Questions: Why, and with what consequences, did the European powers divide the continent up with such great speed?
Overview
This essay will first define the dividing up of the African continent and give a brief introduction on the scramble and the need to partition the said continent.
The main body will discuss two questions:
At the end of this paper, all of the important points will be summarized, and conclusion will be drawn based on the arguments on both sides.
Introduction
The Partition of Africa
Partition is defined as the process of separating entities. Thus, Africa was the division of African colonies among European powers of Portugal, Spain, Belgium, France, Britain, Germany and Italy.
Africa was opened up to the western explorers towards the end of the 18th century. In 1835, mapping of most of the north-western and central Africa, together with the Niger, River Zambezi, and Congo was done by David living stone and Serpa Pinto (Mackenzie 1983). From late 18th century up to the beginning of 19th century, they chartered the interior, by mapping much of the continent, from South Africa to the starting point of Nile in Uganda (Mackenzie 1983).
The partition of Africa was not done until the late 19th century (Boahen, 1987). Thus, the actual division of African colonies was considered as the most exciting event during the general movement of expansion after 1880. Aside from that, it was also considered as the most sudden and unpredictable scenario, which took place so fast.
This is because at first trading stations and naval bases were present only on the coastline, because British only wanted to maintain their communication links with its Indian colonies. This led to the British colony to be interested in Egypt and South Africa that later on focused on the colony’s need to secure the said two interests. Furthermore, this became an ambition and a task for Cecil Rhodes, which pushes them to establish a Cape-Cairo railway, Egypt Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, British East Africa Kenya Uganda British Somaliland Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) (Mackenzie 1983).
Then finally, imperialism assumed a social meaning when the domestic and political tensions spawned by the industrial revolution and abolition of slave trade, thus considered as the eclipse by nationalists’ passions and rivalry among states for world domination (Baumgart, 1982). During the said time, the was an vital and urgent rush to acquire colonies, which in itself was scramble the result of dividing these acquired are territories (Baumgart, 1982)
It can’t go with out noticing that, if the entire process of scramble was peaceful, subsequently there would be not reason to divide these colonies, that is to say who owns what and where. However, because of greed, competition and the increased economic and political rivalry of European powers, created by equal development of industrial capitalism, coupled with the struggle for status as great powers like the case of France and Britain in the famous Fashoda crisis (Baumgart 1982, p. 63), all of the parties involved have no choice but to assemble a meeting at Berlin in 1878 in order to solve their differences.
Treaties were signed colonies will be distributed, and these signed treaties were later used as rights of ownership, thus the eventual partition of Africa (Baumgart 1982, pp. 37 – 39).
Africa was partitioned for many reasons, including the point of balance of power, status quo and pride. Aside from that, there was an urgent need for raw materials because of the industrial revolution, need for markets, ongoing export of surplus capital and other reasons which will be tackled in this paper.
Apart from the above mentioned, it was this European rivalry, competition, and the Early contacts (Missionaries& Explorers) that paved the way or opened the eyes of their respective countries regarding the wealth and potentials that Africa had, thus together with the increasing needs and greed of these people, they hastily divide the spoils amongst themselves (Baumgart, 1982).
In addition, the most important and critical of all reasons for the Europeans to partition Africa was the economic theory of Imperialism, which is the demand for raw materials, this is because, by the Mid-19th century, most European regions were already experiencing industrialisation (Friedhouse 1971). However, Europe has no resources that will support their industrialized industries, thus they came to realize that resources from Asia and America will not be sufficient enough. To add more problems, the industrial revolution is spreading to all European nations at such a great speed, which resulted to a shortage of raw materials, and the increasing need to fee these industries. European saw Africa as an untapped territory, thus motivate them to rush the partition. This brought competition among the European powers to divide the spoils among themselves (Friedhouse 1971).
In addition, there was the need to find a market, where in they can put their excess products. Consequently, because of unprecedented industrial revolution, Europeans rapidly produced a surplus (Hobsbawn 1975).Further still, this was the time when goods such as coffee, tea, cocoa and the likes came to be used daily and became a necessity in Europe, and their demand was much there’s a fresh market to tap into (Chamberlain 1974). This increased the competition and rivalry to quicken, at the same time, get more, at they dump most of their finished goods in Africa (Chamberlain 1974).
One of the major reasons why they had to do so was the environment of protectionism that had swept the whole of Europe which resulted to new market to be sought of and Africa fitted the puzzle. And by this governments reacted with a great vigour and valour to conquer these undeveloped territories and get these fresh markets for themselves (Hobsbawn 1976).
In addition to the above, at the start of 1830s there were vast accumulations of capital by European powers especially Britain, as noted by Hobsbawm (1975) where he asserts that, “capital was burning the holes in their owners’ pockets.” During that time, the main industrial countries had equipped themselves with a huge amount and the opening capital investment at home was quickly used up and because all European countries were going through the same episode, the need to invest abroad is critical.
By 1880s Britain had invested about 40% of its capital into infrastructure in Africa. Thus, with the spheres of influence, together with the amount of investment, Britain had to protect its interests by speeding up the process of partitioning (Hobsbawn 1975). On the other hand, the process of partitioning was speed up with the help of contacts such as missionaries and explorers.
Initially, European presence in Africa was just confined to various coastal areas, and the question of going inland was not urgent and not worth risking for diseases, and the fight as the experience of this in Indian wars was not the pleasant one (Robinson & Gallagher 1961). With the help of missionaries and explorers, government had been able to realize the wealth of Africa including gold and other precious stones. In this regard the missionaries had preached and softened the hearts of Africans of which played an important role when it came to the actual partitioning.
According to the signing of the treaties in Berlin, the territories where in missionaries were present have automatically fell to their governments’ hands (Robinsons & Gallagher, 1961).
Further still, the literature these early explorers wrote in their home government press respectively aided and speeded up the partition of African continent (Robinsons & Gallagher, 1961).
In addition, the competition and the increased economic, political rivalry of European powers, created by an equal development of industrial capitalism, had intensified, not only in the African colonial rivalry, but also about the Eastern Question, which causes the problem of separating the old and new colonialism (Baumgart 1982).
When this Anglo-French colonial rivalry turned into, a multinational, colonial rivalry, the race and the competition accelerated to what Baumgart (1982) called as a “snow balling or stampede effect, a mass panic.”
As West Africa became a battle ground (Hargreaves 1963), so was Congo under Leopold II, and again France accusing Britain of conniving with Leopold II. And with the same tense situation developing in East Africa, on the upper Nile where the British, French, Italian and even Russians interests crossed in many ways, all this going on the conference of Berlin had to be summoned in order to sort out this problem and thus quicken the process of partitioning (Baumgart 1982).
In addition, there was also a social condition of surplus labour produced by the industrial capitalist system as well as the large numbers of the unemployed (Boahen 1987), which contribute to the partition of Africa for colonies.
Consequently, there was the issue of infrastructure and technology revolution, which were am essential preliminary condition and an important impulse for classical imperialism (Baumgart 1982).
The development of steam navigation enabled quicker journeys from Britain to India and African coasts and ports where in raw materials were picked from inland. Also to note is the point of the opening of the Suez Canal and the damming of the Nile also worked in yet another respect as a motive force of imperialism (Baumgart 1982).
Aside from that, the inter-continental Railways can be considered as an instrumental and technological stimulus to classical imperialism (Hobson 1965). By 1969, many railways were built which linked the world’s oceans, thus easing transportation and linking all these European countries to trade together, and helped to ship raw materials to their respective countries. As a result, it speeds up the scramble and partition of Africa which was accessible during that time (Baumgart 1982).
Where as all the above was going on, or helped the speeding up of partitioning of Africa, the main point or the congress of Berlin put the last nail in the coffin. It was at this congress, the Eastern question and all the wars that were being fought among European powers, like the balance of power, and the acquisition of colonies were solved (Baumgart 1982).
Tunisia was exclusively regarded as an indemnity; treaties were concluded between countries including Britain and Germany, Britain and Portugal, Britain and France. From 1869 to 1908, the number of the number of treaties signed showed that the powers tried to settle the conflicts. There were compensations and concessions among the powers and this softened the aggressiveness and brutality in the acquisition process. Therefore, the Berlin conference can be considered as an important event towards the partition and the smooth division of African colonies among the European powers (Baumgart 1982).
What were the consequences the Europeans faced while partitioning Africa?
On the side of Europeans, due to the fact that raw materials were gotten from their designated colonies, it had helped to have a big breakthrough of industrial capitalism, which helps to increase production and productivity. For instance, Headrick (1981) stated that capital goods took a lead, resulting in the age of steel, iron, coal, which could easily be seen in the way how Britain’s railway construction was blooming. So to speak in the heart of Europe a new economy was unfolding and its effects were felt globally, primarily in terms of trade and industrial capitalism (Headrick 1981).
In addition, from 1820 to 1880, a new international division of labour was introduced and accelerated, which resulted in integration of world economy. Thus during that time, products like coffee, tea and cocoa had became everyday beverages in Europe (Hobsbawn 1975).
In addition, because of the above unprecedented industrial growth, came the rivalries of competition and greed of these raw materials, the good example is the Fashoda crisis of 1898, on the other hand, and a need to protect their industries from other Europeans. The results are severe protectionism, abandonment of free trade to give way for tariff barriers (Bosbawn 1975).. By doing this Europeans rushed with some degree of urgency to acquire colonies, whose markets would become their exclusive monopoly, and consequently even today, protectionism plays an important role in the economy of European countries like France (Hobsbawn 1975).
In addition, it is also important to consider that Britain as a leader of industrial revolution lost to other powers in the competition, even so the new comers like the United States of America, were drawing closer economically, and this even inflicted more pain on Britain during the economic depression, where it was no longer called “the workshop of the world”, then Britain never recovered, while America gained momentum, and up until now, it is considered as the greatest country (Hobsbawn 1975). Thus, it can be associated with the beginning of trading centres in the world.
In Africa, the Europeans spent a lot of money in order to facilitate, administer and control their respective colonies. The most pressing one was labour, which was desperately needed for infrastructure and mining itself in the case of South African colonies and the Congo (Freund 1998). More money was needed for training this labour and where necessary, more labour in form of expatriates was imported from their respective countries of origin, and this was putting pressure on their home governments and tax payers, thus costly venture this was to the Europeans (Freund 1998)
Apart from the expenses on the infrastructure and labour, the Europeans were faced with a problem of pockets of wars, resistance and surprise attacks from some African chiefs and their subjects, who resisted the colonial rule (Freund 1998). The more notorious ones were in West Africa, who had well organised armies which resulted for the Europeans to suffer continued defeats at the hands of the Ashanti in Gold coasts and Zulu in South Africa. Another is the famous Boer war, which was the name that was given to the South African wars of 1880 – 1881 and 1889 – 1902, that were fought between the British and the descendants of Dutch settlers or Boers in Africa (Spartacus n.d.). As a result, British used a lot of resources and men to eventually claim victory, which put a lot of strain on British government (Freund 1998). Aside from that, it was also discovered that there was another side to Splendid Isolation, and that is Britain were alone and if the continental rivals will choose to intervene then they would be in a splendid mess. Furthermore, the Boer was had a clear impact on Britain at home, because of the series of military losses for the British that had a huge impact on the society. Aside from that, the image of British people was ruined, because, particularly, Boer peoples see British as inferior and easy to beat during wars. Above all, recruitment for the Boer war highlighted the extent of poverty within the unskilled labour classes (Info Barrel 2009).
To make matters worse, the Europeans suffered from lots of tropical diseases, like malaria and yellow fever, which resulted in a huge mortality rate amongst the Europeans it was not until the discovery of Quinine that this eradicated.
Primarily, slave trade is considered as one of the major trade during that time, thus European countries are considered as the most important players and consumers in the said industry. As a result, European countries developed conflict with some strong African states and the supporting countries. Furthermore, it created conflict between the European countries, making them compete with each other. During 18th century, British merchants had to abandon their long-standing trading enclaves on the Gambia River because of the French military threat and the intransigence of local African rulers. Aside from that, on the Gold Coast, Britain became embroiled in a conflict with the powerful Asante Confederation over the administration of coastal trading forts during 1820s (Parsons 1999, p. 68).
On the other hand, it can be the partition of Africa, and colonialism of Europe in the second country enables Africa to acquire civilization and education. It had helped some Africans to gain education and give them better life. However, the said event enables informed Africans to be aware of inhumane condition of their fellow countrymen in the hands of Europeans. Thus it resulted for some Africans to form armies to condone slavery.
Conclusion
Although Africa is considered as the nearest continent to Westen Europe, it was colonized late because of healthy risk that is presented towards Europeans. However, when it was discovered with the help of missionaries and travellers, the European nations have started to come forward in order to take parts of wealthy and rich countries. This is because Africa can offer vast resources for Europeans including raw materials, which is important in their developing and blooming industrialization. Aside from that, there are also several precious products including diamonds and other precious stones, together with the ivory that attracted the European nations to control African regions. Therefore, it can be said that the primary reason for partitioning Africa is because of greed and hunger for power and money. This continues to the point that conflict happened between European nations.
The problem with the said event is that the Europeans were not properly planned or did not think twice regarding the different consequences of partitioning Africa, primarily because they were blinded by money and power. The negative result focuses on wars which affected social aspects of European people, primarily due to the movement of organized armies of some strong African states, contest competition and the negative impact of Boer war.
However, the process of partitioning Africa played an important role in the development of European economy, however, due to the strong force of Africa, and the widespread of trading centres in the world, British was overpowered by America in terms of skills and knowledge of labour.
Bibliography.
Adu, A. B, (1987). African Perspectives on Colonialism: The Johns Hopkins University PressBaumgart, W. (1982). Imperialism. The idea and Reality of British and French Colonial Expansion, 1880-1914. Oxford University Press.
Eric Hobsbawm, (1976). The Age of Capital 1848-1875
Hobson, J.A (1965). Imperialism: A study. New ed University of Michigan Press.
Freund, B. (1998). The making of Contemporary Africa. The Development of African societies since 1800: Palgrave Macmillan press.
Hargreaves, J.D (1963). Prelude to the Partition of West Africa: London Macmillan
Fieldhouse, D. K (1971). The Economic Exploitation of Africa: Some British and French comparisons` in P. Gifford and WR Louis (Eds), France and Britain in Africa: Imperial rivalry and colonial rule. New Haven and London.
Robinson, R.E and Gallagher, J. (1961). Africa and the Victorians: The official mind of Imperialism: London Macmillan.
Chamberlain, M (1974). The Scramble for Africa. Longman, Norfolk
Cain, P (1980). Economic Foundations of British Overseas Expansion 1815 – 1914. The Macmillan Press, Hong Kong
Mackenzie, J (1983). The Partition of Africa 1800-1900 and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century. Methuen, London
Havinden, M & Meredith, D (1993). Colonialism and Development; Britain and its Tropical Colonies, 1850- 1960. Routledge, New York
Huntingdon, S, (1993). The Clash of Civilisations? Foreign Affairs, Vol 72 (3) p.23-49
Info Barrel (2009). Impact of the Boer War on British Politics and Society in the Twentieth Century. viewed 5 May 2009, < http://www.infobarrel.com/Impact_of_the_Boer_War_on_British_politics_and_society_in_the_twentieth_century>
Parsons, T (1999). The British Imperial Century, 1815 – 1914: A World History Perspective. Rowman & Littlefield
Spartacus. The Boer War. viewed 5 May 2009, < http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WARboer.htm>
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment