"(Page 29 HOD), and this is a clear evidence that proves how Marlow’s morals have been destroyed as he moves to each station. In conclusion, Heart of Darkness de-humanizes Africans, denies their language and culture and under estimates them by calling them with humiliating names. Heart of Darkness reveals the absolute hypocrisy of Europe. In Europe, colonizing Africa was necessary because it would not only bring wealth to Europe but it would also civilize and educate the “savage” African natives. It shows that the European colonizers used the high ideals of colonization as a cover to allow them to collect whatever wealth they could from Africa.
The European imperialistic colonization in Africa was motivated by the desire to control the abundant natural resources an... ... middle of paper ... ... reasons. They wanted new land and the natural resources that can only be found in Africa, they wanted the new market opportunities that having colonies in Africa would open up to them, and the wanted to stay in competition with other European countries. The motives of the Europeans quickly deteriorated as they started exploiting the native Africans and abusing the slave trade that they had promised to abolish with the three C’s. The African people suffered a great deal as many of them were killed, harmed, or forced into slavery for the smallest civil unrest. The Europeans involved in the imperial take over lost their humanity as they started to treat fellow humans as though they were no more than cows lined up for slaughter.
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.
As a result, Africa was desperate to be relevant again, their economy depended on it. Because of the ban on the slave trade, there was a sudden demographic collapse of middle aged persons, which was also counterproductive to the growth of the continent. Before the scramble, Africa was naturally
This means those who argue that European imperialism in Africa was not justified because the Europeans simply took raw materials, are obviously mistaken. Another reason that European imperialism in Africa was justified, is the fact that Europeans did not take over Africa solely for their self interests. As plainly stated in excepts from Lord Carnarvon's records. "...it is certainly not a desire of selfish interests..." Clearly, those who argue that Europeans just wanted to benefit themselves through the imperialism of Africa, are incorrect. Unfortunately, even though European imperialism in Africa was justified, many Africans are still suffering from the effects to this day.
Britain tried not to play a part in this early scramble- being more of a trading empire rather then a colonial empire, however it soon became clear it had to gain its own African empire to maintain the balance of power. This is the direct link to Hobson’s Theory of ‘Overseas Investments’. Hobson saw the ‘greedy capitalists’ and the British Aristocracy, that he called the ‘shady elite’ to be investing into Africa to only gain personally at the start. However, when the problems began to raise the ‘shady elite’ would request the British Government to help and overtake the problems. Hobson saw the partition of Africa as deliberate British policy for benefit of elite group of 'greedy capitalist' investors.
Imperialism is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force. In the 20th century many European countries attempted to colonize the great continent of Africa. Europeans saw Africa as an area they would be able to profit from, as it had a great climate, good size, and some phenomenal natural resources. While the Europeans divided the continent of Africa they failed to see the possible negative effects on themselves, and the indigenous people of Africa. Their foresight was limited to only the positive outcomes.
Likely neither extreme is correct, with the truth lying somewhere in the middle. While some degree of choice may have existed at the very onset of the Slave Trade, it soon faded as a result of growing competition with neighboring states for military, economic and political advantages. However, ultimately it was the African leaders’ perception of their own powerlessness against the Europeans that resulted in their compliance. Once the first African leader agreed to exchange slaves for wealth and goods, the control other leaders had over their participation in the Slave Trade dwindled quickly. On the West Coast conflict between neighboring states was common, therefore European guns were a valuable commodity.
It gave... ... middle of paper ... ...t cooked up a scarcity in the mineral richness of Africa. This was a disadvantage for the countries of Africa of its raw materials. There was no chance for Africa to develop and be in competition with the world since they were in rivalry with Europe. In conclusion, all of these effects might not seem like there so severe and negative however, they all had pretty big part in bringing together the African culture. The warfare that came forth with the Imperialism left unfathomable scars in the nation of Africa, which caused racial obstruction and social distinctions.
There were many views of the issue of slavery during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and the resolution of slavery affected economics, politics, and social order. The slave trade triangle between Europe, west Africa, and the Indies has a great affect on European economics during this time. The only way for this elaborate trade triangle to work is if there were black Africans available for export to the Indies as slaves. If they were not available, then the landowners in the new world weren't able to produce the sugar, coffee, and tobacco for export to Europe, and the circuit broken. These African slaves were convenient, according to Guillaume Raynal (document 6), because they were thought to be more comfortable working in the hot conditions of the Indies, because they had originally come from a very hot climate in Africa.