At the same time, there was a wave of colonization. History shows that states have established colonies for thousands of years, going back to the Persians and other societies in the Ancient Near East. But each wave of colonization has had its own motives and methods.
It is tempting to think that industrialization and free trade led to, or caused, the nineteenth century wave of colonization. But there are reasons to challenge this thought.
In writing his history of the Congo, David Van Reybrouck examines and rejects the causal connection:
Industrialization definitely served the European powers’ expansive urge. In faraway places one found inexpensive raw materials and, with a bit of luck, even new customers. But that did not immediately lead to colonization. No one out to maximize operational profits would [be] thinking of founding an expensive colony. Anyone swearing by the principles of free trade (and every industrialist did in those days) would be loath to turn to anything as protectionist as an overseas territory. Industrialization alone, therefore, cannot explain the rise of colonialism. In purely commercial terms, a colony was not even necessary. In Central Africa, one could have gone on for a time trading bales of cotton for tusks. No, there was another element needed to make colonial fever break out, and that was nationalism.
Simply put, an industrialist or an advocate of free trade would probably oppose the establishment of colonies. What they wanted from those regions — raw materials, maybe some minimal processing of those raw materials, and possibly a market for their products — could be had without going the considerable expense of establishing and operating colonial governments.
The creation and ongoing funding of a colony is costly, and does not increase the value that can be extracted from that land.
A persuasive argument can be made that there is little practical benefit to be had from a colony. The motive for colonization is more psychological than economic.
If the nineteenth century saw almost unmitigated peace, from the time of the Congress of Vienna and the downfall of Napoleon in 1814/1815 to the beginning of WW1 in 1914, then it could be hypothesized that the Europeans directed their aggressive impulses outward rather than at their neighbors. (The few European military conflicts during that century were so small and brief as to be barely worthy of the word ‘war’.) The expansion of European governments into Africa and into the Pacific could be seen also as a buildup toward WW1.
In any case, the principles in David Van Reybrouck’s line of reasoning can be applied beyond the Congo to other instances of colonization, especially nineteenth century colonization.
