Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Short Essay Five
As European countries began colonizing Africa they had the intention of ruling over these countries and including them in their empires. Europeans “saw Africa as a continent of blank spaces” (Mackenzie 10). The European empires set up to conquer the continent in order to compete with other nation and for economic reasons. Still, some historians believe that Europeans did not want to occupy the content but rather they accidentally fell into that position. The only evidence to support this rationalization of European imperialism is that prior to the government’s involvement many European set up their own “cities” within Africa but without European government interference (Mackenzie 14). However, the majority of evidence of the Europeans’ actions in Africa is contrary to this theory and that they, in fact, consciously took over. As soon as European countries began seeing the value in African resources they began competing with one another for these territories. In order to remain in power Europeans had to vie with each for the continent. When the European presence was felt in Africa, Africans quickly lost power in their own government, “By 1900 Africans were debarred from the administrative (‘or political’) branches of colonial government” (Roberts 33). The Europeans were actively taking steps to exclude Africans from governing themselves which clearly shows that they desired complete control over their new colonies. This is also true of the German African colonies where it was never even considered that Africans should be given voting or any other political rights (Roberts 35). Wars were also being fought between the Europeans and Africans over the land they wanted. The empires were willing to fight in order to keep their world status. Economic reasons also provided the European countries with incentives to conquer Africa. African products and resources were able to increase the wealth of European empires. When diamonds were discovered in the interior of Africa there was a race between the European powers to claim the land, which the British ultimately won and exploited the areas minerals for their own benefit (McKenzie 24). The valuable resources that this land provided undoubtedly increased the wealth of the British Empire. Once Europeans began arriving in Africa their intentions became clear, they wanted to eventually conquer the land and exploit its resources. It was considered necessary to do this by the Europeans in order to keep up with other European nations. The eighteenth century saw an influx of Europeans attempting to conquer all of Africa. Africa was simply land to the Europeans that was waiting to be claimed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with some of what you wrote and disagreed with part of your response. I do not accept your contention that “Africa was simply land to the Europeans that was waiting to be claimed.” Such assertion implies that the European powers were fully in control and coordinated their respective actions vis-à-vis the territories they assumed control over in Africa. This was not often the case. For example, the British Parliament recommended against taking over any further lands in East Africa in 1865. The decision to ultimately take control over what would be Kenya, parts of Tanzania, and Sudan was influenced by British commercial interests who wanted their government to protect their interests both in Africa and India. British actions on the coast of East Africa were done more, initially, to protect the vital sea lanes to India than to gain control over African territories and peoples. German traders and colonization societies asked Berlin for greater involvement in German Somaliland and Tanganyika to protect their interests, rather than Berlin first making the choice to interfere in Africa. You also mentioned that the European powers were willing to fight to protect their interests in Africa. I am unclear if you meant fight each other or fight Africans; the Vandervort article aptly demonstrated the number of conflicts between European and indigenous peoples. However, if you meant the former, then you should remember the Berlin Conference of 1884 which created ground rules by which the European powers agreed to with regard to any further partitioning of Africa. These ground rules helped prevent a general European war over African colonies.
ReplyDeleteI will agree that many of the European colonial imperialist actions in Africa were planned, such as many of the conquests themselves. For example, both Belgium and Portugal wanted African colonies and gained control over the Congo and Mozambique respectively. However, the manner in which the European powers ruled over their African dominions was not necessarily planned. In fact, government oversight, that is the placement of bureaucrats and the development of the bureaucratic machinery in the home countries was often slow to materialize. Europeans were not always the masters of events, often the bureaucrats in the European capitals were forced to react to changing conditions on the ground in Africa rather than dictating events. Equally important for us to recognize is the ad-hoc colonial objectives and policies that emerged from European capitals. A good example of this I believe is found in the British conquest of the Sudan. As McKenzie and Vandervort demonstrated, the British acted out of fear of the French. British control over the Sudan provided them with the defense in depth of the Suez Canal that British commercial and political interests deemed necessary. Thus, the conquest of the Sudan should be seen not as an effort to capture territory for the commercial exploitation of the region’s material and human resources, or to avenge the loss of General Gordon and his army in 1885, but to blunt French ambitions. I admit it reflects a type of planning, but one that I contend is different from the one you articulated. Your response provided me with good food for fodder and the basis of a good discussion, and I thank you for this.