African American Imperialism
In definition colonialism is the situation where by the strong country control the weak country in socially, economically, and politically normally these strong country introduce little benefits or not to the weakest so as to get more from them, such they doing is like introduction of education which based on the their side, example they introduce their culture, example adoption of the Western culture in Africa. Also these strong country they introduce crops which benefit them, example cash crops, sisal introduced in Africa by German. Due to all above, it shows that the colonialism in Africa was, due to a number of reasons. This essay will attempt to discuss the merits and demerits derived by Africa from the European colonial experience by
…show more content…
Officials in the Belgian Congo won first prize as the most abusive of almost any other colonizer in Africa. After Leopold finally got the Belgian Congo running and making a profit, rumors began to reach Europe of atrocities occurring in the Congo River basin. However, these remote rumors had few witnesses, and fewer who spoke up because Belgium often gave them tax cuts and other benefits to keep them quiet and happy. It was not until 1904 when the British Foreign Office published a report on the Belgian Congo by Casement, that the skeletons in Leopold II's closet became exposed. For in reality, Leopold II used the "Belgian" Congo as a private asset rather than a state colony. He did not care what happened to the inhabitants so long as he profited from the colony's resources. When the British Foreign Office published the report, France paid little attention to it because France had started to follow the lead of the Belgian Congo, exploiting the land at whatever cost to the natives. British humanitarians and Christians, however, were shocked. Great Britain certainly did not treat the natives in British colonies the best, but at least they did not treat them as slaves or wild animals as officials treated them in the Belgian Congo or French Equatorial Africa. …show more content…
These were poorly built, overpopulated and were in a terrible state. Even now, there are bitter reminders of their efforts to centralise the African communities in to big cities. They had been that way for millennia since the land hadn't supported large populations and that living in villages had meant that the spread of disease was minimal. If a village got it, it would remain a local issue and they would deal with it (or simply all die without a trace) but by concentrating them all in to cities, with the poor health levels already in place it simply meant that even the smallest disease would spread like a forest fire and cause a large death count. Despite this, the Europeans did bring a vast amount of technology with them. Since they needed it all to simply stay alive in the harsh climate it meant that the Africans were feeling the full effect of it. The colonists mingled with the local populaces too, which meant that they both learnt the ways of the Europeans and benefited from all the things they brought which would be advanced weaponry, industry, medicine and more. Even though all this helped African society to advance, the Europeans weren't teaching them anything. After the First and Second World
Officials in the Belgian Congo won first prize as the most abusive of almost any other colonizer in Africa. After Leopold finally got the Belgian Congo running and making a profit, rumors began to reach Europe of atrocities occurring in the Congo River basin. However, these remote rumors had few witnesses, and fewer who spoke up because Belgium often gave them tax cuts and other benefits to keep them quiet and happy. It was not until 1904 when the British Foreign Office published a report on the Belgian Congo by Casement, that the skeletons in Leopold II's closet became exposed. For in reality, Leopold II used the "Belgian" Congo as a private asset rather than a state colony. He did not care what happened to the inhabitants so long as he profited from the colony's resources. When the British Foreign Office published the report, France paid little attention to it because France had started to follow the lead of the Belgian Congo, exploiting the land at whatever cost to the natives. British humanitarians and Christians, however, were shocked. Great Britain certainly did not treat the natives in British colonies the best, but at least they did not treat them as slaves or wild animals as officials treated them in the Belgian Congo or French Equatorial Africa. …show more content…
These were poorly built, overpopulated and were in a terrible state. Even now, there are bitter reminders of their efforts to centralise the African communities in to big cities. They had been that way for millennia since the land hadn't supported large populations and that living in villages had meant that the spread of disease was minimal. If a village got it, it would remain a local issue and they would deal with it (or simply all die without a trace) but by concentrating them all in to cities, with the poor health levels already in place it simply meant that even the smallest disease would spread like a forest fire and cause a large death count. Despite this, the Europeans did bring a vast amount of technology with them. Since they needed it all to simply stay alive in the harsh climate it meant that the Africans were feeling the full effect of it. The colonists mingled with the local populaces too, which meant that they both learnt the ways of the Europeans and benefited from all the things they brought which would be advanced weaponry, industry, medicine and more. Even though all this helped African society to advance, the Europeans weren't teaching them anything. After the First and Second World