1.1 Introduction

The word 'colony' has its etymological roots in Greek and Latin. The literal meaning of the word 'colonia' in these languages is 'settlement'. One of the most important characteristics of colonialism is settlement: the migration of people from a metropolitan state to a satellite region, a 'new world'. Colonialism is not an easy concept to define, as it manifests itself in many different ways and degrees. Many writers on colonialism distinguish between 'settlement 'and so-called 'exploitation'1 colonies. The main difference between these types of colonies is that settlers in settlement colonies tend to settle down permanently. They cultivate the land and take possession of it.2 In exploitation colonies, the interests of the colonisers tend to be economic, political and strategic: metropolitan settlers manage and supervise the exploitation of resources or safeguard the geo-political interests of the metropolitan state, but they seldom stay on after the conclusion of their mission. The following section will briefly discuss the most important characteristics of both types of colonialism.

1.2 Settlement Colonies3

Typical examples of settlement colonialism can be found in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. In these colonies the metropolitan settlers gradually ceased to identify with their metropolitan state and assumed an identity of their own, distinct from both the state they had left and the 'new world' as they found it upon their arrival. The colonial liberation struggles following this process were struggles of whites against whites. The original inhabitants of these territories played no (significant) role in this 'decolonisation' process. Long after the white settlers had gained independence from their states of origin, they continued their own imperial mission: to conquer the original inhabitants of the region and take possession of their land. In many cases, the earlier inhabitants were systematically attacked and killed during these pioneering missions.

Most settler colonies were not founded by political leaders but by private individuals: religious dissidents, missionaries, commercial adventurers and jailers looking for prison sites.4 Only after these private individuals had established a certain degree of control over the overseas territories, did the governments, of which the pioneers were nationals, get involved in the colonisation process. For this reason it is often said that the settler colonies were founded in 'a fit of absentmindedness'5. This absentmindedness clearly refers to the state and not to the settlers themselves, who were determined to establish a 'new world'.

Colonial rule in the settlement colonies was mainly established by settlement. Metropolitan settlers arrived in great numbers and gradually gained control over the territory by concluding treaties with the original inhabitants or simply by cultivating barren, sparsely populated areas. In most settlement colonies, the metropolitan settlers became the new majority, the new local population, such as in the case of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. In other cases they remained a small but influential minority, for example in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia.

In most settler colonies, the central administration of these new states was exclusively in the hands of the settlers; the original inhabitants were resettled in or confined to reserves, little islands of 'nativeness' in a sea of metropolitan settlers. The settler regimes determined the size and the locations of these reserves, or 'bantustans' in the case of South Africa. These reserves were generally infertile, isolated areas, without mineral resources and in most cases unsuited to the traditional modes of subsistence of the original inhabitants. Within the confines of these reserves the original populations enjoyed partial or full local autonomy, while outside these reserves they could not represent themselves politically.

The economic systems, infrastructure and development projects of the settlers exclusively served their own needs. In many cases land inhabited or used by original inhabitants was taken6 for the purpose of building roads, railroads, dams, power stations, etc. These development projects did not only fail to benefit the original population but also often reduced them to poverty and structural dependence. As the wilderness was brought under control and cultivated by the settlers, the earlier inhabitants largely lost their own independent means of subsistence. They were forced to compete with the settlers on terms introduced and imposed by the latter. As many of the 'natives' were unable or unwilling to do so, they were pushed into the margin of society.
In most settlement colonies the maintenance of colonial rule involved very little effort. The fire arms of the settlers proved far superior to the arrows of the original inhabitants; after some initial fighting, heavy military presence was unnecessary. As many potential dissidents and protesters were killed in a very early stage, there was no large-scale organized protest to counter the settler regimes.7

In most settlement colonies the colonisation process has resulted in the complete take-over of the 'new world' by the settlers. In the Americas, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the indigenous populations have been reduced to a handful of small, 'exotic' minorities. Many of the original inhabitants were killed by white pioneers, while most of the remaining members were gradually assimilated into the new societies.

1.3 Exploitation Colonies

Exploitation colonies also involve settlement by metropolitan migrants, but the nature and the patterns of settlement in exploitation colonies differ from those in settlement colonies.

Many exploitation colonies were established by private companies, such as the Dutch East India Company in Indonesia, the British East India Company in India and the Belgian mining companies in Congo. In these colonies, the initial settlers were traders, who travelled back and forth between their home countries and the colonies. They rarely settled down permanently. In most cases the national governments of these entrepreneurs did not get involved in the colonisation process until a substantial metropolitan presence had been established. Before the rise of nationalism in Europe, these governments were generally not interested in exercising national control over these overseas trading posts. In many of those exploitation colonies, territorial possession continued to remain of secondary importance to economic and strategic interests.

A clear example in this respect is India, large parts of which never fell directly under British control. British rule over India, even after it became a 'crown colony', was not really an end in itself but mainly served to safeguard vested economic, geo-political and or strategic interests.8 Similarly, large parts of the Netherlands East Indies (referred to hereafter as 'Indonesia') were never effectively ruled by the Dutch colonial regime.

The Dutch were mainly interested in Indonesia for its resources and for the fact that possession of Indonesia enabled the Netherlands to upgrade its status as a small country. The number of Dutch who immigrated to Indonesia was relatively small and very few of them settled permanently.

Some exploitation colonies were established by military conquest and subsequent treaties. Most of these colonies were established during late 19th century European imperialism.9 Examples include Somalia, Uganda, Morocco, and Tunisia. In these colonies the first colonial 'pioneers' were soldiers, who paved the way for colonial officials and civil servants.

Unlike their counterparts in settlement colonies, most colonial regimes in exploitation colonies established local representative bodies at some point.10 The powers of these representative bodies varied widely. In most colonies these bodies served as an outlet for the political ambitions of the original population without granting this population any substantial decision making power. A clear example in this respect is the 'Conseil du Gouverneur General' and the 'Conseil de Province' in Congo. After seemingly revolutionary reforms in the mid 1950s, a handful of Africans, who were carefully selected by the Belgian authorities11, were granted representation in these councils which were mere consultative bodies. Real, effective power rested with the Belgian colonial authorities until the eve of independence.

During the second half of the 19th century, many colonial powers in 'exploitation' colonies started to justify their colonial rule in terms of economic development. In many cases, these colonial powers depicted themselves as benefactors who brought welfare and economic development to their poor colonial subjects. In Indonesia this policy was termed the 'ethical policy' as opposed to the earlier 'cultivation system' which was based purely on the mercantile exploitation of natural and human resources. The cultural counterpart of economic development was the so-called 'civilising mission': the idea the 'natives' needed to be 'civilised'. In many cases this 'civilisation' involved the conversion to Christianity.

Unlike the immigrants in most settlement colonies, the majority of settlers in exploitation colonies continued to regard themselves as outsiders, as citizens of the metropolitan state to which they would return after their term of duty was over.

Unlike most settlement colonies, the overwhelming majority of non-settlement colonies has been decolonised by now.

1.4 Hybrid Colonies

It is not always possible or necessary to distinguish between settlement and exploitation colonies, as some colonies manifested both elements or gradually changed from exploitation colonies into settlement colonies. A clear example of such a 'hybrid' is Algeria. French colonial rule was established in 1830 when the first French troops landed on the Algerian coast. This rule was subsequently consolidated by settlement. At some point Algeria was home to one million 'colons'12 (i.e. French colonial settlers). The majority of these settlers had no intention of returning to metropolitan France and considered Algeria to be their home. At the same time, France claimed that Algeria was not a colony, but a 'province outre-mer'. Algeria even came under the Ministry of the Interior. Pleven, the French Commissioner for the Colonies, stated:

In [Algeria] there are no peoples to liberate, no racial discrimination to abolish...
The overseas populations do not want any kind of independence other than the independence of [rather than from] France.'

Algeria was of great strategic significance to France as it was the gateway to Africa, a bulwark against the alleged pan-Arabic ambitions of the Egyptian president Nasser. Moreover, after the discovery of large oil deposits in the Sahara desert, France became even more insistent in its efforts to incorporate Algeria into metropolitan France. The French 'colons' in Algeria, on the other hand, gradually ceased to identify with the Paris government and attempted to steer an independent political course.

Similarly, Southern Rhodesia gradually changed from an exploitation colony into a settlement colony. Like their counterparts in South Africa, the white settlers started to consider Southern Rhodesia to be their home, rather than a temporary staging post in a foreign continent. Had Ian Smith's attempt to declare independence from the UK not been strongly condemned and blocked by the international community, Southern Rhodesia may well have remained a settlement colony.

The present-day French colonies in the Pacific show elements of both types of colonialism. French economic interest in New Caledonia is considerable. Caledonia's rich mineral deposits of chromium, nickel and cobalt have turned these Pacific Islands into important economic assets. In the case of Polynesia the French authorities are mainly interested in using the territory for nuclear testing.13 In addition, both colonies house a significant number of permanent French settlers and 'demis'14, who regard the French Pacific islands, rather than metropolitan France, as their home. Unlike the white settlers in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, these French settlers in Polynesia and New Caledonia have not actively campaigned for independence from their metropolitan state15, although many of them do not identify with Paris as their primary capital.

For the sake of clarity, this report will use the schematic three-part division into settlement, exploitation and mixed colonies. This approach may oversimplify an infinitely complex phenomenon, but for the sake of this report it is a useful organizing device.

[ Homepage ] [ Present Situation in Tibet ] [Tibet Mission Report ]



This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.
Last updated: 3-Oct-97