historian_dave

I know a lot of us here are interested in imperial history, modern Asian history, and European expansion. Therefore I wondered whether we could perhaps use this thread to talk about our ideas, opinions, and views on one of the defining concepts of early modern and modern Asian history: the transition to colonialism. My own preference is for India, but few states were untouched by, and underwent some transition to, colonialism between 1500 - 1950. Whether you'd like to approach this from a Euro-centric perspective, or through a colonised perspective, to argue about the vitality, strength, and resistance of Asian polities and peoples, or to talk about the success of European colonisation, or perhaps my favourite - the 'exchanges' which took place between coloniser and colonised...the sky is the limited!

Perhaps we should call this our 'Colonial Symposium' to discuss any aspect of colonialism we care to share. Knowing that the many negative effects of colonialism stir to this day great passion and feelings amongst people, mostly of Asian nationality, all I ask is that in this Symposium we historicise our arguments, not nationalise. Let us try and be professional and discuss this purely as historians. If we can successfully do this, I feel this Symposium will be a great place of discussion!

Let me start of perhaps with a question: Did European colonisers actually change Asian societies to fit their own imperial order, or were they forced to adapt to Asian societies and fit their imperial ambitions around pre-existing structures and cultures?

Naomasa298

Given the way these threads have gone in the past, it may be worthwhile asking for this to be moved to the Chamber. They invariably turn into an east vs west argument.

It might be interesting to compare the fate of Burma and Malaysia (British possessions) with Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia (French posessions) and Siam (uncolonised).

Rosi

I'd rather it stayed here. We'll keep an eye on it. Any attempts to derail it with overly passionate, hatemongering, unhelpful replies will be quashed.

Qymaen

Was Siam completely independent form France and Britain? The word "Pseudocolony" just jumps at me from what I know of Siam and how it was used by the French and British.

halomanuk

No,Thailand has always been un-colonised and neutral.

Naomasa298

Have a read of this:

Hai Tang

My first inclination is to say that they started with the latter: fitting their ambitions around pre-existing structures; and then attempted the former: changing Asian societies to fit their own imperial order.

To give a very simple example: When the Dutch first came to Indonesia (which they called the East-Indies) in the late 16th century they were looking for spices. They found a local economy which produced those and simply tapped into that local economy, thereby adapting to local society.

When, over time, it became clear that these local economies couldn't satisfy Dutch demand, the Dutch started to take over the production of these spices. So began slowly the process which would lead to the full-scale introduction of the plantation system in the 19th century. During that process the colonisers had changed local society.

So from the colonisers point of view: first adapt to see what you can get and then change the circumstances to get an ever bigger profit.

Of course, I simplify things greatly here. Bear in mind that adaption was also a necessity because in the early days the colonisers lacked the military strenght to dictate their demands.

mingming

Hai Tang nailed it. Thats your answer right there.

sylla1

First, please be aware that both options have never been mutually exclusive; in fact, they both have been complementary more often than not.

That said, AFAIK there is not any shortage of hard evidence on the extent to which the subjugated conquered societies (Asian or otherwise) were forced to change to fit the imperialist goals (which BTW not always qualified as any "imperial order") of the colonialist conquerors (European or otherwise) in virtually any colony, and even in some formal non-colonies (let say like China under the imposed massive opium trade).

Gile na Gile

As far as I'm aware and with respect to the East India Company it has been noted that in the early days of colonial engagement (right throughout the 18th century in fact) there was an attempt by the British to 'go native'; adopting native dress, learning customs, language and so on and generally entreating with the Mughals on a level of parity. As time progressed however and their star was in the ascendent this type of mollycoddling became less and less necessary -especially after the Napoleonic Wars. It was here that you had a switch into the modus operandi which characterised the later Empire's approach towards the Orient - the cultural chauvinism which would dictate the entire developmental trajectory of the Indian subcontinent. It appears the lapse in respect is mirrored precisely in the economic fortunes of Empire - once British hegemony became unassailable it no longer required to purchase native support - and hence British governors and officials drew their eyes away from native cultural achievements and focused rather on their own, as the desired template which ought to be followed.