This paper examines European and American imperialism between 1900 and 1918, tracing the economic, political, and social forces that drove colonial expansion. It analyzes how European powers exploited Africa for raw materials and labor while displacing local populations, and how the United States extended economic and military control over Latin America and the Caribbean through bilateral agreements, military occupations, and legislative acts such as the Platt Amendment, the Foraker Act, and the Jones Act. The paper concludes by connecting imperial rivalry to the outbreak of World War I, identifying five structural weaknesses — including unbridled nationalism, historical grievances, and competing alliances — that transformed imperial competition into global conflict.
Empire is the root from which the word imperialism is derived. Imperialism refers to the act of one nation mastering another, with the sole intention of expanding territory, power, and influence. It carries with it the idea of cultural superiority on the part of the colonizer, which judged the lifestyles, cultures, and beliefs of those colonized as inferior and in need of transformation. As defined by reference sources on the subject, imperialism typically positions itself as political control that produces economic dependency.
In Europe, the era of empire coincided with nationalism and unification, when previously fragmented political units were assembled under governments that claimed the right to rule over them. This dynamic was captured in a telling contemporary quotation: "I repeat that the superior races [European] have a right because they have a duty. They have the duty to civilize the inferior races [non-Europeans]." Such attitudes provided the ideological scaffolding for colonial expansion across Africa, Asia, and the Americas.
Journalist Ashley Smith identified five broad theoretical categories used to explain American imperialism: liberal frameworks, Leninist theories, social-democratic theories, theories of super-imperialism, and the Hardt-and-Negri approach. Across these frameworks, colonialism typically follows a pattern of political control that generates economic subservience. European imperialism coincided with growing nationalism and unification — divided political units were brought together under single monarchs who then claimed the right to govern them. The unifications of Germany and Italy are prominent examples. By the close of the nineteenth century, imperialism had become an organized policy of colonial expansion pursued by multiple European powers.
During the years between 1900 and 1918, the growth of industry and commerce in Europe was driven in large part by the colonialist desire to dominate Africa. European powers established trade relationships with African rulers and pressured them into exclusive commercial dealings. Initially, European merchants were not particularly interested in penetrating the African interior. The reliable supply of enslaved people provided by African rulers gave them little incentive to venture further inland. As European industries expanded rapidly, however, European nations began looking to Africa for a supply of cheap labor, mineral ores, and raw materials.
West Africa was especially important to European industrial and commercial development. African palm oil, for instance, was in high demand across European nations as an industrial lubricant. By seizing control of African territories, European powers could guarantee a steady supply of cheap raw materials to sustain their industrial growth. Colonial governments also reorganized agricultural production to align with European demand for raw materials.
European governments encouraged their own citizens to settle permanently in African territories under their control, granting them farmland to cultivate. The expansion of imperial Europe into the African continent consequently displaced large numbers of African farmers, who were forced to work as laborers on these colonially granted estates. For the African population, this meant the loss of land and livelihood. Many were uprooted entirely, breaking apart existing social structures. Those who remained on their land were compelled to grow cash crops — such as tobacco, cotton, sugar, and coffee — that served European commercial interests rather than traditional subsistence crops, making survival increasingly difficult.
Even for these cash crops, African producers were paid minimal sums compared to the prices their goods fetched in European markets. Without governmental support, African production costs remained high, leaving African producers unable to compete against European commercial enterprises. African businesses and collective wealth suffered as a result, and the entire continent was drawn into asymmetric and exploitative economic relationships with European markets.
Industrial unrest was intensifying within Europe, yet European powers continued to seek opportunities abroad to expand their commercial reach. Africa and Asia were seen as viable sources of cheap raw materials for European industries and as destinations for surplus populations. This is why the new imperialism of 1900 to 1918 promised economic prosperity drawn from the resources and labor of colonized regions.
By 1900, exports had become central to American industrial and commercial activity. American exports more than tripled between 1870 and 1900, rising from approximately $400 million to over $1.5 billion. By 1914, American financial interests in Central and Latin America alone amounted to $1.26 billion. By 1910, Americans controlled or owned forty-three percent of Mexican property and extracted and processed more than fifty percent of Mexico's oil.
The U.S. government formed bilateral trade agreements with Colombia, Mexico, El Salvador, the British West Indies, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Spanish-controlled Puerto Rico. As a result, Central and Latin American nations exported increasing quantities of raw materials to the United States. In exchange, the U.S. opened a consumer market in Central and Latin America for American manufactured goods. These trade arrangements allowed American businesses to dominate Central and Latin American economies. While local countries could export raw materials, the development of their own manufacturing sectors was effectively stunted by competition from U.S. exports.
Through these agreements, a form of economic colonialism emerged and gradually became an accepted feature of American foreign policy. The objectives driving this expansion were economic, social, and political. Economically, the United States required new markets to sell its products and sustain its growth. Socially, American policymakers believed they were obligated to raise living standards in nations they considered underdeveloped. Politically, the United States sought to move beyond a decade of internal divisions marked by economic depression, labor unrest, and strikes, and to enter an era of national unity through the broadening of political and economic power abroad.
In 1901, American troops withdrew from Cuba after ensuring the adoption of a constitution favorable to U.S. interests — a process that took three years. Withdrawal was made conditional on Cuba's acceptance of the Platt Amendment, which imposed several requirements on the Cuban government before U.S. forces would leave and Cuban sovereignty would be restored. Cuba was required to provide land for American military bases, sign no treaty with any foreign country that could prove unfavorable to the United States, acknowledge the right of the U.S. to intervene to protect its interests in Cuba, and grant the United States permanent occupation of Guantanamo Bay.
"U.S. occupies Haiti, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico"
"Five structural weaknesses push Europe toward war"
"Competing alliances divide Europe into armed blocs"
A European and American press more interested in newspaper sales than in neutral reporting of the problems generated by imperialism and the alliance systems contributed to the already fragile situation in Europe in 1914. Sensationalist journalism inflamed public opinion and deepened hostilities among nations that were already primed for conflict. The intemperate press of Europe thus fed the final structural shortcoming identified by Remak: unbridled nationalism. Together, imperial rivalry, historical grievances, interlocking alliances, and an irresponsible press created the conditions under which a localized crisis could — and did — escalate into a catastrophic global war.
You’re 51% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.