HIS 233
Course Tile: Africa and European Imperialism
Prof. Ngozi. Esther Ojiakor
Introduction
The history of Africa and European Imperialism is a complex topic that spans several centuries. European imperialism in Africa began in the 15th century with the arrival of Portuguese explorers, and over the next several centuries, other European powers established colonies and claimed territories throughout the continent. The motivations for European Imperialism were primarily economic, political, and cultural, and the impact on African societies was profound, leading to displacement, subjugation, and the suppression of local resistance movements. The course is designed to expose students to negative/positive consequence of imperialism and also how it played major role in shaping modern Africa identities and political system-many Africa countries are grappling with the legacy of the result of imperialism which is neocolonialism.
LEARNING OUTCOME
At the completion of the course, the students should be able to:
1. Give a compressive understanding of historical context, causes and effects of European imperialism in Africa.
2. Analyze and evaluate the motivations and justification for European imperialism in Africa
3. Examine the impact of imperialism on Africa societies, including the displacement of indigenous people, the subjugation of local resistance movements and the imposition of European cultural and political systems.
4. Appraise the legacy of colonialism and its ongoing impact on modern African identities and political system
5. Demonstrate effective communication skill through reading, discussing and researching on imperialism in Africa
Lesson one: THEORIES OF IMPERIALISM
Imperialism is necessary to preserve the existing social order in the more developed countries. It is necessary to secure trade, markets, to maintain employment and capital exports and to channel the energies and social comfits’ of the metropolitan population into foreign countries. Thereis very strong ideological and racial assumption of Western superiority within this body of thought.
Liberal Theories
Examples: Hobson Angell
Imperialism is a policy choice, not an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Increasing concentration of wealth within the richer countries leads to under consumption for the mass of people. Overseas expansion is a way to reduce costs (and thereby increase or maintain profit levels) and to secure new consumption by increasing the income of the majority of the population either legislation concerning wage levels (minimum wage laws, legalization of unions child labor laws) or through income transfers ( unemployment compensation, welfare).
Maxist Theories
Example: lenin
Imperialism also arises because increased concentration of wealth leads to undeconsumption. However, since the state represents the capitalist interest. It is not possible possible to reduce underconsumption effectively through liberal strategies. Both strategies involve taking away money from the bourgeoisie and Marx and Lenin did not view this strategy as possible. Ultimately, according to Lenin, the world be completely divided up and the rich countries would then fight over the redivisionof world. This analysis served as his explanation for the World War I.
Political Theories
Example: Morgenthau, Cohen
Imperialism is simple in manifestation of balance of power and is the process by which nations try to achieve aq favorable change in the status quo. The purpose of imperialism is to decrease the strategic and political vulnerability of a nation.
Social-Psychological Theories
Example: Schumpeter
Imperialism is objectives expansion, a patternsimple learner from the behavior of other nations and institutionalized into the domestic political processes of a state “Warrior” class. This warrior class is created because of the need for defense, but over class will manufacture reasons to perpetuate its existence, usually through manipulation of crises.
Lesson Two
THE SCRAMBLE FOR AND PARTITION OF WEST AFRICA
The partition of West Africa by European power in the last twenty years of the 19th century is the most important events in its history. This is because it was the culminating event in a series of movements in the 19th century which finally brought West Africa (and in fact the whole of Africa with the exception of Ethiopia and Liberia) under European colonial rule. Again, the partition is the genesis of West African history in the 20th century, for the European rule of West Africa states and their struggle to regain their independence which form the major themes of West African 20th century history are the results of the partition.
The partition is often referred to as the Scramble for Africa;
This is because of the haste and the hectic struggle with which the European powers –Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Belgium, and Italy-carried out the partition of continent among themselves.
EUROPE AND WEST AFRICA BEFORE THE SCRAMBLE
Before we examine the causes and nature of the scramble it is necessary to remember that several European nations had settlements (mainly forts) and sphere of influence in West Africa before the movements began in the 1880s. Where were these settlements? What was the attitude of the major European powers towards their respective settlements before 1880? Why did the scramble not begin before 1880? Lust us attempt some answers to these questions.
BRITAIN
Britain had settlements or colonies in the Gambia (abandoned but reoccupied in 1815), Sierra Leone (founded in 1767 and made a colony in 1808, the Gold Coast (the southern states had been declared a crown colony in 1874) and Lagos (annexed supreme influence through the activates of her traders and missionaries, but had not as yet established a claim over the area.
Britain Attitude towards her settlements:
BRITAIN’S POLICY TOWARDS HER SETTLEMENTS:
Britain’s policy towards her West Africa Settlements during the period (180701880) changed at various times from a policy of advance too that of retreat. This Vacillation in policy was most noticeable in the Gold Coast. Whereas in 1821 the Government assumed direct control of the Forts, it relinquished this control to the Company of Merchants in 1828, only to resume control was again in 1841. By the 1806s, there was an outcry against all forms of colonial responsibility in West Africa except perhaps Sierra Leone.
This swing in policy is even reflected in the pronouncements of high-ranking government officials. In 1860, Palmerstone the foreign Office Secretary maintenance that it was government’s responsibility to afford protection for British trade in West Africa. : The extension Niger in particular, is an object which ought to be actively and perseveringly pursued, but it cannot be accomplished without physical effort for the protection of that trade.” By 1863 T. F. Eliot was singing a contrary note when he asked rather indignantly “are we forever to extend our boundaries?”
On the whole however, The Britain government was against colonial possessions or expansion in West Africa before 1880. Te main reason for this was that colonial possession in West Africa regarded as “expensive and troublesome “or even useless. The British Treasury, that “soulless miser” as Sir Harry Johnson called it, was not yet prepared to finance colonial expansion in West Africa.
The 1865 committee: British government’s policy of retreat researched its climax in 1865. In that year , the government set up a select committee of the House of common on west Africa popularly called the 1865 Committee’ to consider Colonel Ord’s report. Colonel Ord had been appointed to investigate and report on the affairs of British West African settlements in 1865.
The Committee recommended that the British government should not extend its rule or protection over new territories in West Africa; that it should try to economies by uniting Lagos, the Gold Coast Governor of Sierra Leone; and that in view of the proposed withdrawal, it should encourage Africans under its protection or rule to prepare for self –government.
The Committee’s recommendations were influenced by recent events on the Cost and government’s chronic policy of economy of expenditure on colonies. In 1863, the Asante invaded the coastal protectorate and British had failed to defeat them in two successive campaigns.
Lesson Three
CAUSES OF THE SCRAMBLE
As we noted the above, the last twenty years of 19th century (1880-1900) saw the independent states of West Africa (with the exception of Liberia) pass under European colonial rule. This was the outcome of the Scramble for territories in Africa by European scramble for colonies in Africa are complex. However, the can be traced to economic, social and political factors prevailing in Europe at the time.
Economic Factors
The first major economic factor was the industrial Revolution in Europe. It influences the scribble because it crated the need for new market for the sale of surplus manufactured goods and for the purchase of raw materials. Indeed as the Industrial Revolution spread from England to France, Germany, Russia, and later Italy during the second half of the 19th century, each country began to produce more goods than she needed locally. The need therefore arose for new market for the disposal of the surplus goods. The possession of colonies in Africa seemed to offer a solution to the problem.
Similarly, the competition for raw material for their industrial intensified the scramble for Africa colonies to serve as sources of supply. England’s pre-eminent position in industry seemed to confirm the need for the possession of Africa market, for other European power notably France and Germany felt that England owed her industrial supremacy to her control of the external trade of her Africa Settlements.
The Industrial Revolution also influenced the scramble in another way by creating the need for the investment of surplus capital. As the Industrial Revolution led to the accumulation of such profit in these European countries, ‘the need arose for new areas where the surplus capital could be more profitable invested.’ The possession of colonies in Africa seemed to offer opportunity for investment, hence the scramble.
The influence of the Industrial Revolution upon the Scramble is evident in the words of Jules `Ferry the French Prime Minister (1879-1883) who said that “Colonial policy is the daughter of indusial policy…. European consumption is strutted; it is necessary to raise new masses of consumers in other parts of the global, else we shall put modern society into bankruptcy and prepare for the dawn of the 20th century a cataclysmic social liquidation of which one cannot calculate the consequences”. Again, he said “Colonies are for rich countries one of the most lucrative methods of investing capital…. J.A. Hobson in his book “publishedin 1902 maintain that the objective of imperial expansion is commercial profit.
POLITICAL FACTORS
Some have even argued that the political factors plead a more important role in precipitating the Scramble than the economic factors.
One of these political factors was the influence which contemporary European rivalries had on scramble. Surly, the competition for African territories among European power between 1880 and 1900 was to some extent an extension of their international rivalry and struggle for power and supremacy in Europe. France had lost Alsace-Lorraine to Germany war of 1870-71. After achieving political stability in 1879, France under Jules Ferry began to look upon Africa for colonies to substitute her losses in European. Germany was at first not keen on colonization of A Africa territories. Later however, she joined the scramble because her national did not want to be left out in the race of colonies. So in 1884, Bismarckdecleared protectorates over Togoland and Cameroon.
Britain had before 1880 been content in creating spheres of influence on the West Coast. She joined the scramble for reasons of prestige because she felt that French and Germany activities were a threat and challenge to her domain position on the West Coast. In Niger territories for instance, the France tried to sign a treaty with Bonny; the Germans attempted to secure a treaty with the Sultan of Sokoto and Emir of Gwandu; and in 1885 Germany actuarially declared a protectorate over Mahim Beach near Lagos. Although, these threats were forestalled; they had the effect of whipping reluctant Britain into action, hence the rush for treaties with Africa rules by her consuls and traders during this period.
SOCIAL FACTORS
The scramble was motivated by the desire for economic political gain only. There were many people in Europe who supported the scramble and partition of Africa for purely humanitarian reasons. The fact was that the reports of explorers and missionaries had aroused a new interest in the continent of Africa. Many humanitarian- minded people therefore urge their Governments to colonies parts of Africaso that the internal slave trade could finally be wiped out there and the magisterial and spiritual benefits of European civilization extended to Africapeoples.
Secondly, social condition in European resulting from the growth of the industrial Revolution played some part in race for colonies. The Industrial Revolution had produced the situation in which many people become unemployed. For as more and more machines were invented and put into use.More and more workers were displayed in industry. By the 1870s, there were over a million paupers in Britain alone. The situation was even worse in France, Germany and Italy. It was partly to solve this problem of mass employment that can acquisition of colonies for setting the surplus population was embark upon. We find such settlements in South, Central East and North Africa by various European powers, but thanks to the scourge of similar European settlements. Finally, some racial theories prevailing in European at their time did have some effect on the scramble and partition. The theory that European were superior to al other race especially Africa and so had a divine mission to rulethem was propounded by many European writers. Although this was an absurd theory with no basis in truth, it did fire the zeal many Europeanempire-builders in Africa.
Lesson four
THE BERLIN WEST AFRICA CONFERENCE
Background
As we have already seen, by 1884, France Germany and Leopold of Belgium were seriously competing for colonies in Africa. But by far, the most explosive issue hat arose from the scramble was the rivalry over the Congo. Portugal’s clam over the Congo supported by Britain was opposed by Leopold and France. Fearing that the rivalry might degenerate in to war, Bismarck summoned a conference in Britain of the powers concerned with the scramble to discuss their claims to Africa territories and to reach agreement on a peaceful way of partitioning the content among themselves. Since rivalry over the Congo and the Niger territories dominated the Conference, it is often called the Berlin West Africa Conference. It sat from November 15, 1884 to January 30 1885. The chief powers at the Conference were France, Britain, Germany, Portugal and King Leopold of Belgium representing his International Africa Association for the Congo. It should be noted that there were no Africa representative at conference that was to decide the fate of Africans.
Decision of the Conference
The Conference decided among other things:
i. That any power claiming territories on the part of the Africa coast-line should formerly notify the other. part in the Conference;
ii. That any such claim to territoriesmust be backed by degree by effective occupation; that is by the establishment of an effective degree of authority or administration in the area concerned before such of authority or administration in the area concerned before such claims could be recognized a valid;
iii. That there should be freedom of trade in the Congo basin and freedom of navigation for the people of all nations on the Niger and Congo rivers;
iv. And that free access into the interior of Africa by traders’ missionaries and other agents of all countries should be guaranteed eradicated and the material and moral benefits of European civilization extended to Africa.
On the 26th February 1885, the Act containing these decisions was signed by the participating powers. It should be noted therefore that the Conference did not partition Africa. It only laid down general rules to govern the acquisition of new territories. Territorial questions were not dealt with at the Conference but settled in series of bilateral agreements extending over many years.
AN APPRAISAL OF THE CONFERENCE
The so called Berlin West Africa Conference was failure in many respects; hence it has been referred to by someone as ‘a memorably absurd gathering;
First, its decision on effective occupation did not help much in solving the problem of the partition. It referred only to the coast line, most of which had already been occupied one European power or the other. By excluding the terrors from his decision the conference France created a possible cause of war. Which it set out to prevent. It was found necessary to supplement this decision by another Conference at Brussels in 1890 where it was stipulated that effective occupation should be applied both to the interior of Africa as well as that coast.
Secondly, even though the Conference declared navigation and step were taken to enforce this decision. The result was that Leopold and Goldie established monopolies on the Congo and Niger respectively, thus keeping out traders from rival nations.
Thirdly, the signatories to the freedom to their nationals. But it would be wrong to dismiss the Conference only as an absurd gathering which achieved noting. In fact, the Conference made some valuable constitutions to the way in which the partition was carried out. First, The Conference, as pointed out the above, had the effect of speeding up the partition. It prepared the way for the new comers to the Africa scene (Germany, Leopold and Italy) by its theory of effective occupation and so created the feeling among the powers that speed essential for success in the scramble.
again, as a result of the effective occupation theory, European powers began to establish administration either directly or indirectly through Chartered Companies in their respective territories. Thus the era of vague ‘spheres of influence’ created by Britain and France along the coast came to an end.
Furthermore, the Conference confirmed the claim of Leopold’s International Africa Association over the Congo which was accorded international recognition as the Congo Free State. Above all, the partitioning of Africa by European powers was carries out without open conflict. Indeed, I to other sphere of activity had the European powers co-operated so effectively among themselves as in their occupation of Africa. This co-operation ensured that no European power allied with an Africa state against another European power.
FEATURES OF THE PARTITION IN WEST AFRICA
The partition of West Africa by European powers had certain outstanding features which deserve note. One of these features was that the scramble in West Africa was dominated by France and Britain. The rivalry between these two powers began in the 1870s when prospects of interior trade brightened and was intensified during the scramble form 1879. The entrance of Germany on the African scene in 1884 altered the situation to what looked like a three-cornered fight. But since Germany mad no more territorial claims after her seizure of Togoland and Cameroons, the struggle reverted to what it was before. It should be noted that Portugal clung to her small enclave of Portuguese Guinea and made no serious efforts to expand in West during the scramble.
Another feature lay in the area of West Africa occupied by the partitioning powers. France acquired the largest area (about 1,800,000 square miles) which came to be known as France West Africa. It comprises modern Senegal, Mali, Upper Volta, Guinea, The Ivory Coast Mahoney, Niger and Mauritania. Much of their territory lay in the Sudan which was one continuous block joining the Coast through the coastal colonies. Britain came second with an area of about 480.000 square miles consisting of Gambia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast and Nigeria. Unlike France, her territories were no one continuous block, but made up of areas separated from each other by intervening French colonies. Germany came third with Togoland (33,000 square miles) while Portugal’s Guinea was only (14,000 square miles.
In terms of material wealth and resource, the Britain gained more that the French. Whereas most of the French territories lay in the arid wasters of the sub-Saharan Sudan, most of the British. Colonies were located in the rich tropical forest. Moreover, all British West Africa colonies Lay along the important rivers which made West Africa access to the interior easy. Regretting the nature of the France colonies, an elderly French economist remarked, WE want annexations, and we care only for their size, not troubling about their quality”. A third feature has to do with the method by which territories were acquired. The powers involved in the scramble acquired claims to Africa territory on treaties’ with Africa realise. Most of these treaties were fake and their contents were hardly understood by Africa rulers who did not realise that they were signing away their sovereignty. Bribery, persuasion and intimidation were used to obtain such treatise. Britain applied both methods of treaty and conquest in Nigeria and Ghana but the French acquired most of their territories by conquest.
- Lecturer : ngozi ojiakor