848 Ch. 2 1 • The Age of European Imperialism
The British mastered the policy of “divide and rule,” favoring and choosing
officials from dominant ethnic groups to ensure cooperation. In India, the
British effectively manipulated age-old tensions between Hindus, Mus
lims, and Sikhs to keep the Indian component of its army under control,
ruthlessly repressing dissent.
How the European powers maintained control over colonies varied. His
torians have distinguished between “formal” and “informal” imperialism,
although the distinction is mainly one of degree, not kind. Britain, above
all, took the path of informal imperialism by maintaining control through
economic and military domination, without necessarily taking over political
functions, as with indirect rule in India. But a “resident,” or representative
of Britain, retained ultimate authority. In formal imperialism, the European
power assumed “protectorate” status over a territory, administering the
colony directly.
The nature of a colonial “protectorate” changed during the scramble for
Africa. Originally, the establishment of a protectorate meant that a colo
nial power defended its interests by controlling the foreign relations of a
territory, leaving it to each ruler or chieftain to control his people. British
colonial administration, headed by the Colonial Office in London with a
relatively small staff, remained decentralized, like the home government
itself. Colonial governors implemented policies. But gradually the colonial
powers extended their authority over the local population through indige
nous officials. In 1886, Britain assumed full sovereignty over most of its
colonies. Local rulers found earlier agreements broken, and were increas
ingly treated as little more than intermediaries between the imperialists
and their own people. Local systems of justice were left intact wherever
possible—this, too, cost less money—but whites were subject only to the
courts of the colonial power—a privilege called “extraterritoriality.”
The British government wanted colonies to pay for themselves, with char
tered commercial companies—which had launched British rule in Nigeria,
Uganda, and what became Rhodesia—bearing the bulk of expenses in
exchange for the right to extract profit. The British colonial administration
directed railways and private capital toward regions where raw materials
could be extracted or markets found. Imperial policy forced indigenous
populations as well as colonists to produce revenues to pay for railroads,
roads, and administrative officials.
The fate of the Ashanti kingdom in West Africa, which dated to the early
eighteenth century, illustrates how informal control was transformed into
more direct authority. In the early 1860s, British forces skirmished with the
Ashanti people on the northern frontier of the Gold Coast, over which
Britain had established a protectorate. After defeating the Ashanti in 1873—
1874, Britain made the Gold Coast a crown colony, imposing more direct
control. In 1891, the British proposed that the Ashanti kingdom itself
become a protectorate. The king replied “my kingdom of Ashanti will never
commit itself to any such policy; Ashanti must remain independent as of