In this long period from the late fifteenth up to the eighteenth century, the world was faced with the first truly worldwide development of European expansion; that is, countries like Portugal, Spain, Britain, and afterward, Holland, established global topographies of trade, subsequently trying to enlarge their influence over the globe. This early modern globalization had radical, far-reaching ramifications and influence over diverse empires and kingdoms, from the Kongo Kingdom in West Central Africa to the Chinese Empire in East Asia. Two stand out: the oldest written, in 1526, from King Afonso of Kongo to King João III of Portugal, and one from 1793, by the Chinese Emperor Qianlong to Britain’s King George III. They cast rare light on how such non-European powers have reacted to the threats and opportunities of European trade and cultural influence. Both the Kongo Kingdom and the Chinese Empire were critical of the European business approach; however, their response carried a different connotation—how it was different and strategic at the same time, with the outcome brought by differences in power and autonomy.
Historical Context
Before the arrival of traders from the Europeans in this region, there were polities with complex systems in their political, economic, and social set-ups of the Kongo Kingdom and the Chinese Empire. In the 14th century, the Kongo Kingdom emerged, which was based on the centralization of the state’s authority in obtaining wealth from agriculture, fishing, and trade with other African kingdoms. In the first half of the Empire, right through the silk snaking all over Africa to Asia and back, Europe was entirely articulated in having its Ming and later Qing polities and absolutely teeming with a well-bred bureaucracy, commercial centers, and cultural snobbery. These conditions shaped their initial interactions with European powers, as both the Kongo Kingdom and the Chinese Empire sought to maintain their autonomy while engaging in profitable trade.
The Kongo Kingdom’s Response to European Globalization
In his letters from Alfonso to the King of Portugal, João III, the King of Kongo, expressly expressed his concern about the bad side on which Portuguese trade, most especially the slave trade, marred his kingdom. Afonso complains that “the excessive freedom” Portuguese traders find in spreading their goods throughout his kingdom “conditions me to give up my authority. and many other offenses against the social order” (Afonso, “July 6, 1526”). He is particularly troubled by the kidnapping and enslavement of his subjects, including nobles and even his relatives, by Kongolese collaborators and Portuguese traders (Afonso, “July 6, 1526”). In response, Afonso attempted to negotiate the terms of engagement with Portugal, requesting that João III send priests and teachers to spread Christianity and knowledge while also prohibiting the slave trade (Afonso, “July 6, 1526”). Afonso’s strategy reflects his desire to selectively embrace certain aspects of European influence, such as religion and education while resisting the most destructive consequences of trade. However, his efforts to assert control over the terms of exchange ultimately proved insufficient to protect the Kongo Kingdom’s stability and autonomy in the face of expanding European influence.
The Chinese Empire’s Response to European Globalization
In contrast to King Afonso’s entreaties, Emperor Qianlong’s letter to King George III of Britain is characterized by a tone of confidence and dismissal. Qianlong firmly rejects British requests for expanded trade privileges and diplomatic representation in China, arguing that the Chinese Empire is self-sufficient and has no need for British manufactures (Qianlong). He presents the existing trade arrangements, which confined European merchants to the port of Canton, as a generous concession to satisfy European demand for Chinese goods (Qianlong). Qianlong also expressed concern about the potential for “friction” between Chinese subjects and “barbarian” Europeans if the British were granted greater access to Chinese territory (Qianlong). For example, Qianlong vociferously opposed the idea of allowing Christian missionaries to work in China at the Chinese court, stating the reasons that it was irrational and it is unreasonable since it would interfere with the culture and practices of the Chinese people (Qianlong 1). Qianlong’s response is indicative of China’s strong position when he dictated various terms of engagement with European powers. The Chinese Empire reduced trade and cultural contact in a bid for the construction of the preservation of sovereignty and the regulation of international intercourse.
Comparative Analysis
Responses from the Kongo Kingdom and the Chinese Empire back to European globalization reflect complex power relations and cultural diversities that early modernized situations between European and non-European states. According to King Afonso’s letters, the Kongo Kingdom seems very fragile, having a small chance of defending itself from the awful disruptions waiting from Portuguese trade, mainly trade with enslaved people. Despite his best efforts to bargain and carefully choose European practices that could be adopted, the Kongo Kingdom soon no longer managed to have the ability to protect her interests and exist autonomously in the wake of the Empirical European expansion. On the other hand, the letter by Emperor Qianlong manifested the strength and ability that China could afford to dictate the terms of trade and cultural interaction with the European powers. While an empire of that vastness that was China represented economic self-sufficiency and inspiration of strong cultural superiority, taken together, these characteristics gave much more imitative power to European influence over their dominion than what was present in the Kongo Kingdom. In contrast, the two cases do nonetheless track the way that in early modern globalization, non-European states found themselves amidst opportunities and threats.
Conclusion
The letters of King Afonso of the Kongo Kingdom and Emperor Qianlong of China explicitly view most of these varied impacts that European enlargement brought to non-European states in early modern times. While both rulers expressed concerns about the disruptive effects of European trade practices, their responses were shaped by the differing power dynamics and cultural contexts in which they operated. The Kongo Kingdom’s vulnerability and the Chinese Empire’s strength influenced their ability to negotiate the terms of engagement with European powers and protect their interests. Those interactions, in subsequent outcomes, paved the way for the long-term influence over the global trade networks, the domain of cultural affairs, and political dynamics, most likely in uneven power relations. Suppose the letters might be thought of as historical documents. In that case, they surely offer a rare insight into the kind of agency and resistance displayed by non-European states and their citizens in the process of early modern globalization.
Works Cited
Afonso, King of Kongo. “King Afonso to King João III of Portugal, July 6, 1526.”
Qianlong, Emperor. “Letter to George III, 1793.” Annals and Memoirs of the Court of Peking, edited by E. Backhouse and J. O. P. Bland, Houghton Mifflin, 1914, pp. 322-331. Internet History Sourcebooks Project, sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1793qianlong.asp. Accessed April 10, 2023.
write