Empire as transformative agents: French and British colonial empires
First ignored and classified by French and British historiography as non important colony were brought back to front talk s with the rise of “empire bringer of development and modernity”, but that image is scratched by the violent issue of discrimination, exploitation and slavery in colonies.
The French empire is used by the author to illustrate the ambiguities of citizenship at the imperial level, and the British Empire to illustrate the ambiguity of the relationship of imperialism and capitalism.
For the French the focus of contestation was how to reconcile the dimension of inclusion and differentiation in the space of an empire state. Although some thought the ambiguity resolved by the distinction 8subject/citizen), the situation was always more complicated and unstable. Such as the Algerian case supposed to be a part of France doomed to be a failure from the start. The criterions (selection) to become a citizen were constraining and few could fit it, so people were kind of forced to remain subjects. Subject being involuntary incorporated member and citizen a participating member of polity.
Claims have been made on the principle of citizenship especially when France needed help and collaboration form the “local” to produce more resources and defend the empire. At first promises (education, economic, liberty,...) were not kept but to the WWII needs and context of anticolonnisation France opted for more inclusion over differentiation in a trial to keep France indivisible. Thus giving birth to the French union. However French power soon realized that imperial citizenship was not affordable due to the burden and the costs off it.
For British Empire, here the relationship between empire and capitalism is going to be studied as it embodies good and bad aspects. Slave plantations and The “Atlantic System” can be considered as basis for European capitalism system as it involved logistics,