In what ways was competition a defining characteristic of the global nineteenth century? Historians, such as Jurgen Osterhammel, often refer to the nineteenth century as the “European century” as a direct result of the global foothold that European countries had in Asia, Latin America, and Africa throughout this epoch. Imperial powerhouses such as Britain, Japan, and the United States exemplify the proliferation of global competition through economic, industrial, and social innovations developed in the cauldron of international rivalries.
This paper begins with a discussion of the British Empire due to its robust transnational presence. The Empire upon which the sun never set, offered the standard for what an empire should entail and enticed other empires to follow its lead. One such country to follow Britain’s influence was Japan. The second section of this paper examines Japan’s re-evaluation of industrialization through a western mindset and standard. In doing so, it further allows the reader to distinguish the impact of British Imperialism on other nation states. As opposed to the British and the Japanese Empires, the United States became an authoritative figure during the nineteenth century through a widespread social ideology and narrative of prosperity, giving the United states the much-needed leverage to compete for migrants, resources, and territory with other empires. In the final section, the United States offers an important counter example to the British and Japanese Empires as the United states self-consciously did not frame itself to be defined as imperialistic, yet committed imperial actions that can categorized as a “hidden” empire (Daniel Immerwahr).
The British Empire became the facsimile of what an empire should embody. Although the nuclear state of Britain was small in comparison to other countries, this by no means compromised their global power and influence. With the rise of a growing capitalistic market, the British began to look abroad for new assets to conquer— meaning other countries, to exploit resources for the British’s own financial gain. Patrick K. O’Brien states that “the British economy became increasingly dependent upon international commerce over the nineteenth century” (O’Brien 120). Britain’s far-reaching superior military and naval forces penetrated the global market and conquered the globe, willing the odds of a competitive market in their favor as a result of their sheer subjection of foreign countries. Tony Smith writes, “[the British] over[saw] until the last quarter of the nineteenth century nearly one-third of the world’s commerce… London was the economic capital of the world” (Smith 21). The immense demand for resources that the British could not unearth from their own island created the passageway for the domination of foreign countries as a solution to their capital shortages. For example, the British occupation in Sudan to search for the exploitation of labor and raw materials is just one of many instances of British colonialization for economic gain. Hasan Qasim Murad reveals that the “European interest in Africa was greatly intensified as a result of the Industrial Revolution when, led by England, European countries found markets and sources of supply there…” (Murad 63). The intense competition felt between European countries to become the world-renowned leading Empire catalyzed global colonialization. The European investment in Africa as an economic resource led by the British, gives the readers yet another example of the imperial power that the English milked for their own financial profit, and set the standard for other countries to follow suit.
127 our experts are availableright now
One such country to imperialize under British standards was Japan. There was an explicit move on behalf of the Japanese political elite to modernize under Western guidelines post 1860. Shimazu Nariakira famously states, “If we [Japan] take the initiative, we can dominate; if we do not, we will be dominated” (Nariakira 6:16). This quote can be interpreted as Japan’s response to Britain’s far more advanced industrial methods and machines. Barton C. Hacker states that “both China and Japan were quick to see and exploit the value of Western firearms… in Japan, troops equipped along Western lines played a key role [in its advancement] …both Japan and China soon checked major European Influence” (Hacker 44,45). The drive felt by the Japanese people to renovate their city and technology in order to have a seat at the imperial table is a by-product of the British empire. Moon H. Jo notes that “…during the Meiji period, Japan was challenged by the West, [this provided] a very important base for the Japanese industrialization process” (Jo 5). As a result, Japanese experts and technicians were sent out to the West in order to learn and improve Western engineering for the sake of Japan’s modernization, while also bringing foreign experts into Japan. Kanji Ishii states, “it has become evident that… Japan most rapidly caught up to global standards” (Ishii 211). British imperial archetypes dominated the globe and set the custom of what an empire should entail, the Japanese nation arguably became an empire by learning and critiquing these standards.
The United States became an empire by different means of action. Although the United States did not explicitly define themselves as an imperial nation, their conduct can be categorized as such as a result of the widespread social ideology known as the “Manifest Destiny” during the nineteenth century. The phrase coined in 1845 was an aggressive diplomatic move on behalf of the United States for the “enormous expansion [taken place] across North America in the name of liberty…” (Stephanson, prologue). The United States rapid and intense expansion across the continent was primarily focused on the proliferation of growing markets— such as the railroad and steel monopolies, to promote the idea that individuals can become rich by migrating to the United States. David M. Lewis notes that “the pressures caused by an expanding population, and the rapid creation of new states and territories indirectly gave support for the idea that Indians could not rise to the level [of] white citizens. Hence they came to be viewed as obstacles to national growth” (Lewis 154). With the expanding country and its newly acquired frontiers, citizens and immigrants in hopes of generating wealth forced many indigenous peoples further and further west in the hopes of self-sufficient and prosperous citizens. The inherently false idea that was promoted towards the nation and internationally stated that once in the United States, one can easily become rich by means of the Manifest Destiny. Only a select few of people capitalized on this massive expansion and earned the category as “mega-rich.” The United States rapid and expansive conquering of North America proves that although the U.S. did not view themselves as an empire, they most certainly can be categorized as such through its imperialistic actions.
Competition was a defining characteristic of the global nineteenth century as seen through imperialism. The “European century” earned its name as a direct result of the global control that European countries had in Asia, Latin America, and Africa throughout the nineteenth century. Empires such as Britain, Japan, and the United States exemplify the global theme of competition enacted through economic, industrial, and social innovations that often led to social, biological, and political destabilization among frontier territories and indigenous people. The international stage became a place of competition for prestige, knowledge, technology, space, and wealth in the course of the nineteenth century.
Works Cited
- Hacker, Barton C. “The Weapons of the West: Military Technology and Modernization in 19th-Century China and Japan.” Technology and Culture, vol. 18, no. 1, 1977, pp. 43–55. JSTOR.
- Immerwahr, Daniel. “How to Hide an Empire.” Vintage Publishing, 2019. Title cover.
- Ishii, Kanji. “The Mercantile Response in the Meiji Period: Capital Accumulation by Merchants and the Government’s Rejection of Foreign Capital.” Social Science Japan Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, 2009, pp. 211–225. JSTOR.
- Jo, Moon H. “Japanese Traditional Values and Industrialization.” International Social Science Review, vol. 62, no. 1, 1987, pp. 3–13. JSTOR.
- Khan, Academy “Japanese Imperialism: An overview of Japanese Imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Discussion of imperial powers in East Asia, the Opium Wars and the Meiji Restoration.” Minute 6:16 https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/1600s-1800s/imperialism/v/japanese-imperialism-world-history-khan-academyLewis, David M., et al. Manifest Destinies and Indigenous Peoples. Harvard University Press, 2009. pg 154.
- Murad, Hasan Qasim. “BRITISH INVOLVEMENT IN THE SUDAN.” Pakistan Horizon, vol. 31, no. 4, 1978, pp. 60–81. JSTOR.
- O’Brien, Patrick K. “The Costs and Benefits of British Imperialism 1846-1914.” Past & Present, no. 120, 1988, pp. 163–200. JSTOR.
- Osterhammel, Jürgen, and Patrick Camiller. The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century. Princeton University Press, 2015.
- Smith, Tony. The Pattern of Imperialism: The United States, Great Britain, and the Late-Industrializing World since 1815. Cambridge University Press, 2008. pg 21.
- Stephanson, Anders. “Manifest Destiny. American Expansion and The Empire of Right.” Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1996, Google Books, prologue.
