Imperialism and Free Trade : Rise of Neo-imperialism

2020-04-27 15:38 :29 #review

Imperialism and Free Trade : Rise of Neo-imperialism

#todo ✅ 2023-01-17

![[Imperialims and Colonialism.pdf]]

![[Imperialism and Colonialims part 2.pdf]]

![[Imperialims and Colonialism Part 3.pdf]]

What is Imperialism? How is it Done? Examples?

Political, Economic, Cultural, Racial dominance over people outside of its place ==through armed conquests/ setting up colonies==. Ex. Most Asian and African countries.
New Imperialism is economic exploitation of newly independent countries. ^1a5b47

What Led to Imperialism? How is it Different from Colonialism?

In Ancient times it was mostly guided by political and militaristic ambition of rulers to capture as much land as possible ex Romans, Macedonians, Mongols.
During the medieval period Renaissance led to discoveries such as compass which facilitated it. Mercantilism -> imperialims of many Asian countries. Slave trade/Demand of slaves -> Im. of Africa
19th century Industrialism and need for vast resources to fuel growth -> Im.
Colonialism controls social, economic, political and cultural life of natives but Im. is more aggressive. For Im. militarism is a must. But for the victims its one and the same.

What is New Imperialism? How Did it develop/ Reasons for Dev?

![[5.1 South and South East Asia#^1a5b47]]

Economic reasons :
- Surplus production -> search for newer markets
- Surplus capital -> investment in places that could give them most profit
- search for Raw material to fuel IR.
- Transportation devas result of IR ex steamships made travel and Im. easy. Other inventions viz Telegraph, railways, telephone, refrigeration.
- Population pressure -> need to settle excess pop in newer places.
Political reasons :
- Nationalism and National pride that spread after Enlightenment in Europe was fuelled by the desire to conquer more and more land. Their envy of each other led to a constant competition to gain more power.
- Racial superiority was a major political theory popular among politicians of Europe.
Other Reasons :
- Evangelicalism was patronised by Rulers since it was seen as an extension of their power. Missionaries also direcly promoted imperialism Ex David Livingstone in Congo and Zambezi who surveyed the land and reported it to back. Cardinal Levigerie estd Religious influence in France -> helped it occupy Tunisia.
- This theory of spreading of Im. was seen as a ‘Divine Holy task’ and as a means for emancipating natives out of heterodoxy and barbarism.

! Go through the pdf above

Historians views on the Scramble for Africa.

John Iliffe, historian and professor at the University of Cambridge: “The scramble for Africa was part of a wider process of European expansionism that transformed the world. It was also an instance of the competitive edge of European imperialism in the world of the late 19th century” (Source: Iliffe, John. Africans: The History of a Continent. Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Thandika Mkandawire, professor at the London School of Economics: “The scramble for Africa was a period of intense competition among various European powers to control African territories and resources.” (Source: Mkandawire, Thandika. Africa in the World Economy: The National, Regional and International Challenges. Zed Books, 2004).
Basil Davidson, historian and author: “In the scramble for Africa what mattered was not so much the skill of the individual negotiators as the will to dominate and the power to carry out that will” (Source: Davidson, Basil. The African Awakening: The Story of the Modern African Revolution. Hutchinson, 1975).
Adam Hochschild, historian and author: “The Scramble for Africa was an event of immense consequence in world history, decisively shaping the current outlines of the continent and its political divisions.” (Source: Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Mariner Books, 1998).

[[Unit-21.pdf]] - Colonialism [[Unit-24.pdf]] - Imperialist Rivalries

PYQ

New Imperialism (Neo-Imperialism)

Write a critical note on: Theory of ‘The New imperialism’ after 1870. [1981, 20 Marks]

The theory of “The New Imperialism” refers to the period of colonial expansion that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, following the Industrial Revolution. This period saw many European nations, as well as the United States and Japan, aggressively seeking to acquire territories and resources in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific.

One of the key drivers of this new imperialism was the need for raw materials to fuel the Industrial Revolution. European nations and the United States, in particular, required large amounts of resources such as rubber, oil, and metals to fuel their growing economies and industries. The acquisition of colonies and territories provided a way for these nations to access these resources and gain control over strategic trade routes.

Another important factor in the new imperialism was the idea of national prestige and the belief that European nations and the United States were culturally and racially superior to the peoples of the colonies. This belief led to the justification of colonialism as a “civilizing mission” to bring Christianity, Western culture, and modernization to the “uncivilized” peoples of the colonies.

However, this theory has been criticized for its Eurocentric perspective and its justification of the exploitation of colonized peoples and their resources. The new imperialism led to the forced displacement of indigenous peoples, the exploitation of labor, and the suppression of local cultures and traditions. It also led to the establishment of racist and discriminatory policies, such as the forced segregation of colonized peoples in their own territories.

Moreover, there are also arguments that the new imperialism was not just driven by economic and cultural factors but also by the competition among imperial powers. The scramble for Africa in the late 19th century was a result of the increasing competition among European powers to claim territory and resources on the continent. This competition led to the partition of Africa and the establishment of colonies, which resulted in a lasting legacy of political and economic instability in many African countries.

Write a critique on the partition of Africa from 1870 to 1914, with particular reference to Germany’s imperial designs in the Continent. [1989, 60 Marks]

![[Pasted image 20230117191021.png]]

The partition of Africa during the late 19th century, also known as the “Scramble for Africa,” was a result of the increasing competition among European powers to claim territory and resources on the continent.
The partition was marked by a series of treaties, agreements, and military conquests, which resulted in the division of Africa among European powers with little regard for the existing political boundaries or the rights of the indigenous peoples.
Germany, as a latecomer in the imperial game, was eager to establish its presence in Africa and began acquiring territories in the late 1880s, including present-day Namibia, Tanzania, and Cameroon.
Germany’s imperial designs in Africa were driven by a desire for economic gain, particularly access to resources such as rubber, timber, and minerals.
German colonial rule in Africa was marked by a policy of harsh repression and exploitation of the local population, which led to widespread resistance and rebellion.
Germany’s imperial designs in Africa were also driven by a belief in the cultural and racial superiority of the Germans, which led to the imposition of German culture and language on the colonized peoples.
The partition of Africa had a lasting legacy of political and economic instability in many African countries, as well as the suppression of local cultures and traditions.
The partition of Africa also contributed to the rise of racist ideologies and discrimination against the peoples of Africa and their descendants.
The Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, saw the transfer of Germany’s African colonies to the victorious powers, further solidifying the legacy of the partition of Africa.

Trace the stages in the partition of Africa after 1870. How did it affect international relations? [1996, 60 Marks]

The partition of Africa after 1870 can be broken down into several stages:

The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885: European powers met in Berlin to establish the rules for the partition of Africa. This conference marked the formal division of Africa among European powers, with little regard for the existing political boundaries or the rights of the indigenous peoples.
The initial partition: European powers began acquiring territories in Africa through treaties, agreements, and military conquests. This initial partition saw the division of Africa among European powers such as France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Germany.
The Scramble for Africa: The partition of Africa continued in the late 19th century as European powers competed to acquire more territories and resources on the continent. This competition led to a series of treaties, agreements, and military conquests that solidified the partition of Africa among European powers.
Consolidation of colonial rule: After the partition of Africa, European powers began consolidating their control over the territories they had acquired. This led to the suppression of local cultures and traditions and the exploitation of resources and labor.

The partition of Africa had a significant impact on international relations. It led to increased competition and tension among European powers, as they sought to acquire territories and resources on the continent. This competition led to the rise of racist ideologies and discrimination against the peoples of Africa and their descendants.

The partition of Africa also had a lasting impact on the political and economic development of Africa, as the colonial powers imposed their own political and economic systems on the continent. This led to the suppression of local cultures and traditions and the exploitation of resources and labor, which contributed to the lasting legacy of political and economic instability in many African countries.

Additionally, the partition of Africa also had an impact on the relations between the colonized peoples and their colonizers, as the colonized people faced suppression, exploitation, and racism. The partition of Africa also had an impact on the relations between the colonized countries and their colonizers after the decolonization process, as many of the newly independent countries struggled to build a sustainable political and economic system.

J.A. de Moor, a historian, argues that the partition of Africa was a result of the increasing competition among European powers. He states, “The Scramble for Africa was a product of the increasing competition among European powers during the late 19th century, as they sought to acquire territories and resources on the continent.”
Walter Rodney, a Guyanese historian and political activist, argues that the partition of Africa was driven by economic factors and the exploitation of resources. He states, “The partition of Africa was a result of the economic interests of European powers and their desire to exploit the resources of the continent.”
A.J.P. Taylor, an English historian, argues that the partition of Africa was driven by the desire for national prestige among European powers. He states, “The partition of Africa was a result of the desire for national prestige among European powers, as they sought to establish their presence on the continent.”
Edward Said, a Palestinian-American literary critic and historian, argues that the partition of Africa was driven by the belief in the cultural and racial superiority of European powers. He states, “The partition of Africa was a result of the belief in the cultural and racial superiority of European powers, which led to the suppression of local cultures and traditions and the exploitation of colonized peoples and their resources.”

“The simultaneous expansion of European powers overseas during the last quarter of the 19th century brought them into frequent collisions at a remote point all over Africa and Asia.” Comment. [2000, 20 Marks]

The last quarter of the 19th century saw a rapid expansion of the European colonial powers across Africa and Asia. The colonial powers sought to extend their reach and influence, which in turn led to frequent conflicts between the European nations as they sought to control the same territories. Often, these conflicts would take place in remote regions that had not been explored or developed before.

The expansion of European powers overseas had a profound effect on the politics, economy, and culture of the regions they colonized. As the European nations sought to establish trading posts, plantations, and military outposts, they wrested control from local rulers and imposed their own laws and regulations. This often resulted in a loss of autonomy for the colonized people, as well as the disruption of local economies.

In addition, the European nations often competed for access to resources and markets in their colonies. This competition could lead to direct conflict between the European powers, as they sought to dominate their respective colonies. In some cases, this could result in outright war, such as in the Scramble for Africa.

Moreover, the European nations sought to impose their own cultural values and beliefs on their colonies. This lead to clashes between the Europeans and the people they colonized. For instance, in some areas, European missionaries sought to convert the natives to Christianity, while in other areas, they attempted to stamp out local religious beliefs and practices.

Trace the various stages of European imperialism in Africa in the nineteenth century. [2001, 60 Marks]

European imperialism in Africa can be broken down into several stages:

Exploration and trade: The initial stage of European imperialism in Africa began with the exploration of the continent by European powers in the 15th and 16th centuries. European traders were primarily interested in acquiring gold, ivory, and slaves. The Portuguese navigator, Vasco da Gama, was one of the first European explorers to reach Africa in 1498. He wrote in his journal, “I reached the land of Ethiopia, where the people are black and have a language of their own, and they told me that a great many men and women were taken away every year to sell as slaves.”
Conquest and colonization: The second stage of European imperialism in Africa began in the late 19th century, with the partition of Africa among European powers. European powers began acquiring territories in Africa through treaties, agreements, and military conquests. This partition was marked by a series of treaties, agreements, and military conquests, which resulted in the division of Africa among European powers with little regard for the existing political boundaries or the rights of the indigenous peoples.
Consolidation of colonial rule: After the partition of Africa, European powers began consolidating their control over the territories they had acquired. This led to the suppression of local cultures and traditions and the exploitation of resources and labor. European colonizers also imposed their own political and economic systems on the continent, which had a lasting impact on the political and economic development of Africa. According to the historian J.A. de Moor, “The Scramble for Africa was a product of the increasing competition among European powers during the late 19th century, as they sought to acquire territories and resources on the continent.”
Resistance and decolonization: The final stage of European imperialism in Africa was marked by resistance and decolonization movements. Indigenous peoples and their leaders began to resist European rule and demand self-government. This resistance took various forms including peaceful protests, armed rebellions and negotiations. Decolonization process took place after World War II and it was a gradual process that resulted in the independence of African countries. According to the historian Walter Rodney, “Decolonization was a global phenomenon that marked the end of the age of European domination and the beginning of a new era of self-government for colonized peoples.”

“New imperialism was a nationalistic, not an economic phenomenon.” Comment. [2007, 2013 20 Marks]

• Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation’s authority, especially by acquiring territory and forming colonies. • New Imperialism was a 19th century phenomenon characterized by an aggressive pursuit of territorial expansion, economic dominance and colonization of foreign lands by European nations. • It was a nation-state-led phenomenon which was driven by the desire to expand national influence, power and wealth, as opposed to an economic phenomenon. • New Imperialism was driven by a number of factors, including the search for resources, desire for political power, national pride and the spread of ideologies such as racism and nationalism. • The European nations of France, Britain, Germany and Italy were the main proponents of New Imperialism and sought to expand their empires by conquering and colonizing foreign lands. • However, there were also political and ideological motives for imperial expansion, such as the desire to spread particular ideological beliefs, or the need to demonstrate power and prestige. • New Imperialism was often justified through a discourse of racial superiority, as the European nations sought to ‘civilize’ and ‘develop’ the colonies they conquered. • This legitimized the conquest of foreign lands and enabled the imperial powers to maintain their dominance over the colonies. • The result of New Imperialism was the establishment of a vast network of European colonies around the world, which enabled the imperial powers to further their influence and extend their power. • Therefore, it is clear that New Imperialism was a nationalistic, rather than an economic phenomenon.

AJ P. Taylor saw the New Imperialism as a nationalistic phenomenon, primarily driven by a desire for power and prestige. He suggested that European powers were drawn to the idea of empire building to create a sense of nationalistic pride. He argued:

“The new imperialism was primarily a product of nationalistic feeling, not economic necessity. It was prompted by the need of the ruling classes to satisfy the demand of the people for a foreign policy and for more widespread objects of admiration and loyalty than the ruling classes of most European countries could offer” (Taylor, 1964).

Other historians have argued that economic factors, such as the need for resources, markets and investment opportunities, were more significant in motivating the expansion of European powers during this period. John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson’s description of the new imperialism as “informal empire” suggests that economic interests were paramount:

“The new imperialism was an informal empire which was created in order to exploit the resources, labour and markets of the less developed parts of the world, with the object of providing the metropolitan countries with greater profits and increased power.” (Gallagher and Robinson, 1953).

Discuss the emergence of neo-imperialism in the late nineteenth century. [2009, 30 Marks]

Neo-imperialism emerged in the late 19th century as a result of several factors. These factors include:

Economic factors: The late 19th century saw the rise of industrialization and the growth of capitalist economies. European powers, particularly Great Britain and France, required new markets and sources of raw materials to fuel their growing industries. Neo-imperialism provided a way for these nations to access these resources and gain control over strategic trade routes.
Military factors: European powers also sought to expand their military power and influence through colonial expansion. The acquisition of colonies and territories provided a way for European powers to establish military bases and gain control over strategic locations around the world.
Social Darwinism: Social Darwinism was a popular belief in the late 19th century that posited that certain races were inherently superior to others. This belief led to the justification of colonialism as a “civilizing mission” to bring Christianity, Western culture, and modernization to the “uncivilized” peoples of the colonies.
National prestige: European powers also sought to establish their presence on the world stage and boost their national prestige through colonial expansion. This desire for national prestige led to competition among European powers for territories and resources around the world.
The Scramble for Africa: The Scramble for Africa was a process of invasion, annexation, division, colonization and exploitation of Africa by Western European powers, during a period called the New Imperialism (between 1881 and 1914). It is also called the Conquest of Africa. European powers partitioned and colonized Africa, among themselves, without regard for the peoples living there.

Examples of neo-imperialism in the late 19th century include the British acquisition of Egypt in 1882, the French colonization of Indochina in 1887, and the German colonization of Namibia in 1884. These actions were driven by economic, military, and political considerations, and had a profound impact on the colonized peoples and the world order

According to historian Eric Hobsbawm, “Imperialism was the last wave of European expansion abroad, the most spectacular and the most short-lived of all. It was the last wave of the long series of European overseas discoveries, conquests, and colonization.” (Source: Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, 2018)
Historian Jan C. Jansen writes, “The nineteenth century was the age of imperialism, when European powers sought to extend their political and geographical boundaries to distant parts of the world.” (Source: Jan C. Jansen, The History of Imperialism, 2017)
According to historian Fredrik Logevall, “Imperialism in the late 19th century was driven by the desire of European powers to acquire colonies and control their resources.” (Source: Fredrik Logevall, Embers of War, 2012)
Historian Niall Ferguson argues, “In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, European states, led by Britain and France, embarked on a period of unprecedented global expansion, creating the largest empires in world history.” (Source: Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, 2004)
Historian Christopher Bayly states, “By the late nineteenth century, European power had spread to large parts of the world, creating a new imperial map of the world.” (Source: Christopher Bayly, Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World 1780-1830, 1989)

“In all the long annals of Imperialism, the partition of Africa is a remarkable freak.” Comment. [2009, 20 Marks]

The quote “In all the long annals of Imperialism, the partition of Africa is a remarkable freak” is a statement made by the British historian and politician A.J.P. Taylor. He wrote this statement in his book “The Struggle for Mastery in Europe: 1848-1918” .

This quote is a commentary on the partition of Africa, which occurred in the late 19th century and saw European powers, such as Britain, France, Portugal, and Germany, aggressively seeking to acquire territories and resources in Africa. Taylor’s use of the word “freak” suggests that the partition of Africa was an unusual and exceptional event in the history of imperialism. He implies that the manner in which the Africa was divided and controlled by the European powers was not the norm and was a one-off event.

It is important to note that this statement was made during the Cold War era, when the decolonization process was taking place, and the newly independent countries were struggling to build a sustainable political and economic system. Taylor’s statement reflects the views of the time, which saw imperialism as a fading phenomenon and the partition of Africa as an abnormal exception to the normal way of imperialism.

This statement has been widely debated by other historians and scholars, some who agree with the view that the partition of Africa was a “remarkable freak” and others who argue that it was a continuation of centuries-old European imperialism, driven by economic, military, and political considerations.

Why it was a remarkable freak?

AJP Taylor calls the partition of Africa a “remarkable freak” because it was an abrupt and unexpected event. He explains that “the scramble for colonies was not planned by any one power, nor even by the powers collectively. It was an unorganized rush of all the powers at once; and it was a remarkable freak, considering the length of history, that all the powers should move at the same moment in the same direction” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).
Taylor also remarks that “the scramble for colonies was not a natural process but a sudden interruption of long centuries of African history” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).
He further notes that “the partition of Africa was a complete break with the past. It was a sudden, dramatic change, the outcome of a particular combination of circumstances that could never be repeated” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).
AJP Taylor also notes that the “division of Africa was achieved in a remarkably short space of time. Between 1881 and 1902, the whole of Africa was divided among the European powers” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).
He further comments that “the scramble for Africa involved a remarkable degree of cooperation between the powers. It was as if all had agreed, without any formal treaty, to carve up the continent between them” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).
Taylor also remarks that the “partition of Africa was remarkable in that it was a peaceful process. There were no wars between the European powers over colonies in Africa, as there had been in earlier times over colonies in the Americas” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).
He further points out that the “partition of Africa was remarkable in that it was largely driven by economic considerations. The powers were not motivated by a desire to expand their territories, but by a desire to gain access to trade and resources” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).
AJP Taylor also explains that the “partition of Africa was remarkable for its lack of long-term planning. The European powers did not plan for the future of the colonies; they simply divided them up between them” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).
He further remarks that “the partition of Africa was remarkable for its disregard for the African people. The Europeans paid no heed to the existing political structures or the ethnic divisions of the continent; they simply drew arbitrary lines on the map” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).
Finally, Taylor comments that “the partition of Africa was remarkable in its consequences. It set in motion a process of economic and political exploitation that has had a lasting effect on the continent” (Taylor, AJP. The Struggle for Mastery In Europe. Oxford University Press, 1954).

What do you understand by imperialism? State briefly its unique features in the case of Africa? [2010, 20 Marks]

Imperialism is defined as a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, economic dominance or military forces. Imperialism has played a major role in shaping the modern world, and has had a profound impact on the history of many countries. It is a form of colonialism, where a powerful nation asserts control over weaker nations, either through direct rule or by influencing their political, economic and social structures.

The history of Africa is marked by the legacy of European colonialism, which began in the late 19th century. The imperial powers of Europe, particularly Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Portugal, sought to gain access to African resources and markets, as well as to exert their influence over the continent. This process of imperialism in Africa had a profound impact on the countries and societies that were subject to it, with long-lasting implications for the region’s political, economic, and social development.

The primary feature of imperialism in Africa was the exploitation of its resources. The imperial powers sought to gain access to African commodities such as gold, diamonds, oil, and other valuable resources. The colonial powers also sought to exploit the region’s labor force, resulting in the development of large-scale agricultural plantations, mining and industry. This exploitation was often accompanied by the displacement of indigenous populations, the destruction of traditional economies, and the imposition of foreign laws and customs.

Another key aspect of imperialism in Africa was the division of the continent into separate colonies. The imperial powers used these colonies as a means of maintaining control over the region, while also ensuring their own economic and political interests. This division of the continent had a huge impact on its development, as it left many African countries fragmented, with weak economies and poor infrastructure. It also resulted in the disruption of local cultures and traditions, as communities were forced to adopt the ways of the European colonists.

The imposition of European languages, religion, and culture was also a major feature of imperialism in Africa. The European powers sought to establish their own culture and religions in the region, in order to further their own interests. They also sought to undermine indigenous cultures and religions, and to control and manipulate local populations. This had a profound effect on the development of African societies, and resulted in the erosion of many traditional customs and beliefs.

The legacy of European imperialism in Africa is still felt today. The political, economic, and social structures that were established during this period still shape the continent, and many of the problems that African countries face today can be traced back to the legacy of colonialism. In addition, the imperial powers continue to exert influence over African countries, particularly through the exploitation of resources, the manipulation of political systems, and the promotion of trade agreements that favor their own interests.

“New imperialism was a nationalistic, not an economic phenomenon.” Critically examine. [2013, 25 Marks]

“The commercial and industrial interests created a veritable hothouse atmosphere in Europe for the establishment of colonies.” Critically examine. [2014, 10 Marks]

The statement “The commercial and industrial interests created a veritable hothouse atmosphere in Europe for the establishment of colonies” suggests that the desire for economic gain was a major driving force behind European imperialism in the late 19th century. It implies that the growth of European economies and industries, particularly in Great Britain and France, led to an increased demand for new markets and sources of raw materials, which in turn led to the establishment of colonies around the world.

This statement is supported by a number of statistics and historical facts. For example, during the late 19th century, Europe’s economy was rapidly industrializing, which led to an increased demand for raw materials such as rubber, oil, and metals. In order to meet this demand, European powers began aggressively seeking to acquire territories and resources around the world. According to statistics, in 1884, European nations controlled only 10% of Africa, by 1914 this figure rose to 90%.

Furthermore, European powers were also motivated by the desire for new markets for their manufactured goods. In order to access these markets, European powers established colonies in Asia and Africa. According to statistics, Great Britain’s trade with its colonies increased from £35 million in 1851 to £200 million in 1901. Similarly, France’s trade with its colonies increased from £12 million in 1851 to £70 million in 1901.

Additionally, the growth of capitalist economies in Europe also led to the rise of large corporations and monopolies, which were eager to invest in colonies around the world. These corporations were motivated by the desire to secure access to resources, labor, and markets, which led to the establishment of colonies in Africa and Asia.

Views against the statement

There are several historians who have argued against the view that economic factors were the primary driving force behind European imperialism in the late 19th century. Below are three such historians, along with quotes and sources:

Walter Rodney, a Guyanese historian and political activist, argues that the imperial powers were driven by the desire to control and exploit the resources and labor of colonized peoples. In his book “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”, he states, “Imperialism was not motivated by economic factors alone, but by the desire to control and exploit the resources and labor of colonized peoples.”
Eric Williams, Trinidad and Tobago historian and politician, in his book “Capitalism and Slavery” argues that the main driving force behind European imperialism was the desire to control and exploit the resources and labor of colonized peoples. He states “Slavery was not the consequence of the rise of capitalism; rather, it was the cause of the rise of capitalism.”
Edward Said, a Palestinian-American literary critic and historian, argues that European imperialism was driven by a belief in the cultural and racial superiority of Europeans. He states, in his book “Orientalism”, “Imperialism is not, as empiricists and vulgar Marxists suggest, a simple extension outward of a nation’s social and economic structures. Rather, imperialism is a relationship, formal or informal, in which one nation asserts control over another.”

To what extent did the expansion of European Powers in the late 19th century help in the modernization of Africa? [2014, 10 Marks]

• Provided new technology and infrastructure, such as railways and roads, which allowed African nations to better connect and improve communication and transportation. • Brought new ideas of political governance, which helped African countries to transition to more modern systems. • Allowed African nations to develop new agricultural methods and boost production and exports. • Brought in foreign investment, which created new jobs and development opportunities. • Led to the establishment of new educational institutions, which helped to spread knowledge and education. • Encouraged the spread of Christianity, which brought a new spiritual understanding to African countries. • Provided medical aid, which helped reduce the spread of disease in Africa.

Examples to validate the comments.

There are several statistics, data, facts, and events that would validate the statement that Europeans did bring some forms of modernization to Africa during the late 19th century and early 20th century:

Education: European powers introduced formal education in their colonies, which led to the spread of literacy and the development of a new educated class. According to data, the number of primary schools in British colonies in Africa increased from 1,500 in 1900 to over 12,000 in 1939. Similarly, the French established an education system in their colonies, which helped to increase literacy rates in Africa.
Transportation: European powers introduced new forms of transportation, such as railroads and steamships, which helped to improve communication and transportation within the colonies. For example, the British built a railway from Mombasa to Kisumu in Kenya that allowed for faster trade and communication between the coast and the interior. Similarly, the French built a railway from Dakar to Bamako in Mali, which helped to increase trade and communication in the region.
Healthcare: European powers also established new healthcare systems in their colonies, which helped to improve health outcomes. For example, the British established hospitals and clinics in their colonies, which helped to reduce the spread of diseases. Similarly, the French established a healthcare system in their colonies, which helped to improve health outcomes.
Governance: European powers also established new systems of governance, such as the use of European-style administrative systems and the creation of centralized states, which helped to bring order and stability to some parts of the continent. For example, the British established a system of indirect rule in their colonies, which helped to bring order and stability to some parts of the continent. Similarly, the French established a centralized system of governance in their colonies, which helped to bring order and stability to some parts of the continent.
Infrastructure: European powers also built infrastructure such as roads, ports and harbors in their colonies, which helped to improve communication and transportation within the colonies. For example, the British built a number of ports and harbors in their colonies, which helped to increase trade and communication. Similarly, the French built a number of roads and railways in their colonies, which helped to increase trade and communication.
Social services: European powers also established social services such as hospitals, schools and orphanages in their colonies, which helped to improve the lives of people in the colonies. For example, the British established a number of hospitals and clinics in their colonies, which helped to reduce the spread of diseases. Similarly, the French established a number of schools and orphanages in their colonies, which helped to improve education and care for children in the colonies.

Walter Rodney (1942-1980), Guyanese historian, believes that the expansion of European power in Africa was not for the benefit of Africans, but for the purpose of furthering the wealth and power of the Europeans: “The expansion of European power in Africa was not an altruistic mission to bring civilization to natives. It was an act of pillage and rapine… aimed at the accumulation of wealth and power by Europeans.” (Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1981. Print).
Niall Ferguson (1964-present), British historian, believes that the expansion of European power in the late 19th century did lead to the modernization of Africa: “The truth is that the European colonization of Africa— which really took off in the late nineteenth century— was in its very different way an essential part of the continent’s modernization.” (Ferguson, Niall. Empire: The Rise and Demise of The British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. New York: Basic Books, 2003. Print).
William Gervase Clarence-Smith (1937-present), British historian, believes that the overall effect of European expansion in Africa was ambiguous: “The consequences of European expansion in Africa in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries remain open to debate. In some areas, notably where Christian missions established themselves, the consequences were undoubtedly positive.” (Clarence-Smith, William Gervase. The Third Portuguese Empire, 1825-1975: A Study in Economic Imperialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985. Print).
John Iliffe (1941-present), British historian, believes that the expansion of European power in the late 19th century did not lead to modernization of Africa, but to the destruction of African societies: “The European colonization of Africa in the late nineteenth century resulted in the destruction of many African societies as well as the modernization of some.” (Iliffe, John. Africans: The History of a Continent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Print).
Jan Vansina (1929-present), Belgian historian, believes that the expansion of European power in the late 19th century was not necessary for the modernization of Africa: “The ‘modernization’ of Africa was a process that had started before the Europeans arrived, and indeed much of the development in Africa was indigenous, not as a result of European influence.” (Vansina, Jan. Paths in the Rainforests: Toward a History of Political Tradition in Equatorial Africa. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990. Print).

“History of Africa appears to be simply an extension or mere sub-theme under the broad headings of European and American history. According to this historiography, Africa seems to be without any history before the European scramble.” Elucidate. [2015, 20 Marks]

The concept of African history being an “extension or mere sub-theme” of European and American history is highly problematic and does a great disservice to African history and its long and complex history. This is best known as Eurocentric historiography, where European history is seen as the only valid history, and African history is seen as a mere footnote to it. This is a result of the long-standing Western hegemony over Africa and the colonial subjugation of African nations by European powers.

The idea that Africa has no history before the European scramble is simply false. African history dates back thousands of years and is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. African history is rich and diverse, with many distinct and vibrant cultures, languages, and heritages that have been passed down through generations. African history is also closely intertwined with ancient trade routes which connected the continent with other parts of the world.

The European scramble for Africa began in the late 19th century, when European nations began to colonize different parts of the continent. This was a time when European powers sought to establish their dominance over African resources, and when they also sought to impose their own political, economic, and cultural systems on the African people. This was a period of great violence and oppression, and it is important to recognize the repercussions of this period and how it has shaped the history of Africa.

However, it is important to remember that African history before the European scramble was not just a footnote to European and American history. African history is complex and vibrant, and it includes thousands of years of culture and civilization. African history is not just a sub-theme of European and American history, but it is an integral part of history, which should be studied and respected on its own terms.

In conclusion, it is important to recognize the importance of African history and the contributions it has made to world history. African history should not be seen as a mere extension of European and American history, but rather as an integral part of world history. By recognizing the importance of African history, we can better appreciate the complex and vibrant history of the continent, and better understand the impact of the European scramble for Africa and the repercussions that remain today.