Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Link between violence and colonialism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A. Adu Boahen's African Perspectives on Colonialism neatly classifies African responses to European colonialism during both phases of invasion and occupation during the 19th century with precise labels according to their nature or time period. However, the reactions can also be loosely grouped into two diametric characterizations: peaceful and violent. Although creating this dichotomy seems a gross generalization and oversimplification of the colonial African experience, it more importantly allows for a different perspective- one that exposes the overwhelming success of the typically peaceful or pacifist reaction in contrast to the little gain and large losses of the violent response.
In order to analyze Boahen’s work as well as produce a coherent interpretation of his evidence, definitions for and connections between the terms in question are critical. Therefore, peaceful responses are defined as devoid of bloodshed and aggressive confrontation whereas violent reactions are defined as uprisings of a coalition or faction that involve open hostility. In the context of African resistance to colonialism, success is defined as the achievement of the party in question's objective as well as sustaining the attained goal in order for it to have a lasting positive impact on the country. These objectives typically fall into the two categories of state sovereignty and amity. While they are generally found to be the products of peaceful reactions, fatalities and destruction are by large the most notable outcomes of violent opposition. Moreover, this pattern observed from the results of the two types of responses is best understood when presented in terms of time periods: invasion and occupation.
There are several examples of peaceful str...
... middle of paper ...
...l to socio-economical. Even more fascinating is the similarly consistent trend that states which deployed peaceful negotiations with the colonialists were much more successful than their violent counterparts in achieving or maintaining sovereignty and peace- despite at times having to sacrifice one for the other. For reasons that are beyond the scope of this paper, Boahen makes a conscious decision not to emphasize this ostensible tendency. Ultimately, peaceful responses did not bring about a harmonious relationship between the colony and the colonial power; however, in contrast to their violent counterparts, they did not result in nearly the equivalent number of deaths, injuries and devastating consequences to the infrastructure of the colony.
Works Cited
Boahen,A. Adu. African Perspectives on Colonialism. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1987.)
In many accounts of the Africans, the Africans were in disagreement with the European's Scramble for Africa. Ndansi Kumalo an African veteran wrote in 1896 if many of them to give or keep their land. In a distrustful and agony tone he spoke of how the poor treatment of the Africans in the Ndebele rebellion against the British advances in South America to convince many others not to stay because it has impacted many Africans and many died in the process of it. He says “So we surrendered to the White people and were told to go back to our homes and live our usual lives and attend to our crops. They came and were overbearing. We were ordered to carry their clothes and bundles (Doc.4).” A German military officer in 1896 wrote in a newspaper article about the reactions of the Africans about the white settlers. In an awed tone he wrote about the 1906 account of the Maji Maji Rebellion in German East Africa and to give an example of how the Africans believed in a magic medicine would help them defend themselves against the white settlers (Doc.8). Mojimba an African chief in 1907 described a battle in 1877 on the Congo River against British and African mercenaries to a German catholic missionary. In an appalled and hateful tone he used this description to show that these whi...
The "DBQ Project" What Is the Driving Force Behind European Imperialism in Africa? (2012): 257. pp. 177-177. Print.
In Todd Shepard’s work Voices of Decolonization, the featured documents provide keen insight into the geopolitical environment of the era of decolonization (1945-1965) and the external and internal pressures on the relationships between colonial nations and the territories that they held dominion over (Shepard 10). Decolonization is the result of a combination of national self-determination and the establishment of functional international institutions composed of independent sovereign nations united towards common goals. As decolonization progressed, it intersected with points of significant sociopolitical tension between colonies and the nations that colonized them. Some of these moments of tension came in the form of progressive ideals held by international agencies which colonial nations were allied with, the revolt of colonized populations against their standing government in favor of independence, and in moral and political conflicts that arose when decolonization takes a form unexpected or undesired by the primary agents of progressive international institutions.
Europe, in the late 1800’s, was starting for a land grab in the African continent. Around 1878, most of Africa was unexplored, but by 1914, most of Africa, with the lucky exception of Liberia and Ethiopia, was carved up between European powers. There were countless motivations that spurred the European powers to carve Africa, like economical, political, and socio–cultural, and there were countless attitudes towards this expansion into Africa, some of approval and some of condemnation.
The new Cambridge modern history - XII The era of violence 1898-1945. Cambridge University. Cambridge University Press. 1960, 1st edition
The Scramble for Africa was essentially driven by the idea of “New Imperialism.” “New Imperialism” started the era of colonialism amongst the European powers – specifically Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Portugal. It was driven by the idea of Social Darwinism, to aid the “dark people” on the “dark continent” of Africa because they were in need of “saving.” Imperialism became the primary focus through the late nineteenth century, and into the twentieth century; dividing the African continent into areas to be colonized under European rule. Although the countries primary focus was to spread Western religions and culture to the African continent, violence was used amongst the native peoples to further successful developments of the new European colonies.
The beginning of colonization also marks the beginning of decolonization. From the day the colonists start exploiting the colonized people and belittling the colonized people for the colonists' self-aggrandizement, the colonized ones have been prepared to use violence at any moment to end the colonists' exploitation (Fanon, 3).Decolonization is violent, there is a necessity for violence. This is a point that is repeated again and again throughout The Battle of Algiers and The Wretched of the Earth. Here, the focus will be on The Battle of Algiers to discuss the violence of
In the second half of the twentieth century, started a process of decolonization, first in Asia and then in Africa. In 1949, India was one of the first country to gain its independence, followed by Burma, Malaysia, and Ceylon. In Africa the decolonization started a few years later, first in Libya and Egypt, and in the rest of the continent afterwards. The main colonists were the Great Britain and France. The history has shown that Great Britain succeeded to decolonize generally in peace while France had much more problems to give up its colonies, which led to numerous conflicts opposing the colonists and the colonized. It has been the case especially in Algeria where a murderous war lasted almost eight years. The philosopher Frantz Fanon has studied the outbreak of this conflict as he was working in Algeria and he spent some time working on the question of colonialism, drawing the conclusion that violence was the only way to get rid of colonists. This essay will analyse who was Fanon and why he came to such a conclusion along with the reasons why it could be said that he is right ,and finally, the arguments against his statement. Finally, it will aim to prove that even though Fanon had valid points, diplomacy could have been for efficient and less tragic rather than his support to violence.
In terms of political changes, European imperialism negatively affected Africa. Firstly, European colonization created enormous conflict between colonists and the African people. African resistance to “The Scramble for Africa” lead to the instability of Africa’s political structure. There was ineffective resistance of the African people against the Europeans. In an attempt to regain their independence, Africans took up arms against their colonial masters as soon as they perceived them to be at a disadvantage. In southern Africa, in The Republic of Namibia, the Herero people rose against German rule in 1904, killing over 100 German settlers and traders. German commander, General von Trotha, retaliated with a war aimed simply at extermination. This resulted in the decline of 70% of the Herero population.1 Nowhere else was colonialism quite so brutal, but almost everywhere it tended towards unrestrained brutality as soon as it was challenged.2 Warfare created considerable unrest among African people. Afterwards, the people of Africa came to the realization that the consequences of resistance against European colonists could be devastating. As well, the Europeans demonstrated that they had the technology and resources to gain control. Secondly, colonial expansion changed the face of Africa’s political structure. The Berlin Conference of 1884-85, attended by 13 European nations and the USA, set the ground rules for partition of Africa. When the conferenc...
Colonialism has plagued indigenous people worldwide and has spelled disaster for countless cultures, languages, and traditions. Over the past 500 years there have been different phases of colonization in Africa as well as other various parts of earth. There were many reasons behind exploration and colonization including economic and tactical reasons, religion, and prestige. Colonialism has shaped the contemporary understanding of individuals from Niger as well as other parts of Africa and other places too, like the Chambri and Tlingit people; mainly in economics. Because of the colonial past of so many cultures, numerous indigenous people today face many issues. Today colonialism is still active, known as Neocolonialism, which has devastating effects on global cultural groups.
Africa’s struggle to maintain their sovereignty amidst the encroaching Europeans is as much a psychological battle as it is an economic and political one. The spillover effects the system of racial superiority had on the African continent fractured ...
The New Imperialism and the Scramble for Africa 1880-1914. Jeff Taylor, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
During the colonial period in Nigeria (from about 1850 to 1960), the British, like any other colonial power, asserted their dominance through a variety of media. The colonial experience of Nigeria and Britain, and Nigeria's early post-colonial history can be described, roughly chronologically, in three phases or periods: the formation of a ‘captured' colony, the education and inculcation of ‘proper,' British ways (i.e., the ‘taming' of the colony), and the immediate aftermath of colonialism (i.e., the ‘independence' of the colony). This essay attempts to scrutinize these periods in the light of the theories of Karl Marx, Ernest Gellner, and Jack Snyder. My claim is that Nigeria's colonial relationship with Britain, in general, reflects Marx's theory of the dichotomy between the oppressor and the oppressed, Gellner's theory that domination and oppression is disseminated through educational means, and Snyder's theory on the risks and dangers that young, ‘immature' … countries face when they gamble on democracy
Throughout history, imperialism has led countries to extend their rule over weaker countries and then colonized those countries to expand their own power. Imperialism allows the ruling countries to use the weaker countries for their resources. Colonizing other countries would then lead to growth and a better reputation for the dominating country. There are many examples of imperialism throughout European history. When many European countries “scrambled” for Africa, it seemed as though Africa had no say in anything. During the 19th century, Europe found a way to use Africa for their own growth and power. Using Africa for their resources, the Europeans colonized Africa without a second thought. European imperialism in Africa had a negative impact because of social disarray, cultural loss, and death it caused.
An overwhelming majority of African nations has reclaimed their independence from their European mother countries. This did not stop the Europeans from leaving a permanent mark on the continent however. European colonialism has shaped modern-day Africa, a considerable amount for the worse, but also some for the better. Including these positive and negative effects, colonialism has also touched much of Africa’s history and culture especially in recent years.