Lesson 6 - Imperial Legacy
Making judgements about the impact of European imperialism in 19th century is fraught with difficulties. This issue is illustrated by the Economist article below which quotes the British ambassador to Sudan as willing to apologise for Britain’s colonial past as long as he could ‘also apologise for the roads, hospitals, schools and university; indeed for creating a country called Sudan.’ Apologists for imperialism will draw attention to the modernising benefits of colonialism, whereas critics will point out that the roads and railways of modernisation were built with native African ‘blood, sweat and tears’.
The scramble for Africa
The Economist - Dec 23rd 1999
The Europeans were slow to seize black Africa, ruthless in doing so, harsh when they had done it—but by no means doers only of harm
OF ALL the targets of European empire-builders, Africa was nearest; and “black Africa” among the least advanced. Yet, save for its far south, it was the last to be grabbed. Its coast had been known to Europeans for centuries and was dotted with their trading posts. But until around 1860 the interior was protected. Fevers killed off intruding white men, roads were few and cataracts blocked access by river. Then, setting off from their enclaves along the shores, European explorers began to walk old Arab trade routes. They searched for the truth of ancient stories about the Dark Continent and the sources of its mighty rivers. By 1862 they had reached the source of the Nile. A little later, they traced the route of the Niger. They confirmed the reality of Africa’s fabled riches—ivory, gold, diamonds, emeralds, copper. Entrepreneurs also saw that, instead of buying crops like cotton or palm oil from its villagers, they could set up plantations and use cheap local labour to work them. Africa was becoming too valuable to be left to the Africans. Besides these were violent, savage and backward, in need of Christianity and civilisation, were they not?
Yet, ripe for takeover as Africa was, the European grab for it was neither inevitable nor consistent. Britain at first opposed a carve-up, but ended with the richest parts: today’s South Africa, Ghana and Nigeria. Belgium’s King Leopold II was one of Europe’s least powerful rulers. But once he had carved out the Congo basin as a personal fief, other countries were quick to stake claims. Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of the strong new Germany, put in a bid for huge chunks of East and West Africa. Europeans, quick to fight each other at home, were loath to do so for slices of a continent that they barely knew. Besides, it would set a bad example to the natives. So in 1884 the powers met in Berlin to share Africa out. In some areas, ignorant of people and geography alike, they made frontiers simply by drawing straight lines on the map.
The Africa they seized was technologically in the Iron Age, and politically divided into several thousand units, some based on language and culture, others on conquest, paying tribute to their conquerors. Much of the continent was in turmoil, as slaving gangs sent out by some of its own rulers spread war and sent communities fleeing. Some Africans resisted the takeover, but the Europeans, no slouches at savage violence, most often swept their spear-wielding armies aside with the Maxim gun and repeater rifle, and brutally crushed local resistance. Much of Africa gave in without a fight, its kings signing away their sovereignty with a thumb-print. Many allied with the intruders, maybe believing that these would not stay long and would give help against some local rival. Some tried to play one set of Europeans off against another. Others were overawed by technology: the kingdoms of northern Nigeria surrendered to forces, led by a handful of white men, far smaller than their own. By 1914 Europeans ruled all of Africa, bar Liberia, the state founded by America for its ex-slaves, and Abyssinia (Ethiopia), an ancient kingdom which had fought off the Italians in 1896.
Posing as parents to Africans, Europeans counted them, taxed them and ordered their communities into tribes—or, where true tribes did not exist, invented them. Meanwhile, the best land was taken for plantations, and the minerals dug out and shipped off to be processed in Europe (a division of labour—and, inversely, of profits—which, except in South Africa, largely continues today). The storehouse was steadily exploited, but Africans saw little of its wealth. Yet not all was oppression, nor plunder. King Leopold’s arm-choppers were no improvement on the past; Christian missionaries mostly were. Europeans brought schools and hospitals; and order, and the start of modern administration, on which independent states would later be built. Not late enough, thought many colonial administrators. The European occupation of black Africa was short-lived—barely a generation in some areas. After the Second World War (in which many Africans died fighting for the Allies), America wanted an end to European imperialism, and African leaders, often socialist and aided by the Soviet Union, wanted self-rule. In Algeria, Kenya and Rhodesia, white settlers tried to keep power by force, but in time lost support from “home”. White South Africans—far more numerous and longer in place—held out into the 1990s, but, facing unrest and outside pressure, had to give up.
It is too soon to draw up a balance-sheet of colonialism. Perhaps the Africans’ worst loss was not of land or power but self-respect, as the newcomers taught them that their ways, cultures and gods were inferior and should be abandoned. The alien religion put in their place often caught on; but the Europeans kept their version of politics, which arguably was indeed superior, for use at home, merely chucking Africa a few tattered pretences at it as they lowered the flag. Africa was left both psychologically and politically impoverished. Much of it still is so. The result today is a continent of states stranded between its old ways and modernity. African rulers grabbed the European-style institutions bequeathed to them, but nearly everywhere ran them into the ground, without creating new ones based on African traditions and values. Whose fault was it? In 1998, on the 100th anniversary of the battle of Omdurman, the British ambassador to Sudan was asked if he planned to apologise to his hosts for that butchery of their Mahdist forefathers resisting invasion. “Why not?” he said, “as long as we also apologise for the roads, hospitals, schools and university; indeed for creating a country called Sudan.”
Debating the legacy of imperialism
In this lesson we will take part in a formal, structured debate on the legacy of European imperialism. You will be divided into two teams, one arguing that imperialism was, on balance, a force for good, and the other arguing that it caused lasting harm. This is not a discussion about personal opinions. It is a historical debate that requires you to use evidence, historical examples, and clear reasoning drawn from the course material.
Every student is expected to contribute. Success in the debate will not depend on how loudly you speak, but on how well you listen to the arguments made by others and respond directly to them. Strong contributions will challenge previous points, question assumptions, and support counter-arguments with relevant factual evidence. The aim of the debate is not to “win”, but to demonstrate historical understanding: the ability to weigh evidence, recognise complexity, and explain why historians continue to disagree about the consequences of imperialism.
Every student is expected to contribute. Success in the debate will not depend on how loudly you speak, but on how well you listen to the arguments made by others and respond directly to them. Strong contributions will challenge previous points, question assumptions, and support counter-arguments with relevant factual evidence. The aim of the debate is not to “win”, but to demonstrate historical understanding: the ability to weigh evidence, recognise complexity, and explain why historians continue to disagree about the consequences of imperialism.
Activity 1 - The debate
You will be divided into two teams. The motion - 'This house believes that on balance that imperialism was a force for good in the world'.
Team 1, will argue in support of the motion, team 2 will argue against.
You will be divided into two teams. The motion - 'This house believes that on balance that imperialism was a force for good in the world'.
Team 1, will argue in support of the motion, team 2 will argue against.
|
|
|
|
Extension and extras.
The two television discussions below here explore the legacy of European imperialism from different perspectives. One focuses on the historical impact of empire, examining what British rule actually did in places such as India. The other looks at the present, asking how societies remember empire today through monuments, symbols, and public debate.
You will notice that the commentators do not simply disagree about facts, but about how the past should be interpreted and used. This highlights an important distinction between the past (what actually happened) and history (the interpretations constructed from evidence). Historians generally aim to explain complexity and long-term consequences, while politicians often use the past more selectively, to defend positions, shape identity, or respond to contemporary issues.
As you watch, consider why different speakers emphasise different aspects of the same past, how their roles and audiences shape their arguments, and where historical explanation gives way to political purpose. These films are not meant to settle the debate, but to extend it, helping you refine your own arguments using evidence, context, and an awareness of perspective.
The two television discussions below here explore the legacy of European imperialism from different perspectives. One focuses on the historical impact of empire, examining what British rule actually did in places such as India. The other looks at the present, asking how societies remember empire today through monuments, symbols, and public debate.
You will notice that the commentators do not simply disagree about facts, but about how the past should be interpreted and used. This highlights an important distinction between the past (what actually happened) and history (the interpretations constructed from evidence). Historians generally aim to explain complexity and long-term consequences, while politicians often use the past more selectively, to defend positions, shape identity, or respond to contemporary issues.
As you watch, consider why different speakers emphasise different aspects of the same past, how their roles and audiences shape their arguments, and where historical explanation gives way to political purpose. These films are not meant to settle the debate, but to extend it, helping you refine your own arguments using evidence, context, and an awareness of perspective.
|
|
|
Balance Sheet of Colonialism - The scramble for Africa - The Economist - Dec 23rd 1999
Activity 2
1. What motivations for imperialism does the Economist article at the top of this page identify?
2. Why, according to the article, did native Africans do little to resist colonisation?
‘3. Yet not all was oppression, nor plunder.’
Using all the information on these pages, including what you learnt from the debate, draw up and complete a ‘balance sheet of imperialism’ in the form of a summary table as below. You need at least points in each column, explained and supported with historical factual evidence.
Activity 2
1. What motivations for imperialism does the Economist article at the top of this page identify?
2. Why, according to the article, did native Africans do little to resist colonisation?
‘3. Yet not all was oppression, nor plunder.’
Using all the information on these pages, including what you learnt from the debate, draw up and complete a ‘balance sheet of imperialism’ in the form of a summary table as below. You need at least points in each column, explained and supported with historical factual evidence.
4. Why in your view, are historians likely to continue to disagree about the consequences of imperialism?
|
Extension and extras
|
|
In this Timewatch guide, David Olusoga examines not whether the British Empire was a force for good or ill, but rather how it has been portrayed on British television over the last 70 years.
Drawing on decades of the documentary series Timewatch, plus many other gems from the BBC archive, David sees how Britain's Caribbean colonies grew rich on slave labour, how chaos gripped India post-independence, and how Africa was plundered for her mineral wealth. It used to be said that the sun would never set on the British Empire - now, long after it's gone, the arguments surrounding it are very far from being settled. |