Skip to main content

According to Kevin Shillington in History of Africa, what reasons and justification(s) led to the "Scramble for Africa" and why was this scramble...

The "scramble for Africa" took place for several reasons, according to Schillington:


  • Various other countries managed to catch up to Great Britain in terms of industrialization and manufacturing abilities. This made them decent competitors in the sudden search for new markets for the sale of goods once their home markets (in other words, European markets) became oversaturated. 

  • European nations were also motivated by the belief that African countries contained raw materials (and, thus, sources of wealth) that had gone untouched. The potential reward of moving "in" on Africa was huge.

These two factors (combined with the colonialists' ability to exploit the already existing conflicts between African states and the European "home advantage" of having much more advanced military technology) made African resistance pretty much futile. 


The "scramble" itself was mostly delayed by how long Britain had managed to cling to the "free trade" market due to their advances in industrialization. As was already mentioned, other European countries' ability to catch up with Britain ended this singular control. France was the first to challenge the "free trade" policy by breaking ground on a railway from Dakar to the upper Niger valley. The British response was to support Portuguese claims to Angola and Congo. Germany quickly tossed in its hat to lay claim to Togo, Cameroon, and Namibia. 


This scramble was ultimately resolved without open conflict due to the 1884 to 1885 Berlin West Africa Conference, which set up some parameters for the land claims by 1) recognizing Leopold's International Association as the authority of the Congo basin and 2) by declaring that a European nation attempting to claim land must effectively occupy that land. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more