Africa - Made Better or Worse by European Colonisation?

Africa: Made Better or Worse by European Colonisation?

With the European arrival in to Africa, it was followed by enslaving the local populace and in general causing chaos to the ancient social structures which had been formed over centuries by simply tearing it apart, using them all as slaves. This was followed by attempts at serious colonisation. However, from the extreme climate of the continent (ranging from arid to tropical) it was impossible to expand any further than having a few coastal settlements due to the lack of technology available to the Europeans to sustain an attempt without the colonists attriting away. However, even though slave trade was a reason why the Europeans came there were a few more. It was possible that there were many resources further in to the continent that were unavailable to the Western countries and the kingdoms in Europe were able to carve an empire in these foreign lands without intervention from other powers that would normally happen when conquest was attempted in their locality. There were explorers who came to the land lusting for riches and then there missionaries who wanted to "bring culture" to the natives and to convert them to the "true faith" or in pity of the Africans being sold en masse around the world in an attempt to change things.

"Early European expeditions concentrated on colonising previously uninhabited islands such as the Cape Verdes and Sao Tome Island, or establishing coastal forts as a base for trade. These forts often developed areas of influence along coastal strips, but (with the exception of the River Senegal), the vast interior of Africa was not colonised and indeed little-known to Europeans until the late nineteenth century." (wiki)

"At first African diseases and hostile natives repulsed most expeditions into Africa. However, as European society made progress with new inventions and discoveries" (hyperhistory)

Map of Africa 1794

http://www.geographicus.com/blog/wp-.../08/africa.jpg

Known areas circled. For the case of this post, exclude the circling of Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. This is on about Central and Southern Africa.

Over the time between 1400-1800 limited advance was made in to the continent with the most notable territories being either islands off the coast or the Dutch in South Africa (this was soon handed over to the British Empire), but by the 19th Century most powers finally had the technology to advance inwards in to Africa. This they did with rapid pace resulting in what is known as the "Scramble for Africa" in which most notably the French and British took enormous chunks of the continent to the point that Abyssinia remained the only independent African state at the end of the colonisation period (conquered during Mussolini's conquest in 1936).

By taking large swathes of land on the continent, the Imperialistic states in Europe were able to now supply themselves with rare exotic goods, and to circulate these around the world on a global scale (no longer did everything have to come from the Silk Route or from Arabia and Nubia) and these both helped to make them very rich and the other materials helped to expand further on the industrial boom that was going on throughout the world. It helped to start up new industries with the vast variety of goods found in Africa and it supported the current industries by providing them with large amounts of raw materials. However, this came greatly at the expense of the natives. The Europeans weren't afraid of exploiting them for their own benefit and didn't see the natives as even close to being comparable to them. They had no status at all, were pretty much regarded as objects by their foreign masters and could be punished at their whim too no matter how small the issue responsible for it may have been, even if there was one. Though to not cast too dim a light upon the colonists, it depended on their nationality so as to determine the harshness of the treatment.

"One unfortunate result of the African colonization, however, was the fact that the colonizers often mistreated the indigenous inhabitants in African colonies. Officials in the Belgian Congo won first prize as the most abusive of almost any other colonizer in Africa. After Leopold finally got the Belgian Congo running and making a profit, rumors began to reach Europe of atrocities occurring in the Congo river basin.

Leopold II used the "Belgian" Congo as a private asset rather than a state colony. He did not care what happened to the inhabitants so long as he profited from the colony's resources. When the British Foreign Office published the report, France paid little attention to it because France had started to follow the lead of the Belgian Congo, exploiting the land at whatever cost to the natives. British humanitarians and Christians, however, were shocked. Great Britain certainly did not treat the natives in British colonies the best, but at least they did not treat them as slaves or wild animals as officials treated them in the Belgian Congo or French Equatorial Africa." (hyperhistory)

The old tribal life of the African locals had been undermined and annihilated by the colonists who showed complete contempt for it and during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries drove them from their rural lifestyles in to the new cities they were constructing in Africa. These were poorly built, overpopulated and were in a terrible state. Even now, there are bitter reminders of their efforts to centralise the African communities in to big cities. They had been that way for millenia since the land hadn't supported large populations and that living in villages had meant that the spread of disease was minimal. If a village got it, it would remain a local issue and they would deal with it (or simply all die without a trace) but by concentrating them all in to cities, with the poor health levels already in place it simply meant that even the smallest disease would spread like a forest fire and cause a large death count. Despite this, the Europeans did bring a vast amount of technology with them. Since they needed it all to simply stay alive in the harsh climate it meant that the Africans were feeling the full effect of it. The colonists mingled with the local populaces too, which meant that they both learnt the ways of the Europeans and benefited from all the things they brought which would be advanced weaponry, industry, medicine and more. Even though all this helped African society to advance, the Europeans weren't teaching them anything. After the First and Second World Wars, which had completely exhausted the European powers there were strong senses of nationalism on the continent and with the colonies now unprofitable, the Europeans gradually withdrew all the while granting independence to arbitrary states. I say arbitrary, because the borders were merely hastily drawn up and failed to take in to account cultural borders which would make for a state of constant civil war on the continent which still continues to this day.

It was as if the Europeans had came in to Africa, took everything they could get and simply walked out. When they drew up the borders for the new states, they were nothing but shoddy and they had failed to teach the Africans how to govern themselves after decades of colonial rule. They had been accustomed to their traditional way of life, and when this was interfered with they had been under foreign rule which although wasn't the kindest administration it kept them from getting out at one another. With their independence though, comes new responsibilities but it also comes with a massive power vacuum that has simply been filled by the conflicting tribal groupings that have to co-exist in their "countries" with their rivals. Now as a final summation in bullet points:

Advantages:

• European colonisation brought a vast amount of technology to a land which had practically been light years behind their European and Asian counterparts.
• Although they were strongly prosecuted against, the Africans themselves were able to trade with the Europeans (more so prior to full-scale colonisation) and to obtain their goods of which would help them.
• During the period of occupation, the European powers kept them in line. After they left, chaos ensued.

Disadvantages:

• Prejudice towards the Africans resulted in atrocities from which the colonists went unpunished for.
• The Africans were sold en masse around the world to spend their lives as slaves.
• The society that had been in place prior to colonisation was destroyed. Life would never be the same, and not particularly for the better (judging by the state of modern-day Africa's cities)

---

So what are you guys' thoughts on the subject? I wrote this up nearly a year ago but I was wondering whether you guys agreed or disagreed with my assessment.

Slavery was abolished before the Scramble for Africa even started and hey, we brought them civilisation!

i hope you are being sarcastic about "bringing them civilization" skullhead. Civilization by what standards? White standards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

i hope you are being sarcastic about "bringing them civilization" skullhead. Civilization by what standards? White standards?

---

Well, the standards of not eating insects, running naked with a spear in the hand behind some lions and eating fellow humans. At least we tried to civilise them and for a large part we succeeded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

i hope you are being sarcastic about "bringing them civilization" skullhead. Civilization by what standards? White standards?

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Well, the standards of not eating insects, running naked with a spear in the hand behind some lions and eating fellow humans. At least we tried to civilise them and for a large part we succeeded.

---

You are treading a fine line here between sarcasm / racist stereotyping / downright insult. Very similar to what you did in the Polish history thread.


This thread will not devolve into a free-for-all bashfest. No defamatory remarks about Africans. :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You are treading a fine line here between sarcasm / racist stereotyping / downright insult. Very similar to what you did in the Polish history thread.


This thread will not devolve into a free-for-all bashfest. No defamatory remarks about Africans. :stare:

---

Especially South Africans and their funny accents.

It's an interesting topic. It's fashionable to criticize colonialism but that assumes the new oppressors were worse than the old.

Hmm

Was Africa made better by Euro colonisation? I suppose it depends on your definition of better.

What gets me is Europe has interacted with Africa for thousands of years, so why does the story in school only start with the British and there scrambling.

Hello Rome and Greece anyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Especially South Africans and their funny accents.

It's an interesting topic. It's fashionable to criticize colonialism but that assumes the new oppressors were worse than the old.

---

Look at it from a different angle then I suppose.

People developed ways of living that suited there own environment, Europe changed that and the standard of living went down as a result.

Does the continent need to have been made better or worse? Is there a prize?

Is it really so black and white?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

People developed ways of living that suited there own environment, Europe changed that and the standard of living went down as a result.

---

Many villages in Africa have never even seen colonists, it was mostly the coast so nothing went down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You are treading a fine line here between sarcasm / racist stereotyping / downright insult. Very similar to what you did in the Polish history thread.


This thread will not devolve into a free-for-all bashfest. No defamatory remarks about Africans. :stare:

---

I guess I forgot about all those African (sub-Saharan) civilisations with their marvelous architecture, wonderful inventions and bright philosophers then, I'm sorry, I should have better educated myself :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Many villages in Africa have never even seen colonists, it was mostly the coast so nothing went down.



I guess I forgot about all those African (sub-Saharan) civilisations with their marvelous architecture, wonderful inventions and bright philosophers then, I'm sorry, I should have better educated myself :shame:

---

Mali Architecture (numerous images)

Nubian pyramids (Meroe)

Yeha, Ethiopia (dated 8th Century BC)

Great Zimbabwe (constructed between 11th and 14th Centuries [AD])

That's some architecture for you.

In regards to inventions, if you take in to account the climate and environment mixed in with the isolation of civilisations, you would realise that their inability to advance at the same technological pace as Eurasia is because they were lacking in the same materials that civilisations elsewhere had which enabled them to produce the weaponry they did (as an example) while having access to more luxurious materials which mean little militarily or architecturally. The way I see it, if you don't have the material to make something, and can't procure said material from another source then how can you be blamed for not making it?

I'm quite confident that if at some point we swapped the areas inhabited with white people with blacks (and vice versa) we would end up with an advanced black civilisation and a 'primitive' white one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

In regards to inventions, if you take in to account the climate and environment mixed in with the isolation of civilisations, you would realise that their inability to advance at the same technological pace as Eurasia is because they were lacking in the same materials that civilisations elsewhere had which enabled them to produce the weaponry they did (as an example) while having access to more luxurious materials which mean little militarily or architecturally. The way I see it, if you don't have the material to make something, and can't procure said material from another source then how can you be blamed for not making it?

I'm quite confident that if at some point we swapped the areas inhabited with white people with blacks (and vice versa) we would end up with an advanced black civilisation and a 'primitive' white one.

---

Afrikaners are the living proof that you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Afrikaners are the living proof that you're wrong.

---

Have they been given thousands of years to improve themselves in conditions similar to those of the Fertile Crescent or the Mediterranean? Of course they haven't. The earliest recorded civilisation is Sumer (5th Millenium BC) so it would only be fair to give my hypothetical situation that as a starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

Have they been given thousands of years to improve themselves in conditions similar to those of the Fertile Crescent or the Mediterranean? Of course they haven't. The earliest recorded civilisation is Sumer (5th Millenium BC) so it would only be fair to give my hypothetical situation that as a starting point.

---

Uh, Afrikaners build a good civilisation and cultivated a part of Africa despite the 'ecological barriers' you spoke of, thus proving the 'Africa didn't develop because of the climate' thing is a myth. Also Central Africa is very fertile, more so than the Mediterrean and Africa's main export is raw recources, so the 'no recourses' argument is nonsense as well., but I think you don't know who Afrikaners are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Uh, Afrikaners build a good civilisation and cultivated a part of Africa despite the 'ecological barriers' you spoke of, thus proving the 'Africa didn't develop because of the climate' thing is a myth. Also Central Africa is very fertile, more so than the Mediterrean and Africa's main export is raw recources, so the 'no recourses' argument is nonsense as well., but I think you don't know who Afrikaners are.

---

After taking a look at that article, there's a few flaws with your argument. In regards to your first part about them building a good civilisation, seeing as they were white colonists they would obviously know how to build in a similar style to the states back in Europe. To the next point about it being very fertile, if you take a look here you'll see the following:

Quote:

---

Climate

The climate of Africa ranges from tropical to subarctic on its highest peaks. Its northern half is primarily desert or arid, while its central and southern areas contain both savanna plains and very dense jungle (rainforest) regions. In between, there is a convergence where vegetation patterns such as sahel, and steppe dominate.

---

As i'd states earlier, the African climate lays on the extremities of the scale with the more moderate climates simply being hard to sustain a population on since they lack the necessary rainfall.

So, if the Afrikaners could cultivate South-Africa why couldn't those who lived there for ages do it? Same ecological limits.

There is no early colonisation only trading posts, the actual colonisation was in the late 19th century, and it was probably the greatest crime against humanity ever. Even a catious estimate is good for 50.000.000 people dead, and that's just the Belgium Congo. Pure rape is more like it, 'we' completely destroyed a whole continent, sliced it up.

It's not like the Afrikaners had to reinvent everything from scratch. So isolated or not, having gunpowder was quite nice along with other stuff.

For the environmental/climatic determinism argument there is Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He describes the problems that African cultures faced compared to the Eurasian region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Even a catious estimate is good for 50.000.000 people dead, and that's just the Belgium Congo.

---

But that's just because Belgium is very, very evil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

'we' completely destroyed a whole continent.

---

Hard to destroy some desert continent with a maximum of 10 huts on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

sliced it up.

---

Well, nobody claimed it, it was there for us to grab, unlike China or Japan, which was never colonised.

Africa would probably still as primitive if it wasn't for glorious European Imperialism, they shouldn't be ungrateful.

Quote:

---

So, if the Afrikaners could cultivate South-Africa why couldn't those who lived there for ages do it? Same ecological limits.

---

"Settlements of Bantu-speaking peoples, who were iron-using agriculturists and herdsmen, were already present south of the Limpopo River by the fourth or fifth century CE"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa#History

Quote:

---

Hard to destroy some desert continent with a maximum of 10 huts on it.

---

If you're not even going to be constructive then please don't post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Well, nobody claimed it, it was there for us to grab, unlike China or Japan, which was never colonised.

Africa would probably still as primitive if it wasn't for glorious European Imperialism, they shouldn't be ungrateful.

---

While European imperialism and colonisation bought a vast amount of technology to the continent, the construction of poorly planned urban metropolises simply causes the population to live in poverty and considering the climate, heavily increases the chances of diseases spreading as so many people have been brought in to close contact with one another. Prior to colonisation, African society tended to be fragmented with villages far apart from one another which meant that if there was a disease outbreak in a village it wouldn't spread, whereas now it spreads at an extremely rapid pace and is now rampant across the continent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

So, if the Afrikaners could cultivate South-Africa why couldn't those who lived there for ages do it? Same ecological limits.

---

Africans never domesticated the horse so they couldn't plough large fields, large scale agriculture gives surplus food leading to higher civilisation.

Those Bantu never left the Iron Age, and you compare them to Afrikaners? Here, let me compare them for you:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_die_Kaap.jpg
European Civilisation on the left, African civilisation on the right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

...Prior to colonisation, African society tended to be fragmented with villages far apart from one another which meant that if there was a disease outbreak in a village it wouldn't spread, whereas now it spreads at an extremely rapid pace and is now rampant across the continent.

---

Perhaps, but is that not a case of half empty glass instead of half full glass? Today there are more Africans than when the level of technology was much lower.

Some African countries have big issues with tribal/ethnic fragmentation. Some of that is caused by arbitrary borders drawn up by colonial powers.

But I doubt all can be blamed on that. Most European countries had similar issues but it is just hundreds or thousand+ years ago that most of it was fixed. And yes that fix was a mix of ethnic cleansing, migration or just one "tribe" becoming the dominant culture.

That some Africans prefer to grab an AK47 instead of using dialogue is not the fault of the colonial powers is it?

Quote:

---

Those Bantu never left the Iron Age, and you compare them to Afrikaners? Here, let me compare them for you:

---

You criticised the Africans for not inventing agriculture and I corrected you on that. I don't see in my post(s) where I make a comparison between the Bantu and Afrikaners.

Quote:

---

Perhaps, but is that not a case of half empty glass instead of half full glass? Today there are more Africans than when the level of technology was much lower.

Some African countries have big issues with tribal/ethnic fragmentation. Some of that is caused by arbitrary borders drawn up by colonial powers.

But I doubt all can be blamed on that. Most European countries had similar issues but it is just hundreds or thousand+ years ago that most of it was fixed. And yes that fix was a mix of ethnic cleansing, migration or just one "tribe" becoming the dominant culture.

That some Africans prefer to grab an AK47 instead of using dialogue is not the fault of the colonial powers is it?

---

I'm not trying to criticise the colonial powers for all of the wrong in Africa, and you make perfectly valid points, but I feel the colonial powers have facilitated conflict among the Africans by drawing arbitrary borders across the continent which don't consider tribal boundaries. As a result of this there has been overlapping borders which eventually causes conflict.

"Africans never domesticated the horse"
Arabs never domesticated horses? Egypt never had War Chariots? On the most powefull civilisation based on agriculture is African.
Now, for the tropical one, horses like human died of the Tse tse Flies. That why Islam stopped at the Tse Tse fence/barrier. The Typical Muslim war fare couldn't work as no more horses....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

I'm not trying to criticise the colonial powers for all of the wrong in Africa, and you make perfectly valid points, but I feel the colonial powers have facilitated conflict among the Africans by drawing arbitrary borders across the continent which don't consider tribal boundaries. As a result of this there has been overlapping borders which eventually causes conflict.

---

There are indeed some horrible and seemingly never ending conflicts like in Angola. Mozambique seems to have come out of their civil war before it escalated into yet another Angola. And I guess the jury is still out for Congo after the last war.

Hopefully things will improve as we no longer have a Cold War to divide the continent even more. Economic problems has AFAIK also played a role. e.g. It does not help when we are utter hypocrites and demands free trade only to destroy African agriculture because of our heavily subsidised farmers.

Edit: I do think Africa in this discussion means the Sub-Saharan part.

“Africans by drawing arbitrary borders across the continent which don't consider tribal boundaries”: Absolute non-sense. Europe did have non-arbitrary borders and it didn’t prevent wars. America has strait lines borders and it didn’t provoke wars.

More seriously, what kind of borders would you draw in the Sahara, or in the Tropical Rain Forest? And what would make more sense?
If you study the creation of borders, you will soon see that they were all but arbitrary. They were either geographical (Congo) or Political but from the European Balance of Power point of view.
Now, give me inter-States African Wars… The post Colonial Wars were not between States but most of them were Civil Wars. So was the solution: to partition Africa following ethnicities, languages or Religions? And can you explain how it would have avoid wars, as it didn’t really worked out, in Europe or Asia…

The other trap to avoid about Africa is the “good and unspoiled” savage “à la Rousseau”.
Africa had wars between Kingdoms long before European set a foot…
The African Kingdoms (e.g. Ghana, Songhai, Bamana Empire) were waging wars to their neighbours and were not nice people and were de facto the slavers…
Ethiopian Empire existed from 13rd Century to 1974 and the fall of the Emperor.
Shaka, creator of the Zulu Empire had quite drastic methods to put people on line…

Now, was Africa made better?
In term of heath, yes, transportation, yes, and in a lot of aspects.
Does it make colonisation good? No.
It is always the same problem: Did Stalin modernised Feudal Russia? Yes. But at what price!!!
Did the Gaul were better of after the Roman Conquest? After Caesar on his on admission killed a quarter and enslaved a quarter… Yes, but again at what price…

I am the one recognising that those who say “better starving than slavery” never starved…
But it doesn’t make slavery acceptable….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

It is always the same problem: Did Stalin modernised Feudal Russia? Yes. But at what price!!!

---

Winning WWII, how would WWII have looked like without Russian modernisation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Winning WWII, how would WWII have looked like without Russian modernisation?

---

Not helping Hitler in attacking Poland might have changed something...perhaps no war at all.