(a) by the major European powers (including Britain) say that a power much officially annex a territory if it were to operate part of the empire.This triggered a rush to formally annex the territories informally controlled by state powers- a process that especially jeopardize Britains position in Africa, as it relied much more upon informal expansionist policies to build its empire. Territories such as Bechuanaland, Kenya, Sudan and Egypt were as well as annexed. In this way, Britain prevented the expansion of other European powers and protected its own sphere of knead on the Continent. The most important factor for the Scramble of Africa, is however, the economic factors.The Continent provided an untapped source of raw materials that were much needed by the European powers fuel inspiration was at an all-time high, much in part due(p) to the later reaching of the Industrial Revolution in the freshly unified Germany and Italy. Not solo that, yet goods such as money, and diamonds were found in seeming abundance in part of Africa- by the early 1900s, the Rand (a strip of land in Southern Africa that encompassed the Transvaal State) was home to gold mines valued at 700million and was a name factor that prompted the Second Boer War between 1899-1902.What one must also not lose sight of is that although Britain committed itself to the expansion of its Empire in Africa for strategic concerns, these reasons all link back to increasing Britains wealth, be it lordly new markets, controlling highly demanded products (such as Egyptian cotton)or universe the first European access to much needed raw materials.Even the annexing of the original Dutch Cape Colony in the 1830s was primarily due to economic factors strategically important to protect the trade route with India, but only necessary due to the great economic importance of verbalise trade route. It is for this reason that economic factors were the main reason to explain Britains expansion in Africa, not strategic concerns. There is also the civilised and evangelise argument to consider, dubbed by Rudyard Kipling as The White humankinds Burden argument.In the late 19th century, as the height of British Imperialism and expansion, a national pride in the Empire was rife. The British considered themselves to be the greatest pelt along in the world, created by God to rule, powerful and fairly, and civilise the world. This was done in the form of providing infrastructur e, such as improved transport, civil service etc. in the intrust that this would make the lives of Africans more civilised and productive. Christianity was also used to spread this, as it was it was hoped that it would infuse a strong moral formula amongst the inseparables.However, it is unlikely that this was a strong motivation factor for British expansion in Africa for many reasons, and was instead something used to propitiate the British public after all, the ordinary Joe would have been more likely to warp to the idea of imperial expansion to cooperate out Africans, rather than knowing that they were allowing the richer to get richer, as was the case with Cecil Rhodes, who, with funding from the British Crown, created a vast personal fortune, became patriarchal Minister of the Cape Colony and had a country named after him Rhodesia.As well as this, there is little evidence to demo that Britain tried to improve the infrastructure of any of its African colonies. To concl ude, it is clear that strategic factors are not the most significant rendering for British expansion in Africa, as, although, important, were only made necessary by economic factors at the time. The civilised and evangelise argument is much less integral to the expansionist policies, but was perhaps instead a method of control over the native populations.