Introduction:
This essay intends to display a clear coalition between the three chosen terms for this task, and how one could argue how those terms- colonialism, imperialism and nationalism- are more than just connected but perhaps even produced by one another. This essay aims to analyse in detail how each terminology works in order to facilitate and perhaps produce one another. Furthermore, this essay will also focus on providing arguments which will support the idea of connecting those terms rather than produce an opinion regarding the subject. In addition to that, the essay will display the complexity surround those keys terms and how imperialism, colonialism and nationalism still play a crucial role in modern society.
One could argue that finding a connection between colonialism and imperialism is rather easy, however, this essay will also challenge itself in order to highlight that nationalism could be a product out of the other two terminologies. In addition to that, the notion of nationalism is highly integrated with a sense of belonging, a national identity built by the ideology that certain groups shared the same history and memory in the same territory (Spencer and Wollman, 2002, p81). The creation of such ideology partially based on the formation of the state or nation in a process which in some cases began with colonialism and imperialism, although more theories exist around this terminology this essay will focus more narrowly using this line of thoughts.
The Three Key Concepts:
Although this essay will be focusing on making a connection between the three key term, it is crucial to highlight that a great level of confusion around the terms colonialism and imperialism which still takes places in modern years (Williams and Chrisman, 1994, p1).
‘Imperialism’ means the practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory; ‘colonialism’, which is almost always a consequence of imperialism, is the implanting of settlements on distant territory (Said, 1994, p8).
Colonialism is also referred to as the process of forming a community in a different land, taking control of the existent community and imposing its own ideology and culture. Such process is also related to genocide, slavery, and exploitation where the land and its people are conquered by a stronger community. Great empires such as the Romans, the Mongols under Genghis Khan, the Aztec were strong colonisers (Loomba, 1998, p2-3).
Despite the similarities of both terms, it is crucial to understand the difference between the two, for instance, imperialism is the ideology behind the practice of colonialization of a territory, therefore, imperialism can exist without colonialism, however, colonialism is a product of imperialism which therefore its existence depends upon the idea of imperialism. Although both terms aim a similar goal which is to expand its financial, social, geographical and economic power, the practices display discrepancies. For instance, whiles Spain mainly focused in looting silver from the New World, in order to support and enrich its monarchy even more, in a process of colonialism, the British imperialism, however, focused on the accumulation of capital throughout its imperial ideology. Both processes, however, resulted in an expansion of territories of both empires despite taking different strategies (Saccarelli and Varadarajan, 2015, p23-24). Furthermore, such theory is supported by Marx’s view when it is expressed that foreign trade was achieved by colonialism, consequently, the expansion of Europe was extremely important for its accumulation of wealth in general. However, it is also crucial to highlight that Marx understood that the only way to justify such exploitation by the colonisers was with the aim to develop ‘backwards societies (Larrain, p45-46)’.
However, as mentioned earlier, it could be argued that imperialism was an ideology that was never successful. One example of this is the British Imperial system which many argue as a failed project which remained a product of imagination rather than ever achieving concrete status or, an over-ambitioned project aiming to produce a system in a far territory which would never work (Hyam, 2002, p2-3). ‘In Britain, the term imperialism had never been a popular one – quite the reverse in fact, since it carried connotations of over-weening ambition and self-aggrandisement, the very antitheses of Britishness’ (Williams and Chrisman, 1994, p1-2). Nevertheless, it is important to understand that despite the idea or theory that British imperialism had failed, it also remained one of the most profitable period in history of Britain regardless of its outcome. Furthermore, Britain still remains a great influence among its former colonies hence rather profitable connection as well.
Nonetheless, one could argue that the process of imperialism and colonialism was the birth of globalization, where more interaction and trade between territories geographically far from each other started to take place. However, with globalization and the rise of capitalism as a consequence, the pursuit of freedom from its colonial and imperial ties became inevitable to new nations. The process of anticolonialism, hence the creation of nationalism. Although one could argue that, there are countless motives for the creation of nationalism, due to the limited amount of words accepted in this essay, this report will highlight only a few in order to make a clear connection between the three chosen key concepts.
‘Nationalism is really only anticolonialism’ (Smith, 1971, p65). Although this essay by no means will intent to oversimplify the notion of nationalism, by highlight a single word as an explanation, it will, however, support this theory, emphasising the creation of a new political and social entity. Furthermore, financial and social-imperialism became ever closer at the end of the 18th century when colonies played a massive role as being a crucial source of raw material and cheap labour. However, it also created new communities with fewer roots with its colonisers. Those communities enlarged to become new urban areas and new socially independent nations, one could argue that a nation needs to believe and perhaps feels as a nation to start the process of social independence. In addition to that, new social classes were created within those communities and a sense of ‘need to belong’ emerged within (Smith, 1971, p66-67). Moreover, such theory can only be used with nations which went through the process of colonization or were under an imperialist control.
Moreover, Smith shares different theories regarding nationalism. Despite the fact that Smith believes that nationalism is closely related to territory, it also emerges from the need for political and social independence which was imposed by the colonizers. In addition to that, Smith argues that nationalist movements should also be classified as a post and pre-independent where pre-independence nationalist movements are motivated by the aim of the self-ruled nation and freedom from control, whereas post-independence movements are referred to those who wish to expand the ideology and maintain the status quo of its group or community (p224).
We may take the distinction further. ‘Ethnic’ nationalism start a pre-existent homogeneous entity, a recognisable cultural unit; all that is necessary is to protect and nurture it. The primary concern, therefore, of ‘ethic’ nationalists is to ensure the survival of the group’s cultural identity (p217).
Although Smith’s views lead one to believe that such theory refers to a period of history far earlier than mentioned in this essay, Smith’s examples mainly focused in communities which suffered control of colonial movements such as Latin America. Furthermore, Smith’s arguments are supported by the idea of protectionism and expansion of those nationalist groups whose main focus is to protect its new territory (p226).
One must inform that, the term nationalism has its origins prior the 18th century, and even earlier than modern colonization and modern empire. Such terminology including patriotism was rather popular in Scotland, England and France dated at the end of the 13th century.
Primordialism suggests that nationalism has deep roots in human associational life. Biology, psychology and culture may all be summoned in support of the idea that nations are an ancient, necessary and perhaps natural part of the social organization, an organic presence whose origins go back to the mists (or myths?) of time (Spencer and Wollman, 2002, p27).
Furthermore, Hastings argues that nationalism cannot simply be identified or studied separated from nation, ethnicity and religion. The four elements are strongly linked regardless of time as suggested by this essay. Nationalism is interpreted by Hastings as the theory and the practice, however, most importantly, it is the ideology of common values and traditions which creates and extends a nation or state and must be protected at all times (1997, p3-6).
It is rather important to mention that events such as colonization and imperialism still play a highly important role in our current society. Despite its long history, individuals still take pride based on the individual’s heritage, origin and language. Modern nations created by communities colonised by empires still produces a sense of belonging and nostalgia across countries which were long independent. The idea of sharing a common language or origin enforces the ideology of identity hence a sense of union. In contrary, the lack of common language or history can also bring a social division. In Britain, for instance, one could obtain many different answers by asking how a Scottish, and Irish, a Welsh and English person feel, the answer will vary significantly which leads one to believe despite sharing the same language a clear social division is displayed (McCrone, 2006, p157). Although this example only mentions British people, it also introduces how complex our current society is.
Conclusion:
This essay had a simple and clear target at the beginning of the project, it had the aim to explain how Western European countries including Britain expanded its territory through a process which involving colonialism and imperialism. Either way, it would have a great financial results which would include the expansion of its ideology, accumulation of wealth through cheap labour or raw materials. However, most importantly and perhaps the most profitable goal of all, was the settlement of its people in a far territory. Such settlement would not last forever and the infant period of globalization would enrich new communities which would at some stage feel the need for freedom and disconnection from those colonisers. Those new communities would then produce cities, nations and its people would develop a sense of national pride, therefore, creating the term of nationalism. Naive to say the least would be to ignore all the complexity around those keys terms and despite being able to find a connection between them, one could argue that those very terms still play a massive role in our current society. Although it creates a sense of belonging, it also creates a social division.
In addition to that, it is fair to say that such terminology was not created by the process of colonisation or imperialism, it was created much earlier than this essay has previously assumed. It is important to highlight that if such connection between, imperialism, colonialism, and nationalism was to be classified as a product of imperialism and colonialism, it would have to be clearly identified as ‘post-colonial or post-imperial nationalism. However, our society is a result of a much more complicated process and it would be simplistic to believe that communities and nations would grow out of replacing languages and religious as a result of its interaction and globalization. One could argue that the idea of a sense of belonging, traditions, roots and national identity were also great tools which facilitated to split of our current society.
References:
Hastings, A. (1997). The construction of nationhood: ethnicity, religion and nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loomba, A. (1998). Colonialism/postcolonialism. New York: Routledge.
Larrain, J. (1989). Theories of development. Cambridge: Polity Press.
McCrone, D. (2006). National identity. In: Payne, G. (ed.) Social division, 2nd ed. London: Palgrave, 150-172.
Saccarelli, E. and Varadarajan, L. (2016). Imperialism Past and Present. New York: Oxford University Press.
Said, E.W. (1994). Culture and imperialism. London: Vintage.
Smith, D. A. (1971). Theories of nationalism. London: Duckworth.
Spencer, P. and Wollman, H. (2002). Nationalism, a critical introduction. London: Sage.
Williams, P. and Chrisman, L. (1994). Colonial discourse and post-colonial theory: an introduction. New York: Columbia.