During imperialism, Europeans went into Africa and stripped its land of its resources and this also changed the climate negatively. After stripping Africa of its resources the Europeans left, which left a political power vacuum making it easy for warlords and drug lords to take control. This is how Africa attracted issues like Rwanda and the problems in Somalia today. Africa is now stripped of natural resources which makes it difficult to create a normal lifestyle for inhabitants. Another barrier that does not allow Africa to develop into a prosperous continent is agricultural issues.
Enemy tribes were often forced to live together, which resulted in civil wars over the years. These wars, however, were not the only effects that European imperialism had on Africa. Some effects were great for the Europeans and Africans, but others only benefited the mother countries at the colonists’ expense. Document 1 clearly illustrates how the mother countries benefited at the expense of the
Indians depicted it as becoming denationalized as document H explains. The Cherokees repeatedly protested. Document I clearly states that the Cherokees believed that had the right to their land. To move beyond the Mississippi, to unknown territory, was a great burden to them. The treaties created were not fulfilled even though they guaranteed Indian privileges and protection from intruders, thus driving the Natives to exile.
The success of any continent is largely dependent on its economic development (Suter 2006). It would seem that Africa, a continent rich in resources would be regarded as a very promising continent, much to the contrary, Africa has proved to be a continent showing very little potential. Its failure to thrive at a rapid rate could be attributed to a number of factors; one of which includes the failure of many African governments to handle their responsibilities both legal and political (Suter 2006). It is both the lack of democracy of many African governments and the existence of autocratic rulers , that have led to the downfall of these countries, as their intent was to increase their own wealth instead of acting in the interest of their country and people. These failed leaderships have often led to civil war, negatively impacting further on the economy of the country.
In this chapter, Collins explains and depicts how Europeans destroyed Africa through their actions. European countries like German, Britain, and France scrambled to gain as much land in Africa. This created sort of a rivalry between the countries, which only made them obtain more resources from Africa to Industrial their countries. They chose their colonies based on the advantage they would gain by it’s strategically location. Colonies on rivers usually gave European countries an advantage because it allowed for easier trade.
Consequently they became unhappy when the British settlers arrived and wanted to claim the land as Britain’s. Since they already had dominion and power over the native black Africans, and they didn’t want to share this power. Fortunately for
Meaning these now obsolete slaves were being subject to have to watch European countries take over their lands and began industrializing on african soil because of how rich in materials the African land is. This was also seen in India, when the British took control of the Indian Company, and the British’ habits began to get to the indians to the point of which they eventually revolted (as seen in Document
Europe wanted to set up and colonize in Africa, mainly because of Africa's raw materials it was purely economic. . (Iweriebor, 2011) The African's did not take kind to this, and it provoked not only African political responses but also diplomatic responses and military resistance. A lot of treaties of protection for the leaders of African societies, states, and empires went out. There was a lot of controversy about these treaties and eventually the military had to step in.
The cunning actions of the European powers in Africa led to a disdain among the Africans against the Europeans, which set off violent rebellions that eventually helped lead Africa to liberty in the future. In documents 2 and 3 show that the effort among Africans to react with nonviolence. In Document 2, Prempeh’s denial of colony status under British rule goes to great lengths not to offend Her Majesty the Queen of England and insists that the Ashanti kingdom must remain on good diplomatic terms with all “White men,” even as he totally rejects the British offer. The friendly response can be understood as to not offend the British into seizing their kingdom. Menelik II’s letter to European powers (Document 3) clearly indicates his unwillingness to go along with plans to “divide Ethiopia among the distant Powers.” The constant references to Christianity in Ethiopia are no doubt intended to support the idea among Europeans that Ethiopia should be seen more favorably than other African nations, and be free from the Scramble for Africa.
Then Kloby helps us look at real examples of different times in which colonialism has hurt Africans more than helped them. All of these authors have come to one clear consensus: colonialism has ultimately destroyed Africa’s chances of becoming a great and powerful continent. In Mies’ essay, she tends to be very pessimistic about the Africa being able to “catch-up” to other already developed countries. Mies says that, “the poverty of the underdeveloped nations is not as a result of ‘natural’ lagging behind but the direct consequence of the overdevelopment of the rich industrial countries who exploit the so-called periphery in Africa” (151). She denies that possibility that Africa can catch up by following the same path of industrialization, technological progress, and capital accumulation as the more developed countries have used.