I think that European imperialism in Africa was not spontaneous but essentially planned. I agree with Roberts, that Europe “tried to mould [sic] Africa for imperial purposes” and raced to beat other nations in order to gain the most territory on the continent(Roberts 24). Ultimately, what Europeans saw in Africa was the potential for political influence, trade, and labor.
It had been long assumed that blacks were inferior to whites based upon supposed “scientific research” and Africans were thought to be godless heathens and not capable of reaching the same levels of intelligence as whites. They allegedly were not sophisticated enough to rule themselves either, so nations such as France and Britain established governments in their territories thus making the Africans there French or British subjects.
Before it was tainted by European powers, Africa was overflowing with natural resources. But Europe saw more than just mining and trading opportunities, they saw human labor. When more manpower was needed for military campaigns, Africans were used. France used mostly Africans as its infantry because the French were not acclimated to the heat and humidity and often got sick (Vandervort 117). Even as late as World War I France used Africans to supplement its troops.
If Britain had not taken the land, then certainly France or Germany would have(and vice versa) and then Britain would have looked weak or had less influence in politics or trade in Africa. So whether any of these European powers thought it morally wrong to do so, it did not matter because in the end it was all about having more power in the eyes of their rivals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your conclusion that Europeans actively sought to imperialize Africa. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this conclusion. European nations saw the continent as the means to maintain their power and status in the world. In your essay you say that the Europeans took over Africa for political influence, which I completely agree with. Europeans seemed to be fighting with one another over which nation was more power. Conquering Africa gave each empire more power and influence. Like you mention in your essay, Europeans thought they had to right to conquer Africa because they believed that the inhabitants were inferior to them. Europeans saw themselves as a superior race which had the right to all the gods that Africa could offer. In your essay your offer the fact that Europeans created governments in Africa as evidence that they sought out to dominate the continent, I agree with this. If the European nations did not intentionally annex Africa as part of their empires they would not have set up governments which excluded Africans from participation but forced them to follow its laws. Not only did the African continent provide Europeans with power, but it also gave them a supply or resources which enriched their empires. Overall, I agree with your conclusion in your essay that Africa was intentionally conquered by the Europeans and you provide many good examples as to why this is true.
ReplyDeleteYour argument that the partition of Africa was essentially planned by European imperial powers relies heavily on the Roberts reading. In it, he identifies the ways that the partition of Africa appears to be the result of far-reaching plans and political manipulation (and this may be true.) But I think that his focus is too narrow and he misses the small instances of "creeping partition" that were identified in the pamphlet by McKenzie. The imperial powers had been operating on the remote fringes of Africa for hundreds of years while participating in the slave trade (not Germany, but certainly Great Britain and France, Portugal and Belgium) without any further aspirations to colonize the interior. Colonization was expensive and often had exceedingly low returns on investment. Governments were happy to let private companies assume all the cost and take all the financial risk. It was the private companies that began the push into the interior as a response to local issues, like protecting trade routes. As things heated up they called on their governments to help them out militarily and protect their interests. These responses weren't planned in the parliaments of the imperial governments that effected them. They were the spontaneous result of local (Africa-based) causes.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that there were some aspects of the partition of Africa that show a degree of imperial planning aforethought, I think initially the annexation of African territories was spontaneous and the result of local issues. Like a snowball rolling downhill, once annexation started it grew in ways that could not have been anticipated.