Crash Course (World History) Thought Bubble #35: Imperialism

Let's go to the Thought Bubble.

In most cases,
Europeans ruled their colonies

with the help of, and
sometimes completely through

intermediaries and
collaborators.

For example, in the 1890s,
in India,

there were fewer than
1000 British administrators

supposedly ruling over
300 million Indians.

The vast majority of British troops

at any given time in India,
more than 2/3,

were, in fact, Indians under
the command of British officers.

Because of their small numbers
relative to the local populations

most European colonizers
resorted to indirect rule,

relying on the governments
that were already there

but exerting control over
their leaders.

Frederick Lugard, who was
Britain's head honcho in

Nigeria for a time,
called this

"rule through and by
the natives."

This worked particularly
well with British administrators

who were primarily middle-class
men but had aristocratic pretensions,

and were often pleased to
associate with the

highest echelons in Indian
or African society.

Now this isn't to say that
indigenous rulers were

simply puppets. Often
they retained real power.

This was certainly true in India,

where more than a third of the
territory was ruled by

Indian princes.

The French procterates of
Morocco and Tunisia

were ruled by Arab monarchs
and the French also ruled

through native kings in Laos,
Cambodia, and Vietnam.

For the most part,
Europeans could almost always

rely on their superior
military technology

to coerce local rulers into
doing what the Europeans wanted.

And they could replace
native officials with Europeans

if they had to.
But in general, they preferred

to rule indirectly.

It was easier, and cheaper.
Also less annoying.

Thanks Thought Bubble.