The lack of unity in Africa served as a strong advantage, allowing Europeans to govern the land with only minor upheavals from these groups. Industrialization had set the stage in such a way, that the demand for raw materials and new markets grew immensely. Europeans were in need of raw materials to fuel their factories, and they also wanted to sell their goods to new people. This urged their search for new colonies. In their competition for colonies and trade, European nations grew a strong sense of national pride.
Underdevelopment There was several immediately obvious aspect of that underdevelopment that we need to elaborate. Colonialism has its own logical concept on the Europeans and Americans. It was not true that the idea to colonize Africa was the issue to make profits. But their target was human capital associated with slavery. Africans were skilled, knowledgeable and creative individual who manage themselves without outside help.
This major Imperialism occurred during the late 19th Century and early 20th century. It had more negative effects in the modern world today then positive effects. While many countries in Asia and Africa are now similar because of how imperialism affected it, there are other ways that imperialism affected other countries, which is why Asia and Africa became so different despite starting out the same. The main reason why Africa was under imperialism was because European countries wanted more colonies to symbolize they had more power than everyone else, and Africa’s army was not nearly as strong as Europe’s. After Europe set up colonies all across the continent, there were many resources found.
However some Africans acted to the scramble by saying ok to the European demands, succeeding. While other Africans used religion as a reaction to the Europeans trying to take over African land. Other older African tribes reacted to Europeans by using tradition and old ways while some Africans were just to prideful to become a part of the new European ways or society. Even though all of this is true about the different ways Africans acted and reacted to European imperialism: there were still some Africans who did what was expected hold a violent resistance against the Europeans. A no holds barrier type of action was employed by some African tribes.
In the years of Europe’s series of conquest and colonization across the African landmass, the various tribes of Africa reacted either peacefully (possibly angry, just not doing anything to stop Europe), or aggressively. Many of the African tribes threatened by European expansion reacted to Europe’s violence (or warning) in peaceful, non-aggressive ways. Most of this is due to Africans having a huge military disadvantage against Europe due to their lack of modern firearms [doc 9]. Europe demanded written documents stating the surrender of African land over to the Europeans, of course, the Africans didn’t have a chance of defeating them, and so they signed their land of, sometimes without even attempting to fight back. They also had to state
During the time of the European scramble for Africa, European countries fought to control the natural resources and colonize Africa. In response to the imperialism of Europeans African actions and reactions involve, diplomatic methods nonviolent and violent resistant. Documents 1, 2, 3 reveal evidence of how some African countries that was oppose to the imperialism of the Europeans deal with it by using diplomatic methods. The Royal Niger company document gives an example of how the British were willing to develop a diplomatic relationship with the chiefs of the African countries. It shows how the Royal Niger Company agrees on paying for the land and to respect native laws (doc 1).
How would you account for Ethiopia's successful resistance to European conquest? Being an African state it would seem that throughout the period commonly known as the "Scramble for Africa" Ethiopia played an exceedingly powerful role and not a role where they were to take advantage of. Many states fell under the power of European colonialism, Ethiopia was one state that effectively stopped the colonialists from seizing their land through numerous different ways. The collection of African states was previously successful as "No African state was strong enough economically to have sustained warfare against Europe". Many foreign powers wished to take Ethiopia for themselves due to its economic nature and its long standing history.
Within the book there were many reasons that explained why the nation failed to end slavery but the main reason being the fear that Georgia and South Carolina’s would refuse to join the union if they were forced to abolish it. This fear caused the road blocked that forced this topic to be set aside during the Constitutional convention in 1787 and all others failure with half enforced laws years afterwards. The fear of losing both Georgia and South Carolina was a challenge the young America was not prepared to handle, there are many historical records that support this theory. Reading through this book I
In his views, Lincoln saw slavery as an unavoidable social evil that was essential to the economy . To the blacks, it was immoral and inhuman, but the Border States relied on the slave trade for their economic production. Abolishing slavery only meant altering the economic system in the slave Border States and this could only result in less support. Lincoln believed that slavery was destined to fade away with time but could not just be terminated abruptly. He advocated for a gradual termination of slavery but not a direct confrontation; first was the introduction of the Emancipation Proclamation, then the compensation of slave and finally colonization of the freed slave.
These reserves became the basis for Apartheid; they became forcibly settled and segregated cheap labor rings. Africans and Europeans were strictly to purchase and lease land in respect to their own ethnicity. In opposition to these outrageous laws was the South African National Native Congress, which became later known as the African National Congress led by none other than Nelson Mandela. In the late 1940s, throughout the continent Africa began to see plans of reform that increased the representation of the African population. However, in South Africa European dominance continued as union legislative and executive positions were restricted only to the whites further solidifying their power over the state.