Knowledge and Conquest : an history of colonialism

“Il faut dire ouvertement qu'en effet les races supérieures ont un droit vis à vis des races inférieures parce qu'il y a un devoir pour elles. Elles ont un devoir de civiliser les races inférieures.” 28 juillet 1885 - Jules Ferry (“We must proclaim openly that the superior races have a right vis à vis the inferior races because they have a duty towards them. They have a duty to civilise them.”).

Jules Ferry's quote puts the finger on one of the most important aspects of colonialism: the justification of colonisers by their alleged intellectual superiority over peoples considered inferior. To understand the history of colonisation today, it is necessary to understand the way in which the colonising powers justified and carried out their military invasions and then their policies on the colonised territories and populations.

First of all, it is necessary to define the notion of ‘Knowledge'. Knowledge is often associated with the common culture of a population or a geographical area. It questions various aspects, such as technologies, religions, customs and traditions, but also the vision of history and the relationship built with external entities and the foreign. The question of knowledge, therefore, is not only built on the basis of a common construction, but also on the comparison with those discovered or observed outside the primary group of individuals. In the case of colonialism and imperialism, this comparison goes further and turns into an outright hierarchy. Cultures are unequal, histories and knowledge are not equal, and as such a supposed superiority can justify military and administrative supremacy.

This supremacy thus leads us to the analysis of the second term, that of 'Conquest'. If this term already imposes the military notion and strategic questions, it goes further in a large number of fields. Conquest is in fact partly composed of a prior military invasion, a military invasion that leads to a mobilisation of warrior knowledge and is often the occasion to develop new machines or instruments. However, on the one hand, conquest implies that this invasion is carried out at the expense of an already constituted state or, in any case, of a community exercising its influence over a more or less defined territory. On the other hand, the conquest aims at imposing a domination of the newcomers on the local populations. New structures are brought in, new organisations forcibly modify the old ones when they do not replace them purely and simply.

The challenge of this reflection is therefore twofold. It is therefore necessary to analyse the use of knowledge in the context of colonial conquests, but also to grasp the ins and outs of the justification of conquest and colonisation in general.

To what extent did colonialisms create a specific dimension for military conquest through the use of knowledge?

First, we will see that colonialism was built on technological inequality. Secondly, we will study the theories that led the colonisers to establish a hierarchy of cultures.

The first argument of this double aspect of colonisation is based on a de facto inequality in the technological field between the Western countries and the countries that were subjected to the domination of European imperialisms, either totally or partially. According to the French economist Idriss Aberkhane, an economic, cultural and military power such as the Chinese Empire saw its international influence and technological development annihilated for not having succeeded in developing the steam engine. This failure is said to have been the reason for its collapse in the balance of power between the Chinese Empire and the European and American powers, particularly during the two Opium Wars. Although this does not explain all the reasons that established the European colonial powers. But it is undoubtedly one of the driving forces behind colonisation.

This first part draws on the work of American historian Robert Gildea who, in his book Empires of the Mind: The Colonial Past and the Politics of the Present, points out that "The scrambles for Africa and China progressed with little opposition that could not be overcome by warships and the Maxim gun." Thus, despite the warlike power of the states, despite the solidity of their societies, traditions, or even the richness of their culture, their submission seemed inevitable. Their war power could not compete with that of the European empires or Western colonisations. Robert Gildea thus shows that war, and the way it was conducted in Europe, spread throughout the world without meeting the technological force present on the Old Continent.

The first argument that supports this idea is that the very idea of geographical expansion was only made possible by a technological boom. Where most armies in Africa or pre-Columbian nations built their territorial expansion on the march and strength of thousands of porters, European and Asian empires were constantly gaining new lands (and could meet) on the backs of their horses. Where the Japanese sailing tekko sailed the China Sea and imposed the power of the daymio off the island of Honshu, the steamships and fast sailing ships of the East India Company flew the English flag to the four corners of South East Asia. But perhaps the most obvious example of this massive colonisation of the world through industrial territorial expansion was the building of the United States of America. Following texts such as the Indian Removal Act in 1837, the colonisation of Native American territories and western tribes was permitted and thousands of Westerners, sometimes arriving directly from Europe, went inland, always to push back this "frontier" and to respond to the famous "Manifest Destiny" of the American people. If it was originally the caravans that marked the myth of the Conquest of the West, it was the railway and its expansion in the 1860s that reinforced this expansion of the American territory. More than just connecting the east and west coasts, the railroads made it possible to criss-cross a terrain that was sometimes hostile to the American settlers, and to provide the US Army troops with the resources necessary to establish the authority of the new arrivals through massacres and deportations.

The second argument that supports this idea of technological superiority is the expansion of the European capitalist model around the world and its adoption by many societies. The world was indeed offered to Europeans as a field of territorial, but also economic and political possibilities. Trade is surely the activity that most characterised the taking of possession of new territories, as illustrated by the Indian pattern where colonisation was achieved through the establishment of trading posts and economic partnerships with the various local rulers. It is this question of partnerships that interests us here, because cultural superiority was established by the idea that a modern nation must possess a modern economic system, organised and compatible with all the countries of the world. The best example of this transformation is Japan. While the Empire, divided and weakened, was forced to open up to international trade by the action of the US Navy, Japanese society and its army consequently underwent an incredible transformation. From the 1850s to the early 1900s, Japan went from a medieval local power to a modern, over-industrialised international force. This economic power, as well as the exchange of technology with the European and American powers, allowed the Japanese to prosper and establish their domination over the entire Korean peninsula, to crush China on several occasions and above all to become in 1906 the first Asian power to defeat a European power, Russia.

The second idea that supports this double-edged impact of colonisation is the very construction of colonial theory. To quote Jules Ferry, the European powers settled on conquered territories by force in the belief that they alone could make the best use of the resources present while helping the local populations and the people who remained in Europe to prosper. The existing customs and societies already established were no longer legitimate. The colonial construction is therefore the idea that not all civilisations are equal.

For this second part, we will rely on the historian Robert Young's book Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. The aim here is not only to understand how colonialisms were constructed through the construction of an ideology establishing civilisational superiority, but above all to understand how this construction can be interpreted today and how it can be challenged by current policies. This part will take the example of France, through its imperialist history, but also through its current history. As Robert Young points out, "The culturalization of knowledge and politics also involves a recognition of transnational and often gendered cultural differences and the significance of different forms of knowledge for different communities." The changing dimensions and the emergence of new international actors have indeed undermined this alleged inequality and the whole discourse on which it was based.

But let us first return to the development of this hierarchy of civilisations. We must not overlook the fact that the colonial powers were motivated, as seen above, by economic and commercial reasons. The exploitation of colonised peoples is a leitmotif of colonial history, through the search for resources, but also through their use as a military force in the event of major conflicts, as was the case in the two World Wars. But colonisation is indeed based on the construction and sharing of the idea that Western peoples, and later neo-colonial powers, should bring prosperity, civilisation and technology to peoples living in ignorance and submission. While religion may have motivated this discourse, as was the case with the creation of the Spanish Empire, it is undeniable that the 'civilising mission' became the watchword for imperialisms. This explains why colonialism is still a constant source of tension today, for although this legacy is controversial due to the countless atrocities committed over the centuries, it is impossible to deny that the arrival of Europeans has allowed for a spectacular progress of local societies. This is where we find the French idea of bringing the light of the Republic and knowledge to oppressed peoples, especially in Africa and South Asia. The 'civilising mission' thus imposed the European conquest as the only solution to bring the 'indigenous' peoples out of darkness and poverty. However, as Robert Gildea points out, this civilising mission had its origins in the theory of the superiority of the white man. Thus, in the French colonies, the 'Code de l'indigénat' was established. The French administrations ensured the proper functioning of the colonised populations with the help of the cultural elites they promoted. On the other hand, although a cultural and social development of some of these fringes of the population was undeniable, no political representation was envisaged. The nation was the same, but the rights could not be similar. The civilising mission was thus at its height because democracy was not on the agenda.

However, as Robert Young points out, the interpretation of this hierarchy of civilisations due to the obvious technological gap has, on the contrary, led Europeans to take greater account of the importance of a certain diversity in order to better understand the world. This awareness is very long, it is still being debated, but it cannot be denied. The limit of postcolonial theory lies in this observation. Today's European societies, accused of neo-colonialism, cannot act as equals with African or Asian nations. They would keep a certain contempt and distance from peoples and cultures considered secondary. However, at a time of new international political challenges, Europeans have understood the importance of rethinking their relations with former colonised territories. European societies are no longer limited to whites, African societies are no longer limited to blacks: today's societies have become so intertwined that it is almost impossible to dissociate them. The cultures are different, but dual cultures are numerous. Scientists and geniuses are emerging from all over the world, and the technological backwardness is less and less obvious in view of the constant expansion of exchanges.  Even the French Republic, which a century ago considered these populations as inferior races, is now trying to understand their aspirations and needs as well as possible. This is why an Africa-France summit was organised in 2021 to give a new dimension to relations between France and its former colonies. This initiative is a response to the expectations of African youth who are too often disappointed and poorly represented by sometimes corrupt governments. This meeting brought together engineers, journalists, lawyers, but also artists and leading public figures from both continents, without going through political concerns.

“Knowledge and conquest” are finally the two terms which defines colonialism, not only one, but the two. Colonialism would be a simple oppression without this question of cultural domination, and without the idea of military occupation, it would be a simple mission based on cultural exchanges. It is in this sense that colonialism and post-colonial studies must be understood today. The theorisation of the superiority of Western societies is not only dependent on a constructed ideology, but also on a real technological superiority. This gap between the imperialist powers and the colonised societies was therefore real, and led to the elaboration of a supposed superiority and the need to 'civilise' the populations in ignorance. 

Pierre Jouin

Écrivez-nous