Why did it take so long to colonize Africa?

samusaran253 · 24-04-2011 1:58am #1

Seriously, the Europeans sailed across the ocean in 1492 and colonized the Americas (prior to 1492 actually, if you count the Vikings), but they couldn't colonize the continent directly below them until 400 years later? That doesn't make sense, the only reason I can think of is that the great Ottoman Empire kept them at bay. But seriously, why did it take them so long?

1800

1914

Capt'n Midnight · 24-04-2011 2:39am

Portugese had colonies in Africa for hundreds of years, well before the plantations of Ulster.

look up the "Scramble for Africa" sometime

In North America there was plenty of easily harvested wood which early settlers could use for fuel / shelter / tools / boats / bridges / export for income etc. Horses and cattle thrived.

With the main exceptions of Siam and Japan , Europeans were able to defeat existing empires and use their existing power structures. Examples being Latin America and Asia. In other places they were up against stone age peoples who were too fragmented - the rest of the Americas / Siberia / Oz / Polynesia.

Africa was quite different, the Congo river isn't navigable to the sea. The Nile was off limits. Things like Malaria didn't help either. The tetse fly meant Europeans couldn't bring horses or cattle to large regions. There didn't seem to be anything worth exporting from the interior that would justify investing in the infrastucture to get at it. ( compare this to the way the Chinese are building roads all over Eastern Africa today )

The Arabs were also rivals of the Europeans in Eastern Africa especially Portugal and Oman. Later on too the Ethiopians also expanded their ancient empire during the scrable - this is why Eritria is now separate.

amacachi · 24-04-2011 2:42am

Trade was another thing to bear in mind, it was better back then to set up trading posts in South America than North America.

kumate_champ07 · 24-04-2011 2:55am

diseases

jonniebgood1 · 24-04-2011 10:43pm

samusaran253 wrote: »

Seriously, the Europeans sailed across the ocean in 1492 and colonized the Americas (prior to 1492 actually, if you count the Vikings), but they couldn't colonize the continent directly below them until 400 years later? That doesn't make sense, the only reason I can think of is that the great Ottoman Empire kept them at bay. But seriously, why did it take them so long?

Africa was colonised for its territory and for its raw materials. These materials in Africa were not as important until the late 19th century. America was important for its gold and tobacco well before that which is why it was colonised by Europeans. Africa was not untouched by this either- 7 million Africans were brought to America between 1700 and 1810 (Karcher- The slave trade. pg32). The Ottoman empire had little to do with this. Basically they took what they wanted long before they occupied the continent.

The Scientician · 26-04-2011 7:25pm

I recall reading that the Scramble For Africa was partially a result of the economic headway made by the European nations during the 19th century, with industrialisation etc. JA Hobson said the root of this African imperialism was ''excessive capital in search of investment.''

Capt'n Midnight · 26-04-2011 8:39pm

The Scientician wrote: »

I recall reading that the Scramble For Africa was partially a result of the economic headway made by the European nations during the 19th century, with industrialisation etc. JA Hobson said the root of this African imperialism was ''excessive capital in search of investment.''

yeah there was that aspect of a captive market

dpe · 27-04-2011 1:28pm

samusaran253 wrote: »

Seriously, the Europeans sailed across the ocean in 1492 and colonized the Americas (prior to 1492 actually, if you count the Vikings), but they couldn't colonize the continent directly below them until 400 years later? That doesn't make sense, the only reason I can think of is that the great Ottoman Empire kept them at bay. But seriously, why did it take them so long?

A combination of economics, geography and disease. Europeans were established in Africa before the discovery of America, but were limited to the coasts through necessity (you don't need to go inland if all you want is slaves, the locals bring them to you), and the disease barrier. Later on there were further European incursions in the south and east to provide protection for shipping from their more lucrative colonies (this is how the British initially ended up in South Africa - it was a step on the route to India and the far East), then during the imperial phase (rather than the earlier "mercantile" phase) it became a pursuit for new markets through colonisation and a desire to join the empire "club" from late entrants to empire like Germany and Belgium.

Its also no coincidence that as previously cheap supplies of minerals came under independent control in Latin America or became part of the US "sphere of influence", the Europeans started to push further into the African interior in pursuit of alternatives (although the biggest mineral discoveries in the Transvaal were for different reasons). There were some pretty outlandish colonisation ideas put about by the British in particular (like the interior was malaria-free and ripe for colonisation by good Christian white folk, seriously).

Reekwind · 28-04-2011 9:02pm

The Scientician wrote: »

I recall reading that the Scramble For Africa was partially a result of the economic headway made by the European nations during the 19th century, with industrialisation etc. JA Hobson said the root of this African imperialism was ''excessive capital in search of investment.''

That's more a driver for imperialism in general, rather than Africa per se. So this is a key reason for the massive global expansion of European power (which also severely affected Asia and the Middle East) in the 19th C but doesn't entirely explain the relative lag in carving up Africa. The latter was almost untouched until relatively late in the game: Britain was fighting wars in China (a vastly more developed and imposing challenge) decades before it began to seriously consider a forward policy in Africa

Disease has already been touched on and was a massive factor. Europeans simply couldn't move past the coastlines in West Africa without running a massive risk of, well, death*. Even in the early 19th C British garrisons in the likes of Gambia or Sierra Leone had simply horrific mortality rates of upwards of 50%. David Abernethy, put it: "Malaria and other tropical diseases to which Africans had developed some immunity gave the West African coast a well-deserved reputation as 'the white man's grave' until Europeans learned of quinine's prophylactic properties in the 19th C. Ghana's first president, Kwame Nkrumah, only half-jokingly proposed erecting a monument to the anopheles mosquito to acknowledge its contribution in keeping settlers out of his country."

The other reason is that nobody really knew anything about Africa. Aside from gold, ivory and slaves (all easily procured from African or Arab middlemen) there was no real idea about the continent or the riches that it held. It wasn't until Stanley stumbled out of the Congo in 1877 that people in Europe (and even then only a minority of dreamers) really began to pay any interest to the economic potential of the continent

*Ironically, and tragically, this was a reversal of affairs in the New World where European conquest was significantly aided by the decimation of native societies by alien diseases

dpe wrote:

Its also no coincidence that as previously cheap supplies of minerals came under independent control in Latin America or became part of the US "sphere of influence", the Europeans started to push further into the African interior in pursuit of alternatives

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on this. The US didn't supplant Britain as the foremost power in S America until the early 20th C. During the 19th C Britain maintained an 'informal empire', typically London's favoured form of imperialism, centred on the River Plate, that dominated trade and politics in the region

limra · 29-04-2011 7:07am

maybe because it was never really necessary to do, and the Gods and higher wisdom fought against it? In my opinion, nothing really ever needed to colonised anywhere, we (all people) would have been better off as a whole staying with the ancient ways, there was a time where we faltered from them and the equilibrium we had developed with the elements and all of nature, amongst her bounteous living expanse.

We fell a long time then as if asleep, in a strange state and discovered much, many strange things, but has it made us truly happy? perhaps we are physically more secure in a sense, but are we able to enjoy life as we once did, are we able to really catch as strong a sense of its true meaning?

Wibbs · 29-04-2011 10:59am

limra wrote: »

maybe because it was never really necessary to do, and the Gods and higher wisdom fought against it? In my opinion, nothing really ever needed to colonised anywhere, we (all people) would have been better off as a whole staying with the ancient ways

Great in theory, but we've colonised the world outside of Africa for at least 2 million years. Then later waves came and went. When we(if you're European) came from the middle east/east Africa people Neanderthals were already here and they didn't last that long after we show up. Modern humans and those before them have had a very long history of colonisation. Indeed it's one of the things that makes us human, whether we like it or not.

Reekwind · 29-04-2011 2:36pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Modern humans and those before them have had a very long history of colonisation. Indeed it's one of the things that makes us human, whether we like it or not.

True to a degree but I'd distinguish between 'colonisation' and 'migration'. The latter was, as you note, pretty standard historically (and the last great wave in Europe was only a millennium or so ago) but colonisation is much more recent and is more than simply a movement of people. While migration tends to see a whole society (or a splinter of one) on the move to a new home, colonisation/imperialism is about conquering/subduing foreign lands for the benefit of the old metropole. So its a matter of empire rather than simple movement

Historically there are small examples of this throughout history (Rome and Greece spring to mind) but its only in the 16th C that we see the emergence of a recognisably distinct colonialism on a global scale. Then you have the second major wave in the 19th C. I do think that these are distinct enough from previous petty kingdoms or migrations to be treated as something different

But yeah, the argument that the colonisation of Africa was not "necessary" from a moral perspective needs to answer why the colonisation of S America (and other earlier victims) was somehow necessary

limra · 29-04-2011 4:47pm

I don't think the colonization of south america was necessary either, I think it could have turned out much better for everyone is Christians could have been a bit more observant and less fearful of the culture they were entering, they would have seen the many similarities and perhaps been able to add a few spiritual lessons to the bible from 'the new world' conversely, the native peoples of south america could have learned as well, its actually true there were great similarities, between the two cultures, though they had no prior contact, consider this (not to mention the similarities of Quetzalcoatl to Jesus Christ);

maya is I am backwards

mayan sounds like mind

maybe the mayans are inner self of the christians and vice versa

Yomo & Yaveyetta (the Guardian Devas of Wanti) are right there in between

the true ancient wise ones, the ancient beings both backwards and forwards

that which in inversion is not disturbed

the true center, origin of fractal creation

wantism is the art of heart mind

conquistadors were either ignorant or unable to accept this obvious and miraculous truth, what could have been a heavenly communing of two physically differents worlds of a very similar spirit, for the benefit of both, became a one sided and destructive battle in which much wisdom was lost and many needlessly hurt.

This tends to happen with colonisation, which is why I'm not a fan of it, I think nature should grow freely, the ways of the native peoples have a simple wisdom to them, even ancient celtic ways are not so bad, as I said before I believe there was a time of corruption in the land, and this is when the Christians came, and they were saviors, St. Patrick and all that, they cast out the oppressive rulers but in the end, there came a different kind of repression, and a refusal to see the unity of the truth of various spiritual systems. This makes sense because remember even St. Patrick was a slave at first, thats the first reason that he was in Ireland. It was the same people who enslaved him, who he learned Christianity from, though it was good in the short term. Thats also my biggest problem with christianity, though Jesus frees the slaves, in the bible there are also numerous sections condoning slavery and commenting on the treatment of slaves, by worshippers of G-d, I don't think this is right, I believe it is corrupt, also the idea that man is dominant over nature, it comes from a misunderstanding of the true nature of man, we were never meant to exploit the earth and rape it resources and creatures, we were blessed with kindness and wisdom so that we could live among them in harmony, and bring a spiritual vision to the world, to all beings, but not by cruelly disregarding their feelings and greedily destroying and oppressing other peoples, plants, animals, this is a misuse of the world and cannot be sustained.

Wibbs · 03-05-2011 11:12am

Reekwind wrote: »

True to a degree but I'd distinguish between 'colonisation' and 'migration'. The latter was, as you note, pretty standard historically (and the last great wave in Europe was only a millennium or so ago) but colonisation is much more recent and is more than simply a movement of people. While migration tends to see a whole society (or a splinter of one) on the move to a new home, colonisation/imperialism is about conquering/subduing foreign lands for the benefit of the old metropole. So its a matter of empire rather than simple movement

Historically there are small examples of this throughout history (Rome and Greece spring to mind) but its only in the 16th C that we see the emergence of a recognisably distinct colonialism on a global scale. Then you have the second major wave in the 19th C. I do think that these are distinct enough from previous petty kingdoms or migrations to be treated as something different

While I agree with the distinction between 'colonisation' and 'migration', I would argue for a far earlier date than you suggest. And certainly would not regard Rome(or the Persians say) as a 'small' example. The global scale aspect? Well to a Roman their global was smaller, but they had global ambitions. They're pretty much the template for all subsequent empire building.

Go further back. Yes certainly migration into new lands(for moderns) was mostly one way. Out. But the conquer aspect is still up for debate. Every single ancient line of human dies out very rapidly after we show up. As do the megafauna. Now it could be and likely is we outcompeted them, but it's also possible we conquered them.

But yeah, the argument that the colonisation of Africa was not "necessary" from a moral perspective needs to answer why the colonisation of S America (and other earlier victims) was somehow necessary

OK this is simplistic I grant you but maybe it was just simple human psychology? Africa was known, the 'Old', the 'New world' felt... well, new prime for the taking?

brianthebard · 03-05-2011 12:49pm

Wibbs none of this is history related.

Reekwind · 03-05-2011 6:13pm

Wibbs wrote: »

And certainly would not regard Rome(or the Persians say) as a 'small' example. The global scale aspect? Well to a Roman their global was smaller, but they had global ambitions. They're pretty much the template for all subsequent empire building

How did Roman conquests influence or serve as the template for, say, the Spanish conquest of the New World? Or the Scramble for Africa? I'd say that the the latter two are almost entirely removed from previous examples. Including in scale: the French subdued Western Africa with a fraction of the numbers that Caesar took to Britain

Go further back. Yes certainly migration into new lands(for moderns) was mostly one way. Out. But the conquer aspect is still up for debate. Every single ancient line of human dies out very rapidly after we show up. As do the megafauna. Now it could be and likely is we outcompeted them, but it's also possible we conquered them

What? Are you suggesting that prehistoric human tribes "conquered" animals? And are comparing this to historic conquests of Americans and Africans?

OK this is simplistic I grant you but maybe it was just simple human psychology? Africa was known, the 'Old', the 'New world' felt... well, new prime for the taking?

Well, no. Not least because Africa, beyond the Maghreb, wasn't "Old". In 1850 Europeans knew infinitely more about the interior of the Americas than they did about Africa. The Amazon was explored a good 3-4 centuries before the Congo

Wibbs · 03-05-2011 8:26pm

You wrote(and I agree) colonisation/imperialism is about conquering/subduing foreign lands for the benefit of the old metropole. So its a matter of empire rather than simple movement. How does that not apply to Rome? How does that not make them one of the earliest templates of that? Of course the scale changes, the scale of the known world and ability to get to it and the ability to subdue same changed.

I would say the biggest change was not the 'template' itself, but because more states were fighting over the same potential additions to empire. Where Rome had faced the odd competitor, the Portuguese for example had also the Spanish tne Dutch, the English, the French.

What? Are you suggesting that prehistoric human tribes "conquered" animals? And are comparing this to historic conquests of Americans and Africans?

No sorry, that should have been in brackets. I meant that this drive to not just migrate, but conquer may well be older. It wasn't just a case of "moving into a new home". For the last 2 million years the new home you moved into was already inhabited(with the exception of the Americas). They weren't "virgin lands". This was my original point in my reply to the poster reflecting on the "old ways". Those ways were little different, except in scale.

Well, no. Not least because Africa, beyond the Maghreb, wasn't "Old". In 1850 Europeans knew infinitely more about the interior of the Americas than they did about Africa. The Amazon was explored a good 3-4 centuries before the Congo

True, though the Arabs who the Europeans dealt with knew a lot more. They had already laid claim to a good chunk of the trade routes in and out of Africa. The amazon/congo comparison is a little bit exaggerated too. They're very different rivers as far as navigation is concerned. The Amazon is far more navigable.

Actually that might add a lot to the topic of why. By comparison to South America, Africa, in particular sub Saharan Africa is much less navigable.

Capt'n Midnight · 03-05-2011 11:27pm

Reekwind wrote: »

Historically there are small examples of this throughout history (Rome and Greece spring to mind) but its only in the 16th C that we see the emergence of a recognisably distinct colonialism on a global scale.

What about the Mongols depopulating whole regions of China in order to colonise it ?

dpe · 04-05-2011 9:56am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What about the Mongols depopulating whole regions of China in order to colonise it ?

Very good point, the Golden Horde was the largest empire the world had ever seen until the British Empire. I think the idea that because later empires were larger they were somehow different (worse?) than earlier empires is a bit silly. The Romans would have conquered just as much territory as the British if they'd had the means to do so; it was technology and communications that limited the size of pre-industrial empires, and in the Romans case the fact they were primarily a land empire.

As for the difference between south American colonisation and the later African waves, once again disease was a big factor; working for the Europeans in South America, but against them in Africa. European colonisation of the Americas was much easier because of the massive depopulation of indiginous peoples, and putting aside the whole "smallpox on blankets" meme, the American pandemics were hardly the Europeans' fault, in fact, they were sadly inevitable. And don't forget for all the nastiness of the conquistadors, the Aztecs were hardly sweetness and light either (neither were the Inca, who had ruthlessly carved out a little empire of their own not long before Pizarro arrived).

Reekwind · 04-05-2011 6:06pm

Wibbs wrote: »

You wrote(and I agree) colonisation/imperialism is about conquering/subduing foreign lands for the benefit of the old metropole. So its a matter of empire rather than simple movement. How does that not apply to Rome? How does that not make them one of the earliest templates of that? Of course the scale changes, the scale of the known world and ability to get to it and the ability to subdue same changed

There are two points here. The first is semantic - Rome was not the first empire and later ones did not derive their methodologies from it; it was not a template. The second is the need to make a distinction between simple conquest and colonisation. Confusingly, the two are often referred to as 'imperialism' (including by myself) and there is of course some obvious overlap. However for the purposes of this conversation it is worth making the distinction, if only because they are not identical

It seems obvious to suggest that colonisation implies conquest, but this is not always the case. The French and British empires in Africa were largely, if not uniformly, established by remarkably small bands of men bribing/cajoling/fooling local African leaders. Once these empires were established they tended to lean heavily on these same leaders/institutions in order to govern. The hodge-podge nature of this stands in obvious contrast to the Roman methods of governance. Which is to simply touch on one difference

True, though the Arabs who the Europeans dealt with knew a lot more. They had already laid claim to a good chunk of the trade routes in and out of Africa

And? This information was not transmitted to Europe; or even Constantinople. European explorers relied heavily on Arab slaves/traders in Africa but they were still advancing into what was for them unknown territory

The amazon/congo comparison is a little bit exaggerated too. They're very different rivers as far as navigation is concerned. The Amazon is far more navigable.

*Shrugs* Pick any point you want. There was a European settlement in Asunción (Paraguay) some three centuries before there was in Nairobi (Kenya). The Americas were old, and had largely passed out of formal empire, by the time that Europeans turned to carving up Africa

Actually that might add a lot to the topic of why. By comparison to South America, Africa, in particular sub Saharan Africa is much less navigable.

No significantly so. The problem was not moving inland - the Congo, Niger, Volta, etc, etc have been used by Africans for trade for centuries - so much as it was a) surviving the trip and b) having a reason to take the risk

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

What about the Mongols depopulating whole regions of China in order to colonise it ?

What about what? The depopulation of northern China was the result of several consecutive decades of war in the region. I'm not aware of any Mongol colonisation programmes in China or elsewhere

dpe wrote:

The Romans would have conquered just as much territory as the British if they'd had the means to do so

In the same manner and for the same reasons? Of course not; there were profound differences in the way that London and Rome saw empire. This is not a matter of simply painting the map a particular colour

Voodoo_rasher · 04-05-2011 6:11pm

china are doing that in africa in jig time, and S. Korea has purchased 25 per cent of madagascar's arable land , on the cheap! our part to play in colonising was spreading the Vatican empire to it ha ha

limra · 04-05-2011 7:06pm

also is our purpose really to colonize or is it to have fun and live the best life as possible til we die, which could be today, damn!

My function in life is not to be a politician in Parliament: it is to get something done.
Bernadette Devlin

limra · 04-05-2011 7:07pm

also africa has amanitas which make it very vital, ital, ireland too

AMANITAS YEAH!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRqRJee66UE

dpe · 04-05-2011 8:26pm

Reekwind wrote: »

In the same manner and for the same reasons? Of course not; there were profound differences in the way that London and Rome saw empire. This is not a matter of simply painting the map a particular colour

Since both the British and the Romans saw the reasons for empire differently at different times in their histories (and in the British case it was often a matter of which part of the Empire you were talking about) you could definitely argue aspects of both empires had common themes. In fact the later British Empire certainly saw itself (rightly or wrongly) as heirs to the "civilising" Romans.

But it hardly matters, you seem to be implying the later empires were intrinsically worse than the earlier ones, and I don't buy that argument at all. Their impact may have been more malign to more people, but as I say that's a function of technology and geography, not some basic quality of modern empires.

brianthebard · 05-05-2011 1:12am

limra stop posting off topic stuff please. mod.

Reekwind · 05-05-2011 6:11pm

dpe wrote: »

Since both the British and the Romans saw the reasons for empire differently at different times in their histories (and in the British case it was often a matter of which part of the Empire you were talking about) you could definitely argue aspects of both empires had common themes. In fact the later British Empire certainly saw itself (rightly or wrongly) as heirs to the "civilising" Romans

Virtually every self-proclaimed European empire - including those of the British, French, Spanish, Germans/Austrians, Italians, and Russians - laid claim (directly or indirectly) to the legacy of Rome. Most of the time this reflected in no way the actual methods or motivations of the Romans. How could it, centuries after the collapse of Roman Europe?

To take an example, the 'civilising mission' of the British during the New Imperialism period was based (nominally) on Livingstone's 'Three Cs' of Civilisation, Commerce and Christianity. Now you cannot tell me that Rome waged war in order to a) civilise its neighbours, b) encourage private enterprise, or c) spread its religion. The British may have felt that the Romans were the height of civilisation, but the ancient Consuls and Emperors felt absolutely no compulsion to share this with the world; they had no comparable 'civilising mission' of their own

Now I'm only using that as an example because I'm too lazy to write an essay. However if you sit down and draw up a list of factors that drove the New Imperialism, then compare this with a list of factors that drove the expansion of Rome's empire, I suggest that you'll find relatively little in common

But it hardly matters, you seem to be implying the later empires were intrinsically worse than the earlier ones, and I don't buy that argument at all

I am? News to me. I'm arguing that there are major differences (including the roles played by technology and geography) between the empires of antiquity and colonialism. Its not a judgement on how many cultures/societies Rome or Britain wiped out (a tally that Rome would probably top, BTW) or the like

Why did it take so long to colonize Africa?

Comments