Colonization of Southeast Asia

England is one of our main colonizers of Southeast Asia. They already had control of
India and Australia but they continued to expand their power and influence into southeast Asia
starting in Singapore and then into Burma and a few other strategic locations. Basically the
British wanted to maintain their trade dominance in Southeast Asia and continue to trade with
China and India. They wanted a land route from India into China which is one of the reasons
why they took control of the nation of Burma.
The next country that we are going to take a look at is the Netherlands which was very
active through the Dutch East India Company in the South Pacific establishing trade routes early
on with Dutch New Guinea and other islands as well. So the Dutch had a very strong presence in
Southeast Asia.
France gets into it as well trying to keep pace with England. Seeing England’s dominance
and expansion into southeast Asia the French took action in the nation of Vietnam but notice it
was the only area where the French were active. They established French Indochina and included
future countries such as Laos and Cambodia in that area.
Germany who was always trying to maintain and keep pace with France and England
took control of the northern portion of the island of New Guinea which is divided between the
Dutch and the British.
Portugal speaking of small colonies also took control of a very small portion here in the
East Indies. Then after its victory in the Spanish-American war, the United States took control of
the Philippine islands. So as you can see by the map southeast Asia is going to be dominated by
European countries as well as the United States.
There's one country that was able to maintain its independence and it is the country of
Siam which is now called Thailand. One of the few countries in Southeast Asia that was able to
fend off European expansionist and colonialization.
So why take these islands? Well, these islands are filled with great natural resources that
are not available in other parts of the world or areas in scarce supply. So in terms of the exports,
we are looking at coffee, palm oil, rubber, timber, spices, sugar, tea, and tin. These are the main
resources from this part of the world that of course are going to be now controlled by the
colonizing country. So these raw materials and resources are going to be exported back to the
mother country or sent to other parts of the world for trade and for sale which means that most of
the work that's being done in places like the Philippines, Burma, Singapore, or any of these other
colonies is mostly going to be agricultural work.
You’re not going to see manufacturing being developed in these colonies, because colonies are
mostly based on agricultural work and it's typically work done by hand. One of the main parts of
imperialism is that the imperialized nation is not going to be able to develop industry and
manufacturing. That's one of the reasons why they were conquered in the first place, they have
raw materials and resources. The mother countries are the ones who had the industry in
manufacturing and many places were not allowed to industrialize. European conquerors wanted
to maintain that superiority and they would not allow their colonies to develop manufacturing
capabilities, so most of the work being done is by the native workers. The conditions on these
plantations were pretty terrible. The wages were also pretty terrible and because they were
foreigners and non-white workers’ wages and conditions were the least of the concerns of the
colonizing country.
In these colonies and throughout Southeast Asia we could see some different forms of
colonial control. Let's look at the first one which is indirect control. It is when a foreign nation
controls a colony through its local leaders and officials with limited self-rule. So this is where I
would go in and take control of an island that already has a central government of some sort of
leader. That person is going to remain in power, is going to maintain their status, and I’m going
to control the colony through those local leaders exerting my force and control through the local
leaders that have already been established in that nation. This is going to make controlling the
colony a little bit easier for Europeans because there's not going to be as much conflict in terms
of if you would have removed the local leadership from its positions. For the most part life kind
of goes on as it normally would. There is going to be a certain reduction in conflict with the
native people by taking an indirect control route. This was used by the Dutch as well as by the
French in northern Vietnam but not in southern Vietnam. So through indirect control, the country
is officially still independent and still has its own government but is most definitely under the
heavy influence of the foreign power.
The opposite of indirect control is direct control which is when a foreign nation controls
a colony directly and assumes all power and authority. In this situation, local leaders are going to
be replaced with foreign governors and administrators. So if there were a king of your island
there would no longer be a king of your islands there would be a British administrator who
would be in charge now of the island. During direct control, conditions tended to be harsher for
the native people. The treatment of the natives tended to be a little bit harsher under this direct
control. You would have foreign troops on the ground, and you would have a desire to maintain
strict control of those people and that would tend to lead to a much harsher treatment. There
would also be a greater impact on the native people and culture. Under indirect control, cultures
and language, and religion tended to be left alone, but under direct control colonies that had that
type of government tended to see a little bit more assimilation in terms of changing language and
religion, and culture. So there's a greater impact on the native people. Direct control was used by
England, France, and Germany in different parts of the world.
Another form of colonial control is a protectorate This is where a country or territory
with its own government but is influenced and controlled by another nation. It is similar to
indirect control. Being a protector means that you keep your sovereignty, you keep your
independence as a nation, but you look to your protector to help you make your decisions and
especially to protect you against foreign nations. So in a protectorate there is a sense of control
and that country becomes dependent upon you which means you're definitely being able to
influence the decisions that they make by maybe threatening to take away that protection from
them.
Now, did people on these islands and people in these nations resist? Absolutely, there's
always going to be a sense of resistance. In some places it's going to be stronger than others.
Where there is indirect control you're going to see less resistance when there is direct control and
the threat is clear and evident you're going to see more resistance. We have talked previously
about how European weapons were able to subdue other places around the world and this is the
case here, so native people and governments are going to resist both before and after colonization
but most of those resistance movements will be futile as European armies possess superior
firepower and were able to put down both colonial armies and peasant revolts which were
common in some countries.
Most of the places in southeast Asia were colonized by European countries as well as by
America. Those resources were taken and exported for the benefit of the colonizing country not
of the colony. There were some different forms of management of those colonies either
indirectly, directly, or as protectorates. Resistance in the colonies was put down pretty easily by
the conquering nations and many of these places remained colonies past World War II.