Africa's colonial division. European colonization of Africa and its consequences

On the eve of European colonization, the peoples of Tropical and Southern Africa were at various stages of development. Some had a primitive system, others had a class society. It can also be said that in Tropical Africa, a sufficiently developed, specifically Negro statehood did not develop, even comparable to the states of the Incas and Maya. How can this be explained? There are several reasons, namely: an unfavorable climate, poor soils, primitive agricultural technology, a low level of labor culture, the fragmentation of a small population, as well as the dominance of primitive tribal traditions and early religious cults. In the end, highly developed civilizations: Christian and Muslim differed from African in more developed cultural and religious traditions, that is, a more advanced level of consciousness than Africans. At the same time, remnants of pre-class relations persisted even among the most developed peoples. The decomposition of tribal relations was most often manifested in the exploitation by the heads of large patriarchal families of ordinary community members, as well as in the concentration of land and livestock in the hands of the tribal elite.

In different centuries, both in the Middle Ages and in the New Age, various state formations arose on the territory of Africa: Ethiopia (Aksum), in which the Christian Monophysite church dominated; a kind of confederation called Oyo arose on the Guinean coast; then Dahomey; in the lower reaches of the Congo at the end of the 15th century. such state formations as the Congo, Loango and Makoko appeared; in Angola between 1400 and 1500. there was a short-lived and semi-legendary political association - Monomotapa. However, all these proto-states were fragile. Europeans who appeared on the coast of Africa in the XVII-XVIII centuries. launched a large-scale slave trade. Then they tried to create their own settlements, outposts and colonies here.

In southern Africa, at the Cape of Good Hope, the site of the Dutch East India Company-Kapstadt (Cape Colony) was established. Over time, more and more settlers from Holland began to settle in Kapstadt, who waged a stubborn struggle with local tribes, Bushmen and Hottentots. At the beginning of the XIX century. The Cape colony was captured by Great Britain, after which the Boer Dutch moved to the north, subsequently founding the republics of Transvaal and Orange. European Boer colonists increasingly developed southern Africa, engaging in the slave trade and forcing the black population to work in gold and diamond mines. In the English zone of colonization, the Zulu tribal community led by Chuck in the first third of the 19th century. managed to consolidate and subjugate a number of Bantu tribes. But the clash of the Zulus, first with the Boers, and then with the British, led to the defeat of the Zulu state.

Africa in the 19th century became the main springboard for European colonization. By the end of this century, almost the entire African continent (with the exception of Ethiopia) was divided between Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium. Moreover, the first place in terms of the number of colonies and the native population belonged to Great Britain, the second to France (mainly to the north and south of the Sahara), the third to Germany, the fourth to Portugal and the fifth to Belgium. But small Belgium got a huge territory (about 30 times larger than the territory of Belgium itself), the richest in its natural reserves - the Congo.

The European colonialists, having done away with the primary proto-state formations of African leaders and kings, brought here the forms of a developed bourgeois economy with advanced technology and transport infrastructure. The local population, experiencing a cultural "shock" from meeting with a civilization that was fabulously developed at that time, gradually joined modern life. In Africa, as well as in other colonies, the fact of belonging to one or another metropolis immediately manifested itself. So, if the British colonies (Zambia, Gold Coast, South Africa, Uganda, Southern Rhodesia, etc.) were under the control of an economically developed, bourgeois and democratic England and began to develop more rapidly, then the population of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea (Bissau) belonging to the more backward Portugal, more slowly.

Far from always, colonial conquests were economically justified, sometimes the struggle for colonies in Africa looked like a kind of political sport - by all means bypass the opponent and not let yourself be bypassed. Secularized European thought during this period abandoned the idea of spreading the “true religion” -Christianity, but on the other hand she saw the civilizing role of Europe in the backward colonies in the spread of modern science and education. In addition, in Europe it became even indecent not to have colonies. This can explain the emergence of the Belgian Congo, German and Italian colonies, from which there was little use.

Germany was the last to rush to Africa, nevertheless managed to take possession of Namibia, Cameroon, Togo and East Africa. In 1885, at the initiative of German Chancellor Bismarck, the Berlin Conference was convened, in which 13 European countries took part. The conference established the rules for the acquisition of still independent lands in Africa, in other words, the remaining lands still unoccupied were divided. By the end of the 19th century, only Liberia and Ethiopia retained political independence in Africa. Moreover, Christian Ethiopia successfully repelled the attack of Italy in 1896 and even defeated Italian troops in the Battle of Adua.

The division of Africa also gave rise to such a variety of monopolistic associations as privileged companies. The largest of these companies was the British South Africa Company, established in 1889 by S. Rhodes and having its own army. The Royal Niger Company operated in West Africa, and the British East Africa Company operated in East Africa. Similar companies were created in Germany, France, Belgium. These monopoly companies were a kind of state within a state and turned the African colonies with their population and resources into a sphere of complete subjugation to themselves. The richest African colony was South Africa, which belonged to Britain and the Boer colonists from the Transvaal and Orange republics, since gold and diamonds were found there. This led the British and European-born Boers to start the bloody Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, in which the British won. The diamond-rich republics of Transvaal and Orange became British colonies. Subsequently, in 1910, the richest British colony, South Africa, formed the British dominion, the Union of South Africa.

10.4. Colonialism as a way of modernizing traditional societies. Pros and cons?

What are the reasons for the colonial success of Europeans in Asia and Africa? The main reason was the lack of a single national community of people in the countries conquered by Europeans, namely: the motley, multi-tribal and multi-ethnic composition of the population predetermined the lack of a single national consciousness, which is so necessary for uniting the people and fighting against foreigners. Most of the Eastern and African communities of that time were a loose conglomerate, divided along clan, compatriot, tribal and religious borders, which made it easier for the colonialists to conquer, leading the Roman rule: divide and rule.

Another reason was the desire of part of the elite, and especially the emerging national bourgeoisie, to join the benefits of Western civilization, which were carried and introduced by the colonialists. The Marxist assertion that the colonies were created for "naked plunder" by the mother countries and that, most importantly, robbery brought ruin to the colonies and aggravated their backwardness from Western countries, has long gone. Everything was much more complicated and ambiguous. Although it was naive to believe in the altruistic inclinations of the Europeans, who came to the East only to help the backward peoples and carry out the modernization they needed for their “happiness”. Of course not. Here we can recall the statement of the famous British imperialist Cecil Rhodes: ... we colonial politicians must take possession of new lands to accommodate the surplus of the population, to acquire new areas for the sale of goods produced in factories and mines. The European colonialists have repeatedly pointed to a direct connection with the successful solution of the social issue in their own country, with successful colonial expansion and pumping out "useful resources" from the colonies in the mother country.

In the reading European society of that time, a certain romantic “fleur” of the colonial policy was formed in the countries of Asia and Africa. The works of such writers as Rudyard Kipling sang of the rude but honest warrior, the British colonial soldier, to the jaded and indulgent urban dweller. G. Ryder Haggard and many other Western writers captivated readers with stories about the unimaginable adventures of noble and courageous Europeans in the barbaric African and Asian colonies, bringing the light of Western civilization to these godforsaken corners of the planet. As a result of the massive replication of such literature in the West, the imperial ambitions and nationalist sentiments of the Europeans were favorably clothed in a masking "toga" of Western progressivism and civilization in relation to the backward East.

At the same time, it is wrong to present all the British, as well as other Europeans, as exceptionally rabid imperialists who only think about robbing the colonies. In British society itself, the attitude towards colonial policy was very different; from praising the civilizing mission in the spirit of R. Kipling, or the utilitarian imperialist approach of S. Rhodes, to the moral condemnation of this policy. For example, the British magazine "Statesman" at one time described the results of English "rule" in India as follows: our selfish total alienation of them from any honorable or profitable place in the government of their own country, is hated by the masses of the people for all the inexpressible suffering and that terrible poverty into which our domination over them has plunged them.

Finally, in Great Britain, as well as in France, there were many people who believed that the colonial policy was extremely costly for the mother country and that "the game is not worth the candle." Today, more and more researchers in the West come to the conclusion that the colonial policy of Western countries was dictated by military-political and even ideological considerations that had nothing to do with real economic interests. In particular, P. Barok generally revealed a curious pattern: the colonizing countries developed more slowly than the countries that did not have colonies - the more colonies, the less development. Indeed, the maintenance of the colonies in itself was not cheap for the western metropolises. Indeed, the colonialists, in order to adapt the local economy to their needs, for example, to sell their goods, are sometimes simply forced to create production and transport infrastructure in the colonies from scratch, including banks, insurance companies, post office, telegraph, etc. And this meant in practice the investment of large material and non-material resources, first to develop the economy, then the necessary level of technology and education in the colonies. The interests of building a colonial economy gave impetus to the construction of roads, canals, factories, banks, and the development of domestic and foreign trade. And this, objectively, contributed to narrowing the gap between the traditional Eastern countries and the modernized Western powers. The last thing that the lagging East and the African colonies bestowed on the advanced West was advanced bourgeois-liberal ideas, theories that gradually broke into the traditional patrimonial-state structure. All this created conditions in colonial societies for the transformation and modernization of the traditional world of the colonies and their involvement, albeit against their will, in the general system of the world economy.

Moreover, the colonial authorities, primarily the British, paid serious attention to reforming the traditional structures of their colonies that hindered the development of market private property relations. Westernized democratic institutions of governance, unprecedented in the East, were created. For example, in India, at the suggestion of the British, the Indian National Congress (INC) was formed. An education reform was carried out according to British standards, and in India in 1857 the first three universities were opened - Calcutta, Bombay, Madras. Subsequently, the number of Indian universities and colleges teaching in English and in English programs of study has increased. At the same time, many rich Indians received higher education in England itself, including at the best universities - Cambridge and Oxford. The British did a lot for the development of education. But books, newspapers, magazines and other printed publications intended for readers throughout India were published only in English. English gradually became the main language for all educated India.

We emphasize that all this was done by the British to meet their own needs. But objectively, the colonial policy led to the formation of advanced bourgeois structures in the colonies, which contributed to the progressive, albeit very painful, but progressive socio-economic development of the colonies. What was the result of the forced colonial-capitalist modernization of Eastern societies? In the extensive Oriental literature, this is called the colonial synthesis: metropolis-colony. In the course of the synthesis, a symbiosis of the old eastern traditional socio-economic structure took place, with the European colonial administration that came here and Western capitalism. The articulation of two opposite structures: western and eastern took place in the throes of a violent and largely forced union. What made the colonial societies of the East even more heterogeneous: along with the archaic traditional social order, an alien Western colonial order appeared, and finally, a synthesized East-West order arose in the form of a comprador bourgeoisie, a Western-oriented intelligentsia and bureaucracy. Under the influence of this synthesis, “Eastern colonial capitalism” arose, in which the close relationship of native state and business structures with the European colonial administration and bourgeoisie was bizarrely combined. Eastern colonial capitalism, therefore, was introduced to the soil of the East precisely by an external factor, the conquest of the West, and was not a source of internal development. Over time, this alien way, thanks to the patronage of the European colonial administration, began to take root on eastern soil and become more and more strengthened, despite the active resistance of traditional eastern structures.

It should be noted that attempts at bourgeois modernization and Europeanization in all colonial societies of the East met with resistance from such social forces: the tribal system, the religious clergy, the aristocratic nobility, peasants, artisans, all those who were not satisfied with these changes and who were afraid to lose their usual way of life. They were opposed by a notorious minority of the indigenous population of the colonies: the comprador bourgeoisie, the bureaucracy and intelligentsia who received European education, who put up and even actively took part in the development of bourgeois transformations, thereby collaborating with the colonial authorities. As a result, the colonial societies of the East split into two rather sharply opposed parts. /28This, of course, frustrated the plans of the colonial administration to accelerate the modernization of the colonies. But still, the colonial East set off in the direction of irreversible change.

The assimilation of Western ideas and political institutions also took place in those Eastern countries that did not survive the direct military intervention of European powers: (Ottoman Empire, Iran, Japan and China). All of them in one way or another (Japan was in the most advantageous position) were under pressure from the West. Of course, the position of these countries was more advantageous in comparison with the Eastern countries, turned into colonies of the West. The very example of an absolutely disenfranchised India served as a stern warning and simply a vital necessity for these countries to carry out structural reforms, even despite all the resistance of society. The authorities of these states in the 19th century were well aware that the West would not leave them alone, and after economic enslavement, political enslavement would follow. In itself, the pressure of the West was a serious historical challenge that needed and urgently needed to be answered. The answer was, first of all, in modernization, and, consequently, in the assimilation of the Western model of development, or, in any case, some of its individual aspects.

The beginning of the 20th century was the time of the highest power of the West over the whole world, and this power was manifested in gigantic colonial empires. In total, by 1900, the colonial possessions of all the imperialist powers amounted to 73 million km2 (about 55% of the world's area), with a population of 530 million people (35% of the world's population).

Colonialism does not enjoy a good reputation anywhere. And this is quite understandable. It is impossible to write off the blood, suffering and humiliation endured in the colonial era as the costs of progress. But unequivocally assessing Western colonialism as an absolute evil would, in our opinion, be wrong. When was history in the East before the Europeans not written in blood, under the Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Timur? On the other hand, in breaking up the traditional structures of the East and African tribal communities, Western colonialism in all its modifications played the decisive role of an external factor, a powerful impulse from outside, which not only awakened them, but also gave them a new rhythm of progressive development. In the XX century. the colonial world of Asia and Africa entered basically in a transitional state, no longer in the traditional system of power-property, but still far from being a capitalist formation. The colonial East and Africa served the interests of Western capitalism, and were necessary to it, but as a peripheral zone. That is, these vast territories acted as its structural raw material appendage, incorporating both pre-capitalist and capitalist elements introduced by the West. The position of these countries was complicated by the fact that different types of European colonial capitalism, having not mastered most of the socio-economic space of the East and Africa, only increased the diversity and diversity of these societies, making them internally contradictory and conflict. But even in this case, the role of Western colonialism as a powerful factor for the intensive development of Asia and Africa can be considered progressive.

Questions for self-examination and self-control.

1. What role did the Europeans play in the colonial expansion of the 16th-18th centuries. trading companies?

2. How to explain the transition from the commercial colonialism of Europeans to the occupation type in the 19th century?

3. Why did the few European colonists manage to establish control over the vast expanses of Asia and Africa? Explain?

4. What are the main models of colonization do you know?

6. What was the progressive influence of colonialism on the development of the countries of the East and Africa?

Main literature

1. World history: a textbook for university students / ed. G.B. Polyak, A.N. Markova.-3rd ed.-M. UNITY-DANA, 2009.

2. Vasiliev L.S. General history. In 6 volumes. V.4. New time (XIX century): Proc. allowance.-M.: Higher. School, 2010.

3. Vasiliev L.S. History of the East: In 2 volumes. V.1. M. Higher. School, 1998.

4.Kagarlitsky B.Yu. From empires to imperialism. State and the emergence of bourgeois civilization.-M.: Ed. House of the State University of Higher School of Economics, 2010.

5. Osborne, R. Civilization. A New History of the Western World / Roger Osborne; per. from English. M. Kolopotina.- M.: AST: AST MOSCOW: GUARDIAN, 2008.

additional literature

1. Fernand Braudel. Material civilization, economy and capitalism. XV-XVIII centuries M. Progress 1992.

2. Fernandez-Armesto, F. Civilizations / Felipe Fernandez-Armesto; transl., from English, D.Arsenyeva, O.Kolesnikova.-M.: AST: AST MOSCOW, 2009.

3. Huseynov R. History of the world economy: West-East-Russia: Proc. allowance.-Novosibirsk: Sib. Univ. Publishing house, 2004.

4. Kharyukov L.N. Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia and Ismailism. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. University, 1995.

The “economic civilization” of most of Africa (with the exception of the “river civilization” of the Nile Valley) took shape over thousands of years and by the time the region was colonized in the second half of the 19th century. changed very little. The basis of the economy was still slash-and-burn agriculture with hoe tillage.

Recall that this is the earliest type of farming, followed by plow farming (which, by the way, is not very widespread even at the end of the 20th century, which is hindered by the reasonable desire of local peasants to preserve a thin fertile layer of soil; a plow plowing to a fairly large depth will do more harm than good).

Agriculture of a higher level (outside the Nile Valley) was distributed only in Northeast Africa (on the territory of modern Ethiopia), in West Africa and Madagascar.

Animal husbandry (mainly cattle breeding) was auxiliary in the economy of the African peoples, and it became the main one only in certain areas of the mainland - south of the Zambezi River, among the nomadic peoples of North Africa.

Africa has long been known to Europeans, but it was not of great interest to them. Precious reserves were not discovered here, and it was difficult to penetrate deep into the mainland. Until the end of the XVIII century. Europeans knew only the outlines of the banks and mouths of the rivers, where trading strongholds were created and from where slaves were taken to America. The role of Africa was reflected in the geographical names that the whites gave to individual sections of the African coast: the Ivory Coast, the Gold Coast, the Slave Coast.

Until the 80s. 19th century more than 3/4 of the territory of Africa was occupied by various political entities, including even large and strong states (Mali, Zimbabwe, etc.). European colonies were only on the coast. And suddenly, within only two decades, all of Africa was divided among the European powers. This happened at a time when almost all of America had already achieved political independence. Why did Europe suddenly have an interest in the African continent?

The main reasons are the following

1. By this time, the mainland had already been quite well explored by various expeditions and Christian missionaries. American war correspondent G. Stanley in the mid-70s. 19th century crossed the African continent with the expedition from east to west, leaving behind destroyed settlements. Addressing the British, G. Stanley wrote: “South of the mouth of the Congo River, forty million naked people are waiting to be dressed by the weaving factories of Manchester and equipped with tools by the workshops of Birmingham.”

2. By the end of the XIX century. quinine was discovered as a remedy for malaria. Europeans were able to penetrate into the depths of malarial territories.

3. In Europe, by this time, industry began to develop rapidly, the economy was on the rise, European countries stood on their feet. It was a period of relative political calm in Europe - there were no major wars. The colonial powers showed amazing "solidarity", and at the Berlin Conference in the mid-80s. England, France, Portugal, Belgium and Germany divided the territory of Africa among themselves. The borders in Africa were "cut" without taking into account the geographical and ethnic characteristics of the territory. At present, 2/5 of African state borders run along parallels and meridians, 1/3 - along other straight lines and arcs, and only 1/4 - along natural boundaries, approximately coinciding with ethnic boundaries.

By the beginning of the XX century. all of Africa was divided among the European metropolises.

The struggle of the African peoples against the invaders was complicated by internal tribal conflicts, in addition, it was difficult to resist Europeans with spears and arrows, armed with perfect rifled firearms invented by that time.

The period of active colonization of Africa began. Unlike America or Australia, there was no massive European immigration here. Throughout the African continent in the XVIII century. there was only one compact group of immigrants - the Dutch (Boers), numbering only 16 thousand people ("Boers" from the Dutch and German words "bauer", which means "peasant"). And even now, at the end of the 20th century, in Africa, the descendants of Europeans and children from mixed marriages make up only 1% of the population (This includes 3 million Boers, the same number of mulattos in South Africa and one and a half million immigrants from Great Britain).

Africa has the lowest level of socio-economic development compared to other regions of the world. According to all the main indicators of the development of the economy and the social sphere, the region occupies the position of a world outsider.

The most pressing problems of humanity are most relevant for Africa. Not all of Africa scores so low, but a few more fortunate countries are only "islands of relative prosperity" in the midst of poverty and acute problems.

Perhaps the problems of Africa are due to difficult natural conditions, a long period of colonial rule?

Undoubtedly, these factors played a negative role, but others also acted along with them.

Africa belongs to the developing world, which in the 60s and 70s. showed high rates of economic, and in some areas and social development. In the 80s and 90s. problems sharply escalated, the rate of economic growth decreased (production began to fall), which gave reason to conclude: "The developing world has stopped developing."

However, there is a point of view that involves the allocation of two close, but at the same time heterogeneous concepts: "development" and "modernization". Development in this case refers to changes in the socio-economic sphere caused by internal causes that lead to the strengthening of the traditional system without destroying it. Did the process of development proceed in Africa, its traditional economy? Of course yes.

In contrast to development, modernization is a set of changes in the socio-economic (and political) sphere caused by the modern requirements of the outside world. With regard to Africa, this means expanding external contacts and its inclusion in the world system; i.e. Africa must learn to "play by the rules of the world". Will not Africa be destroyed by this inclusion in the modern world civilization?

One-sided, traditional development leads to autarky (isolation) and lagging behind the world leaders. Rapid modernization is accompanied by a painful breaking of the existing socio-economic structure. The optimal combination is a reasonable combination of development and modernization, and most importantly - a gradual, phased transformation, without catastrophic consequences and taking into account local specifics. Modernization has an objective character, and one cannot do without it.

Colonization of Africa

Introduction

Conclusion

Application

Bibliography

Introduction

Relevance.

The relevance of this topic lies mainly in the fact that the history of the colonial division of Africa is an important part of the history of international relations in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. African problems had a direct impact on the development of Anglo-Russian and Anglo-German and other relations, and on the formation of the Entente. Formation of military-political alliances at the end of the 19th century. reflected the entire spectrum of international relations and interstate conflicts, including the African region, determined the influence of the colonial division of Africa on the foreign policy development of the colonial states. The African vector of their foreign policy is directly related to the evolution of the foreign policy in general, and also reflects the process of development of the national-state and mass consciousness of Europeans.

Historiography.

This topic is not well studied, since today there are no serious, generalizing works covering the topic of colonization of African countries.

Of the Soviet scientists, historical publications can be distinguished, the authors of which were the classics of Russian historiography Yu.L. Yelets, K.A. Skalkovskiy, I.I. Zashchuk, were dedicated to the strategic regions of Africa that were important for tsarism. In these studies, Russian African studies have taken a big step forward. K.A. Skalkovsky made the first attempt in Russian historiography to determine the place of Russia in the colonial division of Africa and the role of the African vector in the foreign policy of the Russian Empire. His research was written on the basis of materials mainly from the Russian press. At the same time, his book does not fit into the canons of the journalistic genre. A quarter of a century of work in the editorial office of the foreign department of St. Petersburg Vedomosti and Novoye Vremya, a broad outlook, and the ability of a political analyst allowed K.A. It is enough for Skalkovsky to cover in detail and in depth many issues related to the Russian invasion of Africa, and to pose problems important for the historian. He stated that Russia had colonial interests in Africa and defended them through diplomatic and military means. K.A. Skalkovsky noted that the African coast of the Red and Mediterranean Seas was for Russia, first of all, of strategic importance "in the event of a naval war."

Among foreign historiographers, one can distinguish such as: Gell, Davidson, Carlyle, Chalmers, etc.

All of the above scientists - historians in their writings considered all spheres of life of African countries during the period of colonialism, but the opinions of Soviet and foreign scientists differ.

Goals:

The objectives of this abstract are:

1) determining the cause of the colonial division of Africa;

2) revealing the forms and methods of exploitation of African colonies.

Tasks:

To achieve the intended goals, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

1 - identify the causes of the colonial division of Africa.

2 - to reveal the forms and methods of exploitation of African colonies.

1. Causes of the colonial division of Africa

Africa section(Also race for africa or fight for africa, - a period of intense competition among a number of imperialist powers in Europe for research and military operations, ultimately aimed at capturing new territories in Africa.

Although such activities had taken place before, the sharpest competition unfolded during the period of new imperialism, especially after the adoption of the General Act of the Berlin Conference in 1885. The culmination of the "fight for Africa" is the Fashoda incident, which in 1898 brought Britain and France to the brink of war. By 1902, European powers controlled 90% of Africa.

In sub-Saharan Africa, only Liberia (US patronized) and Ethiopia retained their independence. The colonial division of Africa ended the year World War I began, when Britain formally annexed Egypt. Two years earlier, Morocco was partitioned under the Treaty of Fez, and Italy, as a result of the Italo-Turkish war, gained control of Libya.

The goals of the colonization of Africa were devoted to a special International Geographic Conference, held in 1878 in Brussels. It was convened at the initiative of the Belgian king Leopold II, stockbroker and financier, ingenious creator " Free State of the Congo. The conference was attended by chairmen of geographical societies of European countries, travelers in Africa, diplomats. At the end of the conference, proposals were adopted to intensify the fight against the African slave trade and to spread the values of European civilization among the African peoples. It was decided to create an international commission for the study and civilization of Central Africa. As the "patron" of the conference Leopold II at the end of 1876 authorized the formation of the so-called International Association. Under her cover, he set about creating a Belgian colony in Africa. Since 1879, the Belgians began to seize territories in the Congo Basin.

2. Forms and methods of exploitation of African colonies

As the transition from manufactory to large-scale factory industry, significant changes took place in colonial policy. The colonies are economically linked more closely with the metropolises, turning into their agrarian and raw materials appendages with a monocultural direction of agricultural development, into markets for industrial products and sources of raw materials for the growing capitalist industry of the metropolises. Thus, for example, the export of British cotton fabrics to India from 1814 to 1835 increased 65 times. The spread of new methods of exploitation, the need to create special organs of colonial administration that could consolidate dominance over the local peoples, as well as the rivalry of various sections of the bourgeoisie in the mother countries, led to the liquidation of monopoly colonial trading companies and the transfer of the occupied countries and territories under the state administration of the mother countries. The change in the forms and methods of exploitation of the colonies was not accompanied by a decrease in its intensity. Huge wealth was exported from the colonies. Their use led to the acceleration of socio-economic development in Europe and North America. Although the colonialists were interested in the growth of the marketability of the peasant economy in the colonies, they often maintained and consolidated feudal and pre-feudal relations, considering the feudal and tribal nobility in the colonized countries as their social support. With the advent of the industrial age, Great Britain became the largest colonial power. Having defeated France in the course of a long struggle in the 18th and 19th centuries, she increased her possessions at her expense, as well as at the expense of the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Colonial expansion was also carried out by other powers. France subjugated Algeria (1830-48). In 1885, the Congo became the possession of the Belgian King Leopold II, and a system of forced labor was established in the country.

Colonial dominance was administratively expressed either in the form of a "dominion" (direct control of the colony through the vice-king, captain-general or governor-general), or in the form of a "protectorate". The ideological substantiation of colonialism proceeded through the need to spread culture (cultural tregging, modernization, westernization) - "the burden of the white man." The Spanish version of colonization meant the expansion of Catholicism, the Spanish language through the encomienda system. The Dutch version of the colonization of South Africa meant apartheid, the expulsion of the local population and its imprisonment in reservations or bantustans. The colonists formed communities completely independent of the local population, which were recruited from people of various classes, including criminals and adventurers. Religious communities (New England Puritans and Old West Mormons) were also widespread. The power of the colonial administration was exercised according to the principle of "divide and conquer" in connection with which it supported local rulers who willingly accepted the external signs of power and methods of leadership. It was common to organize and support conflicts among hostile tribes (in colonial Africa) or local religious communities (Hindus and Muslims in British India), as well as with the help of apartheid. Often the colonial administration supported oppressed groups to fight against their enemies (the oppressed Hutus in Rwanda) and created armed detachments from the natives (Gurkhas in Nepal, Zouaves in Algeria). All this caused a response in the form of uprisings, and the years in which it was calm on the African continent were very rare. So in 1902/03, the Ovimbundu tribe in Angola rebelled against the Portuguese. In 1905, armed opposition began against the German administration in Tanganyika, an uprising against the French in Madagascar lasted for six years, which ended in 1904. Islamists rebelled in Tunisia.

colonial partition africa colony

Conclusion

Thus, having considered the issues of this essay, we found that colonial conquests on the African continent began at the end of the 15th century. by the Portuguese. Colonial wars led to the destruction of local industries, to the death of entire states.

The colonialists exported gold, diamonds, spices, ivory and slaves for next to nothing. The slave trade continued until the middle of the 19th century. It cost the people of Africa at least 100 thousand people.

European colonization affected not only North and South America, Australia and other lands, but the entire African continent. From the former power of Ancient Egypt, which you studied in the 5th grade, there is no trace left. Now all these are colonies divided among different European countries. In this lesson, you will learn how the process of European colonization took place in Africa and whether there were any attempts to resist this process.

In 1882, popular discontent broke out in Egypt, and England sent its troops into the country under the pretext of protecting its economic interests, which meant the Suez Canal.

Another powerful state that extended its influence to the African states in modern times was Omani empire. Oman was located in the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula. Active Arab traders carried out trading operations along almost the entire coast of the Indian Ocean. As a result, numerous trade trading posts(small trading colonies of merchants of a certain country on the territory of another state) on the coast of East Africa, in the Comoros and in the north of the island of Madagascar. It was with the Arab traders that the Portuguese navigator encountered Vasco da Gama(Fig. 2), when he managed to go around Africa and pass through the Mozambique Strait to the shores of East Africa: modern Tanzania and Kenya.

Rice. 2. Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama ()

It was this event that marked the beginning of European colonization. The Omani empire could not stand the competition with the Portuguese and other European navigators and collapsed. The remnants of this empire are considered to be the Sultanate of Zanzibar and a few sultanates on the coast of East Africa. By the end of the 19th century, they all disappeared under the onslaught of Europeans.

The first colonizers who settled in sub-Saharan Africa were Portuguese. First, the sailors of the XV century, and then Vasco da Gama, who in 1497-1499. rounded Africa and reached India by sea, exerted their influence on the policy of local rulers. As a result, the coasts of countries such as Angola and Mozambique were explored by them by the beginning of the 16th century.

The Portuguese extended their influence to other lands, some of which were considered less effective. The main interest for the European colonizers was the slave trade. It was not necessary to found large colonies, countries set up their trading posts on the African coast and engaged in the exchange of European products for slaves or conquest campaigns to capture slaves and went to trade them in America or Europe. This slave trade continued in Africa until the end of the 19th century. Gradually, different countries banned slavery and the slave trade. At the end of the 19th century, there was a hunt for slave-owning ships, but all this was of little use. Slavery continued to exist.

The conditions of the slaves were monstrous (Fig. 3). In the process of transporting slaves across the Atlantic Ocean, at least half died. Their bodies were thrown overboard. There was no record of slaves. At least 3 million people, and modern historians claim that up to 15 million, Africa lost due to the slave trade. The scale of trade changed from century to century, and it reached its peak at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries.

Rice. 3. African slaves are transported across the Atlantic Ocean to America ()

After the appearance of the Portuguese colonialists, other European countries began to claim the territory of Africa. In 1652, Holland showed activity. At that time Jan van Riebeeck(Fig. 4) captured a point in the extreme south of the African continent and named it Kapstad. In 1806, this city was captured by the British and renamed Cape Town(Fig. 5). The city still exists today and bears the same name. It was from this point that the spread of the Dutch colonialists throughout South Africa began. The Dutch colonizers called themselves Boers(Fig. 6) (translated from Dutch - “peasant”). Peasants made up the bulk of the Dutch colonists who lacked land in Europe.

Rice. 4. Jan van Riebeeck ()

Rice. 5. Cape Town on the map of Africa ()

Just as in North America, the colonists clashed with the Indians, in South Africa, the Dutch colonists clashed with the local peoples. First of all, with the people scythe, the Dutch called them kaffirs. In the struggle for the territory, which received the name Kaffir Wars, the Dutch colonists gradually pushed the native tribes further and further to the center of Africa. The territories they captured, however, were small.

In 1806, the British arrived in southern Africa. The Boers did not like this and refused to submit to the British crown. They began to retreat further north. So there were people who called themselves Boer Settlers, or Burtrekers. This great campaign continued for several decades. It led to the formation of two independent Boer states in the northern part of present-day South Africa: Transvaal and the Orange Republic(Fig. 7).

Rice. 7. Independent Boer States: Transvaal and Orange Free State ()

The British were unhappy with this retreat of the Boers, because she wanted to control the entire territory of southern Africa, and not just the coast. As a result, in 1877-1881. The first Anglo-Boer War took place. The British demanded that these territories become part of the British Empire, but the Boers strongly disagreed with this. It is generally accepted that about 3,000 Boers took part in this war, and the entire English army was 1,200 people. The resistance of the Boers was so fierce that England abandoned attempts to influence the independent Boer states.

But in 1885 in the area of modern Johannesburg, deposits of gold and diamonds were discovered. The economic factor in colonization was always the most important, and England could not allow the Boers to benefit from gold and diamonds. In 1899-1902. The second Anglo-Boer War broke out. Despite the fact that the war was fought on the territory of Africa, it took place, in fact, between two European peoples: the Dutch (Boers) and the British. The bitter war ended with the fact that the Boer republics lost their independence and were forced to become part of the South African colony of Great Britain.

Together with the Dutch, the Portuguese and the British, representatives of other European powers quickly appeared in Africa. Thus, in the 1830s, active colonization activities were carried out by France, which captured vast territories in North and Equatorial Africa. Actively colonized and Belgium, especially during the reign of the king LeopoldII. The Belgians created their own colony in central Africa called Free State of the Congo. It existed from 1885 to 1908. It was believed that this was the personal territory of the Belgian king Leopold II. This state was only in words m. In fact, it was inherent in the violation of all the principles of international law, and the local population was driven to work on the royal plantations. A huge number of people on these plantations died. There were special punitive detachments that were supposed to punish those who collected too little rubber(sap of the hevea tree, the main raw material for the manufacture of rubber). As proof that the punitive detachments coped with their task, they had to bring to the point where the Belgian army was located, the severed hands and feet of the people they were punishing.

As a result, almost all African territories by the endXIXcenturies were divided among the European powers(Fig. 8). The activity of European countries in annexing new territories was so great that this era was called "race for Africa" or "fight for Africa". The Portuguese, who owned the territory of modern Angola and Mozambique, counted on the capture of an intermediate territory, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi, and, thus, on the creation of a network of their colonies on the African continent. But it was impossible to implement this project, since the British had their own plans for these territories. Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, based in Cape Town, Cecil John Rhodes, believed that Great Britain should create a chain of its own colonies. It should start in Egypt (in Cairo) and end in Cape Town. Thus, the British hoped to build their own colonial strip and stretch the railway along this strip from Cairo to Cape Town. After the First World War, the British managed to build the chain, but the railway was unfinished. It doesn't exist to this day.

Rice. 8. Possessions of European colonialists in Africa by the beginning of the 20th century ()

In 1884-1885, the European powers held a conference in Berlin, which made a decision on the question of which country belongs to this or that sphere of influence in Africa. As a result, almost the entire territory of the continent was divided between them.

As a result, by the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, Europeans had mastered the entire territory of the continent. Only 2 semi-independent states remained: Ethiopia and Liberia. This is due to the fact that Ethiopia was difficult to colonize, because one of the main tasks of the colonizers was the spread of Christianity, and Ethiopia since the early Middle Ages was a Christian state.

Liberia, in fact, was a territory created by the United States. It was on this territory that former American slaves were taken out of the United States by decision of President Monroe.

As a result, the British, French, Germans, Italians and other nations began to conflict in England. The Germans and Italians, who had few colonies, were dissatisfied with the decisions of the Berlin Congress. Other countries also wanted to get their hands on as much territory as possible. IN 1898 year between the British and French occurred fascist incident. Major Marchand of the French army captured a stronghold in modern South Sudan. The British considered these lands their own, and the French wanted to spread their influence there. As a result, a conflict broke out, during which relations between England and France deteriorated greatly.

Naturally, the Africans resisted the European colonizers, but the forces were unequal. Only one successful attempt can be singled out in the 19th century, when Muhammad ibn abd-Allah, who called himself Mahdi(Fig. 9), created a theocratic state in Sudan in 1881. It was a state based on the principles of Islam. In 1885, he managed to capture Khartoum (the capital of Sudan), and even though the Mahdi himself did not live long, this state existed until 1898 and was one of the few truly independent territories on the African continent.

Rice. 9. Muhammad ibn abd-Allah (Mahdi) ()

The most famous of the Ethiopian rulers of this era fought against European influence. MenelikII, who ruled from 1893 to 1913. He united the country, carried out active conquests and successfully resisted the Italians. He also maintained good relations with Russia, despite the significant remoteness of these two countries.

But all these attempts at confrontation were only isolated and could not give a serious result.

The revival of Africa began only in the second half of the 20th century, when African countries began to gain independence one after another.

Bibliography

1. Vedyushkin V.A., Burin S.N. History textbook for grade 8. - M.: Bustard, 2008.

2. Drogovoz I. The Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902. - Minsk: Harvest, 2004.

3. Nikitina I.A. Capture of the Boer Republics by England (1899-1902). - M., 1970.

4. Noskov V.V., Andreevskaya T.P. General history. 8th grade. - M., 2013.

5. Yudovskaya A.Ya. General history. History of the New Age, 1800-1900, Grade 8. - M., 2012.

6. Yakovleva E.V. The colonial division of Africa and the position of Russia: the second half of the 19th century. - 1914 - Irkutsk, 2004.

Homework

1. Tell us about European colonization in Egypt. Why didn't the Egyptians want the Suez Canal to open?

2. Tell us about the European colonization of the southern part of the African continent.

3. Who are the Boers and why did the Anglo-Boer Wars break out? What were their results and consequences?

4. Were there attempts to resist European colonization and how did they manifest themselves?