The White Man’s Burden and generational change: the evolution of imperialism. Part 3

In the previous two commentaries of this series we have looked at the ideas and rationale of particular individuals that would justify the denying of sovereignty to vast amounts of people during the heyday of modern colonialism. Namely, we have treated individual examples of social consciousness during the 19th and early 20th century. We have also drawn parallels to the current ideological basis for unequal treatment of different sovereign nations - at the time when the sovereignty of all peoples has become the social norm. This third part will be dedicated to demonstrating that it is the general social consciousness that lays underneath all of such social and ideological phenomena. In other words, what we have discussed so far is by no means restricted to the random intellectuals and scientists of a bygone era. Even less a handful of individuals could have dictated policies without at least a tacit acceptance by the general public.

To those so-called “normies” of our times who assume that they would have held their current beliefs had they lived during the Victorian period or during the interwar years, science brings bad news. All those racial theories that had been expounded during the 19th century, for instance, had their basis in the realities of economic development and the corresponding social relations of the times. These mental creations do not just emerge randomly in one’s head. But as the material realities change, so does the social consciousness. That is why the pro-colonial consensus of the past has died out. And that is why from our current perspective those pro-colonial justifications appear absolutely ridiculous. Not because we are collectively smarter or more humane today. Rather, it is simply because we are surrounded by and live within different social realities.

So what evidence could one find regarding the complete normalisation of colonialism among the generations of the past, for instance in between the two World Wars? Well, according to Matthew G. Stanard, “Reginald Brabazon, a man whose speeches 'comprised the purest propaganda' in favor of empire, had founded a movement in 1904 to celebrate the British Empire each year on 24 May. In 1905, as many as 6,000 schools participated, a number that grew to 12,544 by 1907 (of 20,541 schools in England and Wales) and 80,000 by 1922.” Or how about the fact “that English, Scottish, Welsh, Flemish, Walloon, Italian, German, and French children (at least) grew up in the interwar period celebrating imperialism on one special holiday each year, indicating a shared mobilization in support of the imperial project”? It would not be too difficult to imagine how politically and socially unbearable the social outcry and mobilisations against such celebrations would be today.

“Les Journées Coloniales, a group founded in 1920, organized these annual commemorations of the colonial project in Belgium, which were called 'koloniale dagen', 'journées coloniales', or both, depending on the region in which the event took place. France held 'Semaines coloniales' and by the 1930s had set a day aside for discussion of the empire in schools, called the Journée scolaire de la France d'outre mer. Just as Britain, France, and Belgium began a tradition of honoring empire on one day every year, so did Italians and Germans. Fascist authorities in Italy set aside a specific day to promote their African colonies, the 'Giornata Coloniale'. [...] For instance, it is important to keep in mind that it was fascist authorities orchestrating pro-empire ceremonies in Italy, whereas such events took place in democratic, parliamentary regimes in Belgium, Britain, and France.”

Moreover, would our modern societies of today find it acceptable to have an official institution called the ministry of colonies? And yet, those were the times when “the Belgian Ministry of Colonies sent instructors to schools to show colonial movies and give lectures, invited schools to participate in colonial expositions and smaller exhibits, and organized school outings to the Musée Royal de l'Afrique Centrale.” And it would be erroneous, of course, to isolate one or a few of the colonial countries over such a consensual expression of pro-colonial propaganda. As Stanard explains, “common 'colonial' themes and practices existed across national boundaries”. Furthermore:

“Although widely prevalent, so-called 'colonial days' paled in comparison with the marvelousness and scale of expositions of empire. Most studied are the 1924-5 Wembley empire exposition in Britain and the 1931 Exposition internationale coloniale in Vincennes. In addition to these two well-known events, there were a host of other universal or national colonial expositions between the two world wars. Marseille hosted the 1922 Exposition nationale coloniale, and in 1928 Turin held the Esposizione di Torino, which had a large colonial section. Colonialism was one of the 1930 Antwerp World's Fair's major themes, as its name indicated - Wereldtentoonstelling voor Kolonien, Zeevaart en Oud-Vlaamsche Kunst - and the Belgian government made the Congo a major part of the World's Fair again in 1935, in Brussels. In 1934 Portugal hosted its very first Exposição Colonial Portuguesa, and four years later Britain held another grand Empire Exhibition, this time in Glasgow.”

Without a doubt, cherishing and promoting colonialism in front of the audiences of today would by itself be absolutely scandalous. However, what would be the reaction by our contemporary societies towards the exhibition on public display of live colonial subjects themselves? And yet, this was still socially acceptable a mere century ago:

“British authorities recreated 'native villages', such as at the 1924-5 Wembley exposition, where 160-175 Chinese worked within the Hong Kong section. An official guide listed the other 'Races in Residence', including 20 Malays, 30 Burmese, 60 West Africans, and 3 Palestinians. That these colonial subjects were housed in the exhibits themselves is made clear in one guide-book, which stated, 'In addition there are Indians, Singhalese, West Indians, and natives of British Guiana, who live outside the Exhibition, but attend their respective Pavilions daily.' [...] Also well known is the Third Republic's propensity for displays of humans from the colonies, such as the 1922 Marseille show that included African villages of thatched huts. Most famous, however, was the 1931 Exposition coloniale internationale in Vincennes, which featured a re-created Angkor Wat temple, dozens of colonial pavilions, and Africans and Asians on display for the eight million individual visitors (33.5 million tickets sold in total). [...] Although it is unclear whether Italians put Africans on display in this 1940 'village', there are good reasons to suspect they did considering that they had on previous occasions, such as for the 'Eritrean village' at the 1911 International Exhibition in Turin and at the 1928 Esposizione di Torino. In the latter year organizers housed Africans within fenced-in indigenous 'villages' such as the 'Somali village' and displayed them within roped-off areas for observers. [...] Although there was no Congo 'village' at the 1930 Wereldtentoon-stelling voor Kolonien, Zeevaart en Oud-Vlaamsche Kunst, a French company did create a 'negerdorp' or 'village africain' that housed a number of Africans in huts, to be observed from behind fences. The Belgian Congo pavilion at the 1935 Exposition universelle included 'artisans nègres', who were put to work in some of its galleries.”

The very last such “human zoo” took place in Belgium in 1958. To be sure, social consciousness among the Europeans had shifted considerably by this year in comparison to the generations of the 19th century. But it still had not made the journey all the way to 2026. In the same manner, the general social ideology of the World War I generations had progressed significantly from their predecessors in order to no longer find slavery acceptable. But the material social world around 1918, for instance, was different from the 1950s and 1960s. Hence, while such words would have already been less comprehensible a decade or so after the World War II, nevermind today, the Treaty of Versailles had the following provisions:

“To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. [...] Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic, and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.”

Again, it is difficult not to make a comparison between these prescriptions of colonialism for the sake of “well-being and development of such peoples” on the one hand, and our contemporary military interventions in the name of “democracy” or “human rights” on the other. As for the former, the progressive evolution of social consciousness has rendered obsolete the once dominant consensus that denying sovereignty to the supposedly inferior peoples is acceptable. As for the latter, we still find ourselves within the process of a constantly diminishing support regarding the unilateral imposition by the stronger countries of their interests upon the weaker, yet by now equally sovereign nations.

Sources:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40543072?read-now=1&seq=9#page_scan_tab_contents
https://expohumanzoo.africamuseum.be/en/exhibition/end_humanzoos
https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth10_doc_1919.pdf

Image by magnific.com

The Progressive Optimist

Educational project dedicated to the understanding of historical progressive social change

© 2025. All rights reserved.