They were pretty much forced to practice imperialism because of the growing threat of Germany and France. The British continued to be imperialists until the beginning of World War 1, in 1914, because they feared that they might lose their empire. They conquered and added on many parts of Africa, such as Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, the Suez Canal, etc… In most cases, the reasons for this was that were able to colonize these people and gain alliances with them and also to send out the message to other countries that they were still competitive. One prime example of this, was how Britain bought the Suez Canal into their own power. Fredinand de Lesseps, a Frenc... ... middle of paper ... ...e from India.
European Imperialism heavily impacted the African continent through culturally, economic, and political ideas. This era of history is heavily drenched in the aspect of ethnocentrism, which is the belief that one’s own culture is superior that of another. The Europeans colonized Africa believing that they could bring civilization, but they were often ignorant of Africa’s very complex societies. The European powers divided up the continent of Africa among themselves, without any consent from the people who actually lived there. The tribal stratification was changed to a caste system where racial, ethnic, and religious differences were of utmost importance, as delegated by European rule.
After being beat down by Prussia, France felt the need to redeem themselves, and acquiring parts of Africa to expand trade seemed like a great idea. They already had trade stations in this region from the slave days when slaves were being transported to America and their main interests were trading lumber and palm oils. France later controlled the island of Madagascar off the coast of South Africa and this gave them a much needed presence in the Indian Ocean. Germany entered the picture late in the game and almost missed out. They were ... ... middle of paper ... ... are among only a few of these benefits, but unlike Africa, there was not much bad to contrast the good in these countries as a result of their exploits, A weak argument can be brought forth as to the good that colonial expansion brought to Africa; education was improved, trade was increased, the infant mortality rate decreased, the infrastructure was improved, and religion and western influence were introduced, these last two are very arguable as to the benefit, but these improvements no matter how large or small will always be overshadowed by the suffering, torture, death, and destruction caused by this colonization.
The push for power was motivated by greed and an overwhelming desire to control every aspect of valuable foreign areas. One of the biggest moments in the history of colonization was the ‘Scramble for Africa’, as historians (and Professor Hopkins) refer to it as. As slaves were the biggest resource of the time, the banning of slave trade in Africa in the early nineteenth century caused European disinterest in continent that they were once heavily dependent on. Although there were localized replacements, like ivory trading, they were not as effective in keeping Europe’s interest. As a result, Africa was desperate to be relevant again, their economy depended on it.
Although the slave trade was ... ... middle of paper ... ...(Kipling). Europeans planned to use the African people as workers for profit in which the Europeans would claim. The African people would do all of the work, however the Europeans would reap the economic benefits. In the final stanza, Kipling alludes to the terrible conditions African society is exposed to: “Fill full the mouth of Famine.” Kipling also asserts that when the Europeans are satisfied with the revenue brought in, they will no longer “work to help develop Africa.” This solidifies the true reason for imperialism. 19th century imperialism in Africa was fueled by greed and arrogance rather than the supposed willingness to help by the Europeans.
The final explanation historians offer to explain the Scramble for Africa was largely based on a variation of internal African circumstances and European influences. This reason can be split demographically between areas that were successful after the slave trade and area that failed to successfully flourish after the slave trade. In the areas where African economy blossomed post slave trade, Europeans could be pinpointed as the culprit because of the escalation of demand for mercantile products. The societies that claimed a lackluster economy post slave trade, could only blame themselves as internal conditions could be identified as the reason behind their
British investors held about half the stock of the mining industries in the Boer Republics, so the protection of the industry was vital not only to the interests of those particular investors, but more indirectly for the protection of free global trade, which Britain’s economy relied upon. With mines running as efficiently as possible, more gold could be produced and put into circulation in the world market, which favored Britain as the primary leader in the global economy. But just as Friedman must address the concerns in the 1990s of those who are late entrants into the global economy, so we must address the concerns of those who represent the Olive Tree in South Africa; namely, the Boers and the native black Africans. While Friedman insists that globalization ultimately empowers individuals through the democratization of technology, political processes, finance, and information, Boers and Blacks seem, in different ways, to be very limited in their empowerment in the short term. Friedm... ... middle of paper ... ...but after the war Blacks were cut off from economic empowerment because Boer racism became legally protected.
In the early 19th century, the British East India Company established more trade warehouses and thoroughfares in the Indian subcontinent. This occupation of Indian lands that was welcomed by some groups and fiercely opposed by others. While met by more opposition, the British Empire expanded into the other Indian Ocean territories up to the end of the century. Because the trans-Atlantic slave trade was profitable for African elites and brought western many valuable goods to West Africa, when it was effectively shut down after 1808 by British patrols, people along this coast were eager to keep the European trade lines alive. The imposition of this “legitimate trade” (any non-slave trade) saw a huge rise of African export of gold and palm oil.
What was the Scramble for Africa? The Scramble for Africa was a period of time where major European countries fought over and colonized land in Africa, stretching from South Africa to Egypt. The scramble for Africa began shortly after the slave trade, and ended at WW1, and is a strong representation of the ‘New Imperialism’. The first country to act was Belgium, who colonized Congo at 1885, but soon, other countries such as Portugal and Great Britain joined in in order to not miss out. Firstly, the European could not colonize Africa easily, due to Africa’s giant land mass and the diseases that spread throughout the land.
Great Britain wanted to spread its culture and religion (Butler). As a result, Christianity was dispersed imperialized countries under the name of Great Britain. Another major reason Great Britain imperialized in Africa was because other European countries that were participating in the “Scramble for Africa” (Berard). This was the time period where certain European countries fought over what countries in Africa to imperialize. Britain wanted more power, and therefore, more land as well.