Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
History of colonialism
View on Wikipedia


The phenomenon of colonization is one that has occurred around the globe and across time. Various ancient and medieval polities established colonies - such as the Phoenicians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Han Chinese, and Arabs. The High Middle Ages saw colonising Europeans moving west, north, east and south.[1] The medieval Crusader states in the Levant exemplify some colonial features similar to those of colonies in the ancient world.[2]
A new phase of European colonialism began with the "Age of Discovery", led by the Portuguese, who became increasingly expansionist following the conquest of Ceuta in 1415. Portugal aimed to control navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar, to spread Christianity, to amass wealth and plunder, and to suppress predation on Portuguese populations by Barbary pirates (who operated as part of a longstanding African slave trade[3]at that point a minor trade, one the Portuguese would soon reverse and surpass). Around 1450 the Portuguese developed a lighter ship, the caravel based on North African fishing boats.[citation needed] Caravels could sail further and faster than previous vessels,[4] were highly maneuverable, and could sail into the wind.
Enabled by new maritime technology, and with the added incentive to find an alternative "Silk Road" after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottoman Empire effectively closed profitable trade-routes between Asia and Europe, early European exploration of Africa was followed by the Spanish exploration of the Americas, further exploration along the coasts of Africa, and explorations of West Asia (also known as the Middle East), South Asia, and East Asia.
The conquest of the Canary Islands by the Crown of Castile, from 1402 to 1496, was an early instance of European settler colonialism in Africa.[5] In 1462 the Portuguese established the first European settlement in the tropics by peopling the previously uninhabited Cape Verde archipelago, which thereafter became a site of Jewish exile during the height of the Portuguese and Spanish Inquisitions in the 1490s; the Portuguese soon also brought slaves from the West African coast. Because of the economics of plantations, especially sugar, much European colonial expansion and slavery would remain linked into the 19th century. The use of exile to penal colonies would also continue.
The European "discovery" of the New World (as named by Amerigo Vespucci in 1503) opened another colonial chapter, beginning with the colonization of the Caribbean in 1493 with Hispaniola (later to become Haiti and the Dominican Republic). The Portuguese and Spanish Empires were the first trans-oceanic global empires: they were the first to stretch across different continents (discounting Eurasian empires and those with land in Africa along the Mediterranean), covering vast territories around the globe. Between 1580 and 1640, the Portuguese and Spanish empires were both ruled by the Spanish monarchs in personal union. During the late 16th and 17th centuries, England, France, and the Dutch Republic also established their own overseas empires, each in direct competition with the other European expansionists. Meanwhile the Tsardom of Russia expanded overland: Russian Siberian, Central Asian and East colonies eventually extended to Alaska and California.
The end of the 18th and mid-19th century saw the first era of decolonization, when most of the European colonies in the Americas, notably those of Spain, New France, and the Thirteen Colonies, gained their independence from their respective metropoles. The Kingdom of Great Britain (uniting Scotland and England), France, Portugal, and the Dutch turned their attention to the Old World, particularly South Africa and South Asia (particularly Southeast Asia), where coastal enclaves had already been established.
In the 19th century, the Second Industrial Revolution led to what has been termed the era of New Imperialism, when the pace of colonization rapidly accelerated, the height of which was the Scramble for Africa, in which Belgium, Germany, and Italy also participated. The newly-westernized Japanese Empire established the Japanese colonial empire in eastern Asia (notably Taiwan, Korea, and Manchukuo) from the late-19th century.
There were deadly battles between colonizing states and revolutions in colonized areas, shaping areas of control and establishing independent nations. During the 20th century, the colonies of the defeated Central Powers of World War I were distributed amongst the victors as mandates, but it was not until after the end of World War II that the second phase of decolonization began in earnest.
Periodization
[edit]
Some commentators identify three waves of European colonialism.[6]
The two main countries in the first wave of European colonialism were Portugal and Spain.[7] The Portuguese started the long age of European colonization with the conquest of Ceuta, Morocco in 1415, and the conquest and discovery of other African territories and islands, this would also start the movement known as the Age of Discoveries. The Spanish and Portuguese launched the colonization of the Americas, basing their territorial claims on the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494. This treaty demarcated the respective spheres of influence of Spain and Portugal.[8]
The expansion achieved by Spain and Portugal caught the attention of Britain, France, and the Netherlands.[9] The entrance of these three powers into the Caribbean and North America perpetuated European colonialism in these regions.[10]
The second wave of European colonialism commenced with Britain's involvement in Asia in support of the British East India Company; other countries such as France, Portugal and the Netherlands also had involvement in European expansion in Asia.[11][12]
The third wave ("New Imperialism") consisted of the Scramble for Africa regulated by the terms of the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885. The conference effectively divided Africa among the European powers. Vast regions of Africa came under the sway of Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and Spain.[13][14]
Gilmartin argues that these three waves of colonialism were linked to capitalism. The first wave of European expansion involved exploring the world to find new revenue and perpetuating European feudalism. The second wave focused on developing the mercantile capitalism system and the manufacturing industry in Europe. The last wave of European colonialism solidified all capitalistic endeavors by providing new markets and raw materials.[15]
As a result of these waves of European colonial expansion, only thirteen present-day independent countries escaped formal colonization by European powers: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Iran, Japan, Liberia, Mongolia, Nepal, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey[a] as well as North Yemen.[19]
Colonialism in ancient times (3200 BC – 7th century AD)
[edit]This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (March 2025) |
Portuguese and Spanish colonial hegemony: the Americas (15th century–1770)
[edit]

European colonization of both Eastern and Western Hemispheres has its roots in Portuguese exploration. There were financial and religious motives behind this exploration. By finding the source of the lucrative spice trade, the Portuguese could reap its profits for themselves. They would also be able to probe the existence of the fabled Christian kingdom of Prester John, with an eye to encircling the Islamic Ottoman Empire, itself gaining territories and colonies in Eastern Europe. The first foothold outside of Europe was gained with the conquest of Ceuta in 1415. During the 15th century, Portuguese sailors discovered the Atlantic islands of Madeira, Azores, and Cape Verde, which were duly populated, and pressed progressively further along the west African coast until Bartolomeu Dias demonstrated it was possible to sail around Africa by rounding the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, paving the way for Vasco da Gama to reach India in 1498.[20]
Portuguese successes led to Spanish financing of a mission by Christopher Columbus in 1492 to explore an alternative route to Asia, by sailing west. When Columbus eventually made landfall in the Caribbean Antilles he believed he had reached the coast of India, and that the people he encountered there were Indians with red skin. This is why Native Americans have been called Indians or red-Indians. In truth, Columbus had arrived on a continent that was new to the Europeans, the Americas. After Columbus' first trips, competing Spanish and Portuguese claims to new territories and sea routes were solved with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, which divided the world outside of Europe in two areas of trade and exploration, between the Iberian kingdoms of Castile and Portugal along a north-south meridian, 370 leagues west of Cape Verde. According to this international agreement, the larger part of the Americas and the Pacific Ocean were open to Spanish exploration and colonization, while Africa, the Indian Ocean, and most of Asia were assigned to Portugal.[21]
The boundaries specified by the Treaty of Tordesillas were put to the test in 1521 when Ferdinand Magellan and his Spanish sailors (among other Europeans), sailing for the Spanish Crown became the first European to cross the Pacific Ocean,[22] reaching Guam and the Philippines, parts of which the Portuguese had already explored, sailing from the Indian Ocean. The two by now global empires, which had set out from opposing directions, had finally met on the other side of the world. The conflicts that arose between both powers were finally solved with the Treaty of Zaragoza in 1529, which defined the areas of Spanish and Portuguese influence in Asia, establishing the anti-meridian, or line of demarcation on the other side of the world.[23]
During the 16th century the Portuguese continued to press both eastwards and westwards into the Oceans. Towards Asia they made the first direct contact between Europeans and the peoples inhabiting present day countries such as Mozambique, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, East Timor (1512), China, and finally Japan. In the opposite direction, the Portuguese colonized the huge territory that eventually became Brasil, and the Spanish conquistadors established the vast Viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru, and later of Río de la Plata (Argentina) and New Granada (Colombia). In Asia, the Portuguese encountered ancient and well populated societies, and established a seaborne empire consisting of armed coastal trading posts along their trade routes (such as Goa, Malacca and Macau), so they had relatively little cultural impact on the societies they engaged. In the Western Hemisphere, the European colonization involved the emigration of large numbers of settlers, soldiers and administrators intent on owning land and exploiting the apparently primitive (as perceived by Old World standards) indigenous peoples of the Americas. The result was that the colonization of the New World was catastrophic: native peoples were no match for European technology, ruthlessness, or their diseases which decimated the indigenous population.[24]
Spanish treatment of the indigenous populations caused a fierce debate, the Valladolid Controversy, over whether Indians possessed souls and if so, whether they were entitled to the basic rights of mankind. Bartolomé de Las Casas, author of A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, championed the cause of the native peoples, and was opposed by "Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda", who claimed Amerindians were "natural slaves".[25]
The Roman Catholic Church played a large role in Spanish and Portuguese overseas activities. The Dominicans, Jesuits, and Franciscans, notably Francis Xavier in Asia and Junípero Serra in North America were particularly active in this endeavor. Many buildings erected by the Jesuits still stands. Buildings such as the Cathedral of Saint Paul in Macau and the Santisima Trinidad de Paraná in Paraguay, the latter an example of the Jesuit Reductions. The Dominican and Franciscan buildings of California's missions and New Mexico's missions stand restored, such as Mission Santa Barbara in Santa Barbara, California and San Francisco de Asis Mission Church in Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico.[26]
As characteristically happens in any colonialism, European or not, previous or subsequent, both Spain and Portugal profited handsomely from their newfound overseas colonies: the Spanish from gold and silver from mines such as Potosí and Zacatecas in New Spain, the Portuguese from the huge markups they enjoyed as trade intermediaries, particularly during the Nanban Japan trade period. The influx of precious metals to the Spanish monarchy's coffers allowed it to finance costly religious wars in Europe which ultimately proved its economic undoing: the supply of metals was not infinite and the large inflow caused inflation and debt, and subsequently affected the rest of Europe.[27]
Northern European challenges to the Iberian hegemony
[edit]It was not long before the exclusivity of Iberian claims to the Americas was challenged by other up and coming European powers, primarily the Netherlands, France and England: the view taken by the rulers of these nations is epitomized by the quotation attributed to Francis I of France demanding to be shown the clause in Adam's will excluding his authority from the New World. This challenge initially took the form of piratical attacks (such as those by Francis Drake) on Spanish treasure fleets or coastal settlements.[28] Later the Northern European countries began establishing settlements of their own, primarily in areas that were outside of Spanish interests, such as what is now the eastern seaboard of the United States and Canada, or islands in the Caribbean, such as Aruba, Martinique, and Barbados, that had been abandoned by the Spanish in favor of the mainland and larger islands.[29]
Whereas Spanish colonialism was based on the religious conversion and exploitation of local populations via encomiendas (many Spaniards emigrated to the Americas to elevate their social status, and were not interested in manual labor), Northern European colonialism was bolstered by those emigrating for religious reasons (for example, the Mayflower voyage). The motive for emigration was not to become an aristocrat or to spread one's faith but to start a new society afresh, structured according to the colonist's wishes. The most populous emigration of the 17th century was that of the English, who after a series of wars with the Dutch and French came to dominate the Thirteen Colonies on the eastern coast of the present-day United States and other colonies such as Newfoundland and Rupert's Land in what is now Canada.[30]
However, the English, French and Dutch were no more averse to making a profit than the Spanish and Portuguese, and whilst their areas of settlement in the Americas proved to be devoid of the precious metals found by the Spanish, trade in other commodities and products that could be sold at a massive profit in Europe provided another reason for crossing the Atlantic, in particular, furs from Canada, tobacco, and cotton grown in Virginia and sugar in the islands of the Caribbean and Brazil. Due to the massive depletion of indigenous labor, plantation owners had to look elsewhere for manpower for these labor- intensive crops. They turned to the centuries-old slave trade of west Africa and began transporting Africans across the Atlantic on a massive scale – historians estimate that the Atlantic slave trade brought between 10 and 12 million black African slaves to the New World. The islands of the Caribbean soon came to be populated by slaves of African descent, ruled over by a white minority of plantation owners interested in making a fortune and then returning to their home country to spend it.[31]
Role of companies in early colonialism
[edit]From its very outset, Western colonialism was operated as a joint public-private venture. Columbus' voyages to the Americas were partially funded by Italian investors, but whereas the Spanish state maintained a tight rein on trade with its colonies (by law, the colonies could only trade with one designated port in the mother country and treasure was brought back in special convoys), the English, French and Dutch granted what were effectively trade monopolies to joint-stock companies such as the East India Companies and the Hudson's Bay Company.[32]
Imperial Russia had no state-sponsored expeditions or colonization in the Americas, but did charter the first Russian joint-stock commercial enterprise, the Russian America Company, which did sponsor those activities in its territories.[33]
European colonies in India
[edit]
In May 1498, the Portuguese set foot in Kozhikode in Kerala, making them the first Europeans to sail to India. Rivalry among reigning European powers saw the entry of the Dutch, English, French, Danish and others. The kingdoms of India were gradually taken over by the Europeans and indirectly controlled by puppet rulers. In 1600, Queen Elizabeth I accorded a charter, forming the East India Company to trade with India and eastern Asia. The English landed in India in Surat in 1612. By the 19th century, they had assumed direct and indirect control over most of India.
Colonialism within Europe (16th–20th century)
[edit]This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2025) |
Imperial Russia: Central Asia and Siberia (16th–20th century)
[edit]
After a period of political instability, the Romanovs came to power in 1613 and the expansion-colonization process of Russia continued. While western Europe colonized the New World, Russia expanded overland – to the east, north and south. This continued for centuries; by the end of the 19th century, the Russian Empire reached from the Black Sea to the Pacific Ocean, and for some time included colonies in the Alaska (1732–1867) and a short-lived unofficial colony in Africa (1889) in present-day Djibouti.[34] The acquisition of new territories, especially in the Caucasus, had an invigorating effect on the rest of Russia. According to two Russian historians:
- the culture of Russia and that of the Caucasian peoples interacted in a reciprocally beneficial manner. The turbulent tenor of life in the Caucasus, the mountain peoples' love of freedom, and their willingness to die for independence were felt far beyond the local interaction of the Caucasian peoples and coresident Russians: they injected a potent new spirit into the thinking and creative work of Russia's progressives, strengthened the liberationist aspirations of Russian writers and exiled Decembrists, and influenced distinguished Russian democrats, poets, and prose writers, including Alexander Griboyedov, Alexander Pushkin, Mikhail Lermontov, and Leo Tolstoy. These writers, who generally supported the Caucasian fight for liberation, went beyond the chauvinism of the colonial autocracy and rendered the Caucasian peoples' cultures accessible to the Russian intelligentsia. At the same time, Russian culture exerted an influence on Caucasian cultures, bolstering positive aspects while weakening the impact of the Caucasian peoples' reactionary feudalism and reducing the internecine fighting between tribes and clans.[35]
Expansion into the East
[edit]The first stage to 1650 was an expansion eastward from the Ural Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.[36][37] Geographical expeditions mapped much of Siberia. The second stage from 1785 to 1830 looked south to the areas between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The key areas were Armenia and Georgia, with some better penetration of the Ottoman Empire, and Persia. By 1829, Russia controlled all of the Caucasus as shown in the Treaty of Adrianople of 1829. The third era, 1850 to 1860, was a brief interlude jumping to the East Coast, annexing the region from the Amur River to Manchuria. The fourth era, 1865 to 1885 incorporated Turkestan, and the northern approaches to India, sparking British fears of a threat to India in the Great Game.[38]
Maritime South–East Asia and the Dutch East India Company (16th–20th century)
[edit]This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2025) |
First decolonization: Independence in the Americas (1770–1820)
[edit]During the five decades following 1770, Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal lost many of their possessions in the Americas.
Britain and the Thirteen Colonies
[edit]After the conclusion of the Seven Years' War in 1763, Britain had emerged as the world's dominant power but found itself mired in debt and struggling to finance the Navy and Army necessary to maintain a global empire. The British Parliament attempt to raise taxes from North American colonists raised fears among the Americans that their rights as "Englishmen", and particularly their rights of self-government, were in danger.[39]
From 1765, a series of disputes with Parliament over taxation led to the American Revolution, first to informal committees of correspondence among the colonies, then to coordinated protest and resistance, with an important event in 1770, the Boston Massacre. A standing army was formed by the United Colonies, and independence was declared by the Second Continental Congress on 4 July 1776. A new nation was born, the United States of America, and all royal officials were expelled. On their own the Patriots captured a British Invasion army and France recognized the new nation, formed a military alliance, declared war on Britain, and left the superpower without any major ally. The American War of Independence continued until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed. Britain recognized the sovereignty of the United States over the territory bounded by the British possessions to the North, Florida to the South, and the Mississippi River to the west.[40]
France and the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804)
[edit]The Haitian Revolution, a slave revolt led by Toussaint L'Ouverture in the French colony of Saint-Domingue, established Haïti as a free, black republic, the first of its kind. Haiti became the second independent nation that was a former European colony in the Western Hemisphere after the United States. Africans and people of African ancestry freed themselves from slavery and colonization by taking advantage of the conflict among whites over how to implement the reforms of the French Revolution in this slave society. Although independence was declared in 1804, it was not until 1825 that it was formally recognized by King Charles X of France.[41]
Spain and the Wars of Independence in Latin America
[edit]
The gradual decline of Spain as an imperial power throughout the 17th century was hastened by the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14), as a result of which it lost its European imperial possessions. The death knell for the Spanish Empire in the Americas was Napoleon's invasion of the Iberian peninsula in 1808. With the installation of his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne, the main tie between the metropole and its colonies in the Americas, the Spanish monarchy, had been cut, leading the colonists to question their continued subordination to a declining and distant country. With an eye on the events of the American Revolution forty years earlier, revolutionary leaders began bloody wars of independence against Spain, whose armies were ultimately unable to maintain control. By 1831, Spain had been ejected from the mainland of the Americas, leaving a collection of independent republics that stretched from Chile and Argentina in the south to Mexico in the north. Spain's colonial possessions were reduced to Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and a number of small islands in the Pacific, all of which she was to lose to the United States in the 1898 Spanish–American War or sell to Germany shortly thereafter.[42]
Portugal and Brazil
[edit]Brazil was the only country in Latin America to gain its independence without bloodshed.[43] The invasion of Portugal by Napoleon in 1808 had forced King João VI to escape to Brazil and establish his court in Rio de Janeiro. For thirteen years, Portugal was ruled from Brazil (the only instance of such a reversal of roles between colony and metropole) until his return to Portugal in 1821. His son, Dom Pedro, was left in charge of Brazil and in 1822 he declared independence from Portugal and himself the Emperor of Brazil. Unlike Spain's former colonies which had abandoned the monarchy in favor of republicanism, Brazil, therefore retained its links with its monarchy, the House of Braganza.
Indian subcontinent and the British Raj (18th century–1947)
[edit]Vasco da Gama's maritime success to discover for Europeans a new sea route to India in 1498 paved the way for direct Indo-European commerce.[44] The Portuguese soon set up trading-posts in Goa, Daman, Diu and Bombay. The next to arrive were the Dutch, the English—who set up a trading post in the west-coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French. The internal conflicts among Indian Kingdoms gave opportunities to the European traders to gradually establish political influence and appropriate lands. Although these continental European powers were to control various regions of southern and eastern India during the ensuing century, they would eventually lose all their territories in India to the British, with the exception of the French outposts of Pondicherry and Chandernagore, the Dutch port in Travancore, and the Portuguese colonies of Goa, Daman, and Diu.
The British in India
[edit]
The English East India Company had been given permission by the Mughal emperor Jahangir in 1617 to trade in India.[45] Gradually the company's increasing influence led the de jure Mughal emperor Farrukh Siyar to grant them dastaks or permits for duty-free trade in Bengal in 1717.[46] The Nawab of Bengal Siraj Ud Daulah, the de facto ruler of Mughal Bengal, opposed British attempts to use these permits. This led to the Battle of Plassey in 1757, in which the armies of the East India Company, led by Robert Clive, defeated the Nawab's forces. This was the first political foothold with territorial implications that the British had acquired in India. Clive was appointed by the company as its first Governor of Bengal in 1757.[47] This was combined with British victories over the French at Madras, Wandiwash and Pondicherry that, along with wider British successes during the Seven Years' War, reduced French influence in India. After the Battle of Buxar in 1764, the company acquired the civil rights of administration in Bengal from the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II; it marked the beginning of its formal rule, which was to engulf eventually most of India and extinguish the Moghul rule and dynasty itself in less than a century.[48] The East India Company monopolized the trade of Bengal. They introduced a land taxation system called the Permanent Settlement which introduced a feudal-like structure (See Zamindar) in the Bengal Presidency. By the 1850s, the East India Company controlled most of the Indian subcontinent, which included present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. Their policy was sometimes summed up as Divide and Rule, taking advantage of the enmity festering between various princely states and social and religious groups.
The first major movement against the British Company's high-handed rule resulted in the Indian Rebellion of 1857, also known as the "Indian Mutiny" or "Sepoy Mutiny" or the "First War of Independence". After a year of turmoil, and reinforcement of the East India Company's troops with British Army soldiers, the Company overcame the rebellion. The nominal leader of the uprising, the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, was exiled to Burma, his children were beheaded and the Moghul line was abolished. In the aftermath all power was transferred from the East India Company to the British Crown, which began to administer most of India as a colony; the company's lands were controlled directly and the rest through the rulers of what it called the Princely states. There were 565 princely states when the Indian subcontinent gained independence from Britain in August 1947.[49]
During period of the British Raj, famines in India, often attributed to El Nino droughts and failed government policies, were some of the worst ever recorded, including the Great Famine of 1876–78, in which 6.1 million to 10.3 million people died and the Indian famine of 1899–1900, in which 1.25 to 10 million people died.[50] The Third Plague Pandemic started in China in the middle of the 19th century, spreading plague to all inhabited continents and killing 10 million people in India alone.[51] Despite persistent diseases and famines, however, the population of the Indian subcontinent, which stood at about 125 million in 1750, had reached 389 million by 1941.[52]
Other European empires in India
[edit]
Like the other European colonists, the French began their colonization via commercial activities, starting with the establishment of a factory in Surat in 1668. The French started to settle down in India in 1673, beginning with the purchase of land at Chandernagore from the Mughal Governor of Bengal, followed by the acquisition of Pondicherry from the Sultan of Bijapur the next year. Both became the centers of the maritime commercial activities that the French conducted in India.[53] The French also had trading posts in Mahe, Karikal and Yanaon. Similar to the situation in Tahiti and Martinique, the French colonial administrative area was insular, but, in India, the French authority was isolated on the peripheries of a British-dominated territory.[54]
By the early eighteenth century, the French had become the chief European rivals of the British. During the eighteenth century, it was highly possible for the Indian subcontinent to have succumbed to French control, but the defeat inflicted on them in the Seven Years War (1756–1763) permanently curtailed French ambitions. The Treaty of Paris of 1763 restored the original five to the French while making it clear that France could not expand its control beyond these areas.[55]
The beginning of the Portuguese occupation of India can be traced back to the arrival of Vasco da Gama near Calicut on 20 May 1498. Soon after this, other explorers, traders and missionaries followed. By 1515, the Portuguese were the strongest naval power in the Indian Ocean and the Malabar Coast was dominated by them.[56]
Colonization of Oceania and the Pacific Islands (18th–20th century)
[edit]This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2025) |
New Imperialism: Africa and East Asia (1870–1914)
[edit]
The policy and ideology of European colonial expansion between the 1870s (circa opening of Suez Canal and Second Industrial Revolution) and the outbreak of World War I in 1914 are often characterized as the "New Imperialism". The period is distinguished by an unprecedented pursuit of what has been termed "empire for empire's sake," aggressive competition for overseas territorial acquisitions, and the emergence in colonizing countries of doctrines of racial superiority which denied the fitness of subjugated peoples for self-government.[57][58]
During this period, Europe's powers added nearly 8,880,000 square miles (23,000,000 km2) to their overseas colonial possessions. As it was mostly unoccupied by the Western powers as late as the 1880s, Africa became the primary target of the "new" imperialist expansion (known as the Scramble for Africa), although conquest took place also in other areas – notably south-east Asia and the East Asian seaboard, where Japan joined the European powers' scramble for territory.[59]
The Berlin Conference (1884–1885) mediated the imperial competition among Britain, France, and Germany, defining "effective occupation" as the criterion for international recognition of colonial claims and codifying the imposition of direct rule, accomplished usually through armed force.
In Germany, rising pan-Germanism was coupled to imperialism in the Alldeutsche Verband ("Pan-Germanic League"), which argued that Britain's world power position gave the British unfair advantages on international markets, thus limiting Germany's economic growth and threatening its security.[60]
Asking whether colonies paid, economic historian Grover Clark argues an emphatic "No!" He reports that in every case the support cost, especially the military system necessary to support and defend the colonies outran the total trade they produced. Apart from the British Empire, they have not favored destinations for the immigration of surplus populations.[61]
The Scramble for Africa
[edit]

Africa was the target of the third wave of European colonialism, after that of the Americas and Asia.[62] Many European statesmen and industrialists wanted to accelerate the Scramble for Africa, securing colonies before they strictly needed them. As a champion of Realpolitik, Bismarck disliked colonies and thought they were a waste of time, but his hand was forced by pressure from both the elites and the general population which considered the colonization a necessity for German prestige. German colonies in Togoland, Samoa, South-West Africa and New Guinea had corporate commercial roots, while the equivalent German-dominated areas in East Africa and China owed more to political motives. The British also took an interest in Africa, using the East Africa Company to take over what is now Kenya and Uganda. The British crown formally took over in 1895 and renamed the area the East Africa Protectorate.
Leopold II of Belgium personally owned the Congo Free State from 1885 to 1908, under his rule many atrocities were committed.[63] Round after round of international scandal regarding the brutal treatment of native workers forced the Belgium government to take full ownership and responsibility.
The Dutch Empire continued to hold the Dutch East Indies, which was one of the few profitable overseas colonies.
In the same manner, Italy tried to conquer its "place in the sun," acquiring Somaliland in 1899–90, Eritrea and 1899, and, taking advantage of the "Sick man of Europe," the Ottoman Empire, also conquered Tripolitania and Cyrenaica (modern Libya) with the 1911 Italo–Turkish War. The conquest of Ethiopia, which had remained the last African independent territory, had to wait until the Second Italo–Abyssinian War in 1935–36 (the First Italo–Ethiopian War in 1895–96 had ended in defeat for Italy).
The Portuguese and Spanish colonial empire were smaller, mostly legacies of past colonization. Most of their colonies had acquired independence during the Latin American revolutions at the beginning of the 19th century.
Imperialism in Asia
[edit]In Asia, the Great Game, which lasted from 1813 to 1907, opposed the British Empire against Imperial Russia for supremacy in Central Asia. China was opened to Western influence starting with the First and Second Opium Wars (1839–1842; 1856–1860). After the visits of Commodore Matthew Perry in 1852–1854, Japan opened itself to the Western world during the Meiji period (1868–1912).
Imperialism also took place in Burma, Indonesia (Netherlands East Indies), Malaya and the Philippines. Burma had been under British rule for nearly a hundred years, however, it was always considered an "imperial backwater". This accounts for the fact that Burma does not have an obvious colonial legacy and is not a part of the Commonwealth. In the beginning, in the mid-1820s, Burma was administered from Penang in Britain's Straits Settlements. However, it was soon brought within British India, of which it remained a part until 1937.[64] Burma was governed as a province of India, not considered very important, and barely any accommodation was made to Burmese political culture or sensitivities. As reforms began to move India towards independence, Burma was simply dragged along.[65]
Interwar period (1918–1939)
[edit]The colonial map was redrawn following the defeat of the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire after the World War I (1914–18). Colonies from the defeated empires were transferred to the newly founded League of Nations, which itself redistributed it to the victorious powers as "mandates". The secret 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement partitioned the Middle East between Britain and France. French mandates included Syria and Lebanon, whilst the British were granted Iraq and Palestine. The bulk of the Arabian Peninsula became the independent Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1922. The discovery of the world's largest easily accessible crude oil deposits led to an influx of Western oil companies that dominated the region's economies until the 1970s, and making the emirs of the oil states immensely rich, enabling them to consolidate their hold on power and giving them a stake in preserving Western hegemony over the region. During the 1920 and 1930s Iraq, Syria and Egypt moved towards independence, although the British and French did not formally depart the region until they were forced to do so after World War II.[66]
Japanese imperialism
[edit]
For Japan, the second half of the nineteenth century was a period of internal turmoil succeeded by a period of rapid development.[67] After being closed for centuries to Western influence, Japan was forced by the United States to open itself to the West during the Meiji Era (1868–1912), characterized by swift modernization and borrowings from European culture (in law, science, etc.) This, in turn, helped make Japan the modern power that it is now, which was symbolized as soon as the 1904–1905 Russo–Japanese War: this war marked the first victory of an Asian power against a European imperial power, and led to widespread fears among European populations. During the first part of the 20th century, while China was still subject to various European imperialisms, Japan became an imperialist power, conquering what it called a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".
With the final revision of treaties in 1894, Japan may be considered to have joined the family of nations on a basis of equality with the western states. From this same time imperialism became a dominant motive in Japanese policy.
Imperial Japan won conflicts against the Qing dynasty and gained control of Korea and Taiwan when the Treaty of Shimonoseki was concluded in 1895. In 1910, Korea was formally annexed by the Empire of Japan. The Japanese colonization of Korea saw rapid modernization of the peninsula and there was brutal treatment of civilians such as Korean comfort women who were forced to serve in brothels for the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces.[68]
In 1931 Japanese army units based in Manchuria seized control of the region and created the puppet state of Manchukuo. Full-scale war with China followed in 1937, drawing Japan toward an overambitious bid for Asian hegemony (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere), which ultimately led to defeat and the loss of all its overseas territories after World War II (see Japanese expansionism and Japanese nationalism). The Imperial Japanese Army committed atrocities exemplified by the Nanjing Massacre.[69]
Ottoman colonialism
[edit]This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2025) |
Second decolonization: Worldwide (1945–1999)
[edit]
Anti-colonialist movements had begun to gain momentum after the close of World War I, which had seen colonial troops fight alongside those of the metropole, and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's speech on the Fourteen Points. However, it was not until the end of World War II that they were fully mobilized. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1941 Atlantic Charter declared that the signatories would "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live". Though Churchill subsequently claimed this applied only to those countries under Nazi occupation, rather than the British Empire, the words were not so easily retracted: for example, the legislative assembly of Britain's most important colony, India, passed a resolution stating that the Charter should apply to it too.[70]
In 1945, the United Nations (UN) was founded when 50 nations signed the UN Charter,[71] which included a statement of its basis in the respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. In 1952, demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" in reference to the French Third Estate.[72] The expression distinguished nations that aligned themselves with neither the West nor the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War. In the following decades, decolonization would strengthen this group which began to be represented at the United Nations. The Third World's first international move was the 1955 Bandung Conference, led by Jawaharlal Nehru for India, Gamal Abdel Nasser for Egypt and Josip Broz Tito for Yugoslavia. The Conference, which gathered 29 countries representing over half the world's population, led to the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961.[73]

Although the U.S. had first opposed itself to colonial empires, the Cold War concerns about Soviet influence in the Third World caused it to downplay its advocacy of popular sovereignty and decolonization. France thus received financial support in the First Indochina War (1946–54) and the U.S. did not interfere in the Algerian War of Independence (1954–62). Decolonization itself was a seemingly unstoppable process. In 1960, after a number countries gained independence, the UN had reached 99 members states: the decolonization of Africa was almost complete. In 1980, the UN had 154 member states, and in 1990, after Namibia's independence, 159 states.[74] Hong Kong and Macau transferred sovereignty to China in 1997 and 1999 finally marked the end of European colonial era.
Role of the Soviet Union and China
[edit]The Soviet Union was a main supporter of decolonization movements and communist parties across the world that denounced imperialism and colonization.[75] While the Non-Aligned Movement, created in 1961 following the Bandung 1955 Conference, was supposedly neutral, the "Third World" being opposed to both the "First" and the "Second" Worlds, geopolitical concerns, as well as the refusal of the U.S. to support decolonization movements against its NATO European allies, led the national liberation movements to look increasingly toward the East. However, China's appearance on the world scene, under the leadership of Mao Zedong, created a rupture between the Soviet and Chinese factions in Communist parties around the world, all of which opposed imperialism.[76] Cuba, with Soviet financing, send combat troops to help left-wing independence movements in Angola and Mozambique.[77]
Globally, the non-aligned movement, led by Jawaharlal Nehru (India), Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia) and Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt) tried to create a block of nations powerful enough to be dependent on neither the United States nor the Soviet Union, but finally tilted towards the Soviet Union, while smaller independence movements, both by strategic necessity and ideological choice, were supported either by Moscow or by Beijing. Few independence movements were totally independent of foreign aid.[78] In the 1960s and 1970s, Leonid Brezhnev and Mao Zedong gave influential support to those newly African governments which many became one-party socialist states.
Public awareness
[edit]This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2024) |
According to Dietmar Rothermund, there is a lack of public awareness about the colonial history in Britain and France.[79]
Postcolonialism
[edit]
Postcolonialism is a term used to recognize the continued and troubling presence and influence of colonialism within the period designated as after-the-colonial. It refers to the ongoing effects that colonial encounters, dispossession and power have in shaping the familiar structures (social, political, spatial, uneven global interdependencies) of the present world. Postcolonialism, in itself, questions the end of colonialism.[80]
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ Some scholars consider the Ottoman Empire to have been a colonial power.[16][17][18]
References
[edit]- ^
Bartlett, Robert (27 February 2003) [1993]. The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950 - 1350 (reprint ed.). London: Penguin UK. ISBN 9780141927046. Retrieved 19 July 2025.
This book approaches the history of Europe in the High Middle Ages [...] by concentrating on conquest, colonization and associated cultural change in Europe and the Mediterranean in the period 950-1350. It analyzes the establishment of states by conquest and the peopling of distant countries by immigrants along the peripheries of the continent: English colonialism in the Celtic world, the movement of Germans into eastern Europe, the Spanish Reconquest and the activities of crusaders and colonists in the eastern Mediterranean.
- ^
Constable, Giles (2001). "The Historiography of the Crusades". In Laiou, Angeliki E.; Mottahedeh, Roy Parviz (eds.). The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Dumbarton Oaks Other Titles in Byzantine Studies. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. p. 20. ISBN 9780884022770. Retrieved 19 July 2025.
Prawer [...] remarked on the shift of interest from 'the crusades as a movement to the history of Crusader establishments in the East' and to 'the European colonies on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean' [...]. [...] there has been a vigorous debate over the question of whether or not the Latin states should be regarded as colonies in the modern (and characteristically pejorative) sense of the term.
- ^ "Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 1.djvu/46 - Wikisource, the free online library". en.wikisource.org. Retrieved 17 June 2025.
- ^ Merson, John (1990). The Genius That Was China: East and West in the Making of the Modern World. Woodstock, New York: The Overlook Press. pp. 72. ISBN 978-0-87951-397-9. A companion to the PBS Series The Genius That Was China
- ^
Igor Pérez Tostado (2023). "The Spanish Destruction of the Canary Islands: A Template for the Caribbean Genocide". In Kiernan, Ben; Lemos, T. M.; Taylor, Tristan S. (eds.). The Cambridge World History of Genocide: Volume 1, Genocide in the Ancient, Medieval and Premodern Worlds. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. https://books.google.com/books?id=LrbHEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT676. ISBN 9781108640343. Retrieved 19 July 2025.
The conquest of the Canary Islands was the learning ground and laboratory of European settler colonialism, later developed on a far larger scale in the Americas, starting in the Caribbean.
- ^
Gilmartin, Mary (2009). "9: Colonialism/imperialism". In Gallaher, Carolyn; Dahlman, Carl T.; Gilmartin, Mary; Mountz, Alison; Shirlow, Peter (eds.). Key Concepts in Political Geography. Key Concepts in Human Geography. London: SAGE. p. 115. ISBN 9781446243541. Retrieved 9 August 2017.
Commentators have identified three broad waves of European colonial and imperial expansion, connected with specific territories. The first targeted the Americas, North and South, as well as the Caribbean. The second focused on Asia, while the third wave extended European control into Africa.
- ^ Thomas Benjamin, ed., Encyclopedia of Western Colonialism Since 1450 (2006) 1: xiv–xvi.
- ^ Gilmartin, et al. p. 115
- ^ Jonathan Hart, Representing the New World: the English and French uses of the Example of Spain (2001). pp 85–86.
- ^ Gilmartin, M. (2009). Colonialism/Imperialism. In Key concepts in political geography London: SAGE pp. 115–123.
- ^ Gilmartin, et al. p. 115
- ^ Tonio Andrade, "Beyond Guns, Germs, and Steel: European Expansion and Maritime Asia, 1400–1750." Journal of Early Modern History 14.1–2 (2010): 165–186.
- ^ George Shepperson, "The Centennial of the West African Conference of Berlin, 1884–1885." Phylon 46.1 (1985): 37–48.
- ^ Peter J. Cain, and Anthony G. Hopkins, "Gentlemanly capitalism and British expansion overseas II: New imperialism, 1850‐1945." Economic History Review 40.1 (1987): 1–26. online Archived 8 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Gilmartin, et al. pp. 115–16
- ^ Deringil, Selim (2003). ""They Live in a State of Nomadism and Savagery": The Late Ottoman Empire and the Post-Colonial Debate". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 45 (2): 311–342. doi:10.1017/S001041750300015X. ISSN 1475-2999.
- ^ Kechriotis, Vangelis (27 May 2013). "Postcolonial criticism encounters late Ottoman studies". Historein. 13: 39–46. doi:10.12681/historein.183. ISSN 2241-2816.
- ^ Michael, Michalis N.; Verdeil, Chantal; Anastassiadis, Tassos (10 August 2020). Religious Communities and Modern Statehood: The Ottoman and post-Ottoman World at the Age of Nationalism and Colonialism. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-220914-1.
- ^ Marcin Solarz, The Language of Global Developmen. A Misleading Geography. (2014), p. 18
- ^ Charles R. Boxer, The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415–1825 (1969).
- ^ Lyle N. McAlister, Spain and Portugal in the New World, 1492–1700 (1984).
- ^ Staff, history.com (2009). "Ferdinand Magellan". history.com. A+E Networks. Archived from the original on 4 March 2021. Retrieved 14 December 2017.
- ^ Melvin E. Page, Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia (2003) 1:361–2.
- ^ Page, Colonialism 2: 770–781.
- ^ Daniel R. Brunstetter, and Dana Partner. "Just war against barbarians: revisiting the Valladolid debates between Sepúlveda and Las Casas." Political Studies 59.3 (2011): 733–752.
- ^ John Frederick Schwaller, The history of the Catholic Church in Latin America: From conquest to revolution and beyond (2011) ch 1–3.
- ^ Levack, Muir, Veldman, Maas, Brian (2007). The West: Encounters and Transformations, Atlas Edition, Volume 2 (since 1550) (2nd Edition). England: Longman. p. 96. ISBN 9780205556984.
- ^ Violet Barbour, "Privateers and pirates of the West Indies." American Historical Review 16.3 (1911): 529–566.
- ^ John H. Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492–1830 (2007).
- ^ Walter Hixson, American settler colonialism: A history (2013).
- ^ Phyllis Raybin Emert, ed., Colonial Triangular Trade: An Economy Based on Human Misery (1995).
- ^ Bob Moore, and Henk van Nierop. Colonial Empires Compared: Britain and the Netherlands, 1750–1850 (2017).
- ^ Anatole G. Mazour, "The Russian-American Company: Private or Government Enterprise?." Pacific Historical Review 13.2 (1944): 168–173.
- ^ John Channon, The Penguin historical atlas of Russia (1995) pp 8–12, 44–75.
- ^ G. L. Bondarevskii, and G. N. Kolbaia, "The Caucasus and Russian Culture." Russian Studies in History 41.2 (2002): 10–15.
- ^ James R. Gibson, "Russian expansion in Siberia and America." Geographical Review (1980) 70#2: 127–136. online Archived 15 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ George Lensen, ed. Russia's Eastward Expansion (1964) is a short history that uses excerpts from primary sources.
- ^ Martina Winkler, "From ruling people to owning land: Russian concepts of imperial possession in the North Pacific, 18th and early 19th centuries." Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas (2011) 59#3: 321–353, online in English Archived 28 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ Brendan Simms, Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise And Fall of the First British Empire (2008)
- ^ Stephen Conway, The War of American Independence 1775–1783 (1995).
- ^ Franklin W. Knight, "The Haitian Revolution." American Historical Review 105.1 (2000): 103–115.
- ^ Timothy Anna, Spain & the Loss of Empire (1983).
- ^ "Brazil | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 17 June 2025.
- ^ "Vasco da Gama: Round Africa to India, 1497–1498 CE". Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Paul Halsall. June 1998. Archived from the original on 28 August 2011. Retrieved 7 May 2007. From: Oliver J. Thatcher, ed., The Library of Original Sources (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), Vol. V: 9th to 16th Centuries, pp. 26–40.
- ^ "The Great Moghul Jahangir: Letter to James I, King of England, 1617 A.D." Indian History Sourcebook: England, India, and The East Indies, 1617 CE. Internet Indian History Sourcebook, Paul Halsall. June 1998. Archived from the original on 18 August 2014. Retrieved 7 May 2007. From: James Harvey Robinson, ed., Readings in European History, 2 Vols. (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1904–1906), Vol. II: From the opening of the Protestant Revolt to the Present Day, pp. 333–335.
- ^ "KOLKATA (CALCUTTA) : HISTORY". Calcuttaweb.com. Archived from the original on 10 May 2007. Retrieved 7 May 2007.
- ^ Rickard, J. (1 November 2000). "Robert Clive, Baron Clive, 'Clive of India', 1725–1774". Military History Encyclopedia on the Web. historyofwar.org. Retrieved 7 May 2007.
- ^ Prakash, Om. "The Transformation from a Pre-Colonial to a Colonial Order: The Case of India" (PDF). Global Economic History Network. Economic History Department, London School of Economics. pp. 3–40. Archived from the original on 26 August 2011. Retrieved 7 May 2007.
- ^ Kashmir: The origins of the dispute Archived 11 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine, BBC News, 16 January 2002
- ^ Davis, Mike. Late Victorian Holocausts. 1. Verso, 2000. p. 173
- ^ Plague. World Health Organization.
- ^ Reintegrating India with the World Economy Archived 4 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Peterson Institute for International Economics.
- ^ Ganesan, V. B. (2 July 2012). "A French colony that fought the British". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 28 February 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
- ^ Marsh, Kate (28 August 2013). Narratives of the French Empire: Fiction, Nostalgia, and Imperial Rivalries, 1784 to the Present. Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739176573. Archived from the original on 28 June 2023. Retrieved 12 November 2020.
- ^ Marsh, Kate (28 August 2013). Narratives of the French Empire: Fiction, Nostalgia, and Imperial Rivalries, 1784 to the Present. Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739176573. Archived from the original on 28 June 2023. Retrieved 12 November 2020.
- ^ Parker, R. H. (1 October 1955). "The French and Portuguese Settlements in India". The Political Quarterly. 26 (4): 389–398. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.1955.tb02588.x. ISSN 1467-923X.
- ^ Harrison M. Wright, ed. The "New Imperialism": Analysis of Late Nineteenth Century Expansion (1976).
- ^ Hugh Seton-Watson, The new imperialism (1971)
- ^ Parker Thomas Moon, Imperialism and world politics (1926), online.
- ^ Volker Rolf Berghahn, "German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler" German Studies Review 40#1 (2017) pp. 147–162 Online Archived 7 August 2020 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Raymond Leslie Buell, "Do Colonies Pay?" The Saturday Review, 1 August 1936 p 6
- ^ Thomas Pakenham, The scramble for Africa: The White Man's conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912 (2003)
- ^ Hochschild, Adam (1998). King Leopold's Ghost A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Mariner Books. ISBN 9780547525730.
- ^ Holliday, Ian (6 March 2012). Burma Redux: Global Justice and the Quest for Political Reform in Myanmar. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231504249. Archived from the original on 30 March 2021. Retrieved 12 November 2020.
- ^ Myint-U, Thant (10 May 2008). "The shared history of Britain and Burma". The Daily Telegraph. London. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
- ^ William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (2016) pp 161–224.
- ^ Vinacke, Harold M. (1933). "Japanese Imperialism". The Journal of Modern History. 5 (3): 366–380. doi:10.1086/236034. JSTOR 1875849. S2CID 222437929.
- ^ Ki-Jung, Kim (1 January 1998). "The Road to Colonization: Korea Under Imperialism, 1897–1910". Korea Journal. 38 (4): 36–64.
- ^ Sandra Wilson, "Rethinking the 1930s and the '15-Year War' in Japan." Japanese Studies 21.2 (2001): 155–164.
- ^ Raghavan, Srinath (31 March 2016). India's War: The Making of Modern South Asia, 1939–1945. Penguin Books Limited. ISBN 9781846145438. Archived from the original on 28 June 2023. Retrieved 12 November 2020.
- ^ "The United Nations and Decolonization". United Nations. Archived from the original on 27 March 2019. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
- ^ "Seeing the world differently". The Economist. 10 June 2010. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 4 February 2018. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
- ^ "Milestones: 1953–1960 – Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Archived from the original on 25 March 2021. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
- ^ "Growth in United Nations Membership, 1945–2005". United Nations. 2000. Archived from the original on 17 January 2016. Retrieved 8 October 2006.
- ^ Yahia H. Zoubir, "The United States, the Soviet Union and Decolonization of the Maghreb, 1945–62." Middle Eastern Studies 31.1 (1995): 58–84.
- ^ Chen Jian, "Bridging Revolution and Decolonization: The 'Bandung Discourse' in China's Early Cold War Experience." Chinese Historical Review 15.2 (2008): 207–241.
- ^ Pamela S. Falk, "Cuba in Africa." Foreign Affairs 65.5 (1987): 1077–1096.
- ^ Gerard McCann, "From diaspora to the third world and the United Nations: India and the politics of decolonizing Africa." Past & Present 218.suppl_8 (2013): 258–280.
- ^ Rothermund, Dietmar (2011). "The Self-consciousness of Post-imperial Nations: A cross-national Comparison". India Quarterly. 67 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1177/097492841006700101. ISSN 0974-9284. JSTOR 45073035.
- ^ Jazeel, Tariq (2012). "Postcolonialism: Orientalism and the geographical imagination". Geography. 97 (1): 4–11. doi:10.1080/00167487.2012.12094331. JSTOR 24412174.
Bibliography
[edit]- Benjamin, Thomas, ed. Encyclopedia of Western Colonialism Since 1450 (3 vol 2006)
- Boxer, C.R. The Dutch Seaborne Empire: 1600–1800 (1966)
- Boxer, Charles R. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, 1415–1825 (1969)
- Brendon, Piers. "A Moral Audit of the British Empire", History Today (October 2007), Vol. 57, Issue 10, pp. 44–47, online at EBSCO
- Brendon, Piers. The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781–1997 (2008), wide-ranging survey
- Ferro, Marc, Colonization: A Global History (1997)
- Gibbons, H.A. The New Map of Africa (1900–1916): A History of European Colonial Expansion and Colonial Diplomacy (1916) online free
- Hopkins, Anthony G., and Peter J. Cain. British Imperialism: 1688–2015 (Routledge, 2016).
- Mackenzie, John, ed. The Encyclopedia of Empire (4 vol 2016)
- Maltby, William. The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire (2008).
- Merriman, Roger Bigelow. The rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and in the New (3 vol 1918) online free
- Ness, Immanuel and Zak Cope, eds. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism (2 vol, 2015), 1456pp
- Osterhammel, Jürgen: Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, (M. Wiener, 1997).
- Page, Melvin E. et al. eds. Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia (3 vol 2003)
- Panikkar, K. M. Asia and Western dominance, 1498–1945 (1953)
- Porter, Andrew N. European Imperialism, 1860–1914 (Macmillan International Higher Education, 2016).
- Priestley, Herbert Ingram. France overseas: a study of modern imperialism (Routledge, 2018).
- Stern, Jacques. The French Colonies (1944) online, comprehensive history
- Thomas, Hugh. Rivers of Gold: The Rise of the Spanish Empire (2010)
- Townsend, Mary Evelyn. European colonial expansion since 1871 (1941).
Primary sources
[edit]- Melvin E. Page, ed. Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia (2003) vol 3 pp 833–1209 contains major documents.
- Bonnie G. Smith, ed. Imperialism: A History in Documents (2000) for middle and high schools
History of colonialism
View on GrokipediaConceptual Foundations
Defining Colonialism
Colonialism originates from the Latin term colonia, denoting a farm or settled land, and colonus, referring to a farmer or settler, underscoring the historical emphasis on population transfer and land cultivation as mechanisms of control.[1] The noun "colonialism" emerged in English by 1791, as evidenced in correspondence by Jeremy Bentham, initially describing administrative practices of colonial governance before evolving into a descriptor for broader systems of extraterritorial domination by the mid-19th century.[7][8] At its core, colonialism constitutes a structured practice of political, economic, and cultural domination wherein a sovereign entity—typically a state or empire—establishes and maintains authority over a distant territory and its populace, often through settlement, resource extraction, and administrative imposition.[1][9] This entails the subjugation of indigenous groups via military means, legal frameworks favoring the colonizer, and demographic shifts that prioritize the metropole's interests, such as labor mobilization and tribute systems dating back to ancient precedents like Roman coloniae established from 509 BCE onward.[1] Unlike transient conquests, colonialism presupposes enduring territorial integration, where colonies function as extensions of the ruling power's sovereignty, evidenced by phenomena like the Roman assignment of settlers to over 300 colonies across provinces by the 1st century CE to secure loyalty and agricultural output.[1] Essential characteristics include direct governance over alien lands, asymmetrical power relations enabling exploitation—such as the Iberian extraction of an estimated 180 tons of gold and 16,000 tons of silver from the Americas between 1500 and 1650—and the deliberate transplantation of populations to supplant or marginalize natives, fostering hybrid administrative structures that blend coercion with nominal local collaboration.[9][10] While modern scholarship, influenced by postcolonial critiques, frames colonialism predominantly as exploitative, primary historical records reveal it as a multifaceted extension of state capacity, involving not only domination but also infrastructural impositions like roads and ports that outlasted formal rule in cases such as British India, where rail networks expanded to 42,000 miles by 1914 under colonial administration.[1][10] This definition encompasses pre-modern instances, such as Phoenician trading outposts from the 12th century BCE, but crystallized in European overseas forms post-1492, marked by the Treaty of Tordesillas dividing non-European spheres between Portugal and Spain.[9]Distinguishing Colonialism from Imperialism and Empire-Building
Scholars frequently note that "colonialism," "imperialism," and "empire-building" are often used interchangeably in popular discourse, yet meaningful distinctions emerge from etymological, motivational, and structural analyses. Colonialism derives from the Latin colonia, denoting agrarian settlements established by a metropolitan power in distant territories, typically involving the migration of settlers who replicate elements of the home society's institutions while exploiting local resources and labor.[11] This process emphasizes direct governance, demographic shifts through settlement, and ideologies of "improvement" via productive labor on "waste" lands and among "idle" peoples, as articulated by thinkers like John Locke in justifying 17th-century English ventures in North America.[1] In contrast, imperialism stems from imperare (to command), signifying a broader policy of extending sovereign power over subordinates, often from afar through military, economic, or diplomatic means, without requiring settler populations or permanent replication of metropolitan society.[11] Empire-building, meanwhile, refers to the historical process of territorial expansion—predominantly contiguous or regional—via conquest to form expansive polities integrating diverse subjects under centralized rule, as seen in the Roman Empire's absorption of Mediterranean lands from 264 BCE onward or the Mongol Empire's rapid consolidations in the 13th century.[1] Unlike colonialism's overseas, settler-oriented focus, empire-building prioritizes administrative incorporation and tribute extraction over demographic transformation, often resulting in hybrid multi-ethnic structures rather than segregated colonies. Imperialism can underpin empire-building ideologically, providing justification for dominance, but the latter manifests as concrete state expansion, whereas imperialism encompasses non-territorial influences, such as 19th-century British economic penetration in China via unequal treaties post-Opium Wars (1839–1842 and 1856–1860).[12]| Term | Core Mechanism | Motivational Focus | Structural Feature | Historical Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colonialism | Settlement and direct rule | Productive improvement of land/people | Overseas territories with migrants | Spanish encomienda system in the Americas (1492–1820s)[1] |
| Imperialism | Power projection (military/economic) | Sovereign dominance and glory | Can be direct or indirect influence | British spheres in Africa during the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference[11] |
| Empire-Building | Conquests for integration | Territorial consolidation | Often contiguous multi-ethnic rule | Ottoman expansions in Anatolia and Balkans (1299–1922)[12] |
Periodization and Typologies
The history of colonialism is periodized by scholars into ancient or pre-modern phases, characterized by contiguous territorial expansions and limited overseas settlements, and modern phases beginning in the 15th century with sustained transoceanic European ventures enabled by advances in navigation and shipbuilding.[1] Ancient examples include Phoenician trading outposts around 1200 BCE and Greek apoikiai (colonies) established between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions, often as extensions of city-states for resource access and population relief without full subjugation of distant interiors.[13] Roman colonization from the 3rd century BCE onward integrated provinces through infrastructure, citizenship extension, and military garrisons, but remained largely Mediterranean-focused and differed from modern forms by lacking global maritime empires or systematic racial hierarchies.[1] Modern European colonialism divides into the early modern era (c. 1492–c. 1815), dominated by Iberian discoveries, mercantilist trade monopolies, and initial settler outposts in the Americas and Asia; the 19th-century "new imperialism," propelled by industrial demands for raw materials and markets, which saw territorial grabs such as the Scramble for Africa where European control expanded from about 10% of the continent in 1870 to nearly 90% by 1914; and the interwar and post-World War II period of consolidation followed by rapid decolonization driven by nationalist movements and metropolitan exhaustion.[1][14] This periodization emphasizes causal shifts: technological enablers like the caravel and astrolabe facilitated the 16th-century pivot to remote domination, while 19th-century steam power and quinine enabled interior penetrations previously barred by disease and logistics.[1] Non-European expansions, such as Ottoman or Qing frontier incorporations, are sometimes analogized but typically excluded from strict modern periodizations due to their continental scale and lack of overseas settler dynamics.[15] Typologies of colonialism classify variants by dominant mechanisms of control, resource extraction, and demographic impact, moving beyond binary settler-versus-exploiter frames to capture empirical diversity. Nancy Shoemaker proposes a schema rooted in colonizers' intrusions: settler colonialism, featuring mass migration to supplant indigenous populations and establish majority-European societies (e.g., 13 British North American colonies by 1776 with over 2.5 million settlers); planter colonialism, oriented toward export monocultures like sugar or cotton via imported coerced labor systems, maintaining elite minorities over large native or slave bases (e.g., Caribbean islands producing 80% of Europe's sugar by 1800); extractive colonialism, prioritizing mineral or fur harvests through native labor alliances with sparse European presence (e.g., Spanish silver mines in Potosí yielding 40% of global silver output from 1545–1800); and trade colonialism, confining operations to coastal enclaves for commodity flows under monopoly charters (e.g., Dutch VOC forts in Indonesia handling spices worth millions in annual trade by the 17th century).[10][10] These types often overlapped or sequenced, as trade outposts could evolve into extractive zones or settler frontiers, reflecting pragmatic adaptations to local resistances, geographies, and technologies rather than ideological blueprints.[10] Alternative classifications, such as those distinguishing formal direct rule from informal economic influence, highlight how 19th-century liberalism masked coercive dependencies in regions like British India, where Company rule extracted £1 billion in tribute equivalents from 1757–1858 without full territorial occupation until 1858.[1] Such frameworks underscore causal realism: settler models thrived in temperate zones with low indigenous densities, while extractive ones persisted in tropical disease belts, yielding differential long-term legacies like demographic replacement versus persistent multiethnic hierarchies.[10] Academic sources advancing these typologies, often from Western institutions, warrant scrutiny for underemphasizing pre-colonial non-European parallels or overgeneralizing exploitative motives amid evidence of mutual trade benefits in early phases.[15]Pre-Modern and Non-Western Colonialisms
Ancient Near Eastern, Egyptian, and Phoenician Expansions
The Akkadian Empire, founded by Sargon around 2334 BCE, marked one of the earliest large-scale expansions in the ancient Near East, unifying Sumerian city-states through conquest and extending control from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean via military campaigns that incorporated distant territories into a centralized administration.[16] Sargon's successors, such as Naram-Sin, further consolidated this by establishing garrisons and loyal administrators in conquered regions like Ebla and Armanum, facilitating resource extraction such as timber and metals, though systematic settlement was limited compared to later empires.[17] This model emphasized direct rule over vassals rather than extensive colonization, with Akkadian influence relying on deportation of elites and integration of local elites into the imperial structure to maintain stability.[18] The Assyrian Empire, particularly during its Neo-Assyrian phase from 911 to 609 BCE, employed aggressive expansion accompanied by mass deportations and strategic resettlements to pacify and repopulate conquered lands, affecting an estimated 4.5 million people across the Levant, Mesopotamia, and beyond.[19] Kings like Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745–727 BCE) and [Sargon II](/page/Sargon II) (r. 722–705 BCE) deported populations from regions such as Israel and Syria, resettling them in Assyrian heartlands or frontier provinces to dilute resistance, boost agriculture, and secure labor for infrastructure like canals and fortresses.[20] Archaeological evidence from sites like Tel Dan reveals material shifts indicating influxes of deportees, who introduced new pottery styles and contributed to urban continuity under Assyrian oversight, transforming local economies toward imperial tribute systems.[21] This policy, driven by the need to control trade routes and arable land, blurred conquest with colonization by fostering hybrid settlements loyal to Assur.[22] Egyptian expansions, peaking in the New Kingdom (c. 1550–1070 BCE), targeted Nubia to the south for gold and resources, establishing a chain of fortresses from Buhen to Semna between the First and Second Cataracts to garrison troops and administer mining operations.[23] Pharaohs like Thutmose III (r. 1479–1425 BCE) campaigned extensively in the Levant, subjugating city-states from Megiddo to the Euphrates and installing Egyptian officials and tribute collectors, though permanent settlements were sparse and focused on coastal enclaves for maritime access.[24] In Nubia, viceregal oversight and Egyptian-style temples promoted cultural assimilation, extracting wealth through corvée labor while limiting full-scale migration from the Nile Valley core.[25] These ventures prioritized economic extraction over demographic colonization, with Egyptian presence waning after the 20th Dynasty due to internal instability. Phoenician city-states, such as Tyre and Sidon, initiated overseas expansions from the late 13th century BCE, founding trading outposts across the Mediterranean to secure timber, metals, and dye resources amid Levantine overpopulation and Assyrian pressures.[26] Key settlements included Utica (c. 1100 BCE) and Carthage (c. 814 BCE) in North Africa, Cádiz in Iberia by the 9th century BCE, and sites like Kition in Cyprus, where colonists established autonomous emporia with temples and shipyards to dominate purple dye and cedar trade networks.[27] These colonies operated semi-independently, blending Phoenician script, craftsmanship, and maritime expertise with local elements, as evidenced by bilingual inscriptions and harbor archaeology, fostering long-term cultural diffusion without centralized imperial control.[28] Unlike militaristic Near Eastern models, Phoenician ventures emphasized commercial symbiosis, enabling endurance through alliances rather than subjugation.[29]Classical Greek and Roman Colonization
Greek colonization in the Archaic period, spanning roughly 750 to 500 BCE, involved the establishment of over 250 apoikiai—settlements dispatched from mainland poleis to coastal regions of the Mediterranean and Black Sea—primarily to alleviate demographic pressures from population growth and limited arable land in Greece proper.[30] Early examples include Pithekoussai (c. 770–750 BCE) by Euboeans on Ischia Island and Cumae (c. 750 BCE) in Campania by Chalcidians and Euboeans, marking the onset of westward expansion amid rising trade demands for metals and grain.[31] Further foundations proliferated in Sicily, such as Syracuse (733 BCE) by Corinth and Megara Hyblaea (c. 750 BCE) by Megarians, and in southern Italy like Tarentum (c. 706 BCE) by Spartans, often initiated by oracles or aristocratic leaders responding to internal strife or resource shortages rather than centralized state policy.[32] These ventures typically entailed small groups of settlers (oikistai) negotiating or fighting for land with indigenous populations, resulting in hybrid cultural exchanges but also conflicts, as evidenced by archaeological layers of destruction at sites like Incoronata near Tarentum.[33] Unlike later imperial models, Greek colonies retained nominal ties to metropoleis through cults and kinship myths but operated as autonomous poleis, exporting innovations like the alphabet and hoplite warfare while importing staples, thereby extending Hellenic networks without direct political subjugation.[34] Roman colonization, emerging during the early Republic from the 5th century BCE, differed markedly in its integration with conquest and governance, serving as a mechanism to pacify frontiers, distribute land to citizens and veterans, and enforce Roman legal and military norms. Initial coloniae in Latium and Campania, such as Antium (467 BCE) and Ardea (442 BCE), blended Roman settlers with locals to stabilize alliances post-wars against Volsci and Aequi, granting partial citizenship (without voting rights) to foster loyalty. By the mid-Republic, after the Samnite Wars (343–290 BCE), over 20 such settlements dotted central Italy, like Alba Fucens (303 BCE), designed as fortified outposts with grids of 2,000–4,000 colonists each to deter rebellion and cultivate loyalty through agrarian allotments of 10 iugera per family.[35] Overseas expansion intensified post-Second Punic War (218–201 BCE), with coloniae like Carteia in Spain (171 BCE, first mixed with provincials) and Carthage refounded as Colonia Junonia (failed 122 BCE, revived 29 BCE), imposing Roman urban planning, aqueducts, and veteran pensions to romanize elites and extract tribute, contrasting Greek autonomy by subordinating settlers to senatorial oversight and praetorian commands.[36] This system, peaking with 30–40 provincial coloniae by Augustus' era, prioritized strategic control over independent replication, embedding colonies as extensions of Roman power rather than cultural offshoots.[37]Medieval Islamic Caliphates and Asian Empires
The Umayyad Caliphate (661–750 CE) extended Islamic rule through rapid military campaigns, conquering the Maghreb by 709 CE from Byzantine control and invading Iberia in 711 CE, where forces under Tariq ibn Ziyad defeated Visigothic king Roderic at the Battle of Guadalete. These expansions involved establishing Arab settlements in fortified garrison cities, such as Kairouan in Ifriqiya and Cordoba in al-Andalus, to secure loyalty and facilitate governance, while non-Muslim populations paid jizya tribute for protection and exemption from military service. Arabization policies promoted Arabic as the administrative language, centralizing authority in Damascus and integrating conquered elites through incentives like tax reductions for converts.[38][39] The Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258 CE), after overthrowing the Umayyads, shifted emphasis from conquest to internal administration, relying on Persian viziers and bureaucrats to manage a decentralized empire spanning from North Africa to Central Asia, with Baghdad as the new capital from 762 CE. While territorial gains were limited compared to predecessors, Abbasid rule sustained tribute extraction via land taxes (kharaj) and fostered economic integration through patronage of trade and agriculture, though regional autonomy grew under governors like the semi-independent emirs in Ifriqiya. This period marked increased inclusion of non-Arab Muslims in governance, diluting early Arab settler dominance.[40] In East Asia, the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE) pursued expansions into Inner Asia, defeating the Eastern Turks in 630 CE and establishing the Anxi Protectorate in the Tarim Basin by 640 CE, with military garrisons comprising up to 100,000 troops to control oasis states and Silk Road routes. Tang forces settled Chinese farmers and soldiers in frontier colonies, such as at Guazhou, to bolster agricultural production and deter nomadic incursions, while protectorates extracted tribute in horses and goods from vassal khanates. These policies extended Tang influence to the borders of modern Afghanistan before setbacks like the 751 CE Battle of Talas.[41] The Mongol Empire (1206–1368 CE), unified by Genghis Khan, achieved unprecedented scale through conquests that incorporated Central Asia, Persia, and parts of China by 1258 CE, when Hulagu sacked Baghdad, ending Abbasid caliphal authority. Mongol administration imposed yam postal systems and census-based tribute, demanding fixed quotas of silver, silk, and labor from subjugated regions, with limited nomadic settlements supplemented by local governance under darughachi overseers to extract resources without full assimilation. Successor khanates, like the Yuan Dynasty in China (1271–1368 CE), intensified colonization by relocating artisans and officials, though core Mongol strategy prioritized mobility over permanent demographic shifts.[42]Early Modern European Overseas Ventures
Iberian Empires: Portugal and Spain
The Iberian powers of Portugal and Spain initiated the era of European overseas expansion in the late 15th century, driven by the completion of the Reconquista in 1492 and advancements in navigation such as the caravel ship and astrolabe. Portugal, leveraging its Atlantic coastline and expertise in celestial navigation, focused on circumnavigating Africa to access Indian Ocean trade routes dominated by Muslim intermediaries. Sponsored by Prince Henry the Navigator from the 1410s, Portuguese explorers established feitorias (trading forts) along the West African coast, capturing the port of Ceuta in 1415 to secure access to trans-Saharan gold and slaves. Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, and Vasco da Gama reached Calicut, India, in 1498, establishing direct maritime links that bypassed Ottoman-controlled land routes and yielded spices, silks, and porcelain. Pedro Álvares Cabral claimed Brazil for Portugal in 1500 during a voyage to India, initiating settlement there amid brazilwood extraction.[43][44] Spain, under the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, sponsored Genoese navigator Christopher Columbus's westward voyage in 1492, leading to the discovery of the Caribbean islands and the initiation of American colonization. The 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, mediated by Pope Alexander VI, divided non-Christian lands outside Europe along a meridian 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands, granting Spain claims west of the line (including most of the Americas) and Portugal those east (Africa and later Brazil). Spanish conquistadors exploited superior steel weapons, horses, and gunpowder, alongside alliances with indigenous rivals and devastating smallpox epidemics, to conquer the Aztec Empire under Hernán Cortés, who besieged and razed Tenochtitlan in 1521 after arriving in 1519 with 500 men. Francisco Pizarro similarly toppled the Inca Empire by 1533, capturing emperor Atahualpa at Cajamarca in 1532 with 168 men through ambush and subsequent execution. These conquests extracted vast quantities of gold and silver, with Potosí mines in Bolivia alone producing over 45,000 tons of silver between 1545 and 1800, fueling Spain's economy via annual treasure fleets to Seville.[45][46][47] Portuguese administration emphasized commercial outposts rather than large-scale settlement, governed by captains-major and the Casa da Índia in Lisbon, which monopolized trade in pepper, slaves, and Asian goods through the Estado da Índia established in 1505 under Viceroy Francisco de Almeida. In Brazil, captaincies granted to proprietors from 1534 facilitated sugar plantations reliant on African slave labor imported via the Angola trade, with exports reaching 18,000 tons annually by the late 16th century. Spain organized its American territories into viceroyalties—New Spain in 1535 and Peru in 1542—overseen by the Council of the Indies in Madrid, implementing the encomienda system to allocate indigenous labor for tribute and conversion, though often devolving into exploitation. The Manila Galleon trade from 1565 linked Acapulco to Asian markets, exchanging American silver for Chinese silks, amplifying global silver flows that inadvertently stimulated Qing China's economy. These structures prioritized resource extraction and Catholic evangelization, with Jesuits and Franciscans establishing missions, but resulted in indigenous population collapses from 50-100 million in 1492 to under 10 million by 1600 due to disease, overwork, and violence.[48][49][50]Conquest and Settlement in the Americas
Hernán Cortés initiated the Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica in 1519 with a force of roughly 500 men, landing near present-day Veracruz and marching inland to challenge the Aztec Empire centered at Tenochtitlan.[51] Forming alliances with indigenous polities such as the Tlaxcalans, who resented Aztec domination, Cortés exploited internal divisions while deploying steel swords, armor, firearms, and horses—technologies absent among the Aztecs, whose warriors relied on obsidian-edged macuahuitl clubs and lacked cavalry or wheeled transport for military purposes.[52] Smallpox, introduced inadvertently via European contact, ravaged Aztec ranks, including Emperor Moctezuma II, weakening resistance before the decisive siege of Tenochtitlan from May to August 1521, when the city fell after intense urban fighting.[53] [54] This rapid subjugation of an empire estimated to control 5-6 million subjects underscored how disease-induced depopulation, combined with tactical alliances and material advantages, enabled a tiny expedition to topple a centralized state.[55] In South America, Francisco Pizarro launched his campaign against the Inca Empire in 1531 with approximately 180 men and 37 horses, capitalizing on a ongoing Inca civil war between brothers Atahualpa and Huáscar that had already destabilized the realm.[56] On November 16, 1532, at Cajamarca, Pizarro's concealed arquebusiers and cavalry ambushed Atahualpa's entourage of thousands, capturing the emperor despite overwhelming numerical inferiority; Atahualpa's execution by garrote in 1533 followed his failure to secure ransom.[57] Advancing to Cuzco by 1533, Pizarro installed a puppet ruler amid further smallpox outbreaks that halved Inca populations in some regions prior to major clashes, eroding the empire's cohesion and logistics.[58] These conquests, like Cortés's, hinged on gunpowder artillery, steel weaponry, and equine shock tactics against Inca forces armed with bronze or stone implements and unacquainted with mounted warfare.[59] By 1540, Spanish control extended over core Inca territories, yielding vast silver outputs from mines like Potosí discovered in 1545.[60] Portuguese engagement with Brazil commenced when Pedro Álvares Cabral's fleet sighted the coast on April 22, 1500, en route to India, claiming the territory under the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which divided New World spheres between Spain and Portugal.[61] Initial contacts involved brazilwood extraction via trading posts, but systematic colonization accelerated after 1530 with the establishment of hereditary captaincies (donatarias) along the northeast coast, granting private proprietors rights to settle and exploit lands.[62] By mid-century, sugar plantations dominated the economy, reliant on coerced indigenous labor supplanted by African slaves from the 1550s onward, fostering clustered coastal settlements like Salvador (founded 1549) rather than deep inland penetration.[63] European settlers numbered fewer than 30,000 by 1600, contrasting Spanish demographic impositions, as Portugal prioritized extractive commerce over mass migration.[64] The conquest era precipitated a hemispheric demographic collapse, with indigenous populations plummeting from pre-1492 estimates of 50-60 million to roughly 5-10 million by 1600, driven chiefly by virgin-soil epidemics of smallpox, measles, and influenza that killed 80-95% in affected groups due to lack of acquired immunity.[65] [66] This "Great Dying" not only facilitated military victories by disrupting societies but also eased subsequent land appropriation, as labor shortages and social disintegration followed.[67] Warfare, enslavement, and relocation compounded losses, though diseases accounted for the majority per bioarchaeological and historical reconstructions.[54] Post-conquest settlement crystallized under the encomienda system, formalized in the early 1500s, wherein Spanish crown grants awarded conquistadors and settlers custodial rights over indigenous communities—typically 100-300 families—for tribute in goods or labor, ostensibly in return for tutelage in Christianity and defense against foes.[68] Deployed across New Spain (viceroyalty established 1535) and Peru (1542), it mirrored pre-Hispanic tribute mechanisms but redirected surpluses to Europeans, enabling urban foundations like Mexico City (rebuilt on Tenochtitlan by 1524) and resource hubs.[69] Abuses, including overwork and demographic strain, prompted Bartolomé de las Casas's critiques and the New Laws of 1542, which curtailed hereditary encomiendas and banned indigenous slavery, shifting toward crown-regulated repartimiento labor drafts.[70] By late century, haciendas and missions supplemented encomiendas, integrating survivors into a stratified colonial order while European immigrants totaled around 200,000, dwarfed by imported Africans for plantation zones.[71] European maritime prowess, including caravels and astrolabes for ocean crossing, alongside organizational edges like written records for coordination, underpinned these expansions beyond mere battlefield edges.[72]
