France and Great Britain: two empires, two visions
A simple look at colonization and decolonization major dates is enough for anybody to draw parallels between the different colonial empires. It is a secret to nobody that the race for colonies has been a significant aspect of the rivalry between European nations for centuries. There have been different waves of colonization; from the first attempts in the Americas in the 16th century to the 18th century new competition in Africa and Asia, where young European nations such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany took part along with the old colonial countries.
Interestingly enough, not only colonization has known international trends. There have been waves of decolonization as well. At the time when Europa experienced a series of significant political and social shifts, two colonial forces lost a major colony — the United States of America declared their independence in the late 18th, Haiti in the early 19th century. The independence of America followed a revolution led by citizens, among whom many cultivated men, while the Haitian revolution actually was a slaves rebellion.
This was followed by the bolivarian revolutions in South America — and by the end of the Spanish Empire and to some extend the end of the Portuguese Empire. The next important movement came in the early 20th century in the context of the Russian revolution. The following major momentum of the decolonization came after WW II and set an end to the last European empires — though the European dominion and influence cannot be said to be over.
The destinies of these empires are worth consideration, since they the rules of international relations nowadays deeply depend on the bound between former colonial powers and newly independent countries.
France and Britain are especially interesting on that matter, both because their colonial history has been so long and because they still are part of the most important and influential powers in the world. Comparing the course of their respective decolonizations explains a lot about their sight on their former dominions.
I already mentioned that they both lost their first colony at about the same time — and I alluded to a major difference between these two independence movements, that is who led those revolutions: People forced into a way of living on one part, and people who had learned to be an economical force on the other.
If we now consider the French and British policy at the beginning of the 20th century, we can roughly say that the latter considered the world as a political and commercial game in which they tried to interfere as much as they could in order to gain as much as possible[1], while the former, though interested in profit as well, felt some sort of responsibility towards the people they dominated. France tried to force the European culture into its colonies, “for their own good.” And because of this goodwill, the colonized ought to feel grateful.
This explanation has been used to make exploitation of foreign countries tolerable ever since the beginning of colonization, but only France has used it with such consistency throughout the centuries. The relationship between France and its colonies was thus personal. The desire of independence of its colonies was considered a personal offence. The Algerian War is the best example of this. France could not tolerate an independent Algeria because Algeria actually was seen as a part of the country. The scission was painful.
England, on the other hand, considered its colonies as tool that had to be educated in order to become efficient. The idea of dependence and gratefulness was less pregnant in this policy. It made the scission more agreeable. When came the wind of change, England was more eager to maintain economical relationships with as to preserve its stranglehold on its colonies.
Notably, France was directly involved in more wars of independency than Britain — though the British decolonization has not been made without bloodshed.
Nowadays, we can still observe this difference. France never stopped trying to prove its dominance in the West-African politics while Great Britain has preferred making countries such as India or Canada commercial partners. Politics derive from history.
Sources :
Henri Brunschwig, Le Monde à l’heure de la décolonisation. Politique française et anglaise. http://www.persee.fr/doc/ahess_0395-2649_1957_num_12_3_2651 [French]
[1] I could not find the original quote, but Prime Minister Shelburn seems to have said “We prefer commerce to domination” (quoted in Brunschwigs’ article). This sums it up.
