Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The colonial authority has long been linked to the use of excessive violence. Many historians believe that violence was used as a standard procedure for imperial powers to subdue their colonies and prevent further resistance. Colonial powers such as Belgium, Germany, and Britain have been linked to various atrocities and massacres of the inhabitants of their colonies. Some historians have linked imperialism to totalitarianism, mainly in the twentieth century. The unending debate about the different legacies of the British and European imperialism on their former colonies has significantly highlighted the impacts of violence during the colonialism era. The centrality of violence in imperialism has triggered massive public debates, with some emphasizing the need for formal apologies. In addition, a section of the public has called for lawsuits against former colonial powers, while others demand the repatriation of imperial loot back to the native countries. Similarly, the controversy about the use of violence by former colonial powers has led to the removal of statues belonging to some imperialists. British colonialism was more humane in its treatment of colonized people than other European powers.
British Colonialism
Britains counterinsurgency actions were less brutal compared to other European powers. The main objective of British military action was to subdue its colonies, while other imperial powers such as Germany used excessive military force purposely to punish the insurrectionists and prevent any future revolts. For instance, British military actions in the Tirah Campaign and against the Dervish charge at Omdurman focused on suppressing the rebellions rather than punishing them. However, the German military culture was motivated to punish the insurgencies rather than subduing them. This is portrayed in the Herero and Nama War, where despite the rebels call for negotiations, the German administration considered them outlaws. This led to the battle of Watershed, whose objective was to annihilate the Herero and Nama populations so they would never pose a threat in the future. Following the war, the Herero community registered a death rate of 75% to 80%, while the Namas fatality rate was recorded as 45% to 50%.3 Some of the remaining populations were arrested and put in concentration camps, while the rest were ordered to relocate to other regions or face executions.
The British deployed less punitive measures to counter insurgents compared to other colonialists. Britain showed more restraint in dealing with rebels because they mainly attacked rebels on the battleground rather than raiding villages. However, the German constitution approved military action; therefore, there was no restraint regarding the extent to which military power could be utilized. Due to the excessive military freedom in countering insurgencies, the German soldiers deployed some of the most brutal strategies in dealing with the threat. For example, in the Boxer War, Maji Maji War, and the Herero and Nama war, some techniques used to conquer the rebels included shootings, executions, plundering, rape, starvation tactics, and burning of villages. In addition, the soldiers would also capture hostages and place them in internment camps. Similarly, the German colony also enforced corporal punishment, where the male prisoners were cuffed in chains and coerced into offering free labor. During the Belgian rule of the Congo, there was widespread mistreatment of the natives. The military forces raided and burned villages forcing the inhabitants to flee to neighboring forests or across the borders.
Unlike the British, other imperial powers targeted women and children. Most of Britains small wars extensively targeted men on the battlefields. These include the Chitral and Tirah campaigns as well as the battle against Dervish. Nevertheless, other colonials like Germany targeted men, women, and children in the effort to counter insurgencies. For example, during the Maji Maji War, the German soldiers took women and children as hostages to draw out their men involved in the uprising. This approach considerably forced the natives into subjection and helped to end the rebellion. Women hostage-taking led to the detection of various insurgent hideouts and lessened the reserves for the rebels because the women could no longer supply them with food. The women and children would be placed in concentration camps until their men surrendered to the military. In the Herero and Nama War, the German soldiers killed some women and children while some were placed in concentration camps. Additionally, to implement the annihilation of the Herero and Nama tribes, after the massive deaths of the rebels, the remaining populations of women and children were forced to flee the region.
The fatalities associated with British military action were slightly lower than other European powers. The British engaged in small wars with insurgencies, leading to catastrophic effects. For example, the British battle against the Dervish forces resulted in 11,000 deaths, with 16,000 being wounded. Nevertheless, the death toll associated with other colonialists, such as Germany, was exceedingly high. In some cases, the German war against rebels nearly caused the depopulation of some communities. In this case, following the battle of Waterberg, the death rate of the Herero tribe was estimated at 60,000 to 80,000, while that of Nama was around 20,000. In addition, during the Maji Maji War, the death toll of the twenty ethnic groups that participated in the uprising was estimated to be between 250,000 and 300,000. Reports indicate that the Songea district, one of the regions involved in the rebellion, was almost depopulated. From 1902 to 1903, the region had around 116,000 inhabitants; however, after the war, the number dropped to less than 20,000. Nevertheless, the population decline cannot only be attributed to the war but also the massive flight of the remaining inhabitants.
The treatment of captives in the British concentration camps was more humane than those in German internment camps. During colonialism, the imperial powers designed sites to hold the civilians to make it easier to fight the insurgents. Nonetheless, the captives lived under deplorable conditions resulting in significantly high death rates. The increased fatalities were partly due to the inadequately trained European soldiers who did not understand the needs of women, the elderly, children, and the ill. Research indicates that the military culture of the Germans did not prioritize the needs of their captives. This was due to racism, administrative incompetence, and an exaggerated priority of the actual war. As a result, the German internment camps recorded a fatality rate of around 45% compared to the British bases, which registered a death rate of 25% in South Africa. In addition, the mistreatment of prisoners held in the German camps was driven by the desire for punishment. For instance, these captives received an equivalent of one-fifth of the meat that the most punished civilians under British rule during the Boer War received.
Generally, of all European powers, British colonialism was slightly fair in treating its colonies. In this case, they had more liberal immigration policies than other colonial powers. After the Herero and Nama War, the German administration in SWA began the deportation of surviving insurgents and their families to other colonies, including the British colony in the region. In addition, their small wars with insurgents aimed to subdue the rebels and not cause massive flights as witnessed under the Belgian and German rules. The Belgian rule of the Congo has been linked to benefitting Belgium economically and politically due to the massive loot of rubber and ivory. Similarly, there was widespread abuse of the natives to ensure that the Belgian revenues did not decrease. Moreover, the representatives of the Belgian regime burned some villages and occupied the rest by settling their sentries and African auxiliaries in them. Such practices, combined with the executions of the rebels and forced labor compelled many inhabitants to flee to neighboring regions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, British colonialism was more benign in treating its colonies than other colonial powers. Most European powers, such as the British used violence to repress the insurgency in their colonies. They perceived the rebels as uncivilized, which necessitated warfare that led to catastrophic effects like the massive loss of lives. However, compared to the extent and impact of violence associated with other colonials such as Germany and Belgian, the British treatment of its colonized people was slightly more humane. In this case, the military action of the Germans caused massive fatalities in its colonies, nearly depopulating some communities. Additionally, the Germans mainly focused on punishing the rebels rather than controlling them, which led the soldiers to use more brutal techniques such as village burning, hostage-taking, executions, and starvation tactics. In some cases, the German soldiers annihilated the rebelling tribes. Alternatively, the Belgium rule of Congo was characterized by widespread abuse of the inhabitants, which forced some communities to flee across the borders. Therefore, it is evident that the British treated its colonized people better than other European powers.
Bibliography
Hull, Isabel V. Military Culture and the Production of Final Solutions in the Colonies: The Example of Wilhelminian Germany. In The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective, edited by Gellately, R. and B. Kiernan, 114-162. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Kuss, Susanne. German Colonial Wars and the Context of Military Violence. In German Colonial Wars and the Context of Military Violence. United States of America: Harvard University Press, 2017.
Stacey, Pascale and Victoria Reid. Historiography: The Belgian Congo. In A Historical Companion to Postcolonial Literatures Continental Europe and its Empires, edited by Prem Poddar, Rajeev S. Patke, Lars Jensen, John Beverley, Charles Forsdick, Pierre-Philippe Fraiture, Ruth Ben-Ghiat et al., 26-31. Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, 2008.
Stengers, Jean, and Jan Vansina. King Leopolds Congo, 18861908. In The Cambridge History of Africa, edited by Roland Oliver and G. N. Sanderson, 315-358. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Wagner, Kim A. Savage Warfare: Violence and the Rule of Colonial Difference in Early British Counterinsurgency. History Workshop Journal 85 (2018): 217-237.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.