african response to european invasioninvasiondlc.ui.edu.ng/oer.dlc.ui.edu.ng/app/upload/hds...

African Response to European African Response to European African Response to European African Response to European

University of Ibadan Distance Learning Centre

Open and Distance Learning Course

COURSE MANUAL

African Response to European African Response to European African Response to European African Response to European InvasionInvasionInvasionInvasion

HDS201HDS201HDS201HDS201

University of Ibadan Distance Learning CentreOpen and Distance Learning Course Series Development

African Response to European African Response to European African Response to European African Response to European

University of Ibadan Distance Learning Centre Series Development

Copyright © 2016 by Distance Learning Centre, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN: 978-021-435-6

General Editor: Prof. Bayo Okunade

University of Ibadan Distance Learning University of Ibadan Distance Learning University of Ibadan Distance Learning University of Ibadan Distance Learning CentreCentreCentreCentre University of Ibadan,

Nigeria

Telex: 31128NG

Tel: +234 (80775935727) E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.dlc.ui.edu.ng

Vice-Chancellor’s Message The Distance Learning Centre is building on a solid tradition of over two decades of service in the provision of External Studies Programme and now Distance Learning Education in Nigeria and beyond. The Distance Learning mode to which we are committed is providing access to many deserving Nigerians in having access to higher education especially those who by the nature of their engagement do not have the luxury of full time education. Recently, it is contributing in no small measure to providing places for teeming Nigerian youths who for one reason or the other could not get admission into the conventional universities.

These course materials have been written by writers specially trained in ODL course delivery. The writers have made great efforts to provide up to date information, knowledge and skills in the different disciplines and ensure that the materials are user-friendly.

In addition to provision of course materials in print and e-format, a lot of Information Technology input has also gone into the deployment of course materials. Most of them can be downloaded from the DLC website and are available in audio format which you can also download into your mobile phones, IPod, MP3 among other devices to allow you listen to the audio study sessions. Some of the study session materials have been scripted and are being broadcast on the university’s Diamond Radio FM 101.1, while others have been delivered and captured in audio-visual format in a classroom environment for use by our students. Detailed information on availability and access is available on the website. We will continue in our efforts to provide and review course materials for our courses.

However, for you to take advantage of these formats, you will need to improve on your I.T. skills and develop requisite distance learning Culture. It is well known that, for efficient and effective provision of Distance learning education, availability of appropriate and relevant course materials is a sine qua non. So also, is the availability of multiple plat form for the convenience of our students. It is in fulfilment of this, that series of course materials are being written to enable our students study at their own pace and convenience.

It is our hope that you will put these course materials to the best use.

Prof. Abel Idowu Olayinka

Vice-Chancellor

Foreword As part of its vision of providing education for “Liberty and Development” for Nigerians and the International Community, the University of Ibadan, Distance Learning Centre has recently embarked on a vigorous repositioning agenda which aimed at embracing a holistic and all encompassing approach to the delivery of its Open Distance Learning (ODL) programmes. Thus we are committed to global best practices in distance learning provision. Apart from providing an efficient administrative and academic support for our students, we are committed to providing educational resource materials for the use of our students. We are convinced that, without an up-to-date, learner-friendly and distance learning compliant course materials, there cannot be any basis to lay claim to being a provider of distance learning education. Indeed, availability of appropriate course materials in multiple formats is the hub of any distance learning provision worldwide.

In view of the above, we are vigorously pursuing as a matter of priority, the provision of credible, learner-friendly and interactive course materials for all our courses. We commissioned the authoring of, and review of course materials to teams of experts and their outputs were subjected to rigorous peer review to ensure standard. The approach not only emphasizes cognitive knowledge, but also skills and humane values which are at the core of education, even in an ICT age.

The development of the materials which is on-going also had input from experienced editors and illustrators who have ensured that they are accurate, current and learner-friendly. They are specially written with distance learners in mind. This is very important because, distance learning involves non-residential students who can often feel isolated from the community of learners.

It is important to note that, for a distance learner to excel there is the need to source and read relevant materials apart from this course material. Therefore, adequate supplementary reading materials as well as other information sources are suggested in the course materials.

Apart from the responsibility for you to read this course material with others, you are also advised to seek assistance from your course facilitators especially academic advisors during your study even before the interactive session which is by design for revision. Your academic advisors will assist you using convenient technology including Google Hang Out, You Tube, Talk Fusion, etc. but you have to take advantage of these. It is also going to be of immense advantage if you complete assignments as at when due so as to have necessary feedbacks as a guide.

The implication of the above is that, a distance learner has a responsibility to develop requisite distance learning culture which includes diligent and disciplined self-study, seeking available administrative and academic support and acquisition of basic information technology skills. This is why you are encouraged to develop your computer skills by availing yourself the opportunity of training that the Centre’s provide and put these into use.

In conclusion, it is envisaged that the course materials would also be useful for the regular students of tertiary institutions in Nigeria who are faced with a dearth of high quality textbooks. We are therefore, delighted to present these titles to both our distance learning students and the university’s regular students. We are confident that the materials will be an invaluable resource to all.

We would like to thank all our authors, reviewers and production staff for the high quality of work.

Best wishes.

Professor Bayo Okunade

Director

Course Development Team

Content Authoring

Reviewer

G.O. Oguntomisin (PH.D)

Monsuru Olalekan Muritala

Content Editor

Production Editor

Learning Design & Technologist

Managing Editor

General Editor

Prof. Remi Raji-Oyelade

Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb

Folajimi Olambo Fakoya

Ogunmefun Oladele Abiodun

Prof. Bayo Okunade

ContentsContentsContentsContents

About this course manualAbout this course manualAbout this course manualAbout this course manual 1111

How this course manual is structured .................................................................................................................... 1

Course OverviewCourse OverviewCourse OverviewCourse Overview 3333

Welcome to African Response to European Invasion HDS201 .................................................................... 3

Course outcomes .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Getting around this course manualGetting around this course manualGetting around this course manualGetting around this course manual 6666

Margin icons ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Study Session 1Study Session 1Study Session 1Study Session 1 7777

... ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Terminology .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Mother Tongue versus Second Language ......................................................................................... 7

Study Session Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Assessment ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8


Factors Responsible for European Invasion of Africa I: Economic Factor .............................................. 9

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Terminology .......................................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Pre-colonial relationship between Africa and Europe ................................................................ 9

1.1.1 Portuguese in Africa ............................................................................................................... 10

1.1.2 Abolition of the slave trade and Europeans in Africa .............................................. 10

1.2 The quest for raw materials for the manufacturing industries in Europe ....................... 11

1.3 The search for markets .......................................................................................................................... 11

1.3.1 Protective tariffs in Europe and the search for Africa markets ........................... 11

1.4 Investment of surplus capital in Africa ........................................................................................... 12

1.4.1 European and future economic prospects of Africa ................................................. 12

Study Session Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 13

Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 14


Factors Responsible for the European Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Political and Social

Factors ............................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Contents ii

2.1 Strategic factor .......................................................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Political factors .......................................................................................................................................... 16

2.2.1 The need to maintain balance of power in Europe ................................................... 16

2.2.2 Nationalism and national prestige ................................................................................... 16

2.3 Social and humanitarian factors ........................................................................................................ 17

2.3.1 Need to solve socio-economic problems in Europe .................................................. 17

2.3.2 Evangelical Christianity and Civilisation of Africans................................................ 18


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 19


Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy and Force ................................................................................... 20

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 20

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

3.1 Use of Diplomatic Methods .................................................................................................................. 21

3.1.1 Treaties implementation with African rulers.............................................................. 21

3.1.2 Africans response to treaties signing with Europeans ............................................ 22

3.1.3 European double standard in treaties signing with African Chiefs ................... 22

3.2 Europeans use of force and military conquest ............................................................................ 22

3.2.1 Force against recalcitrant African rulers ....................................................................... 23

3.2.2 Force against African rulers who dishonoured treaties agreement .................. 23


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 24


The Berlin Conference 1884/85 ............................................................................................................................. 25

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Prelude to the Berlin conference ....................................................................................................... 25

4.1.1 King Leopold’s interest in the Congo Basin .................................................................. 26

4.1.2 Reactions of European countries to King Leopold’s action ................................... 26

Anglo-French and German Rivalry in West Africa ............................................................................. 26

4.2.1 Imperial ambition of Germany in Africa ........................................................................ 27

4.3 The Berlin Conference ............................................................................................................................ 27

4.3.1 Importance of the Berlin Conference .............................................................................. 28

4.3.2 Aftermath of the Berlin Conference for African Territories .................................. 29


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 30


The Chartered Companies and the Invasion of Africa................................................................................... 31

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 31

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 31

5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa .......................................................................... 32

5.2 Britain’s Royal Niger Company in Nigeria ..................................................................................... 32

5.3 Imperial British East African Company .......................................................................................... 33

5.4 The British South African Company ................................................................................................. 33

5.4.1 Cecil Rhodes and the African Chiefs ................................................................................ 33


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 35


Egyptian Response to British Occupation .......................................................................................................... 35

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 35

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 36

6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt ........................................................................................... 36

6.1.1 Strategic Importance of the Suez Canal ......................................................................... 36

6.1.2 Egypt Financial Bankruptcy ................................................................................................ 36

6.2 Anti-Foreigners Agitators and the British Occupation of Egypt .......................................... 37

6.3 Egyptian Reactions to the British Occupation ............................................................................. 37

6.3.1 British Administration in Egypt ........................................................................................ 38

6.3.2 Background to Nationalism and Nationalist Movement in Egypt ...................... 38

6.3.3 British Declaration of Protectorate over Egypt and Egyptian Reactions ........ 39


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 40


Response to Italian Invasion in Libya .................................................................................................................. 41

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 41

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 41

7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya ......................................................................................... 41

7.1.1 1908 Murder of Italians in Libya ...................................................................................... 42

7.1.2 Italian invasion of Egypt ....................................................................................................... 42

7.2 Libyan response to Italian invasion ................................................................................................. 42

7.2.1 Sanusiyya brotherhood resistance .................................................................................. 43


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 45


Response to Italian Invasion in Ethiopia ............................................................................................................ 46

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 46

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 47

8.1 Background to the Italian invasion of Ethiopia ........................................................................... 47

8.1.1 Ucciali treaty and Emperor Menelik II ........................................................................... 47

8.2 Ethiopian Response to Italian Aggression ..................................................................................... 48

8.2.1 Menelik diplomacy and strategies against Italy ......................................................... 48

8.2.2 Ethiopia’s victory at the battle of Adowa (1896) ....................................................... 49

Factors that aided Menelik II victory over Italian aggression ............................. 49

Contents iv


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 51


Response to European Invasion in Uganda ....................................................................................................... 52

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 52

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 52

9.1 Prelude to the British conquest of Uganda .................................................................................... 52

9.2 Religious-Political tensions and British conquest of Uganda ................................................ 53

9.2.1 Kabaka Mutesa and Religious conflict in Uganda ...................................................... 53

9.2.2 Captain Lugard and the conquest of Uganda ............................................................... 54

9.3 Reactions of the Ugandans to British Conquest .......................................................................... 54

9.3.1 The Protestants and British Government in Uganda ............................................... 55

9.3.2 Significance of Uganda Agreement of 1900 ................................................................. 55


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 56

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 56


Response to German Invasion in Tanzania (Tanganyika) ........................................................................... 57

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 57

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 58

10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania .................................................................... 58

10.2 Tanzania response to German invasion ....................................................................................... 58

10.2.1 Tanzania initial response to German invasion ......................................................... 58

Reasons for the failure of this Tanzanian response ................................................. 59

10.2.2 Maji Maji outbreak in Tanzania 1905-1907 .............................................................. 59

Kolelo priest and the Maji Maji Revolt ........................................................................... 60

Cotton Scheme and Maji Maji Revolt .............................................................................. 60

10.2.3 Failure of Maji Maji Revolt ................................................................................................ 61


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 62


African Response to the French Invasion of West Africa ............................................................................. 63

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 63

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 63

11.1 French Penetration of West Africa ................................................................................................. 63

11.1.1 French, Trade and Local Politics in West Africa ...................................................... 64

11.2 Tukolor response to European invasion ..................................................................................... 64

11.3 Factors responsible for the failure of Tukulor resistance .................................................... 65

11.4 Samouri Resistance to French Invasion ....................................................................................... 65

11.4.1 Samouri Strategies of Resistance ................................................................................... 66

11.4.2 Reasons for the failure of Samouri’s resistance ....................................................... 67


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 68

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 68


African Response of the British Invasion of West Africa ............................................................................. 69

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 69

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 69

12.1 British in-road into West Africa 1 ................................................................................................... 69

12.1.1 British in-road into West Africa 2 .................................................................................. 70

12.2 West African Reactions to the British Invasion ........................................................................ 70

12.2.1 British intervention in Asante-Fante conflict ........................................................... 71

12.2.2 African reactions: the Ghana example ......................................................................... 71

12.2.3 African reactions to the British: Sierria Leone example ...................................... 71

12.2.4 The Nigerian Kingdoms Reactions to the British Invasion ................................. 72

12.3 Appraisal of African reactions to the British in West Africa ............................................... 73

12.3.1 Reasons for the failure of West Africans resistance against the British........ 74


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 75

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 75

StudyStudyStudyStudy Session 13Session 13Session 13Session 13 76767676

African Response to the European Invasion of South Africa ...................................................................... 76

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 76

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 76

13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa .................................................................... 77

13.1.1 British presence in South Africa ..................................................................................... 77

13.2 African reactions to the invaders .................................................................................................... 78

13.2.1 Reactions in Matabele land ............................................................................................... 78

13.2.2 Reactions of the Shona and Zulu people to European invasion ........................ 78


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 79

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 80


Patterns of African Response to European Invasion ..................................................................................... 81

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 81

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 81

14.1 Overview of African response to European invasion ............................................................. 81

14.1.1 Diplomatic and military patterns of response.......................................................... 82

14.1.2 Religion as strategy of resistance .................................................................................. 82

14.2 African Collaborators ........................................................................................................................... 83

Contents vi


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 84

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 84

Study Study Study Study Session 15Session 15Session 15Session 15 85858585

Failure of African Resistance to European Invasion ...................................................................................... 85

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 85

Terminology ....................................................................................................................................................... 86

15.1 Factors responsible for the Failure of African resistance 1 ................................................. 86

15.1.1 Factors responsible for the failure of African resistance 2 .............................................. 87

15.1.2 Factors responsible for the failure of African resistance 3 .............................................. 88


Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 89

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 90

Notes on Self Assessment QuestionsNotes on Self Assessment QuestionsNotes on Self Assessment QuestionsNotes on Self Assessment Questions 90909090

- ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 90

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences 96969696

Notes on Self Assessment QuestionsNotes on Self Assessment QuestionsNotes on Self Assessment QuestionsNotes on Self Assessment Questions 96969696

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences 97979797

About this course manual

1

About this About this About this About this course manualcourse manualcourse manualcourse manual

African Response to European Invasion HDS201 has been produced by University of Ibadan Distance Learning Centre. All course manuals produced by University of Ibadan Distance Learning Centre are structured in the same way, as outlined below.

How this How this How this How this course manualcourse manualcourse manualcourse manual is is is is

structuredstructuredstructuredstructured The course overview The course overview gives you a general introduction to the course. Information contained in the course overview will help you determine:

� If the course is suitable for you.

� What you will already need to know.

� What you can expect from the course.

� How much time you will need to invest to complete the course.

The overview also provides guidance on:

� Study skills.

� Where to get help.

� Course assignments and assessments.

� Margin icons.

We strongly recommend that you read the overview carefully before starting your study.

The course content The course is broken down into Study Sessions. Each Study Session comprises:

� An introduction to the Study Session content.

� Study Session outcomes.

� Core content of the Study Session with a variety of learning activities.

� A Study Session summary.

HDS201HDS201HDS201HDS201 African Response to European Invasion

2

� Assignments and/or assessments, as applicable.

� Bibliography

Your comments After completing African Response to European Invasion we would appreciate it if you would take a few moments to give us your feedback on any aspect of this course. Your feedback might include comments on:

� Course content and structure.

� Course reading materials and resources.

� Course assignments.

� Course assessments.

� Course duration.

� Course support (assigned tutors, technical help, etc.)

Your constructive feedback will help us to improve and enhance this course.

CourseCourseCourseCourse

Welcome to Welcome to Welcome to Welcome to African African African African

Response to European Response to European Response to European Response to European

InvasionInvasionInvasionInvasion HDS201HDS201HDS201HDS201

This courseinvasion of their territories. Africans responded in various ways to the European invasion of their territories between 1882 and 1914. European invasion should not be construed only in military terms. Aparpenetration through trade, scientific exploration and missionary activities. All these however culminated eventually in the takeof African territories.

The varied reactions or responses ofpresence in or invasion of their territories during the period 18821914 which witnessed the European scramble for and partition of the continent of Africa, constitute the major focus of this course. The factors responsible for thAfrica during the period of the European invasion within the framework of Africa’s internal history also form essential part of the course.

The course content has been broken down into manageable Study Sessions. Each session

Course outcomesCourse outcomesCourse outcomesCourse outcomes

The general objective of this course is to make you familiar with the varied forms of human reaction to external aggression using the African experience as your case study. The specific objective is to enable yo

OutcomesOutcomesOutcomesOutcomes

CourseCourseCourseCourse OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview

African African African African

Response to European Response to European Response to European Response to European

HDS201HDS201HDS201HDS201

This course examines the response of Africans to the European invasion of their territories. Africans responded in various ways to the European invasion of their territories between 1882 and 1914. European invasion should not be construed only in military terms. Apart from military onslaught, it also entails peaceful piecemeal penetration through trade, scientific exploration and missionary activities. All these however culminated eventually in the takeof African territories.

The varied reactions or responses of Africans to the European presence in or invasion of their territories during the period 18821914 which witnessed the European scramble for and partition of the continent of Africa, constitute the major focus of this course. The factors responsible for the scramble and developments in Africa during the period of the European invasion within the framework of Africa’s internal history also form essential part of the course.

The course content has been broken down into manageable Study Sessions. Each session constitutes an hour lecture

Course outcomesCourse outcomesCourse outcomesCourse outcomes

The general objective of this course is to make you familiar with the varied forms of human reaction to external aggression using the African experience as your case study. The specific objective is to enable you to know the following:

� Why Europeans invaded Africa. � The different means by which Europeans invaded Africa.� The different and varied forms of African reactions to the

invaders of their territories. � The circumstances under which African peoples

the way they did.

Course Overview

3

the response of Africans to the European invasion of their territories. Africans responded in various ways to the European invasion of their territories between 1882 and 1914. European invasion should not be construed only in military terms.

t from military onslaught, it also entails peaceful piecemeal penetration through trade, scientific exploration and missionary activities. All these however culminated eventually in the take-over

Africans to the European presence in or invasion of their territories during the period 1882-1914 which witnessed the European scramble for and partition of the continent of Africa, constitute the major focus of this course.

e scramble and developments in Africa during the period of the European invasion within the framework of Africa’s internal history also form essential part of

The course content has been broken down into manageable Study constitutes an hour lecture.

The general objective of this course is to make you familiar with the varied forms of human reaction to external aggression using the African experience as your case study. The specific objective is to

The different means by which Europeans invaded Africa. The different and varied forms of African reactions to the

The circumstances under which African peoples 'reacted in


4

� Why Africans reacted in different ways to the European invasion of their territories.

� Why Africans at last failed, in spite of determined resistance, to stop European colonization of their states and kingdoms.

6


Getting around this Getting around this Getting around this Getting around this

Margin Margin Margin Margin iconsiconsiconsicons

While working through this frequent use of margin icons. These icons serve to “signpost” a particular piece of text, a new task or change in activity; they have been included to help you to find your way around this manual

A complete icon set is shown familiarize yourself with the icons and their meaning before starting your study.

DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion

SummarySummarySummarySummary

African Response to European Invasion

Getting around this Getting around this Getting around this Getting around this course manualcourse manualcourse manualcourse manual

While working through this course manual you will notice the frequent use of margin icons. These icons serve to “signpost” a particular piece of text, a new task or change in activity; they have been included to help you to find your way around this manual.

A complete icon set is shown below. We suggest that you familiarize yourself with the icons and their meaning before starting your study.

ActivityActivityActivityActivity AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment AssignmentAssignmentAssignmentAssignment

DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion Group ActivityGroup ActivityGroup ActivityGroup Activity HelpHelpHelpHelp

NoteNoteNoteNote ReflectionReflectionReflectionReflection ReadingReadingReadingReading

SummarySummarySummarySummary TerminologyTerminologyTerminologyTerminology TimeTimeTimeTime

course manualcourse manualcourse manualcourse manual

you will notice the frequent use of margin icons. These icons serve to “signpost” a particular piece of text, a new task or change in activity; they have been included to help you to find your way around this course

below. We suggest that you familiarize yourself with the icons and their meaning before

Case studyCase studyCase studyCase study

OutcomesOutcomesOutcomesOutcomes

Study Study Study Study skillsskillsskillsskills

TipTipTipTip

Study Session 1

Study Study Study Study

Factors Responsible for European Factors Responsible for European Factors Responsible for European Factors Responsible for European Invasion of Africa I: Economic Factor Invasion of Africa I: Economic Factor Invasion of Africa I: Economic Factor Invasion of Africa I: Economic Factor

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session, you will explore the historical background and the economic factors that precipitated the European invasion of Africa, most importantly the relationship between Africa and Europe before 1882. Scholars have identified various theories and fregarding conveniently categorized as economic, political, psychological, diplomatic and strategic. However, for the purpose of this unit emphasis is on the economic reasons such as the quest for raw mat

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes

When you have studied this session, you should be able to:

1.1

1.2

1.3

TerminologyTerminologyTerminologyTerminology

Colonialism

Session 1 Factors Responsible for European Invasion of Africa I: Economic Factor

Study Study Study Study SessionSessionSessionSession 1111


In this session, you will explore the historical background and the economic factors that precipitated the European invasion of Africa, most importantly the relationship between Africa and Europe before 1882. Scholars have identified various theories and fregarding the European invasion of Africa, conveniently categorized as economic, political, psychological, diplomatic and strategic. However, for the purpose of this unit emphasis is on the economic reasons such as the quest for raw materials, the search for markets and investment of surplus capital

Learning Outcomes


1.1 describe the pre-colonial relationship between Africa and Europe

1.2 explain the factors that made Europeans to turn to Africa for raw materials

1.3 describe the patterns of European creation of overseas markets for their products in Africa

Colonialism The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political

control over another country, occupying it with settlers,

and exploiting it economically.

Factors Responsible for European Invasion of Africa I: Economic Factor

7


In this session, you will explore the historical background and the economic factors that precipitated the European invasion of Africa, most importantly the relationship between Africa and Europe before 1882. Scholars have identified various theories and factors

the European invasion of Africa, which may be conveniently categorized as economic, political, psychological, diplomatic and strategic. However, for the purpose of this unit emphasis is on the economic reasons such as the quest for raw

erials, the search for markets and investment of surplus capital.


colonial relationship between Africa

Europeans to turn to Africa for

describe the patterns of European creation of overseas

he policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political

occupying it with settlers,

8

HDSHDSHDSHDS201201201201 African Response to European Invasion

1.1 Pre1.1 Pre1.1 Pre1.1 Pre----colonial Rcolonial Rcolonial Rcolonial Relationship between Africa and elationship between Africa and elationship between Africa and elationship between Africa and Europe Europe Europe Europe

Europeans had been interested in Africa before 1882. They had, before the 7th century B.C., been curious about the Flora and the Fauna of Africa. Early efforts at exploring and making contacts with Africa had been made by the Phoenicians in the 7th century B.C. The Genoese in the 13th century A.D. had succeeded in visiting a few places such as the Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands and the territories bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Apart from these areas, the rest of the continent remained to the European largely as tera in cognita.

However, it was in the 15th century that a systematic and government backed attempt at exploring and making contacts with Africa really began. The Portuguese blazed the trail. They made their earliest contact with Africa in early 15th century when their sailors visited Cape Bojador in West Africa. Between this date and the 17th century, many Portuguese sailors, traders and even priests had visited several parts of West, central and south-east coast of Africa. In some cases such as in Congo and the Bight of Benin, they made incursions a few kilometers into the hinterland and even established colonies in the Azores, Madeira and Cape Verde Islands around 1441.

1.1.1 Portuguese in Africa1.1.1 Portuguese in Africa1.1.1 Portuguese in Africa1.1.1 Portuguese in Africa

The Portuguese were mainly interested in trade. They established trading ports or forts in strategic areas along the coast of West and South-East Africa. Some of these are: Arguin in 1448, El Mina in 1482, Ghato in Benin in 1486 and Fort Jesus in the late 16th century. They were followed from the 16th century onwards by the Spaniards, the Dutch, the French, the British, the Germans and the Italians. These Europeans were interested in trade. Although they purchased African products such as gold, ivory and pepper, they engaged largely in the slave trade which had begun in the 16th century.

1.1.2 1.1.2 1.1.2 1.1.2 Abolition of the slave trade and Europeans in Abolition of the slave trade and Europeans in Abolition of the slave trade and Europeans in Abolition of the slave trade and Europeans in AfricaAfricaAfricaAfrica

Before the early decades of the 19th century when Europeans became disinterested in the slave trade, their activities were limited mostly to the coast. African States and Kingdoms both on the coast and in the hinterlands retained their independence. The Sovereignties of their rulers were in no way subverted by the European traders and visitors.

Study Session 1

They subjected themselves to these rulers' protection and obeyed the laof African rulers and presented them gifts to secure their permission to trade. However, after the abolition of the slave trade, Europeans became increasingly interested in African products. Thetraders and other personnel rushed to Africa in increasing numbers. Their activities were supported by their various home governments whose Interest had now transcended trade to acquisition oterritories. By the beginning of our period the rush had assumed the dimension of a scramble.

Tip

From the foregoing, one can realize that the invasion of Africa by European did not begin in 1882. It is a phenomenon which began a long time ago but of study. This unit therefore discusses the various factors responsible for this increased tempo of European invasion.

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Reasons for European Conquest of AfricaReasons for European Conquest of AfricaReasons for European Conquest of AfricaReasons for European Conquest of Africa

1.2.1 The Quest for Raw materials 1.2.1 The Quest for Raw materials 1.2.1 The Quest for Raw materials 1.2.1 The Quest for Raw materials Manufacturing IManufacturing IManufacturing IManufacturing I

The industrial revolution was launched in Europe early in the nineteenth century. The revolution involved the invention and use of machines to produce articles which had hitherto been made by hand. It began in Grehad spread to France, Germany, Russia and Italy. As the revolution took off, these various countries needed raw materials such as cotton, palm oil, Ivory and rubber to keep production going in their manufacturavailable abundantly in the tropical regions of Africa. Consequently, the continent became the focus of attention of the industrialized European countries.

1.1.1.1.2.22.22.22.2

Industrialized Europeaof their manufactured products. As many European countries had become industrialized in the nineteenth century, goods were produced in excess of demand. Consequently, European markets were glutted and in order "products, European countries looked for new markets in Africa. The search for new markets became very competitive because each country sought to monopolise trade in African territories where its nationals were engaged in of trade monopoly was undertaken through the introduction of high tariffs or custom duties directed against goods from other European

Session 1 Factors Responsible for European Invasion of Africa I: Economic Factor

They subjected themselves to these rulers' protection and obeyed the laws of host states and kingdoms. They often visited the courts of African rulers and presented them gifts to secure their permission to trade. However, after the abolition of the slave trade, Europeans became increasingly interested in African products. Their traders and other personnel rushed to African products. Their traders and other personnel rushed to Africa in increasing numbers. Their activities were supported by their various home governments whose Interest had now transcended trade to acquisition oterritories. By the beginning of our period the rush had assumed the dimension of a scramble.

From the foregoing, one can realize that the invasion of Africa by European did not begin in 1882. It is a phenomenon which began a long time ago but whose momentum increased tremendously during our period of study. This unit therefore discusses the various factors responsible for this increased tempo of European invasion.

Reasons for European Conquest of AfricaReasons for European Conquest of AfricaReasons for European Conquest of AfricaReasons for European Conquest of Africa

1.2.1 The Quest for Raw materials 1.2.1 The Quest for Raw materials 1.2.1 The Quest for Raw materials 1.2.1 The Quest for Raw materials for the for the for the for the Manufacturing IManufacturing IManufacturing IManufacturing Industries in Europendustries in Europendustries in Europendustries in Europe

The industrial revolution was launched in Europe early in the nineteenth century. The revolution involved the invention and use of machines to produce articles which had hitherto been made by hand. It began in Great Britain and by the middle of the century it had spread to France, Germany, Russia and Italy. As the revolution took off, these various countries needed raw materials such as cotton, palm oil, Ivory and rubber to keep production going in their manufacturing industries. These raw materials are products available abundantly in the tropical regions of Africa. Consequently, the continent became the focus of attention of the industrialized European countries.

2.22.22.22.2 The Search for MThe Search for MThe Search for MThe Search for Marketsarketsarketsarkets

Industrialized European countries also needed markets for the sale of their manufactured products. As many European countries had become industrialized in the nineteenth century, goods were produced in excess of demand. Consequently, European markets were glutted and in order "to find outlets for their finished products, European countries looked for new markets in Africa. The search for new markets became very competitive because each country sought to monopolise trade in African territories where its nationals were engaged in commercial activities. The establishment of trade monopoly was undertaken through the introduction of high tariffs or custom duties directed against goods from other European


9

They subjected themselves to these rulers' protection and obeyed ws of host states and kingdoms. They often visited the courts

of African rulers and presented them gifts to secure their permission to trade. However, after the abolition of the slave trade, Europeans became increasingly interested in African products.

ir traders and other personnel rushed to African products. Their traders and other personnel rushed to Africa in increasing numbers. Their activities were supported by their various home governments whose Interest had now transcended trade to acquisition of territories. By the beginning of our period the rush had assumed the

From the foregoing, one can realize that the invasion of Africa by European did not begin in 1882. It is a phenomenon which began a long

whose momentum increased tremendously during our period of study. This unit therefore discusses the various factors responsible for

Reasons for European Conquest of AfricaReasons for European Conquest of AfricaReasons for European Conquest of AfricaReasons for European Conquest of Africa

for the for the for the for the

The industrial revolution was launched in Europe early in the nineteenth century. The revolution involved the invention and use of machines to produce articles which had hitherto been made by

at Britain and by the middle of the century it had spread to France, Germany, Russia and Italy. As the revolution took off, these various countries needed raw materials such as cotton, palm oil, Ivory and rubber to keep production going in their

ing industries. These raw materials are products available abundantly in the tropical regions of Africa. Consequently, the continent became the focus of attention of the

n countries also needed markets for the sale of their manufactured products. As many European countries had become industrialized in the nineteenth century, goods were produced in excess of demand. Consequently, European markets

to find outlets for their finished products, European countries looked for new markets in Africa. The search for new markets became very competitive because each country sought to monopolise trade in African territories where its

commercial activities. The establishment of trade monopoly was undertaken through the introduction of high tariffs or custom duties directed against goods from other European

10


countries. In this way, each European country, tried to protect its own markets and products from foreign competition. The result of this development was that European countries such as Britain, France and Germany became rivals in their search for exclusive areas of trade in Africa each trying to edge the other out by imposing high tariffs on each other's goods.

1.1.1.1.2.32.32.32.3 Protective Protective Protective Protective TTTTariffs in Euariffs in Euariffs in Euariffs in Europe and the search for rope and the search for rope and the search for rope and the search for Africa MAfrica MAfrica MAfrica Marketsarketsarketsarkets

Traders from Britain, France and Germany who were adversely affected by the protective tariffs of their industrialized nation petitioned their respective country in Europe. Britain was more adversely affected by the protective tariffs, than other European countries. Indeed, in the 1870s, when other European countries began to adopt a policy of protection against Britain, British traders began to think that they could trade freely only under their national flag. In the same vein, German industrialists from Bremen, Hamburg and other industrialized towns began to urge their country to found colonies. Thus it became imperative for any European power seeking exclusive market in Africa to acquire colonies in the continent in order to guarantee free enterprise for its traders and industrialists and protect its goods from foreign competition. Thus acquisition of colonies in Africa became one of the co-cornerstones of the policies of industrialized European countries. This point is reinforced by the statements of some European leaders in the 1870s. For instance, Otto Von Bismarck, the Chancellor of German from 1871 to 1890 said: ''Colonies would mean the wining of new markets for German industry, the expansion of trade, and a new field for German activity, civilization and capital." Jules Ferry, the French Premier between 1883 and 1885 expressed the same view in the following words: Colonial policy is the off-spring of Industrial policy… European consumption is saturated: It is necessary to raise new masses of consumers in other parts of the globe...”

1.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.4 I4 I4 I4 Investment of Surplus Cnvestment of Surplus Cnvestment of Surplus Cnvestment of Surplus Capital in Africaapital in Africaapital in Africaapital in Africa

Closely associated with the need for overseas markets was the need for places where surplus capital in Europe could be invested. Industrialized European nations which had accumulated great capital from their industrial ventures were eager to invest this capital elsewhere in the world under their political control. This need for capital investment overseas in this way has been expressed by Jules Ferry of France thus "Colonies are for rich countries one of the most lucrative methods of investing capital... I say that France which is glutted with capital and which has exported considerable quantities has an interest in looking at this side of the question... It is the same question as that of outlets for our

Study Session 1

manufactures." Jules Ferry was not only expressing the interest of France but also that of other European counproblem of what to do with Surplus capital. Many Eurobelieved in the theory of economic imperialism propounded by Hobson and Lenin and sought for empires whose economy could be exploitravellers the value of the continent's raw materials, markets and economic potentialities to their home governments. They urged their governments to acquire territories in Africa for capital investment and econ

1.31.31.31.3 Europe and FEurope and FEurope and FEurope and FIt has been argued that Europe invested more capital in Asia and America than in Africa, and that perhaps the need for capital investment might not adequately, explain European invasion continent. It should be noted that the Europeans' concern was not the present but future economic prospects of Africa. For instance, with the discovery of the world's largest gold deposit in South Africa in 1886 and the speculation that vast copper in the Katanga region of Congo, it became fashionable in Europe to think that Africa was the treasure house of the world. Consequently, no European nation wanted to be left behind in the struggle to partake in the acquisition of the undiscthe continent.

Study Session SummaryStudy Session SummaryStudy Session SummaryStudy Session Summary


In this Study Session, you learnt that:

Session 1 Factors Responsible for European Invasion of Africa I: Economi

manufactures." Jules Ferry was not only expressing the interest of France but also that of other European countries beset with tproblem of what to do with Surplus capital. Many Eurobelieved in the theory of economic imperialism propounded by Hobson and Lenin and sought for empires whose economy could be exploited for profit. European traders, missionaries and travellers who visited Africa in the 19th century saw and stressed the value of the continent's raw materials, markets and economic potentialities to their home governments. They urged their governments to acquire territories in Africa for capital investment and economic exploitation.

Europe and FEurope and FEurope and FEurope and Future Economic Puture Economic Puture Economic Puture Economic Prospects of Africarospects of Africarospects of Africarospects of AfricaIt has been argued that Europe invested more capital in Asia and America than in Africa, and that perhaps the need for capital investment might not adequately, explain European invasion continent. It should be noted that the Europeans' concern was not the present but future economic prospects of Africa. For instance, with the discovery of the world's largest gold deposit in South Africa in 1886 and the speculation that vast copper in the Katanga region of Congo, it became fashionable in Europe to think that Africa was the treasure house of the world. Consequently, no European nation wanted to be left behind in the struggle to partake in the acquisition of the undiscthe continent.



1. The European invasion of Africa did not start in 1882. It began gradually a long time ago.

2. The peaceful penetration of Africa by European traders, missionaries and adventurers escalated into scramble in the 19th century.

3. The economic reasons responsible for the scramble for territorial acquisition of the continent are:(a) The need to obtain raw materials for manufacturing

industries in Europe. (b) The need for markets for the sale of manufactured

products because industrialised nations had produced goods more than their home markets could absorb.

(c) European countries in the 19th century possessed huge


11

manufactures." Jules Ferry was not only expressing the interest of tries beset with the

problem of what to do with Surplus capital. Many Europeans believed in the theory of economic imperialism propounded by Hobson and Lenin and sought for empires whose economy could

ted for profit. European traders, missionaries and who visited Africa in the 19th century saw and stressed

the value of the continent's raw materials, markets and economic potentialities to their home governments. They urged their governments to acquire territories in Africa for capital investment

rospects of Africarospects of Africarospects of Africarospects of Africa It has been argued that Europe invested more capital in Asia and America than in Africa, and that perhaps the need for capital investment might not adequately, explain European invasion of the continent. It should be noted that the Europeans' concern was not the present but future economic prospects of Africa. For instance, with the discovery of the world's largest gold deposit in South Africa in 1886 and the speculation that vast copper deposits existed in the Katanga region of Congo, it became fashionable in Europe to think that Africa was the treasure house of the world. Consequently, no European nation wanted to be left behind in the struggle to partake in the acquisition of the undiscovered riches in

The European invasion of Africa did not start in 1882. It

The peaceful penetration of Africa by European traders, missionaries and adventurers escalated into scramble in the

The economic reasons responsible for the scramble for territorial acquisition of the continent are:

The need to obtain raw materials for manufacturing

for markets for the sale of manufactured products because industrialised nations had produced goods more than their home markets could absorb.

century possessed huge

12


AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment


SAQ 1.1 (test learning outcome 1.1)

When did the exploration of Africa by European nations start?

SAQ 1.2 (test

Identify the major economic factors for the European invasion of Africa


What precipitated the European for raw materials in Africa during the period of our study?


Which theories motivated the European to see Africa as the place to invest surplus capital?


capital which they had accumulated from the gains of industrial revolution. They desired to acquire territories in Africa where they could profitably invest their money.




Identify the major economic factors for the European invasion of Africa


What precipitated the European for raw materials in Africa during the period of our study?


Which theories motivated the European to see Africa as the place to invest surplus capital?

capital which they had accumulated from the gains of rial revolution. They desired to acquire territories

in Africa where they could profitably invest their


Identify the major economic factors for the European invasion of

What precipitated the European for raw materials in Africa during

Which theories motivated the European to see Africa as the place

Study Session 2 Factors Responsible for the European Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Political and


Factors Factors Factors Factors Responsible for the European Responsible for the European Responsible for the European Responsible for the European Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic,

Political and Social Factors Political and Social Factors Political and Social Factors Political and Social Factors

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you explained above are not justifiable enough for the European acquisition of territories in Africa during the period of our study. Economic reasons did not explain why some European powers acquired territories they did not provide sufficient explanation for France’s acquisition of vast areas of desert land in Africa. Thus, we have to examine other factors outside economic factors such as strategic, political, soci

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes


2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Strategic FStrategic FStrategic FStrategic Factor actor actor actor Certain locations in Africa were regarded by European powers as strategic for the protection of their economic and political interests elsewhere. Some of these locations included the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, the Suez Canal in Egypt, the Gibraltar in North Africa, the Islands at the mouth of the River Senegal countries to seize these points led to the invasion of the countries in which they were located. For example, the BritishEgypt in 1882 see lecture 6 below was necessitated by Britain’s

Factors Responsible for the European Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Political and


Responsible for the European Responsible for the European Responsible for the European Responsible for the European Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic,


In this session you will learn the reasons why the economic factors explained above are not justifiable enough for the European acquisition of territories in Africa during the period of our study. Economic reasons did not explain why some European powers acquired territories that were not economically viable. For instance, they did not provide sufficient explanation for France’s acquisition of vast areas of desert land in Africa. Thus, we have to examine other factors outside economic factors such as strategic, political, social and humanitarian factors.

Learning Outcomes


2.1 explain the strategic reasons why Europeans invaded Africa during the period of study

2.1 describe the political circumstances in Europe that pushed the Europeans outside their continent

2.1 highlight the social factors that necessitated the scrambling for colonies in Africa in the 19

Strategic FStrategic FStrategic FStrategic Factor actor actor actor Certain locations in Africa were regarded by European powers as strategic for the protection of their economic and political interests elsewhere. Some of these locations included the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, the Suez Canal in Egypt, the Gibraltar in North Africa, the Islands at the mouth of the River Senegal - Saint Louis, Goree and Rufisque. The desire by European countries to seize these points led to the invasion of the countries in which they were located. For example, the BritishEgypt in 1882 see lecture 6 below was necessitated by Britain’s


Social Factors

13

Responsible for the European Responsible for the European Responsible for the European Responsible for the European Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic, Invasion of Africa II: The Strategic,


will learn the reasons why the economic factors explained above are not justifiable enough for the European acquisition of territories in Africa during the period of our study. Economic reasons did not explain why some European powers

that were not economically viable. For instance, they did not provide sufficient explanation for France’s acquisition of vast areas of desert land in Africa. Thus, we have to examine other factors outside economic factors such as strategic, political,


explain the strategic reasons why Europeans invaded

describe the political circumstances in Europe that ushed the Europeans outside their continent

highlight the social factors that necessitated the scrambling for colonies in Africa in the 19th century

Certain locations in Africa were regarded by European powers as strategic for the protection of their economic and political interests elsewhere. Some of these locations included the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, the Suez Canal in Egypt, the strait of Gibraltar in North Africa, the Islands at the mouth of the River

, Goree and Rufisque. The desire by European countries to seize these points led to the invasion of the countries in which they were located. For example, the British occupation of Egypt in 1882 see lecture 6 below was necessitated by Britain’s

14


desire to control the Suez Canal which was strategic for the protection of British economic and political interests in India and the West Indies. When it became operative in 1869, the Canal became the shortest route from Europe to India and the far East. The occupation of Egypt and the desire to protect their interest there made the British to regard the Sudan and the Lower Stretches of the river Nile located in East Africa as strategic areas. Britain did not want any European or African power capable of controlling the Lower Nile and any of its tributaries to paralyze the economy of Egypt. This was one of the reasons why Britain acquired Sudan, Kenya and Uganda.

2.2 Political F2.2 Political F2.2 Political F2.2 Political Facacacactorstorstorstors Events in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries played significant roles in the eventual scrambling and partitioning of African territories. From the Franco-Prussia war of 1871 in which Prussia defeated France to the emergence of nations, naval rivalry between Britain and Germany and the polarization of Europe into the alliances of Triple Alliance and Triple Entente respectively. All these of course, put the balance of power in Europe under threat. Thus, the political factors are examined under two principal headings namely: the need to maintain balance of power in Europe and Nationalism and National prestige.

2.2.12.2.12.2.12.2.1 The need to maintain balance of power in EuropeThe need to maintain balance of power in EuropeThe need to maintain balance of power in EuropeThe need to maintain balance of power in Europe

The second half of the nineteenth century witnessed an upsurge of nationalism in Europe. Several Principalities (small states or communsities) at whose expense big European powers such as Britain, France and Russia had often expanded their territories or made territorial adjustments to maintain power equilibrium had fused together to emerge as nations. For instance an intense nationalist spirit known as the RESORGIMENTO which found expression in "Italia Fara da se" had, under the dynamic leadership of Mazini and Garibaldi, resulted in the unity of numerous Italian principalities and the emergence of Italy as a nation. Similarly, the German principalities were fused together between 1866 and 1870. As a result of the rise of new nations in Europe, there were no areas where imperialist European countries could satisfy their territorial ambition. Since Europe had thus become saturated for expansion, these countries turned their attention overseas. For example, Russia looked towards Central Asia for expansion while Britain, France and Germany directed their attention to Africa.


Social Factors

15

2.2.22.2.22.2.22.2.2 NatioNatioNatioNationalism and national prestigenalism and national prestigenalism and national prestigenalism and national prestige

The feeling of nationalism that pervaded Europe in the nineteenth century gave birth to the idea that acquisition or possession of territories overseas was a symbol of national greatness. It was believed by other European Nations that Great Britain's power emanated from her possession of territories overseas and that the more colonies a nation had the more powerful it would become. Thus it became fashionable in Europe to regard possession of territories or colonies as an index of a first class power. It was this feeling that made France turn her attention to Africa after she suffered a humiliating defeat by Prussia in 1870/71. France regarded the loss of Alsace and Lorrain, her great industrial areas, to Prussia as a loss of National prestige and she was prepared to compensate for this loss in Africa. Thus Paul Leroy Beaulieu, a French writer expressed the feeling of the French when he wrote:

"Colonisation is for France a question of life and death: .either France will become a great African 'Power or in a century or two, she will be no more than a secondary European power; she will count for about as much in the world as Greece and Rumania in Europe".

The issue of National prestige, in addition to other considerations mentioned earlier created intense desire for Germany to seek to have a place ''in the sun". Bismarck, the German leader, who had once said that his map of Africa was in Europe sought to acquire territories in Africa in the 1880s. Italy entered the race for acquisition of colonies in Africa. Of course Britain would not like to be left behind in the struggle. Thus between 1874 and 1880 it used military force to bring the Boer Republics - Transvaal and Orange Free State-in South Africa under political control.

2.32.32.32.3 SocialSocialSocialSocial and humanitarian factorsand humanitarian factorsand humanitarian factorsand humanitarian factors Several social theories were advanced for the Europeans conquest of Africa. Prominent amongst these are: evangelical Christianity, social atavism and the socio-economic consequences of industrial revolution in which the change in production process from labour intensive to capital intensive system rendered some Africans jobless in the European society. For the purpose of our study, these social and humanitarian factors are examined under two heading namely: need to solve socio-economic problems in Europe and Evangelical Christianity and civilization of Africans.

16


2.3.1 Need to solve socio2.3.1 Need to solve socio2.3.1 Need to solve socio2.3.1 Need to solve socio----economic problems in Europeeconomic problems in Europeeconomic problems in Europeeconomic problems in Europe

Revolution in Europe had its socio-economic consequences. One of these was surplus manpower. As the Nations depended more and more on machines for production, many people who would have otherwise been engaged in manual labour became jobless and poor. In the 1870s an estimated population of about 1 million people was reported to have been jobless and poor in England. The figure for Germany and Italy was said to be greater. Indeed, Robert Thomas Malthus, a British political economist had indicated that the population of Europe increased tremendously in the nineteenth century. European countries sought for territories outside Europe where the jobless and the surplus population could be settled to avoid the socio-economic problem that over-population and lack of employment might cause.

Africa was one of the areas of the world to which European Nations turned for the exportation of their surplus population. A. M. Carr Saunders has estimated that between 1846 and 1936, 51,696,000 people migrated from Europe to different parts of the world such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, North and South America. Africa was one of the continents to which European Nations turned for the settlement of their surplus population. Such settlements could be found in North Africa, East Africa and South Africa.

2.3.22.3.22.3.22.3.2 Evangelical Christianity and Civilisation of Evangelical Christianity and Civilisation of Evangelical Christianity and Civilisation of Evangelical Christianity and Civilisation of AfricansAfricansAfricansAfricans

Early in the nineteenth century, Europeans believed that Africans were inferior to them. They regarded their invasion of Africa as a ''civilizing mission". Their motives which some historians like Carrington and Cohen have termed "humanitarian", was to stop the slave trade, and spread civilization and education to the less developed continent through colonization. It was believed that European missionaries, traders and teachers could through the Christian Evangelization, trade and cultivation of export crops raise Africans to European level. If the spreading of civilization and the abolition of the slave trade were the sole aims of Europeans in coming to Africa, they had no justification for asserting political authority over African states. As Adu Boahen has argued, slave trade could be abolished, commerce established and Christian missionaries propagate their religion without European countries imposing their rule on African States and Kingdoms. Consequently, what has been termed humanitarian activities are no more than subtle ways and means of bringing African countries under European control. European imperial onslaught on Africa in the nineteenth century has been inspired by the evolutionist theory of


Herbert Spenser and the writings of Richard Burton and Winwood Read all of which Europeans. Indeed Richard Burton and Read had theorized, rather absurdly, that the races of the world were at different stages of evolution. The Whites had evolved the furthest and the black the least. Neitheinborn African inferiority, Europeans were therefore not only born to rule and dominate commerce, religion and government, but it was their duty or divine mission to do so, since only they could so order theory, Europeans had the erroneous notion they had the divine right to rule Africa and consequently, their invasion and conquest of the continent was justified



In



SAQ 2.1(tests learning outcome 2.1)Mention four strategic locations in Africa that were of political and strategic importance to the Europeans.SAQ 2.2(tests learning outcome 2.2)Identify the two prominent alliances that polarized Europe in the twentieth centurySAQ 2.3 (test learning outcome 2.3)Mention two scholars whose theories influenced Europeans thoughts along humanitarian argument for invading Africa in the 19


Herbert Spenser and the writings of Richard Burton and Winwood Read all of which propagated the notion of African inferiority to Europeans. Indeed Richard Burton and Read had theorized, rather absurdly, that the races of the world were at different stages of evolution. The Whites had evolved the furthest and the black the least. Neither Christianity nor University degree could overcome inborn African inferiority, Europeans were therefore not only born to rule and dominate commerce, religion and government, but it was their duty or divine mission to do so, since only they could so order the world to lead to universal happiness." Guided by this theory, Europeans had the erroneous notion they had the divine right to rule Africa and consequently, their invasion and conquest of the continent was justified.


In Unit 2, you have learned that: 1. Europeans invaded Africa out of the need to maintain

balance of power in Europe. 2. Nationalism and the desire for National prestige propelled

Europeans into scrambling for colonies in Africa3. Socio-economic problems that emanate

industrialization in Europe compelled industrialized European nation to seek to acquire territories in Africa.

4. Belief of the Europeans in the divine right to rule Africans derived from Racist theories in Europe of the period.

5. The need to civilize Africans through the Christian missionaries

SAQ 2.1(tests learning outcome 2.1) Mention four strategic locations in Africa that were of political and strategic importance to the Europeans. SAQ 2.2(tests learning outcome 2.2) Identify the two prominent alliances that polarized Europe in the twentieth century SAQ 2.3 (test learning outcome 2.3) Mention two scholars whose theories influenced Europeans thoughts along humanitarian argument for invading Africa in the 19th century.


Social Factors

17

Herbert Spenser and the writings of Richard Burton and Winwood propagated the notion of African inferiority to

Europeans. Indeed Richard Burton and Read had theorized, rather absurdly, that the races of the world were at different stages of evolution. The Whites had evolved the furthest and the black the

r Christianity nor University degree could overcome inborn African inferiority, Europeans were therefore not only born to rule and dominate commerce, religion and government, but it was their duty or divine mission to do so, since only they could so

the world to lead to universal happiness." Guided by this theory, Europeans had the erroneous notion they had the divine right to rule Africa and consequently, their invasion and conquest

Europeans invaded Africa out of the need to maintain

Nationalism and the desire for National prestige propelled Europeans into scrambling for colonies in Africa

economic problems that emanated from industrialization in Europe compelled industrialized European nation to seek to acquire territories in Africa. Belief of the Europeans in the divine right to rule Africans derived from Racist theories in Europe of the period.

fricans through the Christian

Mention four strategic locations in Africa that were of political

Identify the two prominent alliances that polarized Europe in the

Mention two scholars whose theories influenced Europeans thoughts along humanitarian argument for invading Africa in the

18



Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will learn how the hitherto existing trade and cordial relationships between the Africans and the Europeans changed in the 19domination by the Europeans. Importantly, you will learn about the methods employed by the Europeans to gain the political and economic control of territories in Africa from the last quarter of the 19th

Europeans employed two main methods to invade Africa. These are Diplomacy and Force.

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes


3.1

3.2


Diplomacy

Sovereignty



Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy and Force and Force and Force and Force

In this session you will learn how the hitherto existing trade and cordial relationships between the Africans and the Europeans changed in the 19th century to that of politicaldomination by the Europeans. Importantly, you will learn about the methods employed by the Europeans to gain the political and economic control of territories in Africa from the last quarter of the

th century up to the middle of the twentieth century in Africa. Europeans employed two main methods to invade Africa. These are Diplomacy and Force.

Learning Outcomes


3.1 analyse the diplomatic methods used by Europeans to penetrate peacefully into African territories

3.2 describe the use of force by the Europeans to make African rulers surrender their sovereignty

Diplomacy The art of dealing with people in a sensitive and tactful

way.

Sovereignty The authority of a state to govern itself

geographical territory.

Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy

In this session you will learn how the hitherto existing trade and cordial relationships between the Africans and the Europeans

century to that of political and economic domination by the Europeans. Importantly, you will learn about the methods employed by the Europeans to gain the political and economic control of territories in Africa from the last quarter of the

th century in Africa. Europeans employed two main methods to invade Africa. These are


analyse the diplomatic methods used by Europeans to

describe the use of force by the Europeans to make

he art of dealing with people in a sensitive and tactful

to govern itself in a particular

Study Session 3 Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy and Force

19

3.1 Use of Diplomatic Methods 3.1 Use of Diplomatic Methods 3.1 Use of Diplomatic Methods 3.1 Use of Diplomatic Methods By diplomacy, I mean the tactics used by Europeans to make African rulers surrender their states and kingdoms to Europeans without the latters' use of force. This tactics involved the signing of treaties by Europeans with African rulers. The treaties were generally referred to as Treaties of commerce and Friendship. In their ordinary meaning, the two signatories - the European countries and the African kingdoms involved were, in the spirit of friendship involved in the treaties to establish diplomatic relations involving exchange of political representatives (ambassadors). They were also to engage in bilateral commercial undertakings, in which case traders from the European signatory countries were to be allowed to trade with the African states or kingdoms with which the treaties had been signed. In most cases the treaties often contained clauses on the abolition of the slave trade - the African signatories pledging to abolish the slave trade and undertaking to allow the European missionaries to preach Christian Religion [this religious aspect is often not included in treaties signed with Muslim African States]. When signed, the treaties were used by Europeans as diplomatic weapons to bring African countries under their political control.

3.1.1 Treaties implementation with African rulers3.1.1 Treaties implementation with African rulers3.1.1 Treaties implementation with African rulers3.1.1 Treaties implementation with African rulers

Most of the treaties signed with African rulers did not emanate from bilateral agreements between these rulers and European agents. The treaties were unilaterally drawn in Europe. African rulers were not always properly briefed of their contents. They were merely induced to put their marks on them to signify their acceptance of the treaties. Africans in most cases did not realize the implication of the documents the Europeans induced them to sign. Europeans succeeded in many instances in deceiving African rulers to sign these unilaterally prepared treaties. For instance, Karl Peter succeeded in making African chiefs in East Africa to sign such treaties with Germany in 1884. On the basis of the treaties, Germany acquired the present day Tanzania. Similarly HM. Stanley and De Brazza got the chiefs in the Congo area to sign treaties with King Leopold II and France respectively. Consul Hewe's treaties with the rulers of the Niger Delta states in Nigeria in 1884 served as preludes to the British declaration of protectorate over the area in 1885.

20


3.1.2 Africans response to treaties signing with 3.1.2 Africans response to treaties signing with 3.1.2 Africans response to treaties signing with 3.1.2 Africans response to treaties signing with EuropeansEuropeansEuropeansEuropeans

It is important to state that not always did Africans sign treaties without proper scrutiny. Some African rulers were tactful and courageous enough to refuse to sign unilaterally prepared documents until their contents had been fully explained to them. When such situations arose, European agent might modify the contents to please the rulers. For example in 1884, King Jaja of Opobo refused to sign a treaty of protection and free trade with consul Hewtt on behalf of Britain until the meaning of the word "protection" had been explained to him. He signed the treaty after he had been "assured that he was to continue to rule his people before and that Britain had no intention of taking his land from him."

3.1.3 European double standard in treaties signing with 3.1.3 European double standard in treaties signing with 3.1.3 European double standard in treaties signing with 3.1.3 European double standard in treaties signing with African ChiefsAfrican ChiefsAfrican ChiefsAfrican Chiefs

In some instance, two texts of a treaty might be prepared in order to please curious African rulers. Thus there were often two different accounts of the same treaty. Two examples of this type of treaties are provided here. The first was the treaty which Gallieni, a French Officer, signed with Sheikh Ahmadu of Segu in 1880. Two different texts of this treaty existed. The first which was written in French and did not carry Ahmadu's signature or the seal of his empire claimed that Sheikh Ahmadu had agreed to place the Niger basin passing through his territory under "the exclusive protection of France". The second text written in Arabic which Ahmadu saw and signed did not contain claim that he had signed off any part of his territory to the French. It merely stated that Gallieni and Ahmadu signed a treaty of peace and friendship. However, it was the French text that the French government used to lay political claim to Segu. The second example was the treaty of Ucciali which Italy signed with Ethiopia in 1889. The Italian text of the treaty implied that Ethiopia had lost its independence to Italy but the Ahmaric text which Menelik the Ethiopian emperor signed did not contain such an idea. When Menelik discovered the treachery, he abrogated the treaty. The abrogation was the cause of the war between Ethiopia and Italy in 1895-1996.

Study Session 3 Method of European Invasion: Diplomacy and Force

21

3.2 Europeans use of force and military conquest3.2 Europeans use of force and military conquest3.2 Europeans use of force and military conquest3.2 Europeans use of force and military conquest The use of force often followed diplomatic approach. The reason for this is that Europeans did not always initially possess sufficient men to force African rulers to submission militarily. They therefore usually played for time either to enable them muster enough force or get local allies from among Africans themselves. When force was employed it was used against recalcitrant African rulers. Such rulers were those who refused to sign treaties and insisted asserting his political authority over the European traders, missionaries or imperial agents in their territories. Some African rulers in this category were king Kosoko of Lagos, Altahiru II of Sokoto Caliphate and the various tribal rulers in Tanzania who initially resisted European incursion into their territories by force.

3.2.1 Force against recalcitrant African rulers3.2.1 Force against recalcitrant African rulers3.2.1 Force against recalcitrant African rulers3.2.1 Force against recalcitrant African rulers

Both King Kosoko of Lagos and Attahiru of Sokoto Calipate refused to sign treaty with the British. King Kosoko told the British agents frankly that he did not want British friendship. The British responded by bombarding Lagos and forcing him out of the throne. They allied with Akintoye his rival who was installed as the puppet kings through whom they were able to establish their political presence in the Island Kingdom. He signed treaty with the British in 1851 and ten years after, British annexed Lagos. The Lagos example is an indication that Europeans had embarked on the use of force to cow Africans to submission before 1882. While the British decided Kosoko's fate and that of the kingdom of Lagos by military action before the era of the scramble, Attahiru the Caliph of the Sokoto Caliphate was attacked in the early twentieth century because he also refused to accept Britain's offer of friendship. The British recruited soldiers from among the Hausa who resented the Fulani aristocracy to overthrow him.

3.2.2 Force against African rulers who dishonoured 3.2.2 Force against African rulers who dishonoured 3.2.2 Force against African rulers who dishonoured 3.2.2 Force against African rulers who dishonoured treaties agreementtreaties agreementtreaties agreementtreaties agreement

Force was also employed to deal with African rulers who had signed treaties with Europeans but had either not taken the treaty seriously or refused to honor them after realizing the implication of their action. Many African chiefs fell into this category. The kingdom of Asante was attacked many times because its rulers often dishonoured their treaty obligations with Britain. For similar reasons, the British deported King Jaja of Opobo and bombarded the kingdoms of Ijebu Ode and Oyo in 1882 and 1889 respectively. Whenever and for whatever reason the Europeans use force to impose their political control on any African state, they used it decisively and successfully. France used force decisively against

22

HDS201HDS201HDS201HDS201 African Response to European

Dahomey, Upper Guinea, Upper Ivory Coast, Massina, Kaarta etcin West Africa. The British forcibly occupied Egypt and conquered the Sudan and several other African states in the process of their colonial impositions.






SAQ 3.1 (tests learning outcome 3.1)

Which diplomatic instruments did Europeans use to penetrate African Territories?


How and against which class of African rulers did Europeans use force to conquer?


Dahomey, Upper Guinea, Upper Ivory Coast, Massina, Kaarta etcin West Africa. The British forcibly occupied Egypt and conquered the Sudan and several other African states in the process of their colonial impositions.



1. European used diplomacy and forces to impose their political control over African states and kingdoms.

2. Treaty making with African chiefs was often the first European approach to acquire African territories

3. Diplomatic approach often failed because no African Chief was willing to surrender his territory to foreigners easily

4. Failure of diplomacy resulted in the use of force5. European succeeded by force in imposing their control

over many African states except in Ethiopia.


Which diplomatic instruments did Europeans use to penetrate African Territories?


How and against which class of African rulers did Europeans use force to conquer?

Dahomey, Upper Guinea, Upper Ivory Coast, Massina, Kaarta etc. in West Africa. The British forcibly occupied Egypt and conquered the Sudan and several other African states in the process of their

and forces to impose their political control over African states and kingdoms. Treaty making with African chiefs was often the first European approach to acquire African territories Diplomatic approach often failed because no African Chief

urrender his territory to foreigners easily Failure of diplomacy resulted in the use of force European succeeded by force in imposing their control over many African states except in Ethiopia.

Which diplomatic instruments did Europeans use to penetrate

How and against which class of African rulers did Europeans use


The Berlin Conference 1884/85The Berlin Conference 1884/85The Berlin Conference 1884/85The Berlin Conference 1884/85

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will learn about the events that precipitated the call for Berlin conference in 1884. Having discussed the methods by which European powers acquired territories in Africa, we shall now examine how they were able to avert war among themstheir scramble for territorial acquisition in the continent. The race for treaties with African rulers and, indeed, occupation of African territories often led to rivalry and acrimony among European powers. For example, Italy quarreled with Franceoccupation of Tunisia in 1881. Britain offended France by occupying Egypt in 1882. As you will see below, intense rivalry among France, Britain, Portugal and Germany in the Congo basin and in West Africa nearly brought them on the brinks1884. However, tensions eventually died down as the Europeans were able to agree on the modalities for sharing African territories among themselves. This agreement was reached at the Berlin Conference 1884

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes

When

4.1 Prelude to the Berlin conference 4.1 Prelude to the Berlin conference 4.1 Prelude to the Berlin conference 4.1 Prelude to the Berlin conference Two events served as prelude to the Berlin Conference. The first was king Leopold's interest in the Congo Basin while the second was the German acquisition of colonies in West Africa. These two events sparked up intense rivalries among European powers for territorial acquisition in these areas.

Study Session 4 The Berlin Conference 1884/85



In this session you will learn about the events that precipitated the call for Berlin conference in 1884. Having discussed the methods by which European powers acquired territories in Africa, we shall now examine how they were able to avert war among themstheir scramble for territorial acquisition in the continent. The race for treaties with African rulers and, indeed, occupation of African territories often led to rivalry and acrimony among European powers. For example, Italy quarreled with Franceoccupation of Tunisia in 1881. Britain offended France by occupying Egypt in 1882. As you will see below, intense rivalry among France, Britain, Portugal and Germany in the Congo basin and in West Africa nearly brought them on the brinks1884. However, tensions eventually died down as the Europeans were able to agree on the modalities for sharing African territories among themselves. This agreement was reached at the Berlin Conference 1884-1885.

Learning Outcomes


4.1 explain why the representatives of European countries interested in Africa met at Berlin

4.2 discuss the decision reached by the European countries at the Berlin conference

4.3 explain how the decisions affected the partition of African territories among European nations

4.4 explain the importance of the Berlin Conference for the eventual colonization of Africa

4.1 Prelude to the Berlin conference 4.1 Prelude to the Berlin conference 4.1 Prelude to the Berlin conference 4.1 Prelude to the Berlin conference Two events served as prelude to the Berlin Conference. The first was king Leopold's interest in the Congo Basin while the second was the German acquisition of colonies in West Africa. These two events sparked up intense rivalries among European powers for territorial acquisition in these areas.

The Berlin Conference 1884/85

23


In this session you will learn about the events that precipitated the call for Berlin conference in 1884. Having discussed the methods by which European powers acquired territories in Africa, we shall now examine how they were able to avert war among themselves in their scramble for territorial acquisition in the continent. The race for treaties with African rulers and, indeed, occupation of African territories often led to rivalry and acrimony among European powers. For example, Italy quarreled with France over the latter's occupation of Tunisia in 1881. Britain offended France by occupying Egypt in 1882. As you will see below, intense rivalry among France, Britain, Portugal and Germany in the Congo basin and in West Africa nearly brought them on the brinks of war in 1884. However, tensions eventually died down as the Europeans were able to agree on the modalities for sharing African territories among themselves. This agreement was reached at the Berlin

you have studied this session, you should be able to:

explain why the representatives of European countries

discuss the decision reached by the European countries

ed the partition of African territories among European nations explain the importance of the Berlin Conference for the

Two events served as prelude to the Berlin Conference. The first was king Leopold's interest in the Congo Basin while the second was the German acquisition of colonies in West Africa. These two events sparked up intense rivalries among European powers for

24


4.1.1 King Leopold’s interest in the Congo Basin4.1.1 King Leopold’s interest in the Congo Basin4.1.1 King Leopold’s interest in the Congo Basin4.1.1 King Leopold’s interest in the Congo Basin

King Leopold II of Belgium formed an Association called International African Association in 1876 for the purpose of scientific exploration of the Congo. He sent H.M. Stanley on exploratory voyages to the area in 1879. Stanley revealed the wealth of the Congo basin where existed plenty of rubber trees that would provide needed raw materials for industries in Europe. He also signed treaties which established king Leopold's sphere of influence in the area. Thus the scientific means of king Leopold's carrying out his secret territorial ambitions in the Congo. The King's action aroused the suspicion of European powers that were quick to realize that he wanted to use the Association to carve out an empire for himself in the Congo area.

4.1.2 Reactions of European countries to King 4.1.2 Reactions of European countries to King 4.1.2 Reactions of European countries to King 4.1.2 Reactions of European countries to King Leopold’s actionLeopold’s actionLeopold’s actionLeopold’s action

France was the first to react. It sent Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza to sign rival treaties with African rulers in the northern Congo Basin. This action was to undermine king Leopold's political interest. Portugal reacted next. Having established contacts with the area as far back as the 15th century, Portugal regarded the Congo as its exclusive preserve. It was therefore alarmed at the sudden intrusion of King Leopold II and France in the area. In order to frustrate the imperial schemes of these powers, Portugal signed a treaty with Britain in 1884. The treaty was regarded in Britain as "a guarantee taken by Britain to prevent either France, or an international syndicate directed by France, from occupying the mouth of the Congo.2 By the treaty, Britain recognized Portugal's authority in the Congo in return for .the Portuguese guarantee of free commerce and the protection of British missionaries in the Congo area.

AngloAngloAngloAnglo----French and German Rivalry in West AfricaFrench and German Rivalry in West AfricaFrench and German Rivalry in West AfricaFrench and German Rivalry in West Africa The Anglo-Portuguese treaty enraged France. It decided not only to defer its local West African interests against Britain but also to cooperate with Germany to threaten British interests in West Africa. It embarked on aggressive imperial policy in West Africa which aimed at establishing, inter alia, protectorates at Porto Novo and developing interest alongside with the British in the Niger and Benue. This was a policy which threatened the British interest whose trade had been dominated by four British companies - James Rinnock and Company of Liverpool, the West African Company of Manchester, Alexander Miller and Brothers of Glasgow and Holland Jacques and Company of London - since the l870s.


25

4.2.1 4.2.1 4.2.1 4.2.1 Imperial ambition of Germany in AfricaImperial ambition of Germany in AfricaImperial ambition of Germany in AfricaImperial ambition of Germany in Africa

In 1884 Germany which hitherto had not been enthusiastic about overseas empire suddenly showed its imperial ambitions in Africa. Bismarck, the German Chancellor was compelled to change his attitude towards colonial acquisition because of pressure by German traders and the desire to win election. Thus, in a surprise move in 1884 he sent German warships to declare protectorates over Togoland, Cameroons, South West Africa and Tanganyika where British missionaries and traders were at work. France did not oppose the German presence in West Africa which implies the latter’s support for the French against the British. Thus with Britain, France, Germany, Portugal and King Leopold II of Belgium engaged in rivalry for territorial acquisition in the Congo and West Africa, it became necessary that their differences be settled to prevent out-break of war.

4.3 The Berlin Conference4.3 The Berlin Conference4.3 The Berlin Conference4.3 The Berlin Conference The conference was held between November, 1884 and February 1885. It was jointly called by Germany and France to discuss the following issues:

1. The freedom of commerce in Basin and mouth of the River Congo

2. Freedom of navigation on the Rivers Congo and Niger

3. Formalities to be observed before new occupation of territories on the coasts of Africa should be internationally recognized.

The following European powers attended the conference: Austria - Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Turkey, United States of America, Germany, Britain and France. Under the chairmanship of Bismarck, a number of decisions and agreements were made after a series of diplomatic maneuvers by Britain, France and Germany. The decisions are:

1. The conference recognized King Leopold II International Association as a sovereign power in Congo. This recognition ensured the birth of the Congo Free State under King Leopold II of Belgium.

2. The river Congo was declared an International river and freedom of Navigation and commerce were to exist on the river. This decision was made in order to ensure free trade for all European powers on the river and in the wider area known as the Congo basin. In order to enforce this decision, an agreement was reached by all the Powers that Freedom of Navigation and Commerce on the river was to be

26


supervised by an International body.

3. Agreement was reached on the code of conduct for territorial acquisition in Africa in order to minimize inter-European disputes. It was decided that:

a. Any European power acquiring territory or establishing Protectorates on the coast of Africa should at once notify all other signatory powers; [that is, European powers which attended the conference and signed its communiqué 1.

b. Occupation of any African territory by any European power would not be valid unless such power held an "effective control" over the area in matters of trade and military establishment.

c. This has been referred to as the principle of "effective control".

d. A European power possessing a coastal area in Africa was entitled to its hinterland.

In addition to the above, all the treaties signed with African rulers by the agents of France and Britain were ratified viz De Brazz's treaty with Bateke in Upper Congo Basin, Consult Hewe's treaty with the rulers of the Niger Delta, Sir Tubman Goldies treaty with African rulers on the River Niger and even those signed by Karl Peters in East Africa in December 1884 while the conference was in session.

4.3.1 4.3.1 4.3.1 4.3.1 Importance of the Berlin Conference Importance of the Berlin Conference Importance of the Berlin Conference Importance of the Berlin Conference

In discussing the importance of the Berlin conference, the following points must be noted:

1. The decisions made at the conference were compromises among the European powers to ensure peaceful partition of African territories. Europeans realized that disputes among them would enable Africans to frustrate their imperial onslaught. Africans would take advantage of such disputes to secure allies among rival and feuding European Powers. Such a situation would hamper the success of the European invasion of Africa. Hence most of the differences had been settled in preconference diplomatic contacts. For instance, King Leopold II had persuaded U.S.A., Belgium, France and even Britain to support his International Association. Britain had abandoned the Anglo-Portuguese treaty as a result of strong opposition mounted by France and Germany.

2. The conference did not partition Africa but it succeeded in providing general principles and definition of formula to minimize inter-European disputes in their race for territorial


27

acquisition [see the guide-lines in 3a-c above]. It should be noted that many African territories had fallen to the European before the conference. For instance, France had occupied Algeria in 1830, and Tunisia in 1881, Britain had annexed Lagos in 1861, occupied Egypt in 1882 and had secured tremendous influence in the Niger Delta and the Upper reaches of the River Niger. The conference merely gave International recognition to the possession of these African territories by the different European Powers that had already occupied them.

3. The conference accelerated the conquest and partition of Africa. Armed with a new code of conduct called the "Berlin Act" European proceeded with renewed vigour to invade, conquer and partition African territories. Inland territories that were hitherto relatively neglected were invaded.

4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 Aftermath Aftermath Aftermath Aftermath of the Berlin Conference for African of the Berlin Conference for African of the Berlin Conference for African of the Berlin Conference for African TerritoriesTerritoriesTerritoriesTerritories

The scramble for territories in African was more intensified. Many European companies emerged in various parts of Africa. These companies were given royal charters with the objective of administering territories and carving out areas of influence in Africa on behalf of their home governments. In addition to treaties, European nations began to engage in military subjugation of African states and forcibly abrogating the sovereignty of African rulers. For example, Britain started to push into the hinterland from the Cape Province in South Africa. It acquired Bechuanaland in 1885 and Nyasaland in 1893. It seized control of Mashonaland and the whole territory occupied by the Matabelle people through the agency of Cecil Rhodes. Between 1899 and 1902 Britain fought the Boers in its bid for territorial acquisition in South Africa. France conquered Dahomey and a number of territories in West Africa and planned to link its territory from Senegal across the continent to Somaliland part of which it acquired in 1896. Germany annexed Tanganyika in 1885 and by 1890 had reached agreement with Great Britain on the partition of East Africa. Italy became ruthless in pursuing its territorial ambition. For instance it acquired Eriteria in 1885, Asmara and part of Somalia in 1889. It unsuccessfully attacked Ethiopia in 1896 and invaded Libya in 1911. The examples cited above show the extent to which the Berlin conference stimulated renewed vigour for European invasion of Africa after 1885.

28




In Study Session 4, you have learned that:




Describe the events


Identify the European nations that attended the conference


Highlight the decisions taken at the Berlin Conference

SAQ 4.4 (test learning

What was the aftermath of the Berlin Conference?



In Study Session 4, you have learned that:

1. The Berlin conference was called to regulate interEuropean relations in Africa in order to avert imminent crisis among them.

2. Berlin Conference was necessitated by the wave rivalry among European powers scrambling for territories in Africa, particularly in the Congo and West Africa.

3. The Berlin Conference ensured force navigation and commerce on the Rivers Congo and Niger

4. The Berlin Conference provided guidelines anfuture acquisition of territories in Africa by European powers

5. The aftermath of the conference witnessed escalation of European invasion and conquest of Africa.


Describe the events which led to the Berlin Conference 1884/85







The Berlin conference was called to regulate inter-European relations in Africa in order to avert imminent

Berlin Conference was necessitated by the wave of intense rivalry among European powers scrambling for territories in Africa, particularly in the Congo and West Africa. The Berlin Conference ensured force navigation and commerce on the Rivers Congo and Niger The Berlin Conference provided guidelines and formula for future acquisition of territories in Africa by European

The aftermath of the conference witnessed escalation of European invasion and conquest of Africa.

which led to the Berlin Conference 1884/85





The Chartered Companies and the The Chartered Companies and the The Chartered Companies and the The Chartered Companies and the Invasion of AfricaInvasion of AfricaInvasion of AfricaInvasion of Africa

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will learn about the roles played by Chartered companies in the European acquisition oimportantly, how the Chartered companies secured and administered for their home governments territories which these governments were not prepared to seize directly. Also, you will learn how they administered temporarily terrihome governments had directly seized but which they were not yet prepared to exploit and rule.

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes


5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in AfricaBritain, Germany and King Leopold II of Belgium pioneered the use of Chartered Comexample, Britain used the Royal Niger Company toNorthern Nigeria and administer it till 1900. It also similarly used the Imperial East African Company to hold Kenya between 1888 and 1895 and Uganda between 1890 and 1895. Germany retained Tanganyika in East Africa and also its territories in Westits Chartered Companies. King Leopold II floated a company to exploit his territory in Congo [the Congo Free State]. Let us see how Britain use chartered companies to retain and administer its territories in West, East and South Africa. These coThe Royal Niger Company, the Imperial East African Company

Study Session 5 The Chartered Companies and the Invasion of Africa


The Chartered Companies and the The Chartered Companies and the The Chartered Companies and the The Chartered Companies and the Invasion of AfricaInvasion of AfricaInvasion of AfricaInvasion of Africa

In this session you will learn about the roles played by Chartered companies in the European acquisition of territories in Africa. Most importantly, how the Chartered companies secured and administered for their home governments territories which these governments were not prepared to seize directly. Also, you will learn how they administered temporarily terrihome governments had directly seized but which they were not yet prepared to exploit and rule.

Learning Outcomes


5.1 point out the European powers that engaged in the use of Chartered companies for penetration of territories in Africa.

5.2 explain the role of Royal Niger Company in Nigeria.5.3 describe the activities of imperial British East Africa

Company 5.4 highlight the roles of the British South Africa

Company

5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in AfricaBritain, Germany and King Leopold II of Belgium pioneered the use of Chartered Companies in securing territories in Africa. For example, Britain used the Royal Niger Company toNorthern Nigeria and administer it till 1900. It also similarly used the Imperial East African Company to hold Kenya between 1888 and 1895 and Uganda between 1890 and 1895. Germany retained Tanganyika in East Africa and also its territories in Westits Chartered Companies. King Leopold II floated a company to exploit his territory in Congo [the Congo Free State]. Let us see how Britain use chartered companies to retain and administer its territories in West, East and South Africa. These coThe Royal Niger Company, the Imperial East African Company

The Chartered Companies and the Invasion of Africa

29

The Chartered Companies and the The Chartered Companies and the The Chartered Companies and the The Chartered Companies and the

In this session you will learn about the roles played by Chartered f territories in Africa. Most

importantly, how the Chartered companies secured and administered for their home governments territories which these governments were not prepared to seize directly. Also, you will learn how they administered temporarily territories which their home governments had directly seized but which they were not yet


out the European powers that engaged in the use of Chartered companies for penetration of territories in

explain the role of Royal Niger Company in Nigeria. describe the activities of imperial British East Africa

British South Africa

5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa5.1 Europeans and Chartered Companies in Africa Britain, Germany and King Leopold II of Belgium pioneered the

panies in securing territories in Africa. For example, Britain used the Royal Niger Company to secure Northern Nigeria and administer it till 1900. It also similarly used the Imperial East African Company to hold Kenya between 1888 and 1895 and Uganda between 1890 and 1895. Germany retained Tanganyika in East Africa and also its territories in West Africa by its Chartered Companies. King Leopold II floated a company to exploit his territory in Congo [the Congo Free State]. Let us see how Britain use chartered companies to retain and administer its territories in West, East and South Africa. These companies are: The Royal Niger Company, the Imperial East African Company

30


and the British South Africa Company.

5.2 Britain’s Royal Niger Company in Nigeria5.2 Britain’s Royal Niger Company in Nigeria5.2 Britain’s Royal Niger Company in Nigeria5.2 Britain’s Royal Niger Company in Nigeria The Royal Niger Company was an offshoot of the United African Company formed by George Dashwood Taubman Goldie (later Sir George Goldie) from the amalgamation of four British companies operating on the Lower Niger and Benue river areas of the present day Nigeria in 1879. The company was initially faced with stiff competition from French companies which Goldie was able to undersell and buy. However; in order to secure a monopoly of trade in the lower Niger Valley Goldie decided that the company should acquire political power. Thus he rechristened the company National African Company and proceeded on the eve of the Berlin Conference to obtain treaties from African rulers on that Lower Niger. These treaties purported to have conferred sovereign powers in those African territories on the company. On the basis of the treaties, Britain was able to secure the Lower Niger Valley and its adjoining territories.

Faced with the problem of effective control at a time when the British government was least prepared to undertake such venture, the latter granted the National Africa Company a Royal charter which conferred political rights on it. The company changed its name to the Royal Niger Company and immediately proceeded to establish its administrative Headquarters at Asaba. It set up a Constabulary force, a High Court and several agents to man its trading ports. It regarded people outside the company’s area as foreigners and imposed high tariff on their traders. By doing this it was able to establish effective control of its area. The company was also able to demonstrate effective military control. For instance in 1897, its forces fought and defeated Bida and Ilorin and thereby began the process of the conquest of Northern Nigeria. However, as a result of French challenge, its charter was abrogated in 1900 and its area of operation was taken over by the British government.

5.3 Imperial British East African Company5.3 Imperial British East African Company5.3 Imperial British East African Company5.3 Imperial British East African Company Apart from the need to keep to the Berlin guidelines, strategic reasons made it imperative for the British to maintain effective control of East Africa. Having occupied Egypt in 1882, the British were anxious that no strong European Power capable of diverting the waters of the river Nile or its tributaries should occupy its sources. It therefore became necessary for Britain to the East African territories from where the river Nile and its tributaries take their sources.

In order to occupy and control the territories with little or no cost to the British government, Britain gave a charter to the British

Study Session 5 The Chartered Companies and the Invasion of Africa

31

East Africa Association formed by William Mackinon, a British Business man, in 1887. Upon receiving the charter, the Association changed its name to the Imperial British East Africa Company. The British government conferred on the Company the right to undertake the administration of Kenya. The company later spread its activities to Uganda and it was also vested with the responsi-bility of administering the place. Although the company was run at a loss to its share-holders, it succeeded in holding Kenya and Uganda for the British government till 1895 when it surrendered its charter.

5.4 The British South African Com5.4 The British South African Com5.4 The British South African Com5.4 The British South African Companypanypanypany The British South Africa Company was formed by Cecil Rhodes a British capitalist. He became interested in South Africa especially in the area of the present day Zimbabwe and Zambia [these countries were called Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia respectively before they became independent] because of his desire for minerals especially Gold. For this purpose also other European such as the Germans and the Portuguese showed interests in this area of Southern Africa.

5.4.1 Cecil Rhodes and the Africa5.4.1 Cecil Rhodes and the Africa5.4.1 Cecil Rhodes and the Africa5.4.1 Cecil Rhodes and the African Chiefsn Chiefsn Chiefsn Chiefs

In the 1880's Cecil Rhodes sent agents to seek concessions from King Lobengula of Matabeleland to prospect for minerals in his territory. King Lobengula was believed to have had considerable authority in the area known as Zimbabwe today. He was able to secure a concession which he used not only to lay claim to all minerals but also to political authority in King Lobengula's territory. As soon as he secured the concessions, Cecil Rhodes amalgamated his company with other rival companies and applied for a charter along the lines of the Royal Niger Company. In 1889, the British government gave a charter to the company. It was the name of the British South Africa Company. It was vested with the right to administer the present day Zimbabwe with power to determine the political, economic and social life of the indigenes of the land.

As soon as it received its charter, the company went into action. The company organized a military force and occupied Mashonaland. It fought and defeated the Matabele. It warded off all foreign competitors and established effective control in Zimbabwe. While consolidating the British hold in Zimbabwe, the Company also turned its attention northwards to the region of the present day Zambia. By 1891 it had secured the region as part of its area of authority. The company controlled Zimbabwe until 1923 and Zambia until 1924 when British took over direct administration of these territories.

32


of operacost to the British government. Each also succeeded in warding off foreign competitors and retains its area until the British government was prepared to assume full and direct administrative responsibility.

Study Session Study Session Study Session Study Session SummarySummarySummarySummary


In this Study Session,



SAQ 5.1 (tests learning outcome 5.1)Name two countries that were secured for Britain by Chartered Company in East AfricaSAQ 5.2 (tests learning outcome 5.2)What was the name TaubmanCompany?SAQ 5.3 (tests learning outcome 5.3)Who was the brain behind the formation of British East Africa Association?SAQ 5.4 (tests learning outcome 5.4)Who was the African chief that put up a very stiff resistance aga


Each of the above mentioned companies administered its area of operation and maintains commercial and military control at no cost to the British government. Each also succeeded in warding off foreign competitors and retains its area until the British government was prepared to assume full and direct administrative responsibility.


In this Study Session, you have learned that:

1. At the end of the Berlin conference, not all European powers were able to take effective commercial, military and administrative control of all their spheres of influence in Africa

2. In order to secure foothold in the areas concerned, European nations such as Britain and Germany encouraged private companies to direct administrative control at no cost to the home government.

3. The companies were granted charter which conferred on them sovereign rights

4. The companies organized military forces and either defeated local African chiefs or took over their territories by means of treaties

5. The companies imposed high tariffs in their areas of operations against traders from other European countries and succeeded, contrary to the Berlin Act.

SAQ 5.1 (tests learning outcome 5.1) Name two countries that were secured for Britain by Chartered Company in East Africa SAQ 5.2 (tests learning outcome 5.2) What was the name Taubman Goldie rechristened Royal Niger Company? SAQ 5.3 (tests learning outcome 5.3) Who was the brain behind the formation of British East Africa Association? SAQ 5.4 (tests learning outcome 5.4) Who was the African chief that put up a very stiff resistance against Cecil Rhodes in South Africa?

Each of the above mentioned companies administered its area mercial and military control at no

cost to the British government. Each also succeeded in warding off foreign competitors and retains its area until the British government was prepared to assume full and direct administrative

At the end of the Berlin conference, not all European powers were able to take effective commercial, military and administrative control of all their spheres of influence

to secure foothold in the areas concerned, European nations such as Britain and Germany encouraged private companies to direct administrative control at no

The companies were granted charter which conferred on

The companies organized military forces and either defeated local African chiefs or took over their territories

The companies imposed high tariffs in their areas of operations against traders from other European countries

eeded, contrary to the Berlin Act.

Name two countries that were secured for Britain by Chartered

Goldie rechristened Royal Niger

Who was the brain behind the formation of British East Africa

Who was the African chief that put up a very stiff resistance


Egyptian REgyptian REgyptian REgyptian Response to British Occupationesponse to British Occupationesponse to British Occupationesponse to British Occupation

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will learn about the factors that made the British to be interested in the occupation of Egypt, the joint finance of the constructreactions of the Egyptians to the British occupation of their territories. Prominent of these factors are the strategic importance of Suez Canal in Egypt to British Empire in the Orient and the finan

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes


6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt6.1 Prelude to British occupation of EgyptBritish interest in Egypt dated back to the end of the eighteenth century when the French conquered and occupied the country. Although the British were not prepared to occupy the country themselves, they did not want other Europeans to occupy it. The reasolikely to use it as a springboard to attack and conquer British colonies in India. Indeed, Napoleon the ruler of France at this period was nursing the idea of spreading his conquest to India. The British acted swiftly in 1801 by forcing the French out of Egypt. Since this time British interest in Egypt started to grow and with it was their desire to reduce the French influence there.

6.1.1 Strategic Importance of the Suez Canal6.1.1 Strategic Importance of the Suez Canal6.1.1 Strategic Importance of the Suez Canal6.1.1 Strategic Importance of the Suez Canal

What sharpened the Brmore important to them was the strategic value of the Suez Canal cut by the French in 1869. The Canal became the shortest route between Europe and India. It became more economical for the British to pass through

Study Session 6 Egyptian Response to British Occupation


esponse to British Occupationesponse to British Occupationesponse to British Occupationesponse to British Occupation

In this session you will learn about the factors that made the British to be interested in the occupation of Egypt, the joint finance of the construction of the Suez Canal by both Britain and France and the reactions of the Egyptians to the British occupation of their territories. Prominent of these factors are the strategic importance of Suez Canal in Egypt to British Empire in the Orient and the financial bankruptcy of Egyptian government of the period.

Learning Outcomes


6.1 explain why the British occupied Egypt in 18826.2 discuss how the British occupied Egypt 6.3 describe how Egyptians reacted to the British

occupation of their country

6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt British interest in Egypt dated back to the end of the eighteenth century when the French conquered and occupied the country. Although the British were not prepared to occupy the country themselves, they did not want other Europeans to occupy it. The reason being that any other European power occupying Egypt was likely to use it as a springboard to attack and conquer British colonies in India. Indeed, Napoleon the ruler of France at this period was nursing the idea of spreading his conquest to India. The

itish acted swiftly in 1801 by forcing the French out of Egypt. Since this time British interest in Egypt started to grow and with it was their desire to reduce the French influence there.


What sharpened the British interest in Egypt and made the country more important to them was the strategic value of the Suez Canal cut by the French in 1869. The Canal became the shortest route between Europe and India. It became more economical for the British to pass through the canal to their colonies in India, the Far

Egyptian Response to British Occupation

33

esponse to British Occupationesponse to British Occupationesponse to British Occupationesponse to British Occupation

In this session you will learn about the factors that made the British to be interested in the occupation of Egypt, the joint finance of the

ion of the Suez Canal by both Britain and France and the reactions of the Egyptians to the British occupation of their territories. Prominent of these factors are the strategic importance of Suez Canal in Egypt to British Empire in the Orient and the

cial bankruptcy of Egyptian government of the period.


explain why the British occupied Egypt in 1882

reacted to the British

6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt6.1 Prelude to British occupation of Egypt British interest in Egypt dated back to the end of the eighteenth century when the French conquered and occupied the country. Although the British were not prepared to occupy the country themselves, they did not want other Europeans to occupy it. The

n being that any other European power occupying Egypt was likely to use it as a springboard to attack and conquer British colonies in India. Indeed, Napoleon the ruler of France at this period was nursing the idea of spreading his conquest to India. The

itish acted swiftly in 1801 by forcing the French out of Egypt. Since this time British interest in Egypt started to grow and with it was their desire to reduce the French influence there.


itish interest in Egypt and made the country more important to them was the strategic value of the Suez Canal cut by the French in 1869. The Canal became the shortest route between Europe and India. It became more economical for the

the canal to their colonies in India, the Far

34


East and Australia- than through the Cape route. It therefore became an important route through which British troops could swiftly be deployed to protect the British interests in the East. Thus in 1875 the British bought the Egyptian shares of the canal. Khedive Ismail the ruler of Egypt had been persuaded to sell the shares in order to pay interests on the loans which Egypt had taken from European Bankers to finance its programme of Modernization.

6.1.2 Egypt 6.1.2 Egypt 6.1.2 Egypt 6.1.2 Egypt Financial BankruptcyFinancial BankruptcyFinancial BankruptcyFinancial Bankruptcy

The financial situation in Egypt was another factor that made the British becomes more involved in Egyptian internal affairs. Egypt had accumulated huge debts from European powers particularly Britain and France which she could not pay. In 1876 the British government became so worried about the Egypt's financial predicament that it sent Stephen Cavs, a financial expert to investigate and report on the financial situation in the country. In 1878 both the British and French further intruded in Egyptian domestic affairs by persuading the Khedive to hand over the financial management of his country to Wilson and Blignieres, two financial agents appointed by Britain and France respectively. This joint control of Egyptian affairs by foreigners amounted to Egyptians' loss of economic Independence.

Egyptians found the financial arrangement unbearable because it threatened the sovereignty of their country particularly as the influence of the British and the French had been so great that they induced the Sultan of Turkey, Egypt's Suzerain, to depose their Khedive. The succeeding Khedive, - Khedive Tawfik - became a puppet of the two European powers. Under Urabi Pasha, the Egyptian army, which was the most vocal among the Segments of Egyptian Society to condemn the foreign involvement in Egyptian affairs agitated not only against the Khedive but also against all those of Turkish descent who managed the country so badly to allow it to be controlled by foreigners?

6.2 Anti6.2 Anti6.2 Anti6.2 Anti----Foreigners Agitators and theForeigners Agitators and theForeigners Agitators and theForeigners Agitators and the British British British British Occupation of EgyptOccupation of EgyptOccupation of EgyptOccupation of Egypt

By 1882 anti-Khedival and anti-foreigners' agitation in Egypt had been so great that the Khedive allowed the nationalist agitators to form government. The British and the French became apprehensive of this development. They feared that Egyptian government under the nationalist agitators would declare Egypt as a Republic and refused foreign debts owed by the Khedival government. They consequently pressurized the new government under Urabi and his lieutenants to resign. The resignation was greeted by demonstra-


35

tions against foreigners in Egypt. In 1882 an anti-foreign riot broke out at the port of Alexandria leading to the death of fifty Europeans. This incident presented an excellent opportunity for the British to take over control of the country. At first the British did not want to occupy the country alone since the French interests there were also great. They approached the French for a joint military action but the latter hesitated. Consequently, on July 1882 the British bombarded Alexandria and three months after, British forces defeated the Egyptian capital and it was captured.

6.3 Egyptian Reactions to the British Occupation6.3 Egyptian Reactions to the British Occupation6.3 Egyptian Reactions to the British Occupation6.3 Egyptian Reactions to the British Occupation The people of Egypt did not like the occupation of their country by the British. Indeed they saw no justification for the occupation because the nationalist agitators led by Urabi Pasha had before the British attack, given Britain and France assurance that Egypt would pay its foreign debts. Consequently they regarded the British action as outrageous. Initially, Egyptians felt that the British occupation of their country was for a short period. This was because the British government had declared that it would withdraw from Egypt as soon as the Egyptian finances were put right and stable and efficient government was established in the country. However the British government did not fulfill its promise. Instead, it proceeded to declare Egypt as a British Protectorate in 1914.

6.3.1 British Administration in Egypt6.3.1 British Administration in Egypt6.3.1 British Administration in Egypt6.3.1 British Administration in Egypt

Between 1882 and 1914 the British engaged in a number of activities which annoyed Egyptians. For instance they ruled the country through the Khedive whom Egyptians regarded as a symbol of tyranny and oppression. The British relied on people of Turkish, Armenian and Curcassion descent who despised proper Egyptians in their administration. The British were therefore regarded as upholders of the authority of tyrannical aristocracy instead of leading Egypt towards constitutional reform that would put the government of the country in the hands of proper Egyptians. The Denshawi incident of 1906 lends credence to British tyranny. In that year a group of British officials who had gone on pigeon-hunting in Denshawi village area without permission from the village authorities were attacked by the villagers. In the course of the attack, a British official dropped dead. Despite the fact that a Postmortem examination, revealed that the man, Bull, died of sun-stroke the British tried the villagers for murder and meted out harsh punishment for them. Three of them were executed and several others flogged or imprisoned.

36


6.3.2 Background to Nationalism and Nationalist 6.3.2 Background to Nationalism and Nationalist 6.3.2 Background to Nationalism and Nationalist 6.3.2 Background to Nationalism and Nationalist Movement in EgyptMovement in EgyptMovement in EgyptMovement in Egypt

All these aforementioned actions elicited deep hatred for the British by Egyptians. However, unlike other instances of African response to European invasion which will be cited in the course of our study, the Egyptians response to the British occupation of their country in 1882 and subsequent anti-Egyptian activities was constitutional. That is they did not resort to the use of arms after 1882.

Before the British occupation, there had grown in Egypt a group of people who had agitated for reforms in the administration of their country. They had criticized the Khedive's authoritarian rule. These people were referred to as Nationalists. The nationalists were divided into two groups. A group which consisted of people of Turkish, Armenian and Curcussian descents preferred to cooperate with the British. They wanted the Khedive to rule constitutionally through them. They favoured gradual British withdrawal from Egypt. They formed the Umma party and ventilated their grievances through Moayyah, their newspaper; the other group was radical in its demands. Its members consisted of doctors, lawyers, teachers and junior government officials of peasant origin. They hated the British. They were led by Mustapha Kamil and Sad Zaghlul.

The anti-British feelings of this radical group were fired by the British occupation and other events such as the Denshawai incident and the Anglo French agreement of 1904 by which the French formally recognized British claims to Egypt and the declaration of Protectorate over Egypt by Britain in 1914. They formed Nationalist party. Their leaders Such as Jamal a Din ai-Afghani, Mustapha Kamil etc. disseminated anti-British Propaganda in French journals and through their Party's Newspaper – al-Liwa and al-Alam. The Nationalist party denounced the British occupation and asked the British to withdraw from Egypt.

6.3.3 British Declaration of Protectorate over Egypt and 6.3.3 British Declaration of Protectorate over Egypt and 6.3.3 British Declaration of Protectorate over Egypt and 6.3.3 British Declaration of Protectorate over Egypt and Egyptian REgyptian REgyptian REgyptian Reactionseactionseactionseactions

By 1914 when the British declared protectorate over Egypt, Egyptians had been filled with intense spirit of nationalism through the propaganda of the Nationalists. The sufferings of the Egyptians during the First World War made them readily condemn the British. For instance, Egyptians were conscripted as porters and their foodstuffs and Camels were commandeered to the war-front. The radical nationalists led by Sad Zaghlul and others embarked on education of the masses against the British rule. After the war, Zaghlul led a delegation of Egyptians to the British High Commissioner to make claims for Egyptian representation at the

Paris Peace Conference. Egyptian claims were rejected by the British and Zaghlul and other leaders were deported. Their depoRiots broke out in Egyptian towns between 1920 and 1921 and the British were forced to grant limited self1922.




AsAsAsAssessmentsessmentsessmentsessment


SAQ 6.1(tests learning outcome 6.1

What would you describe as the prelude to British occupation of Egypt?

SAQ 6.2(test learning outcome 6.2)

What was responsible for the 1882 anti

SAQ 6.3 (test learning

How did Egyptians respond to the British occupation of their country?


Paris Peace Conference. Egyptian claims were rejected by the British and Zaghlul and other leaders were deported. Their deportation led to demonstration by school children and peasants. Riots broke out in Egyptian towns between 1920 and 1921 and the British were forced to grant limited self-government to Egypt in 1922.



1. Strategic importance of Suez Canal to the British and the financial bankruptcy of Egypt precipitated British occupation of Egypt.

2. Egyptians resented the British occupation of their country through constitutional approach.

3. Egyptian formed Nationalist parties and ventilated their grievances through newspaper.

4. In reaction to the declaration of protectorate over Egypt, they demanded for independence of their country.

5. The British government granted Egypt a limited selfgovernment in 1922.

SAQ 6.1(tests learning outcome 6.1)

What would you describe as the prelude to British occupation of Egypt?

SAQ 6.2(test learning outcome 6.2)

What was responsible for the 1882 anti-foreigners riot in Egypt


How did Egyptians respond to the British occupation of their country?

Egyptian Response to British Occupation

37

Paris Peace Conference. Egyptian claims were rejected by the British and Zaghlul and other leaders were deported. Their

rtation led to demonstration by school children and peasants. Riots broke out in Egyptian towns between 1920 and 1921 and the

government to Egypt in

Strategic importance of Suez Canal to the British and the financial bankruptcy of Egypt precipitated British

Egyptians resented the British occupation of their country

Nationalist parties and ventilated their

In reaction to the declaration of protectorate over Egypt, they demanded for independence of their country. The British government granted Egypt a limited self-

What would you describe as the prelude to British occupation of

foreigners riot in Egypt?

How did Egyptians respond to the British occupation of their

38



Response to Italian Invasion in LibyaResponse to Italian Invasion in LibyaResponse to Italian Invasion in LibyaResponse to Italian Invasion in Libya

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session, you will learn about why and how Italians invaded Libya. Also, you will learn about the reactions of people of Libya to the Italian invasion of their country as well as the significant roles played by the Sanussiya Islamic brotherhood in rItalian invasion in Libya.

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes


7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya7.1 Background to Italian invasion of LibyaLibya was one of the countries in the area of North Africa referred to as the Magrib. Other countries are Algeria and Tunisia. These countries were until the latter part of the nineteenth century and, in the case of Libya, early part of the twentieth centusuzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey. Algeria was occupied by France in 1830. France also seized Tunisia in 1881. From the late nineteenth century, Libya came under the influence of Italy. Before 1911, Italian penetration of Libya had been peaceform of active involvement in the economic and social activities in the country. Italians participated in the Banking industry in Libya and opened the Bank of Rome in Tripoli. The Bank had branches in Benghazi and twelve other towns in LibItalians dominated Libya's export trade in wool, cereals, esparto grass and Ostrich feathers. They also prospected for minerals in Tripoli.




In this session, you will learn about why and how Italians invaded Libya. Also, you will learn about the reactions of people of Libya to the Italian invasion of their country as well as the significant roles played by the Sanussiya Islamic brotherhood in rItalian invasion in Libya.

Learning Outcomes


7.1 outline the systematic invasion of Libya by the Italians.7.2 explain how Libyans responded to the Italian invasion

of their country. 7.3 discuss the role of religion, especially Sanussiya

brotherhood in the resistance of Italian domination.7.4 describe the aftermath of the reactions of Libyans to

Italian invasion

7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya7.1 Background to Italian invasion of LibyaLibya was one of the countries in the area of North Africa referred to as the Magrib. Other countries are Algeria and Tunisia. These countries were until the latter part of the nineteenth century and, in the case of Libya, early part of the twentieth centusuzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey. Algeria was occupied by France in 1830. France also seized Tunisia in 1881. From the late nineteenth century, Libya came under the influence of Italy. Before 1911, Italian penetration of Libya had been peaceform of active involvement in the economic and social activities in the country. Italians participated in the Banking industry in Libya and opened the Bank of Rome in Tripoli. The Bank had branches in Benghazi and twelve other towns in Libya between 1908 and 1911. Italians dominated Libya's export trade in wool, cereals, esparto grass and Ostrich feathers. They also prospected for minerals in Tripoli.


In this session, you will learn about why and how Italians invaded Libya. Also, you will learn about the reactions of people of Libya to the Italian invasion of their country as well as the significant roles played by the Sanussiya Islamic brotherhood in resisting


outline the systematic invasion of Libya by the Italians. explain how Libyans responded to the Italian invasion

discuss the role of religion, especially Sanussiya brotherhood in the resistance of Italian domination. describe the aftermath of the reactions of Libyans to

7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya7.1 Background to Italian invasion of Libya Libya was one of the countries in the area of North Africa referred to as the Magrib. Other countries are Algeria and Tunisia. These countries were until the latter part of the nineteenth century and, in the case of Libya, early part of the twentieth century under the suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey. Algeria was occupied by France in 1830. France also seized Tunisia in 1881. From the late nineteenth century, Libya came under the influence of Italy. Before 1911, Italian penetration of Libya had been peaceful. It took the form of active involvement in the economic and social activities in the country. Italians participated in the Banking industry in Libya and opened the Bank of Rome in Tripoli. The Bank had branches in

ya between 1908 and 1911. Italians dominated Libya's export trade in wool, cereals, esparto grass and Ostrich feathers. They also prospected for minerals in

Study Session 7 Response to Italian Invasion in Libya

39

7.1.1 1908 Murder of Italians in Libya7.1.1 1908 Murder of Italians in Libya7.1.1 1908 Murder of Italians in Libya7.1.1 1908 Murder of Italians in Libya

Apart from this economic involvement in Libya, Italy had other plans. It intended to have settler communities of Italian farmers and traders in Libya and make the country a mere extension of Southern Italy. In other words, Italy intended to colonise Libya. It waited for an opportunity to execute its plans. The opportunity came in 1908 with the murder of two Italians in Libya. The Italian press clamored for the occupation of Libya to ensure the safety of Italian lives and property there. The murder incidence was used at causus belli. In 1911, Italy decided to invade and occupy Libya.

7.1.2 Italian invasion of Egypt7.1.2 Italian invasion of Egypt7.1.2 Italian invasion of Egypt7.1.2 Italian invasion of Egypt

In October 1911, Italy sent an expedition against Libya. The expedition consisted of 34,000 men, 6,300 horses, 1,050 wagons, 40 field guns, 24 mountain guns, 145 warships and 114 other vessels. It blockaded Libya by sea and prevented reinforcement from reaching the country from Turkey. As a result of the massive invasion and the blockade, Italy won a quick victory and overran Tripoli, Dema, Benghazi, Tobruk and some other Libyan coastal towns. Apart from the blockade and superior weaponry, another contributory factor to the initial success of the Italians was the feable defense put up by Turkey, Libya's suzerain. At the time of the invasion, Turkey was engaged in suppressing revolts in Yemen and the Balkan. Consequently, only a few Turkish Soldiers were in Libya a garrison of 5,000 soldiers in Tripoli and another of 2,000 soldiers in Cyrenaica.

7.2 Libyan response to Italian invasion7.2 Libyan response to Italian invasion7.2 Libyan response to Italian invasion7.2 Libyan response to Italian invasion Response to European invasion of Libya was multifaceted. The first to respond were the Turkish, who also had a stake at Italy. The Libyans themselves followed suit before the Sanussiya brotherhood movements introduced religion dimension to the resistance. These are explained as follows:

1. The Turkish response: After the initial Italian successes, Turkey sent reinforcements led by Ever Bey and Mustafa Kamal. The reinforcements were able to beat the Italian blockade. Libyans, especially the Bedouin Arabs under the leadership of the Sanuiiya brotherhood, supported Turkey against the invaders. The renewed effort of Turkey and the strong determination of the Libya's fighting under Turkish banner stalled the Italians initial military success. However in 1912, Turkish resistance came to an end. By the treaty of Ouchy signed between Italy and Ottoman Sultan of Turkey, the latter surrendered his sovereign right over Libya to the former.

40


2. The Libyan Response: The first reaction of Libyans to the

Italian invasion of their country was to join forces with those of their suzerain to fight the invaders. However, as indicated above, the suzerain gave up Libya to the Italians without consulting the Libyans. Libyans refused to associate themselves with the treaty. They regarded it as Turkey's inability to defend them and abdication of its suzerainty over Libya. They therefore became more determined to defend their country against the invaders. The Sanusiya brotherhood which had been engaged in Liberation activities in North Africa and the Sudan since 1898 provided an umbrella under which the Libyans rallied to defend their country. Being a Muslim brotherhood, the Sanusiya regarded Italians as infidels who must be prevented by all means from taking over political control of the Dar al Islam.

As soon as it took over the defense of Libya, the Sanusiya reorganized the country's defense strategy. It embarked on guerrilla war against the invaders. Libyan soldiers raided the enemies in surprise attacks. By sporadic attacks on their lines of communication, Libyans cut Italian soldiers from their supplies. Next, the Sanusiya trained Libyan soldiers in the use of modern weapons.

Young Libyans were given military training under Turkish officers and commissioned as cadets after the end of their training. Some Libyan soldiers were also sent to Turkey for training. The trained officers formed the hard core of the Libyan Guerilla army. They also trained Libyan Volunteers to handle modern weapons.

7.2.1 Sanusiyya brotherhood resistance7.2.1 Sanusiyya brotherhood resistance7.2.1 Sanusiyya brotherhood resistance7.2.1 Sanusiyya brotherhood resistance

The Sanusiya gave a religious dimension to their struggle against Italian imperialist aggression. From 1912 onwards, the Sanusiya declared a Jihad against the Italian Invaders. It took over control of Libya and issued all orders in its own name. It mounted anti-Italian propaganda and was able to win the support of Egypt, Syria and other Islamic countries. The Sanusiya campaign against Italy was regarded by Islamic countries not only as a fight to liberate Libya but also as a fight for the cause of the Muslim world. The Muslim countries, however, did not proceed beyond the moral support, and provisions which they sent to Libya. These served as morale booster for Libyan soldiers. Thus in May 1913, the Libyan soldiers defeated the Italians at Sidi al - larba. Between 1914 and 1916 they pushed the Italians from the interior provinces of Fezzan, Ghat and Ghadames and succeeded in restricting them to a few coastal towns, such as Horns, Tagiura etc. These successes enabled the Sanusiya to proclaim the Republic of Tripolitania in 1916. The

Study Session 7 Response to Italian Invasion in Libya

41

Republic which now became the base of the government of the Libyans obtained the services of German and Turkish military officers to train and arm Libyan soldiers. It also manufactured arms to prosecute the Liberation struggle.

Libyan response to Italian Invasion: success or failure?

The Libyan struggle against Italian aggression was not all a story of successes. Libyans suffered a number of reverses between 1912 and 1916. Firstly, between 1913 and' 1914 the Turkish officers who stayed in Libya after Turkey had withdrawn its forces and who constituted the core of the Libyan fighting force, deserted them and took away some of their artillery weapons. Secondly in 1914, the Italians mustered effort and occupied all the main Libyan military camps in central and Western Cyrenaica. Thirdly Libyan soldiers were hit by plagues, famine and locust invasion which caused death among them between 1913 and 1915. Fourthly the Libyans attempt to attack the British in Egypt resulted in disaster. They were defeated and their leaders, Sayyid Ahmad al - Shariff went on self-exile in 1916.

After the exile of Sayyid Ahmad al - Shariff, the Libyan entered another phase in their struggle. Their new leader, Sayyid Idris preferred diplomacy to war. Indeed, Italy even sought a means of ending the war because of its defeat by Austria. Thus in 1917 Italy and the Sanusiya, Britain and the Sanusiya signed peace treaty which conferred on Libya considerable political and military advantages.

Libyan Diplomatic response to Italian invasion

Prominent among these were:

i. the lifting of the ban on commercial relations between Egypt and Cyrenaisa,

ii. the division of Cyrenaica into two with the Italians holding the coastal area and Libyans under Sanusiya remaining autonomous in the interior,

iii. the recognition of Sayyid Idris as the ruler of the portion of Cyrenaica outside the Italian zone, and

iv. recognition of Muslim law, religion and teaching in the Italian zone.

Further diplomatic successes were recorded in 1920 and 1922.

• At the treaty of al-Rajima between Italy and Libya, the title of Amir [ruler] was conferred on Sayyid Idris and the territory of his autonomous regime was defined as the oases of Jaghbub, Aujila, Jalu, Kufra with Ajadabiya as the seat of government.

42


By 1923 however, the Italians thought that they had conceded too much to Libyans and abrogated all the treaties hitherto signed with them. Consequently, Libyans resumed their war of liberation, this time, under Sidi Imar al early struggle against Italian attack. Under the Sanusiya, he led Libyans in determined resistance against Italians until his capture and public execution in 1932. The capture of al the Libyan resistance and the Italian country.






SAQ 7.1 (tests learning outcome 7.1)Describe the economic interest of Italy in the countrySAQ 7.2 (tests learning outcome 7.2)Comment on the Italian invasion of Libya in 1911SAQ 7.3 (tests learning outcome 7.3)Identify the factors that hindered the victory of Libyan soldiers over their Italian counterpartsSAQ 7.4 (tests learning outcome 7.3)Which of the treaties conferred Amir leadership on Sayyid Idris of the Sanussiya brotherhood


• Sayyid Idris was proclaimed as the Amir over Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. These two major regions of Libya thus came under the single leadership of the Sanusiya.

By 1923 however, the Italians thought that they had conceded too much to Libyans and abrogated all the treaties hitherto signed with them. Consequently, Libyans resumed their war of liberation, this time, under Sidi Imar al - Mukhtar, one of the early struggle against Italian attack. Under the Sanusiya, he led Libyans in determined resistance against Italians until his capture and public execution in 1932. The capture of al the Libyan resistance and the Italian aggressors occupied the country.

Study Session SummaryStudy Session SummaryStudy Session SummaryStudy Session Summary In this Study Session, you have learned that:

1. Economic prospects motivated the Italian to invade Libya2. Italian conquest of Libya was gradual and systematic3. Libyans were united and dynamic

against Italian invasion of their country 4. The basis of their unity was Islam- a religion which cut

across all the Arab tribal groups in the Maghrib5. Sanusiya brotherhood provided an umbrella under which

the tribal groups in Libya fought to liberate their country6. Their resistance witnessed significant diplomatic and

military victories over Italy before it finally collapsed in 1932.

SAQ 7.1 (tests learning outcome 7.1) Describe the economic interest of Italy in Libya before invading the country SAQ 7.2 (tests learning outcome 7.2) Comment on the Italian invasion of Libya in 1911SAQ 7.3 (tests learning outcome 7.3) Identify the factors that hindered the victory of Libyan soldiers over their Italian counterparts

AQ 7.4 (tests learning outcome 7.3) Which of the treaties conferred Amir leadership on Sayyid Idris of the Sanussiya brotherhood

Sayyid Idris was proclaimed as the Amir over Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. These two major regions of Libya thus came

Sanusiya.

By 1923 however, the Italians thought that they had conceded too much to Libyans and abrogated all the treaties hitherto signed with them. Consequently, Libyans resumed their war of liberation, this

Mukhtar, one of the participants in the early struggle against Italian attack. Under the Sanusiya, he led Libyans in determined resistance against Italians until his capture and public execution in 1932. The capture of al - Mukhtar broke

aggressors occupied the

Economic prospects motivated the Italian to invade Libya Italian conquest of Libya was gradual and systematic Libyans were united and dynamic in their resistance

a religion which cut

across all the Arab tribal groups in the Maghrib Sanusiya brotherhood provided an umbrella under which

to liberate their country Their resistance witnessed significant diplomatic and military victories over Italy before it finally collapsed in

Libya before invading

Comment on the Italian invasion of Libya in 1911

Identify the factors that hindered the victory of Libyan soldiers

Which of the treaties conferred Amir leadership on Sayyid Idris of


Response to Italian Invasion in EthiopiaResponse to Italian Invasion in EthiopiaResponse to Italian Invasion in EthiopiaResponse to Italian Invasion in Ethiopia

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will learn about Italy’s incursionwhich of courseMenelik, the ruler of Shoa, one of theaim at first was to use him as an ally against Emperor John IV the ruler of Ethiopia [1872IV as emperor, Italy then decided to trick him into surrendering the sovereignty of his country. Let us now examine the steps taken by Italy to acquire Ethiopia and the response of Ethiopians to Italian aggression.

Learning Outcom

Outcomes



Invasion

8.1 Background to the Italian I8.1 Background to the Italian I8.1 Background to the Italian I8.1 Background to the Italian ILike other European powers scrambling for territories in Africa, Italy at first approached the execution of its imperial ambition in Ethiopia diplomaat Ankober with Menelik the ruler of the Ethiopian pShoa (1865

Study Session 8 Response to Italian Invasion



In this session you will learn about Italy’s incursionwhich of course was gradual. It started by courting the friendship of Menelik, the ruler of Shoa, one of the provinces of Ethiopia. Theaim at first was to use him as an ally against Emperor John IV the ruler of Ethiopia [1872-1889]. When Menelik succeeded John the IV as emperor, Italy then decided to trick him into surrendering the sovereignty of his country. Let us now examine the steps taken by Italy to acquire Ethiopia and the response of Ethiopians to Italian aggression.

Learning Outcomes


8.1 describe how the Italians invaded Ethiopia8.2 discuss how the people of Ethiopia reacted to the

Italian invasion of their country 8.3 discuss the role Emperor Menelik II in preserving the

independence of Ethiopia

Invasion A military offensive in which large parts of combatants of

one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory

controlled by another, generally with the objective

either conquering or re-establishing control or authority

over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering

the established government or gaining concessions from

said government, or a combination thereof.

8.1 Background to the Italian I8.1 Background to the Italian I8.1 Background to the Italian I8.1 Background to the Italian Invasion of Ethiopianvasion of Ethiopianvasion of Ethiopianvasion of EthiopiaLike other European powers scrambling for territories in Africa, Italy at first approached the execution of its imperial ambition in Ethiopia diplomatically. In 1883, Italy signed a treaty of friendship at Ankober with Menelik the ruler of the Ethiopian pShoa (1865-1889). In 1888, the Italian government sent money and

Response to Italian Invasion in Ethiopia

43


In this session you will learn about Italy’s incursion into Ethiopia, was gradual. It started by courting the friendship of

provinces of Ethiopia. The aim at first was to use him as an ally against Emperor John IV the

enelik succeeded John the IV as emperor, Italy then decided to trick him into surrendering the sovereignty of his country. Let us now examine the steps taken by Italy to acquire Ethiopia and the response of Ethiopians to Italian


describe how the Italians invaded Ethiopia discuss how the people of Ethiopia reacted to the

II in preserving the

military offensive in which large parts of combatants of

one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory

, generally with the objective of

establishing control or authority

over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering

the established government or gaining concessions from

said government, or a combination thereof.

nvasion of Ethiopianvasion of Ethiopianvasion of Ethiopianvasion of Ethiopia Like other European powers scrambling for territories in Africa, Italy at first approached the execution of its imperial ambition in

tically. In 1883, Italy signed a treaty of friendship at Ankober with Menelik the ruler of the Ethiopian province of

1889). In 1888, the Italian government sent money and

44


weapons to Menelik to undermine the administration of Emperor John IV. By this gesture, Italy wanted Menelik to rebel against Emperor John's authority. The rebellion would have created an opportunity for it to intervene in Ethiopian internal affairs by allying with Menelik to defeat the Emperor. After the defeat of Emperor John IV, Menelik would have been installed as an Italian puppet Emperor of Ethiopia. In this way Ethiopia would have passed easily into the Italian hands.

8.1.1 Ucciali treaty and Emperor Menelik II8.1.1 Ucciali treaty and Emperor Menelik II8.1.1 Ucciali treaty and Emperor Menelik II8.1.1 Ucciali treaty and Emperor Menelik II

In 1889 Menelik naturally succeeded Emperor John IV as Ethiopian Emperor. Italy took another diplomatic approach, this time, to induce him to sign away the sovereignty of his kingdom to the Italian government. It signed the treaty of Ucciali with Menelik, now known as Emperor Menelik II. By the treaty, Menelik II recognized Italy's right of occupation of Massawa and Asmara. The treaty was prepared in two texts - Ahmaric and Italian. Menelik signed the Ahmaric text. He avoided signing the Italian text which looked to him contradictory and tricky. The offending part of the treaty was article 17. In the Ahmaric text, the article merely stated that Menelik II could consult the Italian government in his foreign policy if he so desired while the Italian version make it compulsory for him to conduct his foreign policy through Italy. On the basis of the Italian version, the Italian Prime Minister, Francesco Crispi, proclaimed Ethiopia as Italy's protectorate. In response to this proclamation, Britain signed with Italy in 1891. In the treaty, Britain declared Lake Tana and Western Abyssinian highlands as Italy's spheres of influence. The British action drew sharp protests from Emperor Menelik II who questioned Italy's right to lay claim to any part of his kingdom. When all efforts failed to make Menelik II accept Italian protectorate, Italy decided to acquire the kingdom by force. In 1896, it declared War on Ethiopia.

8.2 Ethiopia8.2 Ethiopia8.2 Ethiopia8.2 Ethiopian Response to Italian Aggressionn Response to Italian Aggressionn Response to Italian Aggressionn Response to Italian Aggression Menelik II proved himself to be a match to Italian diplomacy. He understood very clearly that Italy wanted to acquire Ethiopia. He took diplomatic steps to frustrate all Italian imperial initiatives. First, he carefully avoided being used by Italy to undermine Ethiopian sovereignty. Before he signed a treaty with Italy in 1883, he had concluded peace agreements with Emperor John IV. The first agreement was signed in 1878. In the agreement, Menelik renounced the title of Neguse Negast [King of Kings] which legally belonged to Emperor John. This means that Menelik formally recognized Emperor John IV as the ruler of Ethiopia. The second agreement was made in 1882, a year before Menelik signed a treaty with Italy. This agreement settled the problem of succession to the

Study Session 8 Response to Italian Invasion in Ethiopia

45

Ethiopian imperial throne by granting Menelik the right to succeed Emperor John IV. The agreement was sealed with marriage between the son of Emperor John and Zauditu the daughter of Menelik. Thus when Italy approached Menelik with money and weapons to undermine the Emperor's government, he, took the gifts but he did nothing. Secondly, in 1889, Menelik cunningly avoided signing the Italian version of the treaty of Ucciali and when Italy used it to make political claim over Ethiopia; Menelik countered Italy by claiming that he had not given away any part of his territory to any foreign power. He immediately followed his protest in 1891 by a circular to all European powers stating the boundary of his kingdom. He informed them that his territory extended to the Red Sea, Khartoum and Lake Rudolf.

8.2.1 Menelik diplomacy and strategies against Italy8.2.1 Menelik diplomacy and strategies against Italy8.2.1 Menelik diplomacy and strategies against Italy8.2.1 Menelik diplomacy and strategies against Italy

As the disagreement between him and Italy was reaching a crucial stage of war, Menelik issued a proclamation in 1895 which brought all Ethiopian under his control. He used the foreign threat as a means of uniting all Ethiopians regardless of tribal and political differences. He obtained arms and ammunition from Britain and France which had rival interests in the lower Nile. For instance, after the occupation of Egypt in 1882, Britain was afraid that a strong European or African power could dam the lower Nile or any of its tributaries to the detriment of Egypt. Therefore it did not want Ethiopia to support any rival European influence in this area. It also did not want Ethiopia to aid the Madhists in Sudan who had revolved against Anglo Egyptian control of their country. In 1891 when Menelik issued his circular, Britain was apprehensive of what Menelik could do against its interests in the Nile region. Thus Britain did not want to incur the wrath of Menelik; instead, he recognized his territorial claims and bribed him with 5,000 square miles of British Somaliland.

8.2.2 Ethiopia’s victory at the battle of Adowa (1896)8.2.2 Ethiopia’s victory at the battle of Adowa (1896)8.2.2 Ethiopia’s victory at the battle of Adowa (1896)8.2.2 Ethiopia’s victory at the battle of Adowa (1896)

France, like Britain, had its own interest to protect by being friendly to Ethiopia. It also had its own imperial designs which it did not want Italian presence in Ethiopia to frustrate. Therefore it was inclined to support Ethiopia rather than Italy. France realized that the success of its Addis Ababa - Djibouti railway line plan depended on the goodwill of Ethiopia. Menelik took advantage of the interest of these other European powers to acquire arms and ammunition and by the time Italy declared war on Ethiopia, he was quite prepared to meet the challenge. Thus in March, 1896 Menelik recorded a resounding victory over the Italian army led by General Baratieri. The defeat put an end to Italian imperial scheme on Ethiopia. It saved Ethiopia from being partitioned by European powers. It also won international recognition for the kingdom as

46


many European powers rushed to send congratulatory messages to the kingdom's capital and also sought to obtain concessions from Emperor Menelik II.

By 1906 European powers had recognized Ethiopia's independence and territorial integrity. Emperor Menelik II was recognized as an equal of European potentates. Britain, France and Italy signed a tripartite treaty with Ethiopia. By the treaty, Britain secured a concession from Ethiopia that the Blue Nile would not be dammed or diverted to the detriment of Egypt. France got Ethiopia's permission to control the Jibouti-Somali Railway which it had built in 1894 while Italy was allowed to colonise Eriteria.

Factors that aided Menelik II VFactors that aided Menelik II VFactors that aided Menelik II VFactors that aided Menelik II Victoryictoryictoryictory over Italian over Italian over Italian over Italian

AAAAggressionggressionggressionggression

A number of factors aided Ethiopia. Firstly, the diplomatic astuteness of Menelik II helped the kingdom to frustrate Italy's imperial ambition. Having realized the danger posed to Ethiopia's sovereignty by Italy's professed friendship, he refused to allow himself to be used to undermine the administration of Emperor John IV. He also recorded a diplomatic victory over Italy in the controversy over the interpretation of article 17 of the treaty of Ucciali. He pretended to be friendly to many European rivals interested in his kingdom and its periphery. In this way, he was able to secure arms and ammunition from them which he used against Italy. Indeed, part of the weapons which he used against Italian soldiers was obtained from Italy while he was the ruler of Shoa.

Secondly, the nationalist spirit of Ethiopians aided them to ward off Italian invasion. Unlike in Tanzania where some tribes or princes allied with Germany against the ruler of their states, no tribe or province in Ethiopia aided Italy against their kingdom. For example, Italy did not succeed in making Menelik to rebel against the Emperor of his country while he was the ruler of Shoa. When Ethiopia and Italy were at the verge of war in 1895, various tribes of' the kingdom rallied round Emperor Menelik II. Even the races (rulers) or Tigre and Mangasha who had nursed grievances against Menelik II and the Gallas who had not been wholly integrated into the kingdom, joined the emperor in fighting the invaders.

Thirdly the geographical location of the kingdom made it easy to defend by its inhabitants with many deep gorges and ravines, the country was difficult to penetrate. The Italians did not have adequate knowledge of the topography of the kingdom. They were tactfully drawn by Ethiopian into difficult areas where they became easy prey to the attack of Ethiopian soldiers.

Fourthly, Italians could not boast of superior weapons.

Ethiopians had acquired modern weapons from other European powers which they used in the war. Its army winferior to the Ethiopian army. Thus Ethiopia was, unlike other African countries, not fighting with inferior weapons. It was able to meet force with force. It secured home advantage over Italy. The unity of Ethiopians against external threawhich enabled them to use their geographical and military advantage to win victory for themselves and their kingdom







What was the confusion in the composition of the treaty of Ucciali?

SAQ 8.2 (tests

Discuss the factors responsible for the survival of Ethiopia in the period of the European invasion and conquest of Africa


Discuss the role of Emperor Menelik II in Italobetwee

Study Session 8 Response to Italian Invasion in Ethiopia

Ethiopians had acquired modern weapons from other European powers which they used in the war. Its army winferior to the Ethiopian army. Thus Ethiopia was, unlike other African countries, not fighting with inferior weapons. It was able to meet force with force. It secured home advantage over Italy. The unity of Ethiopians against external threat provided a rallying force which enabled them to use their geographical and military advantage to win victory for themselves and their kingdom


In this Study Session, you have learned that: 1. Ethiopians frustrated all the steps taken by Italy to acquire

their kingdom 2. Ethiopia was the only African state that was able to ward

off European aggression in the era of the European scramble for Africa

3. Ethiopia defeated Italy at the battle of Adowa in 1896 and thus forced all European powers to recognize the independence of their country

4. The diplomatic dexterity of Menelik II, enabled the Ethiopians to outwit Italian invaders

5. The spirit of nationalism of the Ethiopians made them unite against their Italian aggressors

6. The defensive nature of the Topography of the kingdom and possession of modern weapons enhanced their victory against Italy.


What was the confusion in the composition of the treaty of Ucciali?




Discuss the role of Emperor Menelik II in Italobetween 1883 and 1896.

Response to Italian Invasion in Ethiopia

47

Ethiopians had acquired modern weapons from other European powers which they used in the war. Its army was numerically inferior to the Ethiopian army. Thus Ethiopia was, unlike other African countries, not fighting with inferior weapons. It was able to meet force with force. It secured home advantage over Italy. The

t provided a rallying force which enabled them to use their geographical and military advantage to win victory for themselves and their kingdom.

steps taken by Italy to acquire

Ethiopia was the only African state that was able to ward off European aggression in the era of the European

Ethiopia defeated Italy at the battle of Adowa in 1896 and an powers to recognize the

The diplomatic dexterity of Menelik II, enabled the

The spirit of nationalism of the Ethiopians made them unite

ture of the Topography of the kingdom and possession of modern weapons enhanced their victory

What was the confusion in the composition of the treaty of


Discuss the role of Emperor Menelik II in Italo-Ethiopian relations

48



Response to European Invasion in UgandaResponse to European Invasion in UgandaResponse to European Invasion in UgandaResponse to European Invasion in Uganda

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction Here, you will examine the factors that precipitated the quest of Britain to take over territories in East Africa, particularly Uganda. Britain as it would be recalled to prevent them from falling into the hands of other European or African powers capable of darning either the river or any of its tributaries to the detriment of Egypt. Consequently, the British were interested in extenGermany and Britain reached an agreement, called AngloAgreement, which declared the kingdom of Uganda and some other parts of East Africa a British sphere of influence.

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes

When

TerminologyTerminologyTerminologyTerminology Conquest

9.1 Prelude to the British C9.1 Prelude to the British C9.1 Prelude to the British C9.1 Prelude to the British CIn keeping with the decisions reached by European powers at the Berlin Conference 1884Africa, the AngloBritish had exercised effective control over the area which had been decAgreement, the British government did not have enough resources for direct control; it vested a British chartered company the Imperial British East Africa Company with the administration of the areawas formalto discuss the reac




Here, you will examine the factors that precipitated the quest of Britain to take over territories in East Africa, particularly Uganda. Britain as it would be recalled wanted to control these places so as to prevent them from falling into the hands of other European or African powers capable of darning either the river or any of its tributaries to the detriment of Egypt. Consequently, the British were interested in extending their influence to East Africa. In 1890, Germany and Britain reached an agreement, called AngloAgreement, which declared the kingdom of Uganda and some other parts of East Africa a British sphere of influence.

Learning Outcomes When you have studied this session, you should be able to:

9.1 discuss why the British were interested in taking over political control in Uganda

9.2 describe the internal social and political situations in Uganda which enabled the British to take over political authority there; and

9.3 explain the reactions of the Uganda to the presence of the British in their Kingdom

Conquest The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or

people by military force.

9.1 Prelude to the British C9.1 Prelude to the British C9.1 Prelude to the British C9.1 Prelude to the British Conquest of Ugandaonquest of Ugandaonquest of Ugandaonquest of Ugandakeeping with the decisions reached by European powers at the

Berlin Conference 1884-1885 regarding spheres of influence in Africa, the Anglo-German Agreement was meaningless until the British had exercised effective control over the area which had been declared as their sphere of influence. Since the time of the Agreement, the British government did not have enough resources for direct control; it vested a British chartered company the Imperial British East Africa Company with the administration of the area. The company ruled Uganda until 1900 when the kingdom was formally declared a British protectorate; we shall now proceed to discuss the reaction of the Uganda (people of Uganda) to the


Here, you will examine the factors that precipitated the quest of Britain to take over territories in East Africa, particularly Uganda.

wanted to control these places so as to prevent them from falling into the hands of other European or African powers capable of darning either the river or any of its tributaries to the detriment of Egypt. Consequently, the British

ding their influence to East Africa. In 1890, Germany and Britain reached an agreement, called Anglo-German Agreement, which declared the kingdom of Uganda and some other parts of East Africa a British sphere of influence.

you have studied this session, you should be able to: discuss why the British were interested in taking over

describe the internal social and political situations in Uganda which enabled the British to take over political

explain the reactions of the Uganda to the presence of

subjugation and assumption of control of a place or

onquest of Ugandaonquest of Ugandaonquest of Ugandaonquest of Uganda keeping with the decisions reached by European powers at the

1885 regarding spheres of influence in German Agreement was meaningless until the

British had exercised effective control over the area which had lared as their sphere of influence. Since the time of the

Agreement, the British government did not have enough resources for direct control; it vested a British chartered company the Imperial British East Africa Company with the administration of

. The company ruled Uganda until 1900 when the kingdom ly declared a British protectorate; we shall now proceed

tion of the Uganda (people of Uganda) to the

Study Session 9 Response to European Invasion in Uganda

49

British presence in their kingdom.

9.2 Religious9.2 Religious9.2 Religious9.2 Religious----Political TensionsPolitical TensionsPolitical TensionsPolitical Tensions and British Cand British Cand British Cand British Conquest onquest onquest onquest of Ugandaof Ugandaof Ugandaof Uganda

The prevailing religious and political situations in Uganda dictated the Uganda reaction to the British presence and subsequent takeover of their kingdom. By the time captain Frederick Lugard, the agent of the Imperial British East Africa Company reached Uganda, three religious-political factions-existed in the kingdom. These were the Muslims, the Protestant Christians and the catholic Christians. The last two factions shall hereafter be referred to as the Protestants and the Catholics.

Before 1888, Uganda had come under the influence of two foreign religions- the Islamic and Christian religions. The followers of these religions had received new ideas which made them challenge the authority of the Kabaka [ruler of Uganda] and disobey his orders which were not in agreement with the tenets of their religion. For instance the pages of the Kabaka who had become Muslims disobeyed him by refusing to eat the king's meat slaughtered by uncircumcised butchers and condemning his unislamic practices. Those pages who were Christians refused to work on Sundays. They also refused the King's demand for sodomy which they regarded as a religiously repugnant practice. The attitudes of the Muslims and the Christians were contrary to the Uganda tradition with regarded the Kabaka as an absolute ruler whose orders must be obeyed peremptorily.

9.29.29.29.2.1 Kabaka Mutesa and Religious C.1 Kabaka Mutesa and Religious C.1 Kabaka Mutesa and Religious C.1 Kabaka Mutesa and Religious Conflict in Ugandaonflict in Ugandaonflict in Ugandaonflict in Uganda

Kabaka Mutesa I who ruled Uganda between 1856 and 1884 had resented the challenge to his authority by the followers of the two religions by punishing them. He persecuted the Muslim elements by putting many of them to death. However, during the time of Mutesa's Son and successor, Kabaka Mwanga (1885 -1886) the number of the adherents of the two religions had increased tremendously. They had become so powerful that it was possible to talk of Christian and Muslim parties in Uganda. Mwanga so detested their challenge to his traditional authority that he plotted to destroy them. However before he could execute his plan, the Muslims and the Christians deposed him and installed a rival prince, Kiwewa, as Kabaka. The new Kabaka was reduced to a constitutional monarch and a puppet of the Muslim and the Christian parties who had seized political power in the kingdom. The Christians and the Muslims shared political posts in the king-dom among them.

No sooner had they seized political power than they engaged

50


in rivalry for the control of the Kingdom. Each part desired to control the country exclusively. In the struggle that ensued the Muslims succeeded in driving the Christians away from the country. They seized power, deposed Kiwewa and installed Kalema another rival prince to the former as their puppet Kabaka. In 1890, the Christians rallied round Mwanga, they deposed Kabaka and through Charles Stokes, a European arms dealer, they fought their way back and seized control of the Kingdom in 1890. They shared political posts among themselves and drove the Muslims away.

9.2.2 Captain Lugard and the C9.2.2 Captain Lugard and the C9.2.2 Captain Lugard and the C9.2.2 Captain Lugard and the Conquest of Ugandaonquest of Ugandaonquest of Ugandaonquest of Uganda

Having seized political power, the Christians split into two factions - the Catholics and the Protestants - each seeking to control the Kingdom solely. It was at the period when two Christian factions were each struggling to take political control of Uganda that Captain Lugard, the agent of the Imperial British East Africa Company arrived in the Kingdom. He succeeded in making Kabaka Mwanga to sign a treaty with the company but he failed to make him accept the company's flag. Lugard studied the religious and political situations in the Kingdom. He realized that the Protestants who were supported by the C.M.S. missionaries looked towards the British for support and aid against the Catholics who were pro-French. He decided to take advantage of the factions in the Kingdom. He leaned towards the Protestants through whom he thought it was possible for the British to take over the kingdom. Thus when war broke out between the Catholics and the Protestants in 1892, Lugard supported the latter. The Catholics were defeated. Lugard's men captured the Kabaka's palace and hoisted the Company's flag there. In the peace settlement that followed the war, Lugard ensured that the Protestants gained ascendancy in the government of the kingdom. Though Muslims and Catholics' participated in the government that was formed after the war, the Protestants became the senior partner because their chiefs dominated policy in the kingdom.

9.3 Reactions of the Ugandans to British Conquest9.3 Reactions of the Ugandans to British Conquest9.3 Reactions of the Ugandans to British Conquest9.3 Reactions of the Ugandans to British Conquest It can thus be seen from the above narration that the alliance between the Protestants and the British enabled the former to gain upper-hand in the government of Uganda. As a result of this alliance, the Protestants ensured that the British had a foothold in the Kingdom. They accepted the British protection which the Kabaka, the Catholics and the Muslims disfavoured. They also helped the British to consolidate their political control of the kingdom. For instance, in 1897, they helped the British to crush the mutiny of the Sudanese troops recruited by Lugard. Also in the same year, when Mwanga kicked against the British authority, the

Study Session 9 Response to European Invasion in Uganda

51

Protestants supported his deposition. They quickly arranged for Daudi Chwa his one year old son to succeed him. In 1899, they aided the British to capture Mwanga where he took refuge. After his capture, Mwanga was deported to Seychelles Islands by the British. His deportation removed the last obstacle to British authority in Uganda. It can be seen from the foregoing that the religious and political situations in Uganda made the Uganda divided in their reaction to the British incursion into their kingdom. One of the principal factions in the struggle for power in the kingdom, the Protestants, allied with the British to gain political ascendancy and ensured that their British allies secured a foot-hold in the territory.

9.3.1 The Protestants and British Government in 9.3.1 The Protestants and British Government in 9.3.1 The Protestants and British Government in 9.3.1 The Protestants and British Government in UgandaUgandaUgandaUganda

Although the Protestants aided the British to gain political control in Uganda, they did not want to be relegated into the background in its governance. In order to ensure that they were not left out of government, they negotiated with Harry Johnston, the Special British Commissioner in 1900. The result of the negotiation was the Uganda (Uganda) agreement of 1900 which spelt out the details of how the kingdom was to be governed. By Clauses 1-5 of the agreement, Uganda lost its independence and became part of the Protectorate of Uganda which in addition to Uganda, consisted of other territories such as Ankole and Toto in the unter-lacustrine region of East Africa. Clause 6 entrusted the internal government of the kingdom into the hands of the Kabaka and his chiefs subject to the supervision of the British. The other clauses specifically spelt out the legislative, judicial and executive functions of Uganda chiefs under the new dispensation [Details of the emergent administrative structure can be seen in Tarikh vol. 4 No.4, pp. 41-48)

9.3.2 Significance of Uganda Agreement of 19009.3.2 Significance of Uganda Agreement of 19009.3.2 Significance of Uganda Agreement of 19009.3.2 Significance of Uganda Agreement of 1900

The Uganda agreement of 1900 was very significant in many respects. Firstly, it was, unlike other Anglo-African treaties, negotiated and not dictated unilaterally by the British. This fact gave the Uganda the feeling that they were dealing with the British not as a defeated people but on equal basis as people who freely entered into discussion with others on how to regulate the affairs of their country. Secondary, it gave the Uganda a sense of autonomy the type which was absent in other African territories invaded and brought under political control by Europeans. Thirdly, the agreement formed the basis of Anglo-African relations in Uganda in the first half of the twentieth century. Fourthly, it formed the basis of the British indirect rule in Uganda with the Uganda having a large measure of internal autonomy.

52








What is the name of the company that ruled Uganda up till 1900?


Mention the name of the religiousbefore the arrival of Frederick Lugard


Do you agree that the Protestants collaborated with the British to conquer Uganda?




1. Uganda was one of the kingdoms in Africa in which religions and political rivalries enabled the British to find allies which aided them to secure political control.

2. The British allied with the Protestants whom power.

3. Unlike in other African countries acquired by the British, the Uganda British allies negotiated the future government of the country with the invaders.

4. The 1900 agreement and negotiation left the Uganda with a measure of internal autonomy in the administration of their kingdom.




Mention the name of the religious-political fractions in Uganda before the arrival of Frederick Lugard


Do you agree that the Protestants collaborated with the British to conquer Uganda?

Uganda was one of the kingdoms in Africa in which religions and political rivalries enabled the British to find allies which aided them to secure political control. The British allied with the Protestants whom they aided to

Unlike in other African countries acquired by the British, the Uganda British allies negotiated the future government

The 1900 agreement and negotiation left the Uganda with a autonomy in the administration of their


political fractions in Uganda

Do you agree that the Protestants collaborated with the British to

Study


Response toResponse toResponse toResponse to German Invasion in Tanzania German Invasion in Tanzania German Invasion in Tanzania German Invasion in Tanzania

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will learn about howfor colonial acquisition in Africa in the 1880's.It would be recalled that during the period of the Berlin Conference, it sent Karl to sign treaties with African chiefs in the interior of East Africa. These treaties accorded Germany a sphere of influence in the area later known as Tanreactions of the Tanzania people were both diplomconfrontational. Thus, this session examines the outbreak of Majimaji revolt as well as the achievement and failure of Maji Maji revolt.

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes

When you have studied this session, you should be able to:10.1

10.2

10.3

10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania10.1 Background to the German invasion of TanzaniaBetween 1887 and 1890Africa were fixed after a series of negotiations with other European countries having imperial claim to territories adjacent to the German sphere of influence. As a result of the negotiations, the boundaries of tHowever, Germany was yet to have effective control of this area. Apart from the few chiefs who had signed treaties of Friendship and. commerce with the agents of the German Society for colonization, Africans did nunder the German political control. In order to make its political presence felt, Germany either had to seek the consent of African chiefs through treaties or employ military force to bring them under control. Sinterritories without struggle, Germany had to resort to the use of force to subjugate them. This lecture discusses how the people in

Study Session 10 Response to German Invasion in Tanzania (


German Invasion in Tanzania German Invasion in Tanzania German Invasion in Tanzania German Invasion in Tanzania (Tanganyika)(Tanganyika)(Tanganyika)(Tanganyika)

In this session you will learn about how Germany joined the race for colonial acquisition in Africa in the 1880's.It would be recalled that during the period of the Berlin Conference, it sent Karl to sign treaties with African chiefs in the interior of East Africa. These treaties accorded Germany a sphere of influence in the area later known as Tanganyika and now called Tanzania. However, the reactions of the Tanzania people were both diplomconfrontational. Thus, this session examines the outbreak of Majimaji revolt as well as the achievement and failure of Maji Maji revolt.

Learning Outcomes When you have studied this session, you should be able to:

10.1 explain why the Germans invaded and conquered various Tanzanian territories

10.2 highlight the reason for the outbreak of the Maji Maji revolt

10.3 discuss the achievements and failure of the Maji Maji revolt

10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania10.1 Background to the German invasion of TanzaniaBetween 1887 and 1890 the boundaries of German territory in East Africa were fixed after a series of negotiations with other European countries having imperial claim to territories adjacent to the German sphere of influence. As a result of the negotiations, the boundaries of the German colony of Tanganyika were fixed. However, Germany was yet to have effective control of this area. Apart from the few chiefs who had signed treaties of Friendship and. commerce with the agents of the German Society for colonization, Africans did not rea1ise that their territories had come under the German political control. In order to make its political presence felt, Germany either had to seek the consent of African chiefs through treaties or employ military force to bring them under control. Since African rulers were unwilling to surrender their territories without struggle, Germany had to resort to the use of force to subjugate them. This lecture discusses how the people in

Response to German Invasion in Tanzania (Tanganyika)

53

German Invasion in Tanzania German Invasion in Tanzania German Invasion in Tanzania German Invasion in Tanzania

Germany joined the race for colonial acquisition in Africa in the 1880's.It would be recalled that during the period of the Berlin Conference, it sent Karl Peters to sign treaties with African chiefs in the interior of East Africa. These treaties accorded Germany a sphere of influence in the area

ganyika and now called Tanzania. However, the reactions of the Tanzania people were both diplomatic and confrontational. Thus, this session examines the outbreak of Majimaji revolt as well as the achievement and failure of Maji Maji

When you have studied this session, you should be able to: Germans invaded and conquered

highlight the reason for the outbreak of the Maji Maji

discuss the achievements and failure of the Maji Maji

10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania10.1 Background to the German invasion of Tanzania the boundaries of German territory in East

Africa were fixed after a series of negotiations with other European countries having imperial claim to territories adjacent to the German sphere of influence. As a result of the negotiations, the

he German colony of Tanganyika were fixed. However, Germany was yet to have effective control of this area. Apart from the few chiefs who had signed treaties of Friendship and. commerce with the agents of the German Society for

ot rea1ise that their territories had come under the German political control. In order to make its political presence felt, Germany either had to seek the consent of African chiefs through treaties or employ military force to bring them under

ce African rulers were unwilling to surrender their territories without struggle, Germany had to resort to the use of force to subjugate them. This lecture discusses how the people in

54


the present day Tanzania responded to the German invasion and conquest of their territories.

10.2 Tanzania response to German invasion10.2 Tanzania response to German invasion10.2 Tanzania response to German invasion10.2 Tanzania response to German invasion

10.2.1 Tanzania initial response to German invasion10.2.1 Tanzania initial response to German invasion10.2.1 Tanzania initial response to German invasion10.2.1 Tanzania initial response to German invasion

Between 1890 and 1900, Germany invaded and conquered various Tanzanian communities and brought them under colonial control. Tanzanians however did not allow the Germans to have an easy victory over them. They fought to the best of their ability and in some cases defeated the German invaders. In 1891, the Uhehe people under Mkwawa, their ruler" ambushed German soldiers led by Emil von Zelewski and killed them in large numbers. Only a few escaped. Mkwawa engaged the Germans in guerrilla wars until his people were tired of war. His followers deserted him and he committed suicide rather than allow himself to be captured by the invaders in 1898. Similarly, in 1892 Meli the chief of the Moshi defeated a German expedition sent to conquer his territory. His resistance was however weakened by disunity in his state. The Marunau another tribal group led by Merealle, an ambitious chief, allied with the German invaders against him. Merealle wished to become the most powerful ruler in the region of the Kilimanjaro with German aid. His army cooperated with the German force to defeat Meli. Another Tanzanian chief that initially defeated the German invaders was Isike of Uyanyembe. He defeated three German expeditions sent to invade his territory in 1892. Like Meli, his resistance was weakened by rivalry between him and Nyaso, an Uyanyembe princess, who had allied with the Germans. Consequently, he was defeated in 1893 and he committed suicide.

Reasons for the failure of this Tanzanian responseReasons for the failure of this Tanzanian responseReasons for the failure of this Tanzanian responseReasons for the failure of this Tanzanian response

The above are a few instances of how Tanzanians initially resisted German invasion with determination. This initial resistance failed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the German had superior weapons. Secondly, Tanzanians were not organized into a large kingdom under a single leader who could organize a strong and unified army against the Germans. Thirdly, the different Tanzanian communities did not unite to present a common front against the invaders. Consequently, the Germans were able to invade them and defeat them separately. Fourthly, inter-community hostility, intra-group and personal rivalries enfeebled the resistance put up by each community against the invaders. This was why it was not possible for a community which had recorded initial victory over the enemies to defend its sovereignty successfully. It also accounts for the alliance of some Tanzanian chiefs with the invaders. As a result of the above mentioned factors, the resistance of Africans in

Study Session 10 Response to German Invasion in Tanzania (Tanganyika)

55

Tanzania against the German invasion failed and by 1900, German colonial rule in Tanzania had become a fait accompli.

10.2.2 Maji Maji outbreak in Tanzania 190510.2.2 Maji Maji outbreak in Tanzania 190510.2.2 Maji Maji outbreak in Tanzania 190510.2.2 Maji Maji outbreak in Tanzania 1905----1907190719071907

As the Germans began to consolidate themselves, the tribes in the South East of the country rose against them. The Germans had encountered no stiff opposition in this area between 1891 and 1900 for the following reasons. Firstly, the tribes did not have centralized political system. They lived in fragmentary societies. Secondly, their land was infertile and consequently thinly populated. Thirdly, the population of the tribes depleted considerably in the middle of the eighteenth century and also from 1850 onwards as a result of intensive raids from Arab slavers and Ngoni marauders respectively.

Prominent among the tribes in this South-eastern region of Tanzania are the Pogoro, Mbunga, Ngindo, Bena and Ngoni. Since they did not pose any serious opposition to the German occupation of their territory, only few German soldiers were stationed in the area. The Germans were so self assured of their safety that they established only one station in the whole area to guard traders along the carvan route from Kilwa on the coast to Songea which was located far away in the interior. From this least suspected area came a violent revolt whose aim was to drive away the Germans from Tanzania.

In 1905, the tribes in the South-eastern Tanzania rose up in revolt and made determined attempt to drive away the Germans by force. A number of reasons have been suggested as the cause of the revolt. The first of these reasons was the harsh German rule. The German administration in Tanzania was characterized by gross abuse of power and inhuman treatment. Tanzanians were forced to pay heavy taxes. The Hut taxes imposed on the people were collected with ruthless brutality. Tax defaulters were maltreated and many of them were tortured to death. For example 20 chiefs were executed in the Kilimanjaro area because they resisted the imposition of the hut tax. By 1900, an estimated 1,000 people had been killed for refusing to pay hut tax. Apart from being subjected to heavy taxation, Tanzanians were engaged in forced labour. Labour conscripts were cruelly treated. They were whipped by Task-masters. The Germans did not even spare chiefs from inhuman treatment. For instance, Tanzanian chiefs were thrown into jail for delays in recruiting labourers or disobeying government orders. Military expeditions were sent against recalcitrant chiefs.

Kolelo PKolelo PKolelo PKolelo Priest ariest ariest ariest and the Maji Maji Revoltnd the Maji Maji Revoltnd the Maji Maji Revoltnd the Maji Maji Revolt

The second major reason was the activity of the priests of Kolelo

56


cult. Kolelo was a popular cult in South-eastern Tanzania and its priests were in the habit of distributing fertility medicine to the people. One of the priests was said to have plunged into a pool of water one night and emerged the following day as dry as he had been before he went into the water. Thereafter, he professed to the people that he had seen their ancestors who conferred on him the title of Bokero. He also claimed to possess the power to invoke the spirit of the ancestors of anyone who wished to see them. He also claimed that the water of the pool into which he had plunged possessed magical powers of healing and of making the people who sprinkled it on their body immune to the powers of sorcerers and enemies weapons. The magic water referred to as the Maji was widely distributed among the people. According to the German official explanation, the priests also preached African brotherhood and glorious future for Africans after the Germans might have been driven away. In other words, emboldened by the possession of the magic water, the priests encouraged people to revolt against the oppressive German administration.

Dr. R.M. Bell has argued that the revolt was a chance result of the Maji (magic water) and not its goal. In order words, the Maji water was not intended primarily for the revolt. He opined that most of the principal participants in the revolt were ignorant of any anti-German conspiracy led by the priests before the outbreak of the revolt. Dr. John Illife and G.K. Gwassa supported this view. Whether the Magic water was directed against the Europeans at the time or not, the fact cannot be denied that the possession of the water made the people bold to confront the Germans whom they considered as their enemies and oppressors.

Cotton Scheme and Maji MajCotton Scheme and Maji MajCotton Scheme and Maji MajCotton Scheme and Maji Maji Revolti Revolti Revolti Revolt

Dr. John Illife and G.K. Gwassa suggested another reason for the revolt. This is the failure of the cotton scheme, which we refer to here as the third major reason. In order to improve the cultivation of cotton in communal plantations, farmers in each village were forced to cultivate cotton implants of specific sizes supervised by their head-men, Akidas and District development or Committee [Commune] controlled by Europeans. Each farmer was forced to work in a plot for 28 days in a year under harsh conditions. The cotton scheme failed. Farmers had little or no returns for their labour. Thus during the harvest season of 1905 farmers and their headmen revolted.

Outbreak of the revolt: The revolt started in July, 1905 among the Pogoro tribe in the Madaba - Lukuliro area. The Pogoro, who were traditionally averse to any rule, disliked the presence of Sefu bin Amri the Arab akida in charge of their area. They refused to pick cotton and attacked Europeans, Indians, Arabs and even fellow

Study

Africans who refuamong other tribes which had equally experienced hardship in the hands of the Europeans. Prominent among these other tribes were the Madaba, Mbunga, Ngoni and the Bena. Major German stations were attacked killed. Arab shop keepers and officials were attacked their shops were looted. The leaders of the revolt procured the Magic water from the Bokero10.2.3 Failure of Maji Maji Revolt10.2.3 Failure of Maji Maji Revolt10.2.3 Failure of Maji Maji Revolt10.2.3 Failure of Maji Maji RevoltSuppression of the revoltGermans it was difficult for them to nip it in the bud or suppress it immediately it broke out. Hence, the revolt was able to spread widely and record early success. By November 1905 the Germans began a systematic sdrafted into the region. The revolters were ruthlessly dealt with. The ringleaders and priests captured were executed, crops and houses were destroyed. About 75,000 were reported to have died either as a resulrevolthem against deadly German weapons as they were killed in large numbers by the German soldiers. Thus many of them surrendered and by 1907






SAQ 10.1 (tests learning outcome 10.1)Why did the peoples of Tanzania fail to drive away the German invaders between 1890 and 1900?SAQ 10.2 (tests learning outcome 10.2)Give reasons for the outbreak of the Maji Maji RevoltSAQ 10.3 (tests learning outcome 10.3)Why did the Maji Maji revolt of 1905

Study Session 10 Response to German Invasion in Tanzania (Tanganyika)

Africans who refused to join them. The revolt spread like wild fire among other tribes which had equally experienced hardship in the hands of the Europeans. Prominent among these other tribes were the Madaba, Mbunga, Ngoni and the Bena. Major German stations were attacked and many Germans and their African soldiers were killed. Arab shop keepers and officials were attacked their shops were looted. The leaders of the revolt procured the Magic water from the Bokero. 10.2.3 Failure of Maji Maji Revolt10.2.3 Failure of Maji Maji Revolt10.2.3 Failure of Maji Maji Revolt10.2.3 Failure of Maji Maji Revolt Suppression of the revolt: Since the revolt was unexpected by the Germans it was difficult for them to nip it in the bud or suppress it immediately it broke out. Hence, the revolt was able to spread widely and record early success. By November 1905 the Germans began a systematic suppression of the revolt. German soldiers were drafted into the region. The revolters were ruthlessly dealt with. The ringleaders and priests captured were executed, crops and houses were destroyed. About 75,000 were reported to have died either as a result of the crisis or the famine that followed it. The revolters soon discovered that the magic water could not protect them against deadly German weapons as they were killed in large numbers by the German soldiers. Thus many of them surrendered and by 1907 the revolt had been finally suppressed.

Study Session SummaryStudy Session SummaryStudy Session SummaryStudy Session Summary In this Study Session, you have learned that:

1. Tanzanian’s response to German invasion can be divided into two phases

2. The tribes in Tanzania responded differently to the German invasion

3. The first resistance collapsed because of rivalry and lack of political centralization among tribes

4. The second phase which was led by Koleloviolent reaction to the harsh German rule by the tribes in the South East

5. Maji Maji was suppressed by Germans using superior skill and weapons.

SAQ 10.1 (tests learning outcome 10.1) Why did the peoples of Tanzania fail to drive away the German invaders between 1890 and 1900? SAQ 10.2 (tests learning outcome 10.2) Give reasons for the outbreak of the Maji Maji RevoltSAQ 10.3 (tests learning outcome 10.3) Why did the Maji Maji revolt of 1905-1907 fail?

ponse to German Invasion in Tanzania (Tanganyika)

57

sed to join them. The revolt spread like wild fire among other tribes which had equally experienced hardship in the hands of the Europeans. Prominent among these other tribes were the Madaba, Mbunga, Ngoni and the Bena. Major German stations

and many Germans and their African soldiers were killed. Arab shop keepers and officials were attacked their shops were looted. The leaders of the revolt procured the Magic water

: Since the revolt was unexpected by the Germans it was difficult for them to nip it in the bud or suppress it immediately it broke out. Hence, the revolt was able to spread widely and record early success. By November 1905 the Germans

uppression of the revolt. German soldiers were drafted into the region. The revolters were ruthlessly dealt with. The ringleaders and priests captured were executed, crops and houses were destroyed. About 75,000 were reported to have died

t of the crisis or the famine that followed it. The ters soon discovered that the magic water could not protect

them against deadly German weapons as they were killed in large numbers by the German soldiers. Thus many of them surrendered

the revolt had been finally suppressed.

Tanzanian’s response to German invasion can be divided

The tribes in Tanzania responded differently to the German

The first resistance collapsed because of rivalry and lack of

Kolelo cult was the violent reaction to the harsh German rule by the tribes in

Germans using superior skill

Why did the peoples of Tanzania fail to drive away the German

Give reasons for the outbreak of the Maji Maji Revolt

1907 fail?

58



African RAfrican RAfrican RAfrican Response to the French Invasion of esponse to the French Invasion of esponse to the French Invasion of esponse to the French Invasion of

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will leaAfrica. Two European nations were predominantly active in West Africa during our period. These were France and Great Britain. These two nations had the largest colonies in this region of the continent. Two others whicGermany and Portugal. Our discussion in this lecture will center on how the people of West Africa, particularly Africans in those areas where the French were active, responded to the French invasion of their territories.

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes


11.111.211.311.4


Resistance

11.1 French Penetration11.1 French Penetration11.1 French Penetration11.1 French PenetrationThe French penetration of West Africa was initially peaceful. The French had at first concerned themselves with trade. Early in the seventeenth century, a group of French merchants built a trading station at St. Louis Island and a fort at tSenegal. They also spread their commercial activities to the Islands



esponse to the French Invasion of esponse to the French Invasion of esponse to the French Invasion of esponse to the French Invasion of West AfricaWest AfricaWest AfricaWest Africa

In this session you will learn about the European invasion of West Africa. Two European nations were predominantly active in West Africa during our period. These were France and Great Britain. These two nations had the largest colonies in this region of the continent. Two others which did not acquire large areas were Germany and Portugal. Our discussion in this lecture will center on how the people of West Africa, particularly Africans in those areas where the French were active, responded to the French invasion of their territories.

Learning Outcomes


11.1 discuss how the French penetrated into West Africa11.2 explain how the Tukulor resisted French invasion11.3 discuss why the Tukulor resistance failed11.4 explain how Samori Toure resisted French invasion

and why his resistance failed.

Resistance Military action of holding firm against the enemy advance.

Group action in opposition to those in power;

Group action to overthrow occupation force.

11.1 French Penetration11.1 French Penetration11.1 French Penetration11.1 French Penetration of West Africaof West Africaof West Africaof West Africa

The French penetration of West Africa was initially peaceful. The French had at first concerned themselves with trade. Early in the seventeenth century, a group of French merchants built a trading station at St. Louis Island and a fort at the mouth of the River Senegal. They also spread their commercial activities to the Islands

esponse to the French Invasion of esponse to the French Invasion of esponse to the French Invasion of esponse to the French Invasion of

rn about the European invasion of West Africa. Two European nations were predominantly active in West Africa during our period. These were France and Great Britain. These two nations had the largest colonies in this region of the

h did not acquire large areas were Germany and Portugal. Our discussion in this lecture will center on how the people of West Africa, particularly Africans in those areas where the French were active, responded to the French invasion of


discuss how the French penetrated into West Africa explain how the Tukulor resisted French invasion discuss why the Tukulor resistance failed

resisted French invasion

Military action of holding firm against the enemy advance.

Group action in opposition to those in power;

Group action to overthrow occupation force.

The French penetration of West Africa was initially peaceful. The French had at first concerned themselves with trade. Early in the seventeenth century, a group of French merchants built a trading

he mouth of the River Senegal. They also spread their commercial activities to the Islands

Study Session 11 African Response to the French Invasion of West Africa

59

of Goree, Rufisque and Joal. Between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries, French activities had grown tremendously. The French had established warehouses and garrisoned forts on the Banks of the River Senegal and its tributaries. They had had middle-men on whom they relied for trade, protection and link with the interior. They had also had social relations in form of marriages or concubinages with Africans in their areas of operation. The off-spring of the marriages or concubinages was known as the Mulattoes or metis through which the French influence grew immensely. Apart from this, The French, in the interest of peaceful trade, often intervened by helping to settle local disputes. In this way, they gradually became involved in local politics.

11.1.1 French, Trade and Local Politics in West Africa11.1.1 French, Trade and Local Politics in West Africa11.1.1 French, Trade and Local Politics in West Africa11.1.1 French, Trade and Local Politics in West Africa

However, as their commercial interests grew, the French began to dictate the terms of trade so as to secure favourable conditions for themselves. They manipulated trade to favour the states and groups that gave them better condition of trade. By so doing, they produced conflicts between them and those Africans who were commercially adversely affected by their actions. In order to control trade and eradicate conflicts that might arise in doing so, the French desired to control the political life of the states in the region of their operation. This desire met with stiff resistance by the Senegambian states such as the Tukulor of Toro, the Wolor of Jolof, the Moors of the emirates of Trarza, Brakna and Douaich who fought the French between 1830 and 1854. The greatest resistance came from the Tukulor Empire under al-haj Umar and Samori Toure's empire.

11.2 Tukolor response 11.2 Tukolor response 11.2 Tukolor response 11.2 Tukolor response to European invasionto European invasionto European invasionto European invasion French penetration of the Senegambia area coincided with the period of the Tukulor expansion. The emergent Tukulor Empire under al-haj 'Umar Sa'id Tall popularly known as Al-haj Uma, was fighting to incorporate other states in its vicinity into a single virile polity guided by Islamic ideas enunciated by the Tijaniyya order. The Tukulor imperial expansion conflicted with the French political ambition to control the whole area. Therefore before 1881, the Tukulor and the French engaged in bitter struggle. The former fighting to retain the sovereignty of their empire and also to prevent the latter from taking political control of Senegambia area. In 1881, the French signed a treaty with Seku Ahmadu who had succeeded Umar after the latter's death. The treaty was signed at Segu. According to the treaty, the French were to enjoy the monopoly of trade with the Tukulor Empire. They were to build roads to increase Tukulor prosperity. The French were to give Ahmadu a Cannon and 1,000 rifles at once and 200 rifles annually. They were

60


not to infringe on Tukulor's sovereignty. This treaty which recognized Tukulor sovereignty gave the Tukulor some respite to continue to expand their territory. It also gave the French time to gather enough strength for eventual and decisive attack on the Tukulor. The latter themselves seemed to be aware of this for they were quoted as saying "We like the French but do not trust them, they on the other hand trust us but do not like us".

In spite of the Tukulor lack of confidence in the French, Ahmadu refused to form alliance with Samori Toure against the invaders. By 1886, the French had negotiated a treaty with Samori and consequently isolated the Tukulor. By 1890 they felt strong enough to launch attack on Ahmadu's empire. Using heavy artillery, they captured Segu the capital of the empire. Ahmadu escaped to Nioro. He was pursued. In 1883 Jenne, Macina and all other Ahmadu's territory fell to the French. Ahmadu fled to Sokoto his mother’s home-town where he died in 1898.

11.3 Factors responsible for the failure of Tukulor 11.3 Factors responsible for the failure of Tukulor 11.3 Factors responsible for the failure of Tukulor 11.3 Factors responsible for the failure of Tukulor resistanceresistanceresistanceresistance

A number of factors explained the failure of the Tukulor resistance against the French invasion of their territory. Firstly, all African states jealously guarded and protected their sovereignty. The Tukulor expansion was regarded as a threat to their sovereignty; hence the states threatened by the Tukulor did not join them to ward off the French invasion. Instead, they allied with the French whom they regarded as their liberator against Tukulor imperialism. Indeed all the previously independent states that had been captured and integrated into the Tukulor Empire were still fighting to regain their independence when the French arrived on the scene. They did not hesitate to have some form of agreement with the French for the supply of arms and ammunition to enable them fight for their independence. These African states therefore allied with the French against the Tukulor.

Secondly, religious differences prevented unity among Africans. The Tukulor campaigns were guided by the Tijaniyya Islamic Ideology. The followers of the Quadriyya order did not support the Tukulor. Apart from this division among the Muslims, the traditional religionists resented the imposition of Islam on them. Thus non-Muslim people like the Bambara in Segu and Ka 'arta wanted to preserve their independence, religion and culture. They disliked Tukulor imperialism - The result was that there was division even within the Tukulor Empire. This militated against their successful resistance against the French invasion. The French exploited the division within the empire to undermine its sovereignty by supporting and supplying arms to dissident elements


61

to weaken it.

Thirdly the French seized the opportunity of lack of cooperation between Ahmadu and Samori Ture to isolate the Tukulor. The belated attempt to form anti-French alliance by the states in Senegambia between 1889 and 1893 was ineffective.

11.4 Samouri Resistance to French Invasion11.4 Samouri Resistance to French Invasion11.4 Samouri Resistance to French Invasion11.4 Samouri Resistance to French Invasion Another empire that rose in arms against the French invaders was Samori Toure's empire. Samori Toure was a Mandinka Warrior who carved out an empire for himself in the second half of the nineteenth century. His empire embraced some of the Bambara, the Malinkes, the Fulas and the Soninkes in the Sengegambia area. Samori first clashed with the French in 1882 when they raided a town deep inside his empire. In 1885, he defeated the French and prevented them from taking control of his gold producing area of Bai Bure. The defeat was so decisive that the French could not retaliate. Instead, they signed a treaty of peace with him at Bisandugu in 1886. The treaty allowed the French time to recoup because between 1891 and 1892, the French resumed their attack on the empire. Samouri Toure resisted them until 1898 when he was exiled to Gabon where he died in 1900.

11.4.1 Samouri Strategies of Resistance 11.4.1 Samouri Strategies of Resistance 11.4.1 Samouri Strategies of Resistance 11.4.1 Samouri Strategies of Resistance

What are the factors which led to his long resistance and why did he fail eventually? Samori Toure was able to resist the French for a long time before he finally surrendered. Reasons for this long resistance are not farfetched. First Samori Toure was one of African leaders who used diplomacy to combat European aggression. He knew that there was rivalry among European powers for the control of Senegambia area. He exploited this rivalry to advantage. His empire was economically viable. The British and other European powers had conflicting interests in the area. Samori Toure first made friendship with the Germans in order to thwart British imperial ambitions. The Germans supplied him ten muskets, some lead-bars and gun power. He also secured the British friendship against the French. This afforded him the opportunity to receive supply of arms from Sierra-Leone. Indeed, when the French were closing on him, he even diplomatically offered to put' his empire under the British but having settled their rivalry with the French in 1896 the British refused to accede to Samori's request.

Secondly, Samori Toure possessed modern weapons which he acquired from other Europeans who were rivals of the French. As pointed out earlier he acquired arms from the Germans. In addition to this, his army was highly organized and disciplined. He recruited

62


soldiers from many sources conquered warriors, the Mande people, deserters from the French army and Sierra-Leone veterans of the British army; He used these deserters and the Sierra Leonean to train his soldiers in the use of modern weapons. He organized his soldiers into units each with special duties to perform. In order to have knowledge of European warfare, he tactically sent some of his soldiers to enlist secretly in the French army. The men served as his secret agents in the French army.

Thirdly, Samori employed modern war tactics such as ambush, surprise attack, scorched earth and mass movement of people. His army was organized to carry out these methods effectively. For instance, a unit was responsible for evacuating, organizing, protecting and leading the population in retreat. Another would conquer a new place and organize the area for the accommodation of the people evacuated from the war affected territory. As the Samori army retreated they carried a scorched-earth policy of through devastation of the evacuated area so that the French might take over a deserted territory and consequently be starved of supplies to recoup their army.

Fourthly, Samori's resourcefulness sustained his resistance for a long time. The resourcefulness was exemplified in his good administration of the empire which ensured loyalty to himself both from his soldiers and the populace. When supplies of arms were becoming rare, he depended on his blacksmiths who were able, in state controlled workshops, to manufacture gun-power and copy all makes of guns. Thus five years after supply of arms and ammunition had stopped (1893), he was able to sustain his resistance depending of his blacksmiths.

Fifthly, Samori adopted a policy of avoidance. Each time he had an encounter with the French, he would evacuate his people to areas far away from the reach of the enemy. He continued to shift his territory from one place to the other until his further retreat was blocked by the Asante, whose territory had been taken over by the British in 1896.

11.4.2 Reasons for the failure of Samouri’s resistance11.4.2 Reasons for the failure of Samouri’s resistance11.4.2 Reasons for the failure of Samouri’s resistance11.4.2 Reasons for the failure of Samouri’s resistance

Despite the above activities of Samori, he was eventually forced to submission and his empire was taken over by the French. The French exploited the political situation in the Senegambia area to their advantage. In the course of building his empire, Samori like, the Tukulor had trampled on the independence of some other neighbouring states which sought every available opportunity to fight for their aggressors. In 1877-8 Samori attacked Sikasso whose ruler Tieba allied with the French to defend the sovereignty of his state. Religious difference was also another weakness which the French exploited. The rulers of Kongi in the centre of Samori

Empire belonged to the Quadiriyya order. They hated the Tijaniyya to which Samori belonged. They consequently signed a treaty of protection with the The coalition of these internal and external enemies weakened Samori's resistance. After Samori had been defeated, the French turned against their collaborators and forced them to submission. The French repeatecollaborators in the conquest of other areas in West Africa. For instance, the French exploited the tension between the Popo Kingdom of Porto Novo and Dahoagainst the latter

Study SessiStudy SessiStudy SessiStudy Session Summaryon Summaryon Summaryon Summary






How would you describe French initial relationship with the people of West Africa?


Why was the resistance of the Tukolor confrontational?

SAQ 11.3

Account for the failure of Tukolor Empire


Highlight the strategies used by Samouri Toure to resist the invasion of the French


Empire belonged to the Quadiriyya order. They hated the Tijaniyya to which Samori belonged. They consequently signed a treaty of protection with the French and remained an ally of the invaders. The coalition of these internal and external enemies weakened Samori's resistance. After Samori had been defeated, the French turned against their collaborators and forced them to submission. The French repeated their pattern of allying with African collaborators in the conquest of other areas in West Africa. For instance, the French exploited the tension between the Popo Kingdom of Porto Novo and Dahomey to ally with the former against the latter.

on Summaryon Summaryon Summaryon Summary


1. African reaction to French invasion in West Africa varied2. Some states resisted French invasion by means of arms,

others collaborated with the invaders 3. Disunity was prevalent in these conquered territories as a

result of political rivalries and conflicts of territorial expansion

4. Religious differences also played significant roles in their disunity

5. The French exploited these differences to conquer both the resisters and the collaborators


How would you describe French initial relationship with the people of West Africa?




Account for the failure of Tukolor Empire


Highlight the strategies used by Samouri Toure to resist the invasion of the French

African Response to the French Invasion of West Africa

63

Empire belonged to the Quadiriyya order. They hated the Tijaniyya to which Samori belonged. They consequently signed a treaty of

ed an ally of the invaders. The coalition of these internal and external enemies weakened Samori's resistance. After Samori had been defeated, the French turned against their collaborators and forced them to submission.

d their pattern of allying with African collaborators in the conquest of other areas in West Africa. For instance, the French exploited the tension between the Popo

mey to ally with the former

African reaction to French invasion in West Africa varied Some states resisted French invasion by means of arms,

conquered territories as a result of political rivalries and conflicts of territorial

Religious differences also played significant roles in their

The French exploited these differences to conquer both the

How would you describe French initial relationship with the


Highlight the strategies used by Samouri Toure to resist the

64



African Response of the British Invasion ofAfrican Response of the British Invasion ofAfrican Response of the British Invasion ofAfrican Response of the British Invasion of

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will learn about how the British made ininto West Africa. We shall also discuss the varied way in which Africans responded to their onslaught.

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes

When you have studied this

12.112.2

12.3


Territory

12.1 British in12.1 British in12.1 British in12.1 British in----Like other Europeans elsewhere in Africa, the British incursion into West Africa started before 1882. They began by engaging in thslave trade along the coast of West Africa, But from 1807 when the slave trade was outlawpressures and partly because slaves were no longer useful to the British economy, the British directed their efforts tabolishing the trade and encouraging "legitimate" trade in African products, particularly palm oil, in West Africa.

protect trade in palm oil and other African products resulted in increasepalm oil, British anti



African Response of the British Invasion ofAfrican Response of the British Invasion ofAfrican Response of the British Invasion ofAfrican Response of the British Invasion ofWest AfricaWest AfricaWest AfricaWest Africa

In this session you will learn about how the British made ininto West Africa. We shall also discuss the varied way in which Africans responded to their onslaught.

Learning Outcomes


12.1 discuss the British penetration into West Africa12.2 explain the varied reactions of the peoples of West

Africa to the British invasion of their territories12.3 appraise West African reactions to the British

Territory • A geographical area under the jurisdiction of a

sovereign state.

• An area of interest

----road into West Africa 1road into West Africa 1road into West Africa 1road into West Africa 1 Like other Europeans elsewhere in Africa, the British incursion into West Africa started before 1882. They began by engaging in thslave trade along the coast of West Africa, But from 1807 when the slave trade was outlawed in Britain, partly because of humanitarian pressures and partly because slaves were no longer useful to the British economy, the British directed their efforts tabolishing the trade and encouraging "legitimate" trade in African products, particularly palm oil, in West Africa.

At first, the need to abolish the slave trade, promote and protect trade in palm oil and other African products resulted in increased British presence in West Africa. British traders trading in palm oil, British anti-slavery squadron located at strategic areas on

African Response of the British Invasion ofAfrican Response of the British Invasion ofAfrican Response of the British Invasion ofAfrican Response of the British Invasion of

In this session you will learn about how the British made in-roads into West Africa. We shall also discuss the varied way in which

session, you should be able to:

discuss the British penetration into West Africa explain the varied reactions of the peoples of West

sion of their territories appraise West African reactions to the British

A geographical area under the jurisdiction of a

Like other Europeans elsewhere in Africa, the British incursion into West Africa started before 1882. They began by engaging in the slave trade along the coast of West Africa, But from 1807 when the

ed in Britain, partly because of humanitarian pressures and partly because slaves were no longer useful to the British economy, the British directed their efforts towards abolishing the trade and encouraging "legitimate" trade in African

At first, the need to abolish the slave trade, promote and protect trade in palm oil and other African products resulted in

d British presence in West Africa. British traders trading in dron located at strategic areas on

Study Session 12 African Response of the British Invasion of West Africa

65

the coast to deal with slavers and British Missionaries spreading Christianity and preaching against the slave trade were .all present in West Africa.

Before the era of the scramble for Africa, the British had taken over some forts, and territories on the coast of West Africa to protect their traders, missionaries and also to suppress the slave trade. For instance, in 1808 they took over Sierra Leone which had been established for freed slaves in order to make the place a base for the operation of the Anti-slave trade squadron. Between 1843 and 1870 they took over a number of the Danish and Dutch forts and trading stations on the coast of the present day Ghana. In 1849 they established a consulate in the Bight of Benin and Biafra at Fernando Po to protect the interests of their traders. John Beecroft who was appointed as the Consul supported his authority by the use of the Gunboat. Backed by the Gunboat, he began to intervene in the internal politics of the coastal states in 1851; he intervened in the succession dispute in the kingdom of Lagos. By 1861 he had declared Lagos as British Protectorate. In 1854 he established a court of equity in Bonny to regulate relations between African and European merchants. Presided by the British Consul, the Court undermined the authority of the rulers of the Niger Delta states who could no longer exercise full judicial authority over all the people in their domains. Thus, by the middle of the 19th century the British had virtually established informal empire in many parts of West Africa.

12.1.1 British in12.1.1 British in12.1.1 British in12.1.1 British in----road into West Africa 2road into West Africa 2road into West Africa 2road into West Africa 2

In the last two decades of the nineteenth century when European powers scrambled for territories in Africa, the British no long hid their pretensions to establish political control over many territories in West Africa. They stepped up Intervention in local politics which they exploited as a means of taking over African territories. They also began to push into the hinterland of West Africa using chartered companies, force, and missionary and government agents. By diplomacy (signing of treaties) and force they established political control in West Africa between 1880 and 1914.

12.2 West African Reactions to the British Invasion12.2 West African Reactions to the British Invasion12.2 West African Reactions to the British Invasion12.2 West African Reactions to the British Invasion Africans in West Africa reacted in different ways to the British invasion of their territories. While some engaged the invaders in bitter military struggle to defend their independence and sovereignty, others cooperated or collaborated with them. Prominent among those who confronted the British militarily were the Asante in the present day Ghana, Bai Bure the chief of the Temne in Sierra Leone, the Ijebu, and the people of Benin, the Igbo and the Emirs of the Sokoto Caliphate in Nigeria.

66


12.2.1 British intervention in Asante12.2.1 British intervention in Asante12.2.1 British intervention in Asante12.2.1 British intervention in Asante----Fante conflictFante conflictFante conflictFante conflict

By the time British traders began to operate on the coast of Modern Ghana, the Asante who had built a strong empire in the interior were extending their territory towards the coast. In the course of expansion, they had clashed with the Fante, a coastal people who did not only resist Asante’s imperialism but also struggled to prevent them from having direct contact with British traders. As the Fante enjoyed economic benefits from being the middlemen between the European traders on the coast and Africans in the hinterland, they did not want the Asante to displace them. Consequently, the Asante and the Fante engaged in wars, the latter fighting to ward off the former's aggression. The British intervened in the Fante-Asante wars on the side of the Fante because they did not want a powerful state like Asante to have a firm hold on the coast. Thus between 1826 and 1874, the British in alliance with the Fante, fought and defeated the Asante. During this period, the British were unwilling to extend their political control into the hinterland. They therefore signed treaties with the Asante. One of such treaties was signed in 1874.

12.2.2 African reactions: t12.2.2 African reactions: t12.2.2 African reactions: t12.2.2 African reactions: the Ghana examplehe Ghana examplehe Ghana examplehe Ghana example

By the 1880s, the race for colonies in West Africa among European powers had become intense and the British did not want Asante’s territory to fall into the hands of either France or Germany. They therefore prepared to invade and finally conquer the Asante. In 1895 while the British were preparing for the invasion, the Asante through Prempe, their king (Asantehene), resorted to diplomacy by sending a delegation to Britain and demanding for a British Resident in Kumasi their capital. But when this approach failed, they prepared to defend their sovereignty. When the British attacked in 1896, the Asante could not drive them away. They were defeated and their king together with the members of his family and chiefs were deported to Sierra Leone. In spite of this defeat, the Asante still did not surrender. Their bond of unity, the golden stool, had not been captured. In 1900 the British decided to remove the last rallying point of the Asante by demanding that they surrender the golden stool. The Asante rose in armed revolt against the British under Yaa Asantewa, the Queen Mother. They fought the British using Guerrilla tactics. Under Kofi Kona, their war general, they defeated three British expeditions sent against them. They were however eventually defeated by the British when they ran out of ammunition and Asante Empire was formally annexed by the British government.


67

12.2.3 African reactions to the British: Sierria Leone 12.2.3 African reactions to the British: Sierria Leone 12.2.3 African reactions to the British: Sierria Leone 12.2.3 African reactions to the British: Sierria Leone exampleexampleexampleexample

In Sierra-Leone, the Temne rose up in arms against the British when the latter proclaimed a Protectorate over the Sierra-Leone interior and imposed tax on the people in 1896. The Temne regarded the payment of tax to the British to mean the loss of their independence. Under Bai Bure, the ruler of the Temne state of Kassah, they waged guerrilla war with the British. Their war efforts were directed by the Pora, a secret society which waged a total war with the British and government officials in Freetown. However, having exhausted their resources, the Temme surrendered and Bure gave himself up to the British.

12.2.4 The Nigerian Kingdoms Reactions to the British 12.2.4 The Nigerian Kingdoms Reactions to the British 12.2.4 The Nigerian Kingdoms Reactions to the British 12.2.4 The Nigerian Kingdoms Reactions to the British InvasionInvasionInvasionInvasion

In Nigeria, the Ijebu, the Igbo and the rulers of the Sokoto Caliphate, in varying degrees, militarily confronted the British. The Ijebu, a group of the Yoruba speaking people of Nigeria, ardently believed in the preservation of their culture and Independence. Thus when the British throughout their Christian missionaries began to penetrate the Yoruba interior, the Ijebu disliked them through their territory and did not allow them to pass. The Ijebu, also as middlemen between the Yoruba in the hinterland and the coastal traders, also disallowed the interior people from passing through their territory to the coast as this would deprive them of the economic benefits they derived from their middlemen position. Consequently, the Ijebu were able to maintain their culture and remain isolated from the British penetration when other areas of Yorubaland had been opened to the British influence. The British intervention in the Yoruba wars, particularly, the Ekiti Parapo/Kiriji wars, make them more involved in the affairs of the Yoruba. By 1886 they had negotiated and signed a peace treaty with the warring parties in Yorubaland.

The Ijebu who were rarely affected by the wars, still maintained their anti-British posture while other groups had consented through the 1886 treaty to promote free trade and commerce in their territories. Even though the Ijebu allowed black missionaries to enter their kingdom in 1889, they did not accord the same freedom to the white missionaries. In 1890, they turned back a white missionary who intended to pass through their territory to the interior. The anti-missionary posture of the Ijebu singled them out as the enemies of the British. The British therefore decided to force the Ijebu to submission. In 1892 they sent out an expedition from Lagos against the Ijebu. The latter were well prepared to meet force with force. They organized their troops and lay in ambush for the invaders. However, they were no match for the machine-gun of the

68


British army which dispersed them. Thereafter, the British soldiers captured Ijebu-ode their capital and forced the Ijebu to accept British protection.

Igbo Resistance to the British in Nigeria

Another determined resistance to British invasion in Nigeria came from the Igbo of the eastern part of the country. Between 1896 and 1914 the Igbo resisted the British using available forces at their disposal. For instance, the Western Igbo village communities organized a secret society called Ekumeku which can be variously interpreted as "invisible," "whirlwind", or "uncontrollable". The Ekumeku fought the British until 1902 when its forces were finally crushed. Other Igbo people such as the Aro, the Ezza, Afikpo village-group, militarily confronted the invaders but they were forced to surrender by the superior weapons of the British. Apart from the use of lethal weapons, the Igbo employed supernatural elements in combating the British. According to A.E. Afigbo, some Igbo towns relied on local gods and ancestors for their defence. Some even travelled a long distance to invite powerful medicine men "to strike the invading troops blind, or scatter them with swarms of bees, to make their guns backfire or make the Igbo warriors bullet-proof". Among the Igbo who employed this means were the Ezza, the Abakaliki and Uzuakoli village-groups.

Resistance in Northern Nigeria

In the northern part of Nigeria, the emirs of the Sokoto Caliphate fought the British with strong determination. The emirs of Kano, Kotangora, Bida, Yola, Bauch and Gombe put up stiff resistance and they were all defeated by the British forces. The last and the toughest armed confrontation against the British invaders was that of Atahiru I the Caliph. As the head of the theocratic state, he was not prepared to surrender his political authority to the invaders whom he regarded as infidels. In 1902, he had declared his aversion to British rule in his letter to Frederick Lugard who had been made Governor when the British declared a protectorate over Northern Nigeria in 1900. In the letter, he stated that between him and the British "there could be only one kind of relationship - war". This declaration indicated his preparedness to defend not only his religion but also the sovereignty of his state. He clashed with the British force which invaded Sokoto, his capital in 1903. After a brief encounter which resulted in heavy casualty on his side, he fled with some of his troops and followers. Sokoto was occupied by the British who installed a puppet Caliph in his place. However the fleeing Caliph, Atahiru I, was still regarded by the people as the symbol of the sovereignty of the Caliphate and with him still alive, the British conquest was a sham. The British consequently pursued him. Between April and May 1903, British fought six indecisive battles against him. Indeed on one occasion, 13 May 1903, the


69

British were even defeated at Burmi. However, in July 1903, the British were able to organize a more formidable force "equipped with modern weapons including 4 maxim-guns and two 75 mm guns. They re-attacked Burmi where the Caliph made his last resistance. They defeated the Caliph who died fighting together with his officials and many followers. A total of about 600 men were said to have been killed by the invading forces. With the collapse of this last resistance, the British occupation of Northern Nigeria became a reality.

12.3 Appraisal of African reactions to the British in 12.3 Appraisal of African reactions to the British in 12.3 Appraisal of African reactions to the British in 12.3 Appraisal of African reactions to the British in West AfricaWest AfricaWest AfricaWest Africa

The above are examples of Africans who confronted the British invaders militarily. As I have indicated earlier, some Africans in our region of study regarded the British as saviors against their oppressors. They collaborated with the British invaders to defeat these oppressors. It should be noted that each African state or kingdom regarded the other as a foreign politics and dealt with it as such. Europeans and indeed the British were equally regarded as another foreign power with which alliance could be freely formed. Thus, an African state which had been oppressed, subjugated or threatened by its powerful neighbour did not hesitate to ally with the foreign power to liberate itself. It is in this sense that some Africans in West Africa collaborated with the British against fellow Africans. As I had indicated earlier, political expansion of some imperial states, economic rivalry among states in this region had created rancor among Africans before the advent of the British. Aggrieved Africans easily used the British against their enemies. This situation enabled the British to recruit local troops with which they fought their imperial wars.

12.3.1 Reasons for the failure of West Africans 12.3.1 Reasons for the failure of West Africans 12.3.1 Reasons for the failure of West Africans 12.3.1 Reasons for the failure of West Africans resistance against the Britishresistance against the Britishresistance against the Britishresistance against the British

In the present day Ghana, the Fante, a coastal people who resented the southward expansion of the Asante, became ready allies of the British. The Fante were aided by the British to ward off Asante aggression. The Fante hoped to safeguard their independence and sovereignty by such alliance but having defeated the Asante, the British turned against their ally and brought them under control. In Nigeria the British also secured allies among the local people. In 1892 when they invaded Ijebu-ode, they were supported by the Ibadan; another group of the Yoruba who had an axe to grind Ibadan wanted a direct link with the coast so as to trade with the coastal merchants and purchase arms and ammunitions to pursue their wars of expansion. Their only obstacles were the Ijebu who

70


did not only dislike the Ibadan's expanallow theirgroups in the hinterland. The Ibadan indeed regarded the Ijebu as an obstacle against their drive towards the Yoruba interior. Thus to both the Ibadan and the British the Ijebu were common enemies to be dealthat invaded and captured the Ijebu capital in 1892. The British equally had local supporters in their encounter against the Sokoto Caliphate. The Hausa ruling families that were defeated by the Fulani during the period of the Jihad, some of whom still constituted pockets of resistance within the Caliphate, readily welcomed the British invaable to recruit soldiers to swell their army. Thus invariably, the British were able to fight and defeat African states or kingdoms with African soldiers. Other examples of collaborators can be seen in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria where rivalry among the city states and local disputes among African leaders enabled the to secure allies.






SAQ 12.1 (tests learning outcome 12.1)Describe the SAQ 12.2 (tests learning outcome 12.2)Describe the various forms of African response to the British invasion of West Africa that you knowSAQ 12.3 (tests learning outcome 12.3)How would you describe the Africespecially the collaborators?


did not only dislike the Ibadan's expansionism but also would not allow their middleman position to be broken by other Yoruba groups in the hinterland. The Ibadan indeed regarded the Ijebu as an obstacle against their drive towards the Yoruba interior. Thus to both the Ibadan and the British the Ijebu were common enemies to be dealt with. Consequently, Ibadan troops joined the British army that invaded and captured the Ijebu capital in 1892. The British equally had local supporters in their encounter against the Sokoto Caliphate. The Hausa ruling families that were defeated by the ulani during the period of the Jihad, some of whom still

constituted pockets of resistance within the Caliphate, readily welcomed the British invaders. From these people, the British were able to recruit soldiers to swell their army. Thus invariably, the British were able to fight and defeat African states or kingdoms with African soldiers. Other examples of collaborators can be seen in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria where rivalry among the city states and local disputes among African leaders enabled the to secure allies.



1. African reactions to the British invasion of West Africa varied

2. Some Africans fought the British with determination to retain their independence, others collaborated with the invaders

3. Lack of unity among Africans weakened their resistance against the British

4. Collaborators and resisters lost independence to the British

SAQ 12.1 (tests learning outcome 12.1) Describe the methods of British penetration of West AfricaSAQ 12.2 (tests learning outcome 12.2) Describe the various forms of African response to the British invasion of West Africa that you know SAQ 12.3 (tests learning outcome 12.3) How would you describe the African perceptions of the British, especially the collaborators?

sionism but also would not middleman position to be broken by other Yoruba

groups in the hinterland. The Ibadan indeed regarded the Ijebu as an obstacle against their drive towards the Yoruba interior. Thus to both the Ibadan and the British the Ijebu were common enemies to

t with. Consequently, Ibadan troops joined the British army that invaded and captured the Ijebu capital in 1892. The British equally had local supporters in their encounter against the Sokoto Caliphate. The Hausa ruling families that were defeated by the ulani during the period of the Jihad, some of whom still

constituted pockets of resistance within the Caliphate, readily ders. From these people, the British were

able to recruit soldiers to swell their army. Thus invariably, the British were able to fight and defeat African states or kingdoms with African soldiers. Other examples of collaborators can be seen in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria where rivalry among the city states and local disputes among African leaders enabled the British

African reactions to the British invasion of West Africa

Some Africans fought the British with determination to others collaborated with the

Lack of unity among Africans weakened their resistance

Collaborators and resisters lost independence to the British

methods of British penetration of West Africa

Describe the various forms of African response to the British

an perceptions of the British,

Study


African Response to the European African Response to the European African Response to the European African Response to the European Invasion of South AfricaInvasion of South AfricaInvasion of South AfricaInvasion of South Africa

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will learn about the pattern of settlement in South Africa, which later formed the baEuropeans into the region. European contact with South Africa dated back to the 15th century. The Portuguese were the first to establish contact, but they did not estasettlement there. They always stopped at tships on their way to the East. The first Europeans to establish permanent settlement in South Africa were the Dutch. In 1652 the Dutch East India Company settled few of its staff at Cape Town to provide fresh meat and vegetables foIndies. These settlers and their descendants later spread from Cape Town to the interior of South Africa as farmers, hunters and herders. They were the ancestors of the Boers. Also, the reactions of the Africans to the Euro

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes


13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South AfricaThe Boers were white farmers who, as indicated above, were the descenexpanse of land for their cattle and shestimated that a Boer family needed about 6,000 acres of land as pasture for its herds of cattle and sheep. As a result of their demand for land, the Boers increasingly pushed further and further into the hinterland from the cape argroup of Africans, the Hottentots, the Khoikhoi and the pigmies whom they easily displaced from their land. But as the Boers

Study Session 13 African Response to the European Invasion of South Africa


African Response to the European African Response to the European African Response to the European African Response to the European Invasion of South AfricaInvasion of South AfricaInvasion of South AfricaInvasion of South Africa

In this session you will learn about the pattern of settlement in South Africa, which later formed the basis of penetration of the Europeans into the region. European contact with South Africa dated back to the 15th century. The Portuguese were the first to establish contact, but they did not establish any permanent settlement there. They always stopped at the Cape to refuel their ships on their way to the East. The first Europeans to establish permanent settlement in South Africa were the Dutch. In 1652 the Dutch East India Company settled few of its staff at Cape Town to provide fresh meat and vegetables for its ships en route to the West Indies. These settlers and their descendants later spread from Cape Town to the interior of South Africa as farmers, hunters and herders. They were the ancestors of the Boers. Also, the reactions of the Africans to the Europeans domination shall be discussed.

Learning Outcomes


1.1 discuss how the Europeans (the British in particular) invaded South Africa

1.2 explain how the Matabele, the Shona and the Zulu rose against the British

13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South AfricaThe Boers were white farmers who, as indicated above, were the descendants of Dutch settlers. As farmers, they needed wide expanse of land for their cattle and sheep. Indeed it has been estimated that a Boer family needed about 6,000 acres of land as pasture for its herds of cattle and sheep. As a result of their demand for land, the Boers increasingly pushed further and further into the hinterland from the cape area. In this process, they came across a group of Africans, the Hottentots, the Khoikhoi and the pigmies whom they easily displaced from their land. But as the Boers

African Response to the European Invasion of South Africa

71

African Response to the European African Response to the European African Response to the European African Response to the European

In this session you will learn about the pattern of settlement in sis of penetration of the

Europeans into the region. European contact with South Africa dated back to the 15th century. The Portuguese were the first to

blish any permanent he Cape to refuel their

ships on their way to the East. The first Europeans to establish permanent settlement in South Africa were the Dutch. In 1652 the Dutch East India Company settled few of its staff at Cape Town to

r its ships en route to the West Indies. These settlers and their descendants later spread from Cape Town to the interior of South Africa as farmers, hunters and herders. They were the ancestors of the Boers. Also, the reactions

peans domination shall be discussed.


discuss how the Europeans (the British in particular)

and the Zulu

13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa13.1 The Boers gradual penetration into South Africa The Boers were white farmers who, as indicated above, were the

dants of Dutch settlers. As farmers, they needed wide eep. Indeed it has been

estimated that a Boer family needed about 6,000 acres of land as pasture for its herds of cattle and sheep. As a result of their demand for land, the Boers increasingly pushed further and further into the

ea. In this process, they came across a group of Africans, the Hottentots, the Khoikhoi and the pigmies whom they easily displaced from their land. But as the Boers

72


moved further into the hinterland they came across the Bantu speaking Africans who were intelligent and vigorous people with strong tribal organizations. Known also as Kaffus, the Bantu were divided into several tribes such as the Fingos, Pondos, Xhosas, the Zulu, Basuto, Matabele and the Shona. Unlike the pigmies and the Hottentols, these tribes had strong military organizations. They militarily resisted the expansion of the Boer farmers into their territories. The resistance resulted in constant clashes between them and the Boers. The constant clashes were resented by the British who seized control of Cape Town in early 19th century.

13.1.1 British presence in South Africa13.1.1 British presence in South Africa13.1.1 British presence in South Africa13.1.1 British presence in South Africa

Like the Dutch, the British were interested in the Cape area of South Africa. They seized the Cape from the Dutch in 1795 but returned it at the peace of Amiens in 1802. Four years later, they seized and retained it. Since then the British became the dominant European acquiring territories in South Africa. They extended their influence from the coast to the hinterland. The Boers avoided them by trekking from the Cape provinces and establishing Republics of their own in Natal Transvaal and Orange Free State between 1836 and 1854. The British pursued the Boers and between 1899 and 1902 fought and annexed their Republics.

The British did not only annex the Boer Republics, they also declared protectorate over African states under the guise of protecting them from the menace of the Boers. Thus the Zulu and Basuto Kingdoms, Botswana and Swaziland became British Protectorates. Thus before 1882, Africans in South Africa had come in contact with Europeans and some of them had lost their sovereignty to these invaders. In the 1880s the British authority had become firmly rooted in the Cape Province and in some territories outside it. As we have seen Lecture 5, other areas of southern Africa under the influence of the British were administered by- the British South Africa company till the British government was prepared to assume direct control. With this background knowledge of European presence in South Africa we now proceed to examine African reactions to the invaders.

13.2 African reactions to the invaders13.2 African reactions to the invaders13.2 African reactions to the invaders13.2 African reactions to the invaders Africans in South Africa had a long history of resistance to European invasion of their territories. Between 1837 and 1866, various African groups in South Africa had fought vainly to prevent the Boers from taking over their land. The Matabele in 1837, the Zulu in 1838 and the Basuto between 1858 and 1866 fought and lost their battles against their Boer invaders. Their territories were eventually taken over by the British. In the last two decades of the 19th century when the Germans made their presence

Study Session 13 African Response to the European Invasion of South Africa

73

felt in Southern Africa by annexing Angra Pequena Bay in South West Africa, the British acted swiftly by taking possession of many territories under their sphere of influence to prevent them from falling into the German hands. Africans whose territories were annexed or declared as British Protectorates rose in defense of their sovereignty. Prominent among these were the Matabele, the Shona and the Zulu.

13.2.1 Reactions in Matabele la13.2.1 Reactions in Matabele la13.2.1 Reactions in Matabele la13.2.1 Reactions in Matabele landndndnd

King Lobengula, the ruler of Matabeleland was tricked, into signing the "Rudd concession", which gave Cecil Rhodes a British capitalist and imperial agent exclusive prospecting rights in Matabeleland in return for rifles, ammunition, a promise of annual subsidy and a steamboat. Lobengula later regretted signing the concession because Rhodes interpreted it to mean that the King had conceded to him the right not only to all minerals in Matabeleland but also in Mashonaland which Lobengula regarded as his vassal territory. When Rhodes Company, the South Africa Company, was given a royal charter in 1889, it assumed political authority in its area of operation and brought Mashonaland under its control. King Lobengula refused to recognize the company rule. In 1893, soldiers of the South Africa Company attacked his kingdom. He was defeated. He fled and died on his way to seek alliance with the Ngoni people to the north. The British South Africa company took over the administration of Matabeleland in 1895. In March 1896, the Matabele rose in rebellion against their conquerors. In the first place, they were dissatisfied with the loss of their sovereignty. Secondly, they lost much of their land and cattle to the White invaders. The areas reserved for them - the Gwai and the Shangani Reserves - were unsuitable for cattle and not large enough to contain their population. Thirdly their women were defiled by the whites. Finally, the outbreak of rinderpest which decimated their cattle was associated with the white invaders. Incensed by their loss of Independence and the deprivation which they suffered, they attacked and killed isolated white farmers and besieged the British forts built by the South Africa Company.

13.2.2 Reactions of the Shona and Zulu people to 13.2.2 Reactions of the Shona and Zulu people to 13.2.2 Reactions of the Shona and Zulu people to 13.2.2 Reactions of the Shona and Zulu people to European invEuropean invEuropean invEuropean invasionasionasionasion

In June 1896, the Shona also revolted and killed a number of white men in their area. The Matabele rising proved difficult to be suppressed quickly by the forces of the company. The Matabele did not expose themselves to the Maxim guns. Although they suffered heavy casualties, they held out in the Matopol Hills and forced Rhodes to negotiate with them. They were however crushed in October. 1897.

74


Africans in South Africa to regain their indepcrushed by their initial conquest or annexation of their territories by the British. Apart from the Matabele and the Shona, the Zulu also proved that they could rise in attempt to regain their sovereignty after their initial subjugation. Thdefeated the British army in 1878. Though they were subsequently attacked and defeated by the British, their courage did not desert them. In 1887 the British annexed their territory and proceeded to impose taxes on them owned by the whites. In 1906 they revolted against the whites. After six months of attacks on the latter, their rebellion was crushed







How would you describe the Boers in


Mention the South African kingdoms that engaged the Europeans in protracted battle of resistance


The Matabele and the Shona risings proved that the desire of Africans in South Africa to regain their indepcrushed by their initial conquest or annexation of their territories by the British. Apart from the Matabele and the Shona, the Zulu also proved that they could rise in attempt to regain their sovereignty after their initial subjugation. They had at the battle of lsandhlwana defeated the British army in 1878. Though they were subsequently attacked and defeated by the British, their courage did not desert them. In 1887 the British annexed their territory and proceeded to impose taxes on them in order to force them to work in the farms owned by the whites. In 1906 they revolted against the whites. After six months of attacks on the latter, their rebellion was crushed.



1. The various groups of people in South Africa struggled against the European occupation of their territories

2. The resistance of these group of people preceded our period of study

3. The Europeans had settled down in South Africa as farmers and systematically dislodged them from their lands

4. After the conquest of the territories in South Africa, they showed their resistance in form of revolts against white rule.


How would you describe the Boers in South Africa?


Mention the South African kingdoms that engaged the Europeans in protracted battle of resistance

The Matabele and the Shona risings proved that the desire of Africans in South Africa to regain their independence was not crushed by their initial conquest or annexation of their territories by the British. Apart from the Matabele and the Shona, the Zulu also proved that they could rise in attempt to regain their sovereignty

ey had at the battle of lsandhlwana defeated the British army in 1878. Though they were subsequently attacked and defeated by the British, their courage did not desert them. In 1887 the British annexed their territory and proceeded to

in order to force them to work in the farms owned by the whites. In 1906 they revolted against the whites. After six months of attacks on the latter, their rebellion was

arious groups of people in South Africa struggled against the European occupation of their territories The resistance of these group of people preceded our

The Europeans had settled down in South Africa as farmers dislodged them from their lands

After the conquest of the territories in South Africa, they showed their resistance in form of revolts against white

South Africa?

Mention the South African kingdoms that engaged the Europeans


Patterns of African Response to European Patterns of African Response to European Patterns of African Response to European Patterns of African Response to European

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you invaders in the entire region. African rulers struggled in different ways to safeguard their political authority. The methods used by these African rulers in their bid to retain the sovereignty and independas patterns of their response to European invasion

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes


14.1

14.2

14.1 Overview of African response to European 14.1 Overview of African response to European 14.1 Overview of African response to European 14.1 Overview of African response to European invasioninvasioninvasioninvasion

Africans resisted European invasion in different ways. Some Africans quickly reacted to European aggression by armed resistainvaders. Many others at first chose to preserve their independence by diplomacy but later resorted to armed struggle when diplomacy failed. Some collaborated with the invaders in the hope of preserving their states. While some Africans adopted a policy of avoidance, that is, migrating from their territories to avoid European invaders, others chose to use their religion to fight the enemies.

reference to specific examples. The most popular means employed by Africans against European invaders was armed confrontation. There were Africans who regarded the Europeans as enemies who should be

Study Session 14 Patterns of African Response to


Patterns of African Response to European Patterns of African Response to European Patterns of African Response to European Patterns of African Response to European InvasionInvasionInvasionInvasion

In this session you will learn about the reactions of Africans to the invaders in the entire region. African rulers struggled in different ways to safeguard their political authority. The methods used by these African rulers in their bid to retain the sovereignty and independence of their states or kingdoms are referred to in this unit as patterns of their response to European invasion

Learning Outcomes


14.1 outline how Africans responded in different ways to European invasion

14.2 discuss why African reactions to European invasion varied

14.1 Overview of African response to European 14.1 Overview of African response to European 14.1 Overview of African response to European 14.1 Overview of African response to European

Africans resisted European invasion in different ways. Some Africans quickly reacted to European aggression by armed resistance using all available weapons at their disposal to repel the invaders. Many others at first chose to preserve their independence by diplomacy but later resorted to armed struggle when diplomacy failed. Some collaborated with the invaders in the hope of preserving their states. While some Africans adopted a policy of avoidance, that is, migrating from their territories to avoid European invaders, others chose to use their religion to fight the enemies.

We shall now illustrate the above mentioned patterns with reference to specific examples. The most popular means employed by Africans against European invaders was armed confrontation. There were Africans who regarded the Europeans as enemies who should be prevented immediately from carrying out their imperial

Patterns of African Response to European Invasion

75

Patterns of African Response to European Patterns of African Response to European Patterns of African Response to European Patterns of African Response to European

will learn about the reactions of Africans to the invaders in the entire region. African rulers struggled in different ways to safeguard their political authority. The methods used by these African rulers in their bid to retain the sovereignty and

ence of their states or kingdoms are referred to in this unit as patterns of their response to European invasion.


outline how Africans responded in different ways to

discuss why African reactions to European invasion

14.1 Overview of African response to European 14.1 Overview of African response to European 14.1 Overview of African response to European 14.1 Overview of African response to European

Africans resisted European invasion in different ways. Some Africans quickly reacted to European aggression by armed

able weapons at their disposal to repel the invaders. Many others at first chose to preserve their independence by diplomacy but later resorted to armed struggle when diplomacy failed. Some collaborated with the invaders in the hope of preserving their states. While some Africans adopted a policy of avoidance, that is, migrating from their territories to avoid European invaders, others chose to use their religion to fight the

We shall now illustrate the above mentioned patterns with reference to specific examples. The most popular means employed by Africans against European invaders was armed confrontation. There were Africans who regarded the Europeans as enemies who

prevented immediately from carrying out their imperial

76


plans. In West Africa for instance, the Ashante people resorted to arms immediately to repel the British aggression. They defeated the British forces in 1864 even long before the beginning of our period. Between 1873 and 1896, they fought many wars to prevent the British from taking their kingdom. However, in 1896 the British captured Kumasi, their capital and exiled their king Prempe. (the Asantehene) Their resistance was finally broken. The emirs of the Sokoto Caliphate were hostile to the British invaders from the onset' they fought the British with bows, arrows and spears till they were defeated. The Caliph, the head of the Caliphate fought to the last limit of his strength to preserve the sovereignty of his theocratic state. Between 1882 and 1898 Samouri Toure in the Senegambia area of West Africa fought the French till he was defeated. In East Africa, the various tribes such as the Getutu of Kenya, the Hehe, the Uyanyembe and the Moshi of Tanzania rose to arms against their European invaders but they eventually succumbed to the superior arms of the enemies.

14.1.1 Diplomatic and military patterns of response14.1.1 Diplomatic and military patterns of response14.1.1 Diplomatic and military patterns of response14.1.1 Diplomatic and military patterns of response

As we have noted in the introductory part of this unit, some Africans did not immediately rise to arms against the invaders. They used diplomatic means to prevent Europeans from taking control of their territories. They entered into treaties of friendship and commerce with European agents. But since such treaties were also European traps to bring Africans under political control, the diplomatic approach often failed to achieve the desired results. Thus Africans who had initially used the diplomatic means to preserve the sovereignty and independence of their states always eventually resorted to arms.

A prominent example of an African leader who initially used the diplomatic approach was Seku Ahmadu in Senegambia area. He realized the danger involved in military confrontation with the French invaders. Consequently, in 1880, he signed a treaty with the French. By the treaty, the French reorganized the sovereignty of his empire. He signed another treaty with the French in 1887. This time he accepted the French protectorate in return for a pledge by the French not to attack his empire. However, since the French were bent on acquiring his territory, Ahmadu eventually resorted to arms to defend his empire. He was defeated by the French in 1893. Samouri Ture also initially employed diplomacy against the French. In 1886, he signed a treaty of friendship with the French. Like Ahmadu, he signed a further agreement accepting French protection. He even tried to play the British against the French by offering to put his empire under the former's protection. However, when he realized that diplomacy could not solve his problem, he defended his empire with all his available resources. He used scorched earth tactics and fought gallantly till he was captured by

Study Session 14 Patterns of African Response to European Invasion

77

the French invaders and exiled to Gabon in 1898.

14.1.2 Religion as strategy of resistance14.1.2 Religion as strategy of resistance14.1.2 Religion as strategy of resistance14.1.2 Religion as strategy of resistance

Apart from those who fought the invaders right from the outset and those who fought them after diplomatic approach had failed, there were Africans who used their religion to resist the invaders. Africans using their religion in this can be grouped into two way; those who relied solely on the power and efficiency of medicine or cults in repelling invaders and those who used their religion as a rallying force against the enemies. Two examples of those in the first category are cited here. The first were the Igbo people of the eastern part of Nigeria. Professor A.E. Afigbo has demonstrated in his "Patterns of Igbo Resistance to British conquest" [Tarikh vol. 4 No.3, pp. 14-23] how the Igbo relied on medicine men for their defence against the British. The Igbo called on the services of famous diviners and rituals to summon epidemics snakes and other evil forces against the invaders. They travelled outside their localities to invite medicine men to strike the invaders with blindness, make their guns to backfire or to scatter their troops with swarms of bees.

The second is the use of the Maji water by the priests of Kelelo religious cult in Tanzania. The priests distributed the water widely among the people who were made to believe that it had the power of protecting them against enemy bullets. The efficacy of this method of defense is difficult to ascertain. But what is certain is that it failed to repel the invaders as both the Igbo and the Tanzanians were conquered by their European invaders. In the second category as indicated above, were Africans who used their religion to strengthen their resistance. A prominent example is the role of the Sanusiya Islamic order in Libya. The Sanusiya was a rallying force in Libya against Italian invasion. It provided a religious umbrella under which all Libyan tribes fought. By declaring Jihad against the Italians, the Sanusiya had called on the religious sentiment of not only the Muslims in Libya but also that of Muslims in other Islamic countries. In spite of its effort, the Libyans eventually fell, after a prolonged period of resistance, to the Italians.

14.2 African Collaborators14.2 African Collaborators14.2 African Collaborators14.2 African Collaborators While other Africans chose to avoid confrontation by migrating from their territory, some collaborated with the invaders. Professor A.I. Asiwaju in his article entitled "Migration as an Expression of Revolt: the example of French West Africa to 1945" [Tarikh vol. 5 No.3] shows how several African communities migrated from their territories in order to avoid confrontation with the French. Africans who took to this method of preserving their freedom realized the futility of armed confrontation against the invaders. As indicated

78


above, there were some African rulers who did not fight the invaders. Instead, they decided to use them against their own enemies and rCollaboration was possible because Africans did not see themselves as one race. Each African ruler regarded the other as a foreigner just as Europeans were also foreigners, his enemies or fellow. external power against his enemies or fellow Africans who threatened the sovereignty of his state or kingdom. It is a usual phenomenon in international relations for one ruler to form an alliance with the othein the nineteenth century history of Africa. To the collathere was nothing wrong in forming alliance with Europeans. Some even saw the Europeans as their liberators against their fellow African aggreof Sikasso to collaborate with the French to capture Seku Ahmadu of the Tukulor Empire. In the same vein, the Ibadan soldiers who aided the British to bombard Ijebuignorancmuch concerned with breaking the Ijebu trade monopoly with the British assistance. However, all collaborators were themselves subjugated by the invaders. Collaboration did not aid them in retainingkingdoms.






SAQ 14.1 (test learning outcome 14.1)Identify the various patterns of African reaction to European invasionSAQ 14.2 (test learning outcome 14.2)Why did European invaders have collaborators among Africans?


above, there were some African rulers who did not fight the invaders. Instead, they decided to use them against their own enemies and rivals. These are referred to as collaborators. Collaboration was possible because Africans did not see themselves as one race. Each African ruler regarded the other as a foreigner just as Europeans were also foreigners, his enemies or fellow.

He therefore did not see anything wrong in allying with an external power against his enemies or fellow Africans who threatened the sovereignty of his state or kingdom. It is a usual phenomenon in international relations for one ruler to form an alliance with the other in war periods. Such allianin the nineteenth century history of Africa. To the collathere was nothing wrong in forming alliance with Europeans. Some even saw the Europeans as their liberators against their fellow African aggressors. It is this kind of principle which made the ruler of Sikasso to collaborate with the French to capture Seku Ahmadu of the Tukulor Empire. In the same vein, the Ibadan soldiers who aided the British to bombard Ijebu-ode in 1892 did so out of ignorance of ethnic affinity between them and the Ijebu. They were much concerned with breaking the Ijebu trade monopoly with the British assistance. However, all collaborators were themselves subjugated by the invaders. Collaboration did not aid them in retaining the sovereignty and independence of their states and kingdoms.

Study Session SummaryStudy Session SummaryStudy Session SummaryStudy Session Summary In this Study Session, You have learned that:

1. Some Africans chose to attack the invaders right from the onset. They made no friendship with them

2. Some Africans employed diplomacy against the invaders but eventually took to arms when diplomacy failed

3. Some Africans used their religion to fight the European invaders

4. While some Africans adopt a policy of avoidance by migrating from their territories others collaboratinvaders

SAQ 14.1 (test learning outcome 14.1) Identify the various patterns of African reaction to European invasionSAQ 14.2 (test learning outcome 14.2) Why did European invaders have collaborators among Africans?

above, there were some African rulers who did not fight the invaders. Instead, they decided to use them against their own

ivals. These are referred to as collaborators. Collaboration was possible because Africans did not see themselves as one race. Each African ruler regarded the other as a foreigner just as Europeans were also foreigners, his enemies or

did not see anything wrong in allying with an external power against his enemies or fellow Africans who threatened the sovereignty of his state or kingdom. It is a usual phenomenon in international relations for one ruler to form an

r in war periods. Such alliances were common in the nineteenth century history of Africa. To the collaborators, there was nothing wrong in forming alliance with Europeans. Some even saw the Europeans as their liberators against their fellow

ssors. It is this kind of principle which made the ruler of Sikasso to collaborate with the French to capture Seku Ahmadu of the Tukulor Empire. In the same vein, the Ibadan soldiers who

ode in 1892 did so out of e of ethnic affinity between them and the Ijebu. They were

much concerned with breaking the Ijebu trade monopoly with the British assistance. However, all collaborators were themselves subjugated by the invaders. Collaboration did not aid them in

the sovereignty and independence of their states and

Some Africans chose to attack the invaders right from the onset. They made no friendship with them

employed diplomacy against the invaders but eventually took to arms when diplomacy failed Some Africans used their religion to fight the European

While some Africans adopt a policy of avoidance by migrating from their territories others collaborated with the

Identify the various patterns of African reaction to European invasion

Why did European invaders have collaborators among Africans?


Failure of African Resistance to European Failure of African Resistance to European Failure of African Resistance to European Failure of African Resistance to European

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this session you will learn about the factors responsible for failure of Africans resistance to European invasionpreceding sessions, we have seen that Africa didsurrender their territories to the British. We also stressed that African rulers who initially signed treaties with Europeans later abrogated the treaties immediaimplications of the documents on the sovereignty okingdoms. We have discussed various examples of how Africans resisted European invasions with strong determination. The Libyans, Tanzanians, Ethiopians and Africans in West Africa stoutly defended the sovereignty of their territories agaEuropean invasion. However, despite their determined efforts, they, except the Ethiopians, failed to drive away the European invaders.

Learning Outcomes

Outcomes


15.1 Facto15.1 Facto15.1 Facto15.1 Factors responsible for the frs responsible for the frs responsible for the frs responsible for the fresistance 1resistance 1resistance 1resistance 1

Many factors were responsible for the failure of African resistance to European invasion. Firstly, Africans were not united against European invaders. Except in Libya and Ethiopia, Africans did not fight the European invaders as a united people. Libya as yread in Lecture 7, fought under the banner of the Sanusiya Islamic order which provided a rallying point for Libyans against Italy. As you are already aware, the spirit of nationalism of the Ethiopians made them to rally round their Emperor to defe

Study Session 15 Failure of African Resistance to European Invasion


Failure of African Resistance to European Failure of African Resistance to European Failure of African Resistance to European Failure of African Resistance to European InvasionInvasionInvasionInvasion

In this session you will learn about the factors responsible for failure of Africans resistance to European invasionpreceding sessions, we have seen that Africa didsurrender their territories to the British. We also stressed that African rulers who initially signed treaties with Europeans later abrogated the treaties immediately they realized the adverse implications of the documents on the sovereignty okingdoms. We have discussed various examples of how Africans resisted European invasions with strong determination. The Libyans, Tanzanians, Ethiopians and Africans in West Africa stoutly defended the sovereignty of their territories agaEuropean invasion. However, despite their determined efforts, they, except the Ethiopians, failed to drive away the European invaders.

Learning Outcomes


15.1 discuss the various factors responsible for the failure of African resistance to European invasion

rs responsible for the frs responsible for the frs responsible for the frs responsible for the failure of African ailure of African ailure of African ailure of African resistance 1resistance 1resistance 1resistance 1

Many factors were responsible for the failure of African resistance to European invasion. Firstly, Africans were not united against European invaders. Except in Libya and Ethiopia, Africans did not fight the European invaders as a united people. Libya as yread in Lecture 7, fought under the banner of the Sanusiya Islamic order which provided a rallying point for Libyans against Italy. As you are already aware, the spirit of nationalism of the Ethiopians made them to rally round their Emperor to defeat Italy at the battle

ure of African Resistance to European Invasion

79

Failure of African Resistance to European Failure of African Resistance to European Failure of African Resistance to European Failure of African Resistance to European

In this session you will learn about the factors responsible for failure of Africans resistance to European invasion. In the preceding sessions, we have seen that Africa did not easily surrender their territories to the British. We also stressed that African rulers who initially signed treaties with Europeans later

tely they realized the adverse implications of the documents on the sovereignty of their states and kingdoms. We have discussed various examples of how Africans resisted European invasions with strong determination. The Libyans, Tanzanians, Ethiopians and Africans in West Africa stoutly defended the sovereignty of their territories against European invasion. However, despite their determined efforts, they, except the Ethiopians, failed to drive away the European invaders.


the various factors responsible for the failure of African resistance to European invasion.

ailure of African ailure of African ailure of African ailure of African

Many factors were responsible for the failure of African resistance to European invasion. Firstly, Africans were not united against European invaders. Except in Libya and Ethiopia, Africans did not fight the European invaders as a united people. Libya as you have read in Lecture 7, fought under the banner of the Sanusiya Islamic order which provided a rallying point for Libyans against Italy. As you are already aware, the spirit of nationalism of the Ethiopians

at Italy at the battle

80


of Adowa. However, other Africans were not so united. Lack of unity hindered their success against European invaders. For instance, the various tribes in Tanzania failed to form alliance against their German invaders. In the same way, disunity among the people of Senegambia area accounted for the French conquest of their territories. Since African states or kingdoms did not form any grand alliance against their European invaders, it was therefore possible for these enemies to attack them one by one and conquer them in piecemeal.

Secondly, African leaders did not consider their relations with Europeans in racial terms. There was no commonwealth ideology that would have enabled Africans to appeal to racial consciousness in organizing their defense against European invaders. For example, each African kingdom or state regarded its neighbours as foreigners some of which might be friendly or hostile. Thus African rulers did not hesitate to ally with European invaders against their rivals. Apart from forming alliance with Europeans invaders, some even obtained arms and ammunition from European invaders to enable them win victory over their rivals. For example, Ahmadu Seku of Tukulor Empire allied with the French against Mahmad Lamine. Similarly, Tieba the ruler of Sikasso aided the French to overthrow Samouri Toure. In present day Ghana, the British allied with the Fante to fight the Asante.

Thirdly, dynastic disputes which were very common in many African states and kingdoms weakened African resistance to their European invaders. Rival princes usually allied with Europeans against each other. In Tanzania, Isike the chief of Myanyembe would have driven away the German attackers from his territory between 1892 and 1898 but for the intrigue of a rival Uyanyembe princess who allied with the invaders against him. In Uganda, rival princes vying for the throne and religious differences divided the country into factions. The British took advantage of these factions to establish themselves in the country. In West Africa, chieftaincy dispute which occurred among; the children of Al Haji-Umar after the latter's death weakened the Tukulor defense of their territory against the invaders.

Fourthly, in addition to dynastic disputes, religious differences created divisions among Africans. In the Senegambia area for instance, the division between the Tijaniyya and the Quadriyya prevented Samorri Ture and the clerics in the Kongi region from forming an alliance against the French. The Quadriyya were educated and sophisticated; they did not have high regard for the Tijaniyya whom they scorned as unscholarly. In Uganda, the divisions between the Muslims and the Christians on the one hand and between the two denominations of the Christian religion the Anglican and the Catholic - on the other, tore the society apart and


81

plunged the country into civil wars between 1888 and 1892. Not only did these factions fail to unite against the European invaders, they also sought alliance of the latter against one another. For instance, at first the Christians were supported by European missionaries to defeat the Muslims. When the Christians broke into two factions, the British aided the Anglicans (Protestants) while the Catholics looked towards the French for succor. The British eventually took the advantage of the divisions in Uganda to take over the country. They helped the Anglicans to defeat the Catholics and ensure that the Protestants gained the upper hand in Uganda government and accepted British Protection.

15.215.215.215.2 Factors reFactors reFactors reFactors responsible for the failure of African sponsible for the failure of African sponsible for the failure of African sponsible for the failure of African resistance 2resistance 2resistance 2resistance 2

Fifthly, the wounds created by imperial expansion of some states in Africa had not been completely healed before Europeans invaded the continent. Before, and in, the nineteenth century many powerful states or kingdoms in Africa had expanded its territories at the expense of weaker ones. The weaker ones which had been made subordinates or vassals by their stronger neighbours still nursed desires to regain their independence. Others which were still in the process of resisting the imperial aggression of their neighbours did not hesitate to seek external aids against their aggressors either from fellow African states or from European powers. This explains why Tieba of Sikaso aided the French to defeat Samouri Ture whom he considered to be a threat to his state. Similarly, the Fante regarded the British initially as their saviour against the spread of Ashante imperialism towards the coast.

Sixthly, many African states and kingdoms had either declined or were on the verge of decline when the Europeans struck. For instance, the old Oyo Empire had declined and fallen. Its successor states were engaged in political and economic rivalries. The thirteen years of fratricidal war - the Ekiti parapo War - was the climax of the political and economic rivalries among the Yoruba after the collapse of the old Oyo Empire. By the time the British intervened, Yoruba land had been so battered by war that they could not offer any strong resistance. Indeed, the British posed as peacemakers. But in the process of establishing the Pax Britanica, they signed treaties with Yoruba Obas. These treaties eventually led to the British takeover of Yoruba land.

Some states or kingdoms that had not declined were rendered politically weak as a result of their constant wars with their neigh-bours. The Fante and Asante wars weakened their resistance to European invasion. Apart from weakening them militarily, the wars prevented them, as we have noted earlier, from uniting against their

82


common enemy the result was that the British was able to use the Fante as an ally against the Asante. The wars which Dahomey fought with Abeokuta and other Yoruba towns in the nineteenth century did not only weaken the kingdom but also denied it the sympathy of its neighbouring Yoruba states when the French struck in 1896.

15.1.315.1.315.1.315.1.3 Factors responsible for the failure of African Factors responsible for the failure of African Factors responsible for the failure of African Factors responsible for the failure of African resistance 3resistance 3resistance 3resistance 3

We have thus seen from the above that while some African states and kingdoms had declined or were declining; others had been so weakened by their wars with their neighbours that they could only muster feeble resistance to their European invaders. Apart from the above, it should also be noted that some expanding African states were yet to consolidate themselves before the Europeans invaded them. For instance Samouri Ture was still expanding his empire and dealing with recalcitrant elements within the empire when he was attacked by the French. He did not have enough time to consolidate his strength and also he lost the support of those who regarded him as threat to their independence. In the Sokoto Caliphate, the Caliph had not completely routed out the pockets of resistance in the Caliphate. Indeed, the British were able to employ people from the areas that had not been properly assimilated by the Caliphate to fight it.

The seventh factor was the superior army and weapons of the European invaders. The industrial revolution made Europeans to be technologically superior to Africans. Old weapons hitherto used in Europe were replaced with new ones. Indeed, by 1889 the Maxim gun had been invented. The new weapons including Rockets and Cannons were used by European invaders. While the Europeans used modern weapons, Africans used old and inferior weapons such as clubs, sticks, spears, bows and arrows. Those of them, who used firearms, used the Flint-lock guns that had been discarded in Europe. The flint-lock guns were not break-loading. A fighter can only discharge once after which he would have to withdraw from the front to reload, a process which was time wasting. Flick-lock guns were not weapons of good precision.

It would be recalled that only few African in the last two decades of the nineteenth century had access to breach-loading guns and rifles. Most of those who possessed these weapons did not know how to use them properly. Consequently, it was easy for the European invaders to conquer Africans. Apart from the disparity between the invaders and Africans in weapons, there was also a lot of difference in the nature and discipline of their armies. European armies were well trained and disciplined. Most African states and

kingdoms did not have regular armies. Their soldiers were made of irregulars, hunters, farmers and volunteers who fought only whenever their territories were attacked by emost African armies were addisciplined and drilled as the conventional armies of the European invaders. The superior weapons and the marked difference between African and European armies account for which Africans were conquered and their territories taken over by their European attackers. For instance, the army of the Sokoto Caliphate was larger in number than that of the British invaders. In spite of this numerical superioritybecause its army countered Eurospears and other traditional implements.

In the case of the Ijebu , they prepared very well for the British invasion in 1892. Their soldiers quite outnumbered tthe invaders. However, they were defeated because of the superior tactics, discipline and weapons of their invaders. In East Africa, the various Tanzanian tribes who fought very determinately, against the German invaders were defeated because the German deadly weapons. In the Niger Delta area of Nigeria, the various states succumb to the British gun

Africa, the technological and military superiorityinvaders accounted for the failure of African resistance. So confident of victory were the European invaders that a European poet was said to have written thus:

Study Session Study Session Study Session Study Session SummarySummarySummarySummary




kingdoms did not have regular armies. Their soldiers were made of irregulars, hunters, farmers and volunteers who fought only whenever their territories were attacked by enemies in other words most African armies were ad-hoc armies. They were not as well disciplined and drilled as the conventional armies of the European invaders. The superior weapons and the marked difference between African and European armies account for the relative ease with which Africans were conquered and their territories taken over by their European attackers. For instance, the army of the Sokoto Caliphate was larger in number than that of the British invaders. In spite of this numerical superiority, the Caliphate was conquered because its army countered European soldiers with bows, arrows, spears and other traditional implements.

In the case of the Ijebu , they prepared very well for the British invasion in 1892. Their soldiers quite outnumbered tthe invaders. However, they were defeated because of the superior tactics, discipline and weapons of their invaders. In East Africa, the various Tanzanian tribes who fought very determinately, against the German invaders were defeated because they had no answer to the German deadly weapons. In the Niger Delta area of Nigeria, the various states succumb to the British gun-boats.

It can be seen from the foregoing that the political situations in Africa, the technological and military superiorityinvaders accounted for the failure of African resistance. So confident of victory were the European invaders that a European poet was said to have written thus:

Whatever happens we have got

The Maxim-gun and they have not.



1. Africans did not combine efforts to fight their invaders2. Interstate or Inter-Kingdom rivalries militated 'against

African Unity 3. Dynastic disputes which were common in Africa weakened

African resistance. 4. Instead of uniting against the common enemy, some

Africans allied with the enemy against fellow Africans. Africans at this period were not racially conscious

5. In weapons, technology, military discipline and organization the European invaders werAfricans.

Failure of African Resistance to European Invasion

83

kingdoms did not have regular armies. Their soldiers were made of irregulars, hunters, farmers and volunteers who fought only

nemies in other words hoc armies. They were not as well

disciplined and drilled as the conventional armies of the European invaders. The superior weapons and the marked difference between

the relative ease with which Africans were conquered and their territories taken over by their European attackers. For instance, the army of the Sokoto Caliphate was larger in number than that of the British invaders. In

, the Caliphate was conquered pean soldiers with bows, arrows,

In the case of the Ijebu , they prepared very well for the British invasion in 1892. Their soldiers quite outnumbered the forces of the invaders. However, they were defeated because of the superior tactics, discipline and weapons of their invaders. In East Africa, the various Tanzanian tribes who fought very determinately, against

they had no answer to the German deadly weapons. In the Niger Delta area of Nigeria, the

It can be seen from the foregoing that the political situations in Africa, the technological and military superiority of the European invaders accounted for the failure of African resistance. So confident of victory were the European invaders that a European

Africans did not combine efforts to fight their invaders Kingdom rivalries militated 'against

Dynastic disputes which were common in Africa weakened

Instead of uniting against the common enemy, some Africans allied with the enemy against fellow Africans. Africans at this period were not racially conscious In weapons, technology, military discipline and organization the European invaders were superior to

84





What are the factors responsible for the failure of African resistance to European invasion?

Notes on Self Assessment QuestionsNotes on Self Assessment QuestionsNotes on Self Assessment QuestionsNotes on Self Assessment Questions

SAQ 1.1

The systematic attempt at began in the 15

SAQ 1.2

The major economic factors for the European invasion of Africa are: the quest for raw materials for the manufacturing industries in Europe; the search for markets and investment of surp

SAQ 1.3

The industrial revolution which was launched in Europe in the early 19order to keep production going in their manufacturing industries.

SAQ 1.4

The driving theory behind theimperialism propounded by Hobson and Lenin

SAQ 2.1

The strategic locations were: Cape of Good Hope in South Africa; the Suez Canal in Egypt, the straight of Gilbralter in North Africa and the Islands at the mouth of Riand Rufisque.

SAQ 2.2

The two prominent alliances are Triple Alliance of Germany, Austrianand Russia

SAQ 2.3

The two scholars were Robert Thomas Malthus and A.m. CarrSaunders

SAQ 3.1



What are the factors responsible for the failure of African resistance to European invasion?


SAQ 1.1

The systematic attempt at exploring Africa by European nations began in the 15th century

SAQ 1.2

The major economic factors for the European invasion of Africa are: the quest for raw materials for the manufacturing industries in Europe; the search for markets and investment of surp

SAQ 1.3

The industrial revolution which was launched in Europe in the early 19th century was responsible for the quest for raw materials in order to keep production going in their manufacturing industries.

SAQ 1.4

The driving theory behind the decision was the theory of economic imperialism propounded by Hobson and Lenin.

SAQ 2.1

The strategic locations were: Cape of Good Hope in South Africa; the Suez Canal in Egypt, the straight of Gilbralter in North Africa and the Islands at the mouth of River Senegal- and Rufisque.

SAQ 2.2

The two prominent alliances are Triple Alliance of Germany, Austrian-Hungary and Italy, and Triple Entente of Britain, France and Russia

SAQ 2.3

The two scholars were Robert Thomas Malthus and A.m. CarrSaunders

SAQ 3.1

What are the factors responsible for the failure of African


exploring Africa by European nations

The major economic factors for the European invasion of Africa are: the quest for raw materials for the manufacturing industries in Europe; the search for markets and investment of surplus capital.

The industrial revolution which was launched in Europe in the century was responsible for the quest for raw materials in

order to keep production going in their manufacturing industries.

decision was the theory of economic

The strategic locations were: Cape of Good Hope in South Africa; the Suez Canal in Egypt, the straight of Gilbralter in North Africa

Saint Loius, Goree

The two prominent alliances are Triple Alliance of Germany, Hungary and Italy, and Triple Entente of Britain, France

The two scholars were Robert Thomas Malthus and A.m. Carr

Notes on Self Assessment Questions Failure of African Resistance to European Invasion

85

The diplomatic instruments employed by the Europeans were: signing of treaties, bilateral trade agreement, use of chartered companies and the use of missionaries.

SAQ 3.2

Europeans made use of Machine Guns and sophisticated weapons against recalcitrant African rulers as well as those who had signed treaties with them but did not honour it.

SAQ 4.1

Two events served as prelude to the Berlin Conference. The first was king Leopold's interest in the Congo Basin while the second was the German acquisition of colonies in West Africa. These two events sparked up intense rivalries among European powers for territorial acquisition in these areas.

SAQ 4.2

The following European powers attended the conference: Austria - Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Turkey, United States of America, Germany, Britain and France.

SAQ 4.3

1. The conference recognized King Leopold II International Association as a sovereign power in Congo. This recognition ensured the birth of the Congo Free State under King Leopold II of Belgium.

2. The river Congo was declared an International river and freedom of Navigation and commerce were to exist on the river. This decision was made in order to ensure free trade for all European powers on the river and in the wider area known as the Congo basin.

3. Agreement was reached on the code of conduct for territorial acquisition in Africa in order to minimize inter-European disputes. It was decided that: principles of “sphere of influence” and effective control must be implemented based on articles 34 and 35 of the Conference charter.

SAQ 4.4

The scramble for territories in African was more intensified. Many European companies emerged in various parts of Africa. These companies were given royal charters with the objective of administering territories and carving out areas of influence in Africa on behalf of their home governments. In addition to treaties, European nations began to engage in military subjugation of African states and forcibly abrogating the sovereignty of African

86


rulers.

SAQ 5.1

Kenya and Uganda

SAQ 5.2

National African Company

SAQ 5.3

William Mackinon

SAQ 5.4

Chief Lobengula of Matabeleland

SAQ 6.1

The need to prevent other European powers from occupying Egypt in order for them not to be able to conquer British colonies in India

SAQ 6.2

The forceful resignation of Urabi Pasha and his Lieutenants by the British

SAQ 6.3

They responded through constitutional approach and organized riots to resist foreign control and domination of their country

SAQ 7.1

Italian penetration of Libya took the form of active involvement in the economic and social activities in the country. Italians participated in the Banking industry in Libya and opened the Bank of Rome in Tripoli. The Bank had branches in Benghazi and twelve other towns in Libya between 1908 and 1911. Italians dominated Libya's export trade in wool, cereals, esparto grass and Ostrich feathers.

SAQ 7.2

In October 1911, Italy sent an expedition against Libya. The expedition consisted of 34,000 men, 6,300 horses, 1,050 wagons, 40 field guns, 24 mountain guns, 145 warships and 114 other vessels. It blockaded Libya by sea and prevented reinforcement from reaching the country from Turkey. As a result of the massive invasion and the blockade, Italy won a quick victory and overran Tripoli, Dema, Benghazi, Tobruk and some other Libyan coastal towns.

SAQ 7.3

Libyan soldiers were hit by plagues, famine and locust invasion which caused death among them between 1913 and 1915.

SAQ 7.4


87

At the treaty of al-Rajima between Italy and Libya, the title of Amir [ruler] was conferred on Sayyid Idris and the territory of his autonomous regime as defined as the oases of Jaghbub, Aujila, Jalu, Kufra with Ajadabiya as the seat of government.

SAQ 8.1

The confusion in the treaty of Ucciali prepared by the Italians was that it was written in two languages namely Ahmaric and Italian with different contents in order to deceive Emperor Menelik II into signing off the sovereignty of his kingdom.

SAQ 8.2

The factors responsible for the victory of Ethiopia are: diplomatic dexterity of Menelik II, defensive nature of the topography of the kingdom, possession of modern weapons and spirit of nationalism as well as unity of Ethiopians.

SAQ 8.3

Emperor Menelik was a very astute and intelligent ruler who played the European powers against one another to acquire what he needed between 1883 and 1896 to ward off Italian aggression.

SAQ 9.1

Imperial British Africa Company

SAQ 9.2

Muslims, the protestant Christians and the Catholic Christians

SAQ 9.3

The Protestants helped the British to consolidate their political control of the kingdom in some ways. For instance, in 1897, they helped the British to crush the mutiny of the Sudanese troops recruited by Lugard. Also in the same year, when Mwanga kicked against the British authority, the Protestants supported his deposition. They quickly arranged for Daudi Chwa his one year old son to succeed him. In 1899, they aided the British to capture Mwanga where he took refuge. After his capture, Mwanga was deported to Seychelles Islands by the British.

SAQ 10.1

The people of Tanzania failed because of the disunity among the tribes as well as the superior weapons used by the Germans against them.

SAQ 10.2

The Maji Maji revolt broke out because of the German harsh rule on the people. Also, the Germans imposed heavy taxes on the people and tax defaulters were subjected to torture and sometimes killed.

88


SAQ 10.3

Maji Maji revolt failed because the people relied on the magical water to protect them from the sophisticated weapons of the Germans.

SAQ 11.1

French penetration of West Africa abi nitio was peaceful. It was basically commercial oriented before they gradually became involved in local politics.

SAQ 11.2

It was confrontational because French penetration of Senegambia coincided with the period of Tukolor territorial expansion.

SAQ 11.3

Tukolor failed because states threatened by Tukulor expansion collaborated with the French against the Empire. Also, conquered states of Tukolor also fought back to regain their independence. Lastly, religious differences prevented unity among Africans.

SAQ 11.4

Samouri Toure strategies are:

a. He made friendship with the Germans in order to thwart Britain imperial ambition

b. He had in his possession modern weapons supplied by the Germans

c. Samouri employed modern war tactics such as ambush, surprise attack and scorched earth policy

d. His good administration sustained his resistance e. Samouri adopted policy of avoidance

SAQ 12.1

The British started by trading along the coast and the need to abolish slave trade, promote and protect trade in palm oil and other African products resulted in increased British presence in West Africa

SAQ 12.2

Africans in West Africa reacted in different ways to the British invasion of their territories. While some engaged the invaders in bitter military struggle to defend their independence and sovereignty, others cooperated or collaborated with them. Prominent among those who confronted the British militarily were the Asante in the present day Ghana, Bai Bure the chief of the Temne in Sierra Leone, the Ijebu, and the people of Benin, the Igbo and the Emirs of the Sokoto Caliphate in Nigeria.


89

SAQ 12.3

Some Africans in our region of study regarded the British as saviors against their oppressors. Thus, they collaborated with the British invaders to defeat these oppressors. However, their collaboration did not yield the desired result because their territories were also conquered by the British.

SAQ 13.1

The Boers were white farmers who, as indicated above, were the descendants of Dutch settlers. As farmers, they needed wide expanse of land for their cattle and sheep. Indeed it has been estimated that a Boer family needed about 6,000 acres of land as pasture for its herds of cattle and sheep. As a result of their demand for land, the Boers increasingly pushed further and further into the hinterland from the cape area. In this process, they came across a group of Africans, the Hottentots, the Khoikhoi and the pigmies whom they easily displaced from their land.

SAQ 13.2

The prominent kingdoms that resisted the European invaders vehemently were Matabele, Zulu and Shona. SAQ 14.1

Africans reacted to the Europeans by; signing treaties of protection, collaborating with the invaders, arms confrontation and religious mobilization.

SAQ 14.2

The European invaders had collaborators among African because some African leaders saw the Europeans as their liberators against fellow African aggressors. Also, some collaborated for economic advantage.

SAQ 15.1

Factors responsible for the failure of African resistance to European invasion are:

1. Disunity among African states 2. Collaboration of some African rulers with the Europeans 3. Poor interpretation of treaties of protection by African

rulers 4. Non availability of modern warfare weapons 5. Dynastic disputes and internal political conflict

african response to european invasioninvasiondlc.ui.edu.ng/oer.dlc.ui.edu.ng/app/upload/hds...

Documents