Motives for empire: not a single cause
19th-century imperial motives overlapped. Economic motives were central: raw materials, captive markets and investment, with ventures like Leopold II's Congo run for private profit. Geopolitical motives included naval bases and the "Scramble for Africa" after the Berlin Conference (1884-85). Religious motives drove missionaries; cultural motives centred on a racist "civilising mission" used to justify removing local self-government. Usually several acted together.
Three ways Europeans ruled Africa
Three European approaches to ruling Africa differed. French assimilation made subjects French citizens under direct rule; in Senegal, Louis Faidherbe (from 1854) expanded control inland. British indirect rule kept local rulers — in Nigeria, Frederick Lugard governed via emirs and chiefs. The Belgian Congo was, until 1908, King Leopold II's private property: agents forced Congolese to extract rubber and ivory under threat of mutilation and killing, until Belgium annexed it.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Asserting "sympathetic" without proof
When comparing two imperialism sources, candidates match surface details but do not explain why a claim can or cannot be believed — labelling a source "sympathetic" or "hostile" without justifying it from content. A strong answer quotes specific words or images and shows how they reveal the author's attitude, rather than asserting a stance and moving on.
A5 source comparison, Paper 2 (per digest)
Purpose is not provenance alone
With speech or rhetoric sources, candidates infer purpose from provenance alone — "it was a speech, so he wanted votes" — instead of tying the specific moment to why it was made then. A speech defending a colonial policy just after a scandal has a different purpose from a routine address. Link the source's content and precise context to the author's motive.
A5 purpose/rhetoric sources, Paper 2 (per digest)
Reading a cartoon too literally
Cartoon misreadings are common: candidates take one striking detail — deaths in a cartoon about imperial conquest — as meaning "disapproval of imperialism", when the intended message may be narrower (criticising a particular ruler's brutality, not empire as a whole). Read all the visual and textual details together for the overall message, not one striking detail.
A5 cartoon-message questions, Paper 2 (per digest)
Answering the wrong hypothesis
On "how far do the sources support X" questions, candidates sometimes answer a related but different hypothesis — for example "was imperialism good for Africa" when the question asked whether a source supports the view that Leopold II acted for personal profit. Test the hypothesis exactly as worded; do not drift onto a broader or easier version.
A5 hypothesis-support questions, Paper 2 (per digest)
Analysing but never concluding
Answers that analyse a source thoroughly sometimes never state an explicit verdict, so the required judgement is missing. Whether the question asks how useful, how reliable or how far a source supports a view, state a direct conclusion — ideally in the first sentence — then support it. Analysis without a verdict loses the marks for judgement.
A5 usefulness verdict, Paper 2 (per digest)
Biased does not mean useless
A biased or one-sided source is not useless. A propaganda piece is valuable evidence of the perspective it represents — a pro-imperial speech shows how empire was justified at the time. Avoid the reflexive "it is biased, therefore useless" conclusion; instead ask what the bias reveals and how the source could still be used, tying evaluation to content.
Paper 2 source skills (per digest)
Myth: all colonial powers ruled alike
A testable wrong belief: the powers did not rule alike. French assimilation (Faidherbe, Senegal) put administrators in charge, to make subjects French citizens. British indirect rule (Lugard, Nigeria) ruled through emirs and chiefs, who kept local authority. Leopold II's Congo before 1908 had no state administration — the king owned it for profit until Belgium annexed it.
Weigh motives in a "how far" essay
For "How far was economic gain the main reason for empire?", argue three stages. Named motive: raw materials, markets, profit (Leopold's Congo). Other motives: rivalry (Berlin 1884-85), bases, missionaries, the "civilising mission". Judgement: weigh for the case, not a list.
How to judge a source's usefulness
On "how useful is this source" questions, give a direct verdict early, then justify it from content with provenance and purpose — not provenance alone. A propagandist source is still useful evidence of the perspective it represents; it is not "useless" for being biased.
Compare sources point by point
Compare two sources point by point, not by summarising each then asserting agreement. Match a claim in one against its counterpart, and explain disagreements more fully than agreements, stating both sides. Cross-reference to test reliability only if that source is reliable.
Structure the final source question
On the final "how far do the sources support the hypothesis" question, ground every point in the sources: supporting sources first, then opposing, showing how each quotation relates to the hypothesis. Do not write a general-knowledge essay, and test the hypothesis as worded.
During the 19th century, European powers (and later the United States) rapidly expanded their overseas empires, especially in Africa and Asia. This process was driven by a mix of economic, military, geopolitical, religious and cultural motives, and its effects on colonised peoples varied hugely depending on how a territory was ruled.
| Motive | What it involved |
|---|
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
