To say that the British were reluctant imperialists would be a misconception and by reluctant we mean were the ‘British’ hesitant in their pursuit of Africa from 1870-1902. However it’s unfair to infer that the British as a whole were imperialists; when we could merely suggest that there were some key figures that played a larger part in the ‘Scramble for Africa’ as well as some key events that influenced the British to get involved. Moreover, it’s important to consider that the period from 1870-1902 spans more than 3 decades which would imply that the British people and those with power to influence may not have been whole-hearted imperialists throughout these 32 years. Nevertheless, whilst it’s also possible that the British weren’t as active in the years predating 1870; the Boer War presents a horrific illustration that even after the war, there were more passionate imperials than reluctant individuals. Hence why I am going to argue that the British definitely were reluctant imperialists; however only sought to defend their territories when they felt threatened and in doing so, they increased their Empire in the process.
Firstly, it’s clear to state that every British citizen had the same imperialist ideas as Cecil Rhodes, a man who’s dubbed as the “most famous man on the spot”. However, it wasn’t only Rhodes as it’s possible the find that there were other ‘men on the spot’ that shared similar views and worried about the future of Britain and that of its Empire. Thus affirming that it appears that even the British government had no control over these individuals as several historians have claimed that “these men had grand schemes of their own…they gained the support of the government to complete the process”. Additionally, had it not been for the men on the spot; I believe that the British government would have remained reluctant as Incognitowl says that “the idea of ‘reluctant imperialism’ is also reinforced by the ‘man-on-the-spot’ tactics used by the British government in their colonial territories. Often, it was the men in charge of the settler states that had to make immediate decisions, which in many cases involved pursuing territorial acquisitions, frequently contrary to orders from the central British government.”
Nonetheless, the people in Africa during 1870-1902 didn’t not frequently display the same ‘reluctant’ and often acted separately. The military actions of British leading figures such as Lord Kitchener were praised and the British media felt that the expansion of the Empire was a mission and encouraged their fellow Britons to be unreserved in the drive to surmount and govern the colonies. Therefore linking into the zealous imperialistic views of Cecil Rhodes and proclaimed in the ‘bid ide’ for the British Empire expansion that “we are the first race of the world and the more of the world that we inhabit the better it is for the world.” Nevertheless this doesn’t mean that the British were better are governing ‘superiorly’ but rather they were just skilful at governing. Someone that could be described being similar to Cecil Rhodes would be Alfred Milner. Milner was appointed a as ‘peacemaker to South Africa’ in 1897 following the Jameson Raid; however due his passionate imperialistic personality, he would soon play a leading role in the events that led up to the Boer War of 1899-1902. Hence acknowledging that although Rhodes and Milner weren’t the only ‘men on the spot’ what sets them apart from others is that they possessed the ability to show sincere eagerness for the imperialistic actions. Whilst people like Disraeli and Gladstone were renowned individuals they were slightly more reluctant. In 1875, two time Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli acquired the Khedive of Egypt’s 41% holding in the Suez Canal Company demonstrating a firm British commitment towards defending the shortest trade route to India and also giving Disraeli, his greatest service to the Empire as he forestalled French intervention thus giving Britain more significant influence over the future of Egypt. The achievement of the Suez Canal was extremely vital because of the amount of trade between Britain and India. Additionally, by passing through the canal was more efficient rather than going around British controlled South Africa. Moreover, the following year Disraeli urged Queen Victoria to assume the title of ‘Empress of India’ not only notifying the Russians of Britain’s intentions in India but contradicts the given statement. This indicates that the British government were more than reluctant imperialists as the attainment of the Suez Canal stimulated them to seize more land in order to prevent other European countries intervention. Whereas Gladstone’s achievements imply that he was pressurised by the wealth leading him to have more intervention in the building of the Empire than Disraeli ever did yet he was a reluctant in public. Still it could be argued that due to his reluctance being public, it could be what led to his resignation in 1885 as he possibly might have his personal reluctance for imperialism show thus indicating that his enthusiasm as an imperialism was flawed from the start.
Lastly we need to look at the variety of British interests because not every attired the same concepts. However the ‘mineral revolution’ of 1867 ignited once the interests British governments’ as they were quick to annex the diamond fields and rejecting the claims of the Voortrekker republics of the area. This point gathers during certain of the 1870-1902 period, the British government were more reluctant however their attraction to the prospect of mineral wealth and this ‘mineral revolution’ in Cape Colony and the Boer republics led to other European powers to take “greater interest in southern Africa for the first time” thus indicating leading the British to be imperialists once more and giving Rhodes his fortune from diamond mining. Another crucial aspect of determining whether the ‘British’ truly were reluctant imperialists would be the Berlin conference in 1884 where European powers met up to decide all questions relating to the Congo River and the nations should alert each other when they have assumed control of a region. Yet in the 1890s Cecil Rhodes went on to “ruthlessly expand the British rule” as he captured modern Zambia and Zimbabwe are renaming them Northern and Sothern Rhodesia and in by doing so, and what he accomplished next he truly did gain the title of the “most famous man on the spot” as he purely couldn’t have accomplished all of his conquests by himself. More so the work of Emily Hobhouse ion the Second Boer War unveiled the true disgusts of the war suffered by the Boers and it basically questioned how the press could promote a belief that was causing so much dismay to innocents. Consequently, after all these findings the press turned against their previous advertisings and to prove how imperialistic people were; it was only the ‘hard-core’ imperialists such Cecil Rhodes that remained committed to expanding the empire. Therefore to conclude, I’d say that they were more effective in the final years as they felt that their obligation was to preserve and expand the Empire. Though I also do feel like there was a still division of views between the British government and there were some people with extreme views and some with rational.