What accurately describes a difference between European imperialism after the industrial revolution and the earlier forms of imperialism?

Answer 1

In both forms, powerful countries dominated weaker ones for economic gains.

Answer 2

european Imperialism after the industrial revolution was more widespread than earlier forms of Imperialism

Answer 3

European Imperialism before the mid-19th century was all about establishing trade monopolies. Apart from the Spanish colonial empire in South America established in the 16th century, European countries were not interested in actually conquering and ruling big stretches of far-away wilderness. Even in North America. the establishment of most colonies was more a bottom-up affair with groups of citizens searching for freedom from absolutist rule than a result of 'imperialist' policies of the British government. And Australia was not a source of any revenue, but only annexed by the British because of it emptiness, making it a useful dumping ground for its many homeless and 'criminal' citizens. But in general, occupying whole countries to establish trade monopolies was seen as totally unnecessary: the same thing could be easily achieved by cutting deals with local rulers and establishing only a well-armed trading post here and there to keep them on the straight and narrow and fend off European competitors.

European imperialist expansion after the Industrial Revolution happened almost completely between 1880 and 1900. It started strangely enough as a drive to abolish slavery in Africa. After outlawing the slave trade in the early 19th century, Great Britain had been very actively fighting it wherever it found it. In Africa, slavery was ubiquitous and many African countries had slave populations (held by other Africans) that amounted to up to 30 to 40% of all inhabitants. The transatlantic slave trade hade been more or less - despite its large numbers - a (minor) export branch of a much larger internal slave trade.

The general argument of the English and the French for colonizing Africa in the late 19th century was that only though actual and complete control of it, could slavery be abolished there. And they did have to argue in their Parliaments and Government meetings, because the general opinion was that occupying and actually ruling those countries would only cost a fortune in expenditure and manpower - which often proved to be the case. Only Belgium can be said to really have 'exploited' its African colony of the Congo, shedding a lot of native blood in the process.

But once colonization started, the natural competitiveness between England and France started to kick in. Britain focused on East Africa because it saw the added bonus of thereby controlling its trade route to the only possession it really valued, India. The French saw it as a requirement for the 'gloire' of France to match Britain's growing influence every step of the way. The result was a competition that led to a French-dominated West Africa and a British-dominated East Africa, Of course in time Britain also came to see the enormous rise in prestige as a result of its colonial Empire. Controlling trade and strategic resources remained a major consideration; but here only the form of control changed, not the consideration itself.

Answer 4

It was less concerned with conquering and governing territories.