EUROPE IN AFRICA… The white man’s conquest of the “Dark Continent” referenced in contemporary history as the “scramble for Africa” occurred between 1876 and 1912, and the legacy of the “scramble” provides context and perspective relative to unfolding world events of today, in the 21st century. The scramble provided prevailing European powers virtually the whole continent: including 30 new colonies and protectorates, 10 million square miles of new territory and 110 million dazed new subjects, acquired by one method or another. Subsequently, Africa was sliced up like a cake, the pieces swallowed by 5 rival nations. Germany, Italy, Portugal, France and Britain with Spain taking some scraps as Britain and France were trying to take each other out. At the center of the exploitation and rivalries was the self-styled philanthropist, the Belgian king Leopold II, controlling the center of the African continent! Historians have over the years offered theories and speculations as to why the leaders of Europe undertook such an undignified rush to build empires in Africa. Historians are as puzzled now as they were then. In his book “The Partition of Africa in 1893” Scott Keltie was certain that it was “one of the most remarkable episodes in the history of the world,” yet confessed that he was overwhelmed by the rush of “jostling” events. But subsequently, it was the Berlin Conference that was Africas undoing in more ways than one, as the colonial powers superimposed their domains on the African continent. During that time the conference was held, 80% of Africa remained under traditional, indigenous and local control. What ultimately resulted was a hodgepodge of geometric boundaries that divided Africa into 50 irregular countries. This new map of the continent was superimposed over the one thousand indigenous cultures and organic regions of Africa. The new countries lacked rhyme or reason it divided coherent groups of people and merged together disparate groups who really did not get along… In 1884 at the request of Portugal, German chancellor Otto von Bismark called together the major western powers of the world to negotiate questions and end confusion over the control of Africa. Bismark appreciated the opportunity to expand Germanys sphere of influence over Africa and desired to force Germanys rivals to struggle with one another for territory. Fourteen European countries were represented by a plethora of ambassadors when the conference opened in Berlin on November 15, 1884. The countries represented at the time included Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway (unified from 1814-1905), Turkey, and the United States of America. Of these 14 nations, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Portugal were the major players in the conference, controlling most of colonial Africa at the time. The initial task of the conference was to agree that the Congo River and Niger River mouths and basins would be considered neutral and open to trade. Despite its neutrality, part of the Congo Basin became a personal kingdom for Belgiums King Leopold II and under his rule, over half of the regions population died. Prior to the time of the conference, only the coastal areas of Africa were colonized by the European powers. At the Berlin Conference the European colonial powers scrambled to gain control over the interior of the continent. The conference lasted until February 26, 1885 - a three month period wherein colonial powers haggled over geometric boundaries in the interior of the continent, disregarding the cultural and linguistic boundaries already established by the indigenous African population. Following the conference, the give and take continued. By 1914, the conference participants had fully divided Africa among themselves into 50 countries. Major colonial holdings included: Great Britain desired a Cape-to-Cairo collection of colonies. Egypt, Sudan (Anglo Egypt, Sudan), Uganda, Kenya (British East Africa), South Africa and Zambia, Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), and Botswana, Nigeria and Ghana (Gold Coast). • France took much of western Africa, from Mauritania to Chad (French West Africa), Gabon and the Republic of Congo (French Equatorial Africa). • Belgium and King Leopold II controlled the Democratic Republic of Congo (Belgian Congo). • Portugal took Mozambique in the east and Angola in the west. • Italy’s holdings were Somaliland and a portion of Ethiopia. • Germany took Namibia (German Southwest Africa), and Tanzania (German East Africa). • Spain claimed the smallest territory, Equatorial Guinea (Rio Muni). Although Spain controlled the smallest country relative to the spoils of Africa, Spain had already seized the lion’s share of the Caribbean islands, as compared to the other European countries that held slave plantation colonies in the Caribbean. The historiography of these events has offered various theories concerning the high profile rivalries among European powers as to their respective objectives. There are Eurocentric explanations, such as offered by John Hobson’s theory that surplus capital in Europe was the driving force behind expansion into Africa. This theory was also propounded later by Lenin. In the Afro-centric explanation, emphasis is placed on sub-imperialism in Africa itself and combinations of the two, by way of the analysis of Professors Robinson and Gallagher, “Africa and the Victorians.” Other histories of Africa like “The Cambridge History of Africa” regional studies such as John Hargreaves’ studies relative to the partition of West Africa, and numerous works dealing with the imperialism of each individual European country. Needless to say, there is no general explanation acceptable to historians. Perhaps they should not be expected to have general agreement in the first instance... Perhaps David Livingston and his associates advocated the most cogent and compelling theory relative to the European powers abounding interest in Africa. David Livingston, the celebrated missionary-explorer, died in May 1873 in Ilala, the unknown heart of the continent, and his sun-dried body was brought home to be buried in Westminster Abbey. Livingston sounded a call for a worldwide crusade to open up Africa. A new slave trade, organized by Swahili and Arabs in East Africa, was eating out the heart of the continent. Livingston’s answer was the “3 Cs” Commerce, Christianity and Civilization. The freelance promoters of the petition, the men who followed Livingston to Africa and scrambled it greedily for their share, are now pretty-much forgotten. In their day however, they were famous, infamous, and feted as heroes, at the same time they were being denounced as brutes and humbugs. They all conceived of the crusade for Africa in terms of romantic nationalism, if not imperialism. From the outset European governments were somewhat reluctant to intervene officially. As it relates to the electorate of many people never the less, there seemed to be a real chance of missing-out on something. The bygone centuries colored by the trans-Atlantic slave trade had already proven to be an economic dynamo helping to facilitate the industrial development of the European powers. On a practical level the conquest partition of Africa was seen as a lottery and a winning ticket might earn glittering prizes. There were dreams of El Dorado, of diamond mines and goldfields crisscrossing the Sahara. In Europe these were the drab years of a Great Depression and mounting stocks of unsold Manchester cotton, Lyons silk and Hamburg gin. Perhaps Africa was the answer to the merchants’ prayers. There might be new markets out there in the African Garden of Eden, where tropical groves and golden fruit could be plucked by willing brown hands. And it was in Protestant Britain. Were God and Mammon seemed made for each other, the Livingston’s word struck the deepest chord. The “3 Cs” would redeem Africa. This was obviously not the way Africans perceived the Scramble… Accordingly, there was a 4th “C” vis-à-vis, conquest, and that is what gradually dominated the enterprise. At first European expeditions were too weak to challenge African rulers. It was safer and more productive to use blank treaty forms, explained away by an empire-minded missionary, than to use live ammunition. But paper imperialism soon proved to be inadequate. When effective occupation became necessary to establish good title, conflict became inevitable. The African rulers best equipped to resist were understandably those who depended on violence themselves. African imperialists like King Cetshwayo of the Zulu, King Lobengula of the Ndebele, the Emperor Menelik of Abyssinia, the Mahdi in the Sudan, and Africa’s twin white tribes, the Boers of the Transvaal and the Boers of the Orange Free State.
Posted on: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:47:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015