MAKING OF THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

The struggle for Africa as a colony between imperialist countries made relations between these countries tense, stimulating chauvinism and belligerence. Conflicts among European countries caused a series of crises, one culminating in the First World War. The contradictions that could not be fully resolved by World War I were the seeds of World War II. Because of the Europe was trying to improve their power and so expand their country, they need to improve their economy by take control other countries. Places like Asia and Africa seemed likely sources for contribution, it was a source for power and economy growth. The European control a lot of land in African, most of the raw material was taken by the European. They have been forced to become an export country with all the material such as coffee and tea. Because of that their economy fall down and combine with the wage, it made the country economy decreased. However,in Economist “A hopeful continent”, we are seeing a rising in economy of Africa. European left and they provide Africa with a lot of technology which is a start for a technology revolution later. Many oilfields and gold mines could start again to produce revenue and so the economy would raise again.

An important and controversial occurrence in Africa’s recent history is the racist nature of representations of Africa by foreign states, being mostly European. Racist portrayals of Africans—most often against Sub-Saharan peoples—served a tactical purpose for imperial powers. As noted in the class lecture for September 23^rd, racial ideologies situating African peoples as “lower” beings helped to further justify European imperialism on the continent. Noted as well, is that the racialized incentives for conquest are further enforced through the arrival of large numbers of Europeans to conquered territories, which directly led to racial inequalities within said colonies.

The “Africa/African” piece by Jemima Pierre further emphasizes the type of racialized ideologies that were at play, and to some extent still persist to this day. Late eighteenth-century English writings drew direct connections between apes and Africans, likely aided in part by the literary imagery of there existing supposed “beastlike men” in Africa. Pierre goes beyond the racialized motives for African colonialism by pointing out another motive for racism on page 13; the transatlantic slave trade. It would naturally be somewhat troubling to speak of enslaving another human being, especially in the mind of a then “modern” European, in order to serve in labor and crop harvesting tasks. The solution to this is to do away with the notion of these slaves being human in any way. Europeans would assert that there was both a natural and “’sexual association of apes”’ with black Africans.

Even in the contemporary world, there are certain themes played out in politics and media that continue the belief that Sub-Saharan Africa is in dire need of “white saviors”, and that it cannot so easily progress without their help. For example, the author of the Economist article, “A Hopeful Continent”, points to hopeful progress for the continent that could happen with the large amounts of foreign aid that are flowing in, but that one must wait to see the fruits of this labor in due time. This statement is not bad in and of itself, but it is the commentary afterward that is problematic. Specific aid to the tune of $1.7 billion from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation since 2006 is promising, but there is the acknowledgement that it takes “years and years to shift the system.” The author’s problematic commentary on page 3 is that “some aid will be wasted, some new roads will remain empty, and more than a few barrels of oil will be stolen.” Though the author of the article praises the amount of aid being given, there is still a cynical belief that Sub-Saharan Africans will put that money and aid to its best use. The author, though, praises the foreign aid nonetheless, arguably evoking a sense of white saviors needing to “save” African countries at any cost. There is not even a shred of statistical evidence for these assertions of mismanagement and would appear to stem directly from the author’s own biased views.

Throughout this week, via our lectures and readings we have been focusing mostly on Africa as a continent and the catastrophic changes brought about by European colonialism. We examined the dramatic effects the scramble for Africa had on the African identity and the racist perception left behind following decolonisation in the late 19th century.

It showed us exactly how European involvement in Africa completely pushed aside Africa’s linear progression to a more widespread and advanced continent by displacing the culture and economies of the region. Firstly by making the colonies completely reliant on their overlords, their entire economy was shifted to the whim of them, making it so that those regions could not effectively develop wide ranging and diverse economies. Secondly, by displacing the culture they effectively eroded the sense of identity of thousands of cultural groups across Africa, perpetuating the idea of their inherent inferiority to their colonizers and pushing their imperial overlords cultures upon them. This created a sense of divergent identity still pervasive today, resulting in a complex form of entanglement which has altered peoples perceptions of themselves, thus not allowing them to develop independently in that sphere.

Following decolonisation, not only did colonisation leave an attached identity onto the colonial subjects but also on the nations that colonised them. Racist perceptions continue to persist on the nature of Africa, as shown in the Economist article with the entire continents current perception across the planet being one of disease and poverty, which is linked to a idea of African “laziness”. Which effectively completely ignores the widespread changes brought about by colonialism in a controlled narrative that doesn’t try and link back to the West. In reality it was directly the displacement of identity, economy and culture that places Africa in it’s current position in the world and the fact that the West continues to misidentify that only furthermore shows the complexity of the racial stereotypes that were created as a direct result of the scramble for Africa.

Africa is a very good example of what happens when decolonization occurs the right way, as well as the wrong. By 1963 all of Africa was independent of European rule, Rhodesia is the only exception (Lecture). Africa was under rule by numerous countries at the height of imperialistic control, unsurprisingly these countries also felt their decolonization strategies should differ from one another. This disparity led to African countries either becoming somewhat successful in obtaining their own independence or becoming a place of major conflict resulting in death tolls that reached hundreds of thousands.

In countries such as Nigeria, education and a presence of “elite” groups were more present thanks to access to higher education from Britain. during the time that Britain had Nigeria as a protectorate, Britain hoped to create a group of elites who in theory would emulate Britain both politically and economically. This was done through investing in schools in Africa as well as programs made to offer the people of Nigeria a chance to go to Europe and go to a college or university at a reduced cost. As expected, this sounds good on paper but was ultimately given out to only a finite group of people. Regardless, when the time for de-colonization was upon them they still had people ready to take power who knew what to do.

Furthermore, we see countries such as Belgium stray away from this method of decolonization. Belgium had rule over the Congo during the imperialistic era of Europe. During this time, Belgium feared that educating the people of the Congo would lead to a revolt as it already had in other countries such as Russia or Germany. This method benefited them up until they abruptly decided to give Congo their independence, which resulted in conflicts that would ultimately kill hundreds of thousands. The lack of structure and self-sufficiency Belgium gave to the Congo would eventually be what caused such damaging conflict.

All in all, these two countries only provide a small idea of what decolonization did to the countries of Africa. When European countries gave independence to these countries it usually resulted in massive civil wars that sparked conflicts for decades to come.

This weeks reading and lectures included primary themes of the decolonization in Africa, imperialism, and the overarching racist views of Africa itself.

Europe and other western powers had a lot of influence on African history, and through ivory and slaves Europe especially was able to make great profit. Since Africa in the late 1800’s was pretty much up for grabs, many powers came to benefit. Through this, many economies in Europe were strengthened significantly without much payoff to Africa. Essentially, they were being used for their land and resources while also suffering from inequality and division of lands. However, Africa did not solely suffer from this. Instead, they were able to see population growth and revitalization movements a little later on.

It is interesting how Europe and other powers distorted and muddled African history and still somewhat continue to do so to this day. Since caucasians were viewed as the superior race for a long period of history much of the historical texts and information was skewed to fit the fundamental beliefs of the time. This filter is very evident in people’s misguided view on Egyptians and Egypt itself being declared as white. Furthermore, Africa is given this image of being a drained, impoverished continent. This really had a serious effect on culture and African ways of life. However, Africans themselves remain hopeful in their outlook today, although the media from other nations does not portray that quite well.  In fact, Africa has made quite a few developments in education, infrastructure, and more.

 

I think that Africa is a fantastic region to really expose the motives and feelings towards imperialism that Europeans had. With East Asia, in my opinion, more cut off from the western world, Africa was seen as the main target. With parts of the Americas still colonized, it was still more cost effective to take resources in Africa, as the Atlantic still separated Europe and the Americas.

First, following the lecture on Africa from the 19th to the early 20th centuries, I found it interesting how different it was from European visions of power. It was weird to see that they focused more on [people as a sign of power, rather than territory. I think it goes to show how much your surroundings and situations effect the ways in which politics and other social issues play out.

However, as colonization stated, those visions changed as African people received new technology such as guns, that allowed them to focus on territorial gains rather than just people.  But, I think some of those changes came at a cost for a large majority of the population as Europe colonized more and more under the guise of helping develop their continent. It was rather unpleasant to see the treatment of indigenous Africans and all the racial inequality. I think a question that could be brought up that relates to East Asia is that without intervention, how long would it have taken for them to develop on their own? I think the difference is that Europe left East Asia with a better roadmap and better resources for success that allowed them to efficiently govern themselves.

Looking at the decolonization in Africa lecture as well as the Economist Article, I think it can be clear to see how detrimental Europe was to African life and society. It’s funny to see the irony of the “good guys” of World War 2 trying to regain dominance of African territory, and in the end decolonize. With rapid decolonization, came to issue that Europeans left African states with no infrastructure or roadmaps to govern themselves. I think that is one of the reasons that pre-imperial groups such as the Sokoto Caliphate had such an impact on contemporary politics in Africa today. I think the long lasting effects of decolonization an be seen today through the Economist Article. Though the author tries to shed light on some of the positives happening in the region, through research, its clear to see some of the human rights issues occurring today (Ie. lack of steady health care), as well as some of the government issues (Corruption, ect.).

Overall I think that imperialism as a whole, both through the partial development of African countries, as well as decolonization, was a very negative and malicious period in African history. Europe very much put Africa many steps back in the game, and these handicaps can still been seen today in contemporary African society.