Europeans were able to come to dominate only some lands: where and why did they fail?

• this provides a kind of natural experiment
• science is a good method for accumulating predictive knowledge because of the use of experiments
• simplify the situation so you can understand underlying laws
• experiments also set up artificial situations to test a particular point
• but you can't set up experiments in history but maybe sometimes you can find them
  
• we can explain success and failure partly based on the initial conditions and the choices people make
  
• we sometimes fall into the idea of historical determinism: whatever happened was inevitable
• but history shows us that there are choices, there are different possibilities
  

Traditional explanations for failed colonies:

• they weren't used to the climate--didn't know how to live there (technology)
• hostile natives
• in Asia fairly close to equal in military power to the Europeans
• large numbers of people are hard to conquer even if they are way behind in technology

Explanations for success:

• Europeans were ahead in technology
• political explanations--Europeans were better organized and believed in nationalism and capitalism
  

China, Korea, Japan had strong civilizations of their own and agriculture and diseases much like Europe--Europeans were unable to take over

• Japan resisted European control and influence
• they generally weren't interested in the new ideas and technology the Europeans brought--they thought their own ways were better
  
• Japanese resistance to western ways such as guns (alternative view)
• a society can choose not to use a technology
• different cultures choose and use different technologies
  
• China was only opened by the opium trade
• India was more divided and therefore easier to take over
• Europeans could only get control when there was political instability they could manipulate
• but Crosby would argue that the explanation isn't complete until you consider disease
  
• Europeans did not build up a large population of colonists because of fear of diseases
• European diseases already existed in Asia so the natives didn't die in large numbers of European diseases
  

  Africa had many parasites and diseases Europeans were not resistant to, and were occupied by large numbers of natives

• There were plenty of areas in Africa and the tropics that politically and militarily would have been easy to take over
  
• European diseases were already present in Africa (and their immune systems were developed to fight it)
  
• Africa also had human diseases such as malaria and cholera and a whole long list of others--colonization was much more successful in hot climates (such as parts Australia) where there were fewer natives and these diseases were not present.
  
• Africans (and some Mediterranean people) had genetic resistance to malaria (sickle cell trait and thalassaemias)
  
• European women were reluctant to move to tropical places with many natives, making it hard to create viable colonies
• European animals died of tropical diseases such as trypanosomiasis--Europeans lost their military technological advantage if their horses died
• European crops didn't grow in tropical climates (but they were interested in tropical crops like sugar cane)
  
• Even American-born former slaves who were sent back to Africa died in very large numbers of tropical diseases 

Tropical Africa was more than Europeans could conquer until their technology improved--the native people had the ecological advantage  (technologies: jeeps instead of horses, understanding of the germ theory of disease)

Annual death rate among British soldiers in early 1800s: stationed in England: 15 per thousand stationed in the West Indies: 85 to 130 per thousand stationed in West Africa: over 500 per thousand

European livestock did better in South America than in Africa--the disease and parasite problems both for humans and livestock were less, though they brought some from Africa with the slaves to work on plantations after the natives were nearly eradicated.

Europeans did better in places that hadn't been exposed to European diseases and didn't have a lot of diseases of their own
Europeans were at a disadvantage in tropical areas, unless they were isolated

• Europeans didn't go to very dry areas in any significant numbers
• They had some success in the highlands (and other temperate areas), but couldn't necessarily displace the native people

What about tropical islands?

• They saw potential for wealth in the hot wet lowlands, but usually failed there

• tropical islands were excellent places to grow sugarcane
• usually tropical islands didn't have many diseases to start with
• European diseases reduced the native population
• slaves were brought from Africa, brought African diseases with them
  
• system with a few Europeans and a lot of slaves
  
• Haiti was the only successful slave revolt
• French forced them to buy their own country from France--debt was an ongoing cause for poverty
• It is a case where Europeans didn't keep control, but almost the only one where they had a disease advantage
  

Only a few exceptions of European success in becoming the large majority in tropical places, like Queensland, Australia.  Not many diseases made it there and they used prisoners for labor not slaves

Before 1800, European colonization was not very successful in tropical places, particularly those where European diseases were already present

Why was Europe able to colonize more places after 1800?--improved technology

• faster ships and reliable navigation--more people can get to more remote places
• better medicine (not much until after about 1890)
  
• industrial revolution (starts in England late 1700s, development of factories) strengthens trade
• development of factories,  better transportation, urbanization, more cash-based economy
  
• IR in England first (around 1800) centered around factories to make cotton cloth, but cotton doesn't grow in England
• for factories to be profitable you need bigger markets
• made colonies profitable as sources of raw material and a place to sell finished goods
• industrial revolution made colonies more economically important and increased the technological advantage of the Europeans--enough to overcome the ecological disadvantage
  
  
• Machines to replace animal power a better understanding of how to prevent disease didn't come in until late 19th century

What are these areas like today?

• in some places the Europeans were never able to take over very effectively
  
• in some places the Europeans took control but the indigenous people eventually threw off the colonial powers (eg. Kenya)
  
• in some places the settlers took over from the indigenous people (who survived only in very small numbers) and now run the place--how was this possible?  These Crosby calls neo-Europes
  
• in some areas Europeans and native people mixed

in South Africa, for a while, whites who were descendents of settlers continued to control the indigenous people--note that South Africa has a temperate climate, not a tropical climate

What explains these differences?

---

---