Imperialism in Africa, driven by the Second Industrial Revolution during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, represents a unique chapter in the history of global power dynamics. The "Scramble for Africa" saw seven Western European powers invade, conquer, and colonize most of the continent, marking an era of "New Imperialism." In 1870, only 10% of Africa was formally under European control, but by the early 20th century, this figure had drastically increased.
Map of the Partition of Africa in 1913
This 50th anniversary issue of the Review of African Political Economy (ROAPE) focuses on imperialism in the African context and beyond.
The Scramble for Africa and the Berlin Conference
The Berlin Conference (1884-1885), also known as the West Africa Conference or the Congo Conference, was a pivotal event in accelerating the colonial expansion of European powers into Africa. This period is documented in AM’s resource Africa and the New Imperialism: European Borders on the African Continent, 1870-1914 which features digitised primary sources covering the negotiations, power struggles, wars, imperialist regimes, and overall impact of colonisation upon the lives of those living in Africa.
Prior to 1880, colonisation had begun in Africa, however, these colonies and European-controlled areas were mainly concentrated along the coast.
Read also: What to Wear: Morocco Edition
The conference opened on 15 November 1884 and closed on 26 February 1885 with the signing of the General Act of the Berlin Conference by all fourteen powers that attended: Austria-Hungry, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway, Turkey, and the United States of America.
No Indigenous representatives of Africa were invited, nor had a say in the negotiations.
Effectively, this act regulated colonial activity and officially divided Africa up along colonial lines, without any consideration for existing cultural borders. Consequently, the Berlin Conference contributed to the rapid colonisation of Africa by formalising the process for European nations to invade and occupy land.
When looking at contemporary documents, the act is mentioned throughout, often by European powers accusing rivals of breaking the terms of the conference, whether that be by not meeting the criteria to effectively occupy land, or observing the exploitation and mistreatment of Indigenous people, which was rampant. Moreover, it did not stop European conflicts in the continent.
As late as the 1870s, Europeans controlled approximately 10% of the African continent, with all their territories located near the coasts. The most important holdings were Angola and Mozambique, held by Portugal; the Cape Colony, held by the United Kingdom; and Algeria, held by France.
Read also: Discover Essaouira, Morocco
Motivations Behind Imperialism
Several factors drove European interest in Africa:
- The Great Depression of 1873-1896
- The discovery of precious minerals such as gold and diamonds
- Imperial aspirations and rivalries
Industrialization brought about rapid advancements in transportation and communication, especially in the forms of steamships, railways and telegraphs. Medical advances also played an important role, especially medicines for tropical diseases, which helped control their adverse effects.
Surplus capital was often more profitably invested overseas, where cheap materials, limited competition, and abundant raw materials made a greater premium possible. Another inducement for imperialism arose from the demand for raw materials, especially ivory, rubber, palm oil, cocoa, diamonds, tea, and tin.
Pro-imperialist colonial lobbyists argued that sheltered overseas markets in Africa would solve the problems of low prices and overproduction caused by shrinking continental markets.
The vast interior between Egypt and the gold and diamond-rich Southern Africa had strategic value in securing the flow of overseas trade.
Why did the US side against Britain and France during the Suez Crisis? (Short Animated Docu,emtary)
Read also: Morocco Time Information
The scramble for African territory also reflected concern for the acquisition of military and naval bases, for strategic purposes and the exercise of power. The growing navies, and new ships driven by steam power, required coaling stations and ports for maintenance.
Colonies were seen as assets in balance of power negotiations, useful as items of exchange at times of international bargaining. Colonies with large native populations were also a source of military power.
Key Players in the Scramble
- France: In the early 1880s, Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza was exploring the region along the Congo River for France. France occupied Tunisia in May 1881, which may have convinced Italy to join the German-Austrian Dual Alliance in 1882, thus forming the Triple Alliance and France occupied Guinea.
- Belgium: Henry Morton Stanley explored the Congo on behalf of Leopold II of Belgium, who would have it as his personal Congo Free State.
- Britain: In 1882, Britain occupied Egypt, which ruled over Sudan and parts of Chad, Eritrea, and Somalia. The occupation of Egypt and the acquisition of the Congo were the first major moves in what came to be a precipitous scramble for African territory.
- Germany: In 1884, Germany declared Togoland, the Cameroons and South West Africa to be under its protection. Germany became the third-largest colonial power in Africa, the location of most of its 2.6 million square kilometres of colonial territory and 14 million colonial subjects in 1914. The African possessions were Southwest Africa, Togoland, the Cameroons, and Tanganyika.
- Italy: Following unification, Italy sought to expand its territory and become a great power, taking possession of parts of Eritrea in 1870 and 1882. In 1889-90, it occupied territory on the south side of the Horn of Africa, forming what would become Italian Somaliland. In 1911, Italy engaged in a war with the Ottoman Empire, in which it acquired Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, that together formed what became known as Italian Libya.
The Congo Free State: A Case Study of Brutality
By 1890 the Congo Free State had consolidated control of its territory between Leopoldville and Stanleyville and was looking to push south down the Lualaba River from Stanleyville.
The scramble for Katanga was a prime example of the period. Rhodes sent two expeditions to Msiri in 1890 led by Alfred Sharpe, who was rebuffed, and Joseph Thomson, who failed to reach Katanga. Leopold sent four expeditions. First, the Le Marinel expedition could only extract a vaguely worded letter. The Delcommune expedition was rebuffed. The well-armed Stairs expedition was given orders to take Katanga with or without Msiri's consent. Msiri refused, was shot, and his head was cut off and stuck on a pole as a "barbaric lesson" to the people.
The Bia River expedition finished the job of establishing an administration of sorts and a "police presence" in Katanga. Thus, the half million square kilometres of Katanga came into Leopold's possession and brought his African realm up to 2,300,000 square kilometres (890,000 sq mi), about 75 times larger than Belgium.
The brutality of King Leopold II in his former colony of the Congo Free State was well documented; up to 8 million of the estimated 16 million native inhabitants died between 1885 and 1908.
According to Roger Casement, an Irish diplomat of the time, this depopulation had four main causes: "indiscriminate war", starvation, reduction of births and diseases.
Estimates of the death toll vary considerably. As the first census did not take place until 1924, it is difficult to quantify the population loss of the period.
Congolese man displaying his severed hand
French Colonial Practices
A similar situation occurred in the neighbouring French Congo, where most of the resource extraction was run by concession companies, whose brutal methods, along with the introduction of disease, resulted in the loss of up to 50% of the indigenous population according to Hochschild.
The French government appointed a commission headed by de Brazza in 1905 to investigate the rumoured abuses in the colony.
British Involvement in Egypt and Sudan
To construct the Suez Canal, French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps had obtained many concessions from Isma'il Pasha, the Khedive of Egypt and Sudan in 1854-56.
Some sources estimate the workforce at 30,000, but others estimate that 120,000 workers died over the ten years of construction from malnutrition, fatigue, and disease, especially cholera.
Shortly before its completion in 1869, Khedive Isma'il borrowed enormous sums from British and French bankers at high rates of interest. By 1875, he was facing financial difficulties and was forced to sell his block of shares in the Suez Canal.
The shares were snapped up by Britain, under Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who sought to give his country practical control in the management of this strategic waterway.
During the 1870s, European initiatives against the slave trade caused an economic crisis in Northern Sudan, precipitating the rise of Mahdist forces.
In 1881, the Mahdist revolt erupted in Sudan under Muhammad Ahmad, severing Tewfik's authority in Sudan. The same year, Tewfik suffered an even more perilous rebellion by his Egyptian army in the form of the Urabi revolt.
In 1882, Tewfik appealed for direct British military assistance, commencing Britain's administration of Egypt. The occupation of Egypt and the acquisition of the Congo were the first major moves in what came to be a precipitous scramble for African territory.
Britain's administration of Egypt and the Cape Colony contributed to a preoccupation over securing the source of the Nile River.
Egypt was taken over by the British in 1882, leaving the Ottoman Empire in a nominal role until 1914, when London made it a protectorate. Egypt was never an actual British colony.
Sudan, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda were subjugated in the 1890s and early 20th century; and in the south, the Cape Colony (first acquired in 1795) provided a base for the subjugation of neighbouring African states and the Dutch Afrikaner settlers who had left the Cape to avoid the British and then founded their republics.
Colonial Rule and Administration
In the beginning, control was limited to colonial authorities securing the loyalty of African chiefs and kings. This meant that African chiefs would trade only with their colonial government.
Towards the end of the 19th century colonial governments began to play a more active role in the affairs of African societies. Different colonial governments adopted different methods of rule.
British Colonial Rule
The British system of indirect rule simply meant that power over colonies would be exercised through indigenous political structures. These structures which is related to a customary law were preserved and allowed to continue. In the early years of colonial rule, local rulers were still powerful and they were able to maintain the integrity of their political structures and system of government. To a large extent ordinary people did not suffer or feel the impact of colonial rule, and for many there was a little change.
This did not mean that African rulers were free to behave as if nothing had changed with colonisation. The British government introduced policies to limit local rulers power to govern their societies.
French Colonial Rule
French and Portuguese colonies were ruled differently. Unlike the British system, the French and Portuguese gave a role to local African leaders preferring to adopt a system of direct rule. Colonies were treated as if they were extensions of the two European states. For example, French colonies were treated as French departments.
The French government did not include any African rulers. They were stripped of all their powers and the people were ruled directly by French colonial officers often with a military background.
Portuguese Colonial Rule
The Portuguese introduced the prazo system. The prazo is a Portuguese system of land grants that was introduced in the colonies. It was a mixture of local political structures and a Portuguese political system. It was not an indirect rule system because land was taken from African rulers and given to Portuguese settlers. The control of land gave Portuguese the power to control African people.
Because Portuguese rule was very weak, Portuguese holders of these land grants (prazo) legitimised their control of land by marrying into African royal families. These Portuguese rulers called themselves chiefs (like African chiefs) and ruled like African chiefs.
Belgian Colonial Rule
In Rwanda, the Belgians used an indirect rule system. Instead of accommodating all traditional authorities within their colonial system, they favoured one group, the Tutsis. They used the Tutsis to control other groups in Rwanda.
The Congo was ruled as the personal property of King Leopold II. Belgian colonial rule was characterised by the most cruel and exploitative treatment of the local people. People were forced to work and those who refused to carry out their duties had their hands chopped off.
German Colonial Rule
German colonial rule was also based on direct rule. However, there was no attempt to turn Africans into Germans. German colonial rule lasted for a brief period as Germany lost her colonial possessions after the First World War. Her colonies were mandated to British and French colonies.
Italian Colonial Rule
Italy was the latecomer in the colonisation of Africa, becoming involved only after the Italian unification of 1870. By this time other European countries had already claimed most parts of Africa. The Italian government developed a centralised administration with the aim of sending Italians to live in the colonies.
Economic Exploitation and Dependency
The main motive for imperialism was to obtain and control a supply of raw materials for industries. This meant that a weaker country with abundant natural resources would be colonised. Imperialists were often brutal in the way they treated the indigenous population.
European imperialism in Africa was beneficial for the European nations in that it helped grow their national economies. This was done by extracting important natural resources out of Africa and using them to benefit European companies and governments.
This review is published with the express intent of providing a counterweight to that mass of literature on Africa which holds: that Africa’s continuing chronic poverty is primarily an internal problem and not a product of her colonial history and her present dependence; that the successful attraction of foreign capital and the consequent production within the confines of the international market will bring development; and that the major role in achieving development must be played by western-educated, ‘modernizing’ elites who will bring progress to the ‘backward’ masses.
Popular articles:
tags: #Africa
