Contrary to popular belief, the Europeans did not begin to conquer it from the first second of their stay on the African coast in the same way as they did in America. Africa met the first colonists with dangerous diseases, centralized states and numerous, albeit poorly armed, armies. The first attempts at aggression against the African kingdoms showed that it would not be possible to conquer them with a detachment of 120 people, as Pizarro did with the Inca Empire. As a result, for almost four centuries after the appearance of the first Portuguese fort of Elmina in Africa (1482), European powers had practically no opportunity to control the deep regions of the mainland, content only with colonies on the coast and in estuaries.

Many European countries managed to participate in the colonization of the Black Continent. As the first "masters" of Africa, which was granted to them by a special bull of the Pope, the Portuguese extremely quickly, literally during the lifetime of one generation, managed to capture or establish strongholds in West, South and East Africa. At the beginning of the XVI century. The Ottoman Empire took over North Africa. Only a century later, in the 17th century, these two empires were followed by young colonial lions - England, the Netherlands, France. Their colonies in Africa in the XVII century. had Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Brandenburg and even Courland, a small Baltic duchy, which for some time owned an island and a fortress at the mouth of the Gambia River, where landless Latvian peasants were settled by colonists.

Europeans preferred to buy or rent land from local rulers rather than fight for it. In Africa, they were not interested in land, but primarily in goods: slaves, gold, ivory, ebony - and these goods could be bought relatively inexpensively or taken as tribute. In addition, the belief prevailed in Europe at that time that the climate in the depths of the continent was unbearable for a white man, and this was true: malaria, schistosomiasis and sleeping sickness significantly reduced the life of a European in Africa. The Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique and the Dutch colonists in South Africa, but in general the map European possessions on the Continent in 1850 differed little from 1600.

In the 1720s Peter I decided to equip an expedition for the development of the island of Madagascar by Russia. It was not destined to take place, but the archives preserved a letter from the Emperor of All Russia to a certain non-existent "King of Madagascar", where Peter calls himself his "friend": "By the grace of God, we, Peter I, are the Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, etc., etc., and so on, to the most venerable king and ruler of the glorious island of Madagascar, our congratulations.Because we deigned to send to you our vice-admiral Wilster with several officers for some business: for your sake, we ask you, in order to admit them to yourself, give free stay, and in that they will offer you in our name to give you full and perfect faith, and with such a inclined answer to let them go to us, we deigned to let you go, which we trust from you, and stay with you, friend. of the year".

As for the map of the interior of Africa before the European conquest, it is usually represented as a solid blank spot. It is easy to see that this is not so: in the middle of the XIX century. there were at least two dozen fairly developed states on the continent, with which the Europeans for the time being maintained very close and relatively friendly relations.

Everything changed literally in an instant in the last quarter of the 19th century, and there were several reasons for this. Europe learned the properties of quinine, produced from the bark of the South American cinchona tree and capable of treating malaria, which was no longer so terrible for European settlers. Europe developed the technology of rifled weapons, which had huge advantages over the smoothbore musket, which was equipped with the most advanced African armies. Europe has accumulated enough information about inner Africa thanks to a whole cohort of glorious travelers who successfully passed through the jungle, swamps, deserts and proved that the sun does not burn a person alive there, as the ancient authors believed. Finally, Europe had experienced an industrial revolution and was in dire need of new markets for manufactured goods, which were being produced at hitherto unheard-of speed and in large volumes. To start the colonial race, it was only necessary to fire the first shot. It was not the great powers that were destined to make it, but small Belgium.

This shot was fired in 1876 in Brussels, when the Belgian King Leopold II announced the creation of the African International Association to promote scientific and humanitarian projects in the Congo Basin. Throughout Europe, this move was hailed as the beginning of the Belgian conquest of Central Africa, and indeed it was. Having landed at the mouth of the Congo, the Belgian soldiers and the black militia armed by them headed deep into the continent, forcing the local leaders by force to sign enslaving agreements with King Leopold on an "alliance", in fact giving the land for nothing into the hands of the Europeans. Many leaders simply did not understand what they put their signature or fingerprint under. Dissenters were killed or imprisoned, uprisings were suppressed with unprecedented cruelty. Western journalists were aware of cases when militiamen hired by the king not only killed, but also ate their victims among the civilian population, especially children. In terms of its cruelty, the exploitation of the local population in the rubber plantations, mines, and road construction organized by the Belgians did not know anything like it in the history of Africa. People died in tens of thousands, and at the same time, repression and robbery remained uncontrolled, because the "Free State of the Congo", as this vast territory was called with terrible cynicism, was not controlled by the Belgian state, but was the personal property of Leopold. This unique lawlessness continued until 1908.

Belgium was immediately followed by England, France, Portugal and Spain, and a little later, the young great powers Germany and Italy, who also dreamed of their own colonial empires, joined the division of the African pie that had suddenly become so fashionable.

The race took on hurricane speed. Everywhere in Africa, where it was possible to negotiate with tribal leaders or break the resistance of local principalities, the European flag was immediately hoisted, and the territory was considered annexed to the empire. At the Berlin Conference of 1885, where the division of Africa was legalized, the great powers urged each other to correct, civilized behavior, but, as always happens with the division, clashes were difficult to avoid. One of the most famous "incidents" occurred near the Sudanese town of Fashoda in 1898, when Marchand's French detachment coming from West Africa collided nose to nose with the English expedition of Kitchener, also busy setting flags. It took intense negotiations and numerous concessions to avoid war: the French withdrew to the south, and the Sudan withdrew into the British sphere of influence.

It cannot be said that this lightning-fast division of the continent cost the colonialists without losses. The British had to go through several bloody battles to capture the Ashanti Confederation in Ghana and the Zulu state in South Africa, while the French overcame the desperate resistance of the Fulani Emirates and the Tuareg of Mali. For two years, German troops had to suppress the Herero uprising in Namibia, which ended in a large-scale genocide of Africans.

Although by 1900 the African continent had turned into a kind of patchwork scarf painted over with the colors of European empires, Tanganyika (the territory of present-day Tanzania) was subjugated by Germany only in 1907, and France secured control over West Africa not earlier than 1913. The liberation struggle of the Libyan tribes against the Italians continued until 1922, and the Spaniards managed to pacify the militant Berbers of Morocco only in 1926.

Independence managed to maintain only one state created by Africans - Ethiopia. At the end of the XIX century. the Ethiopian Negus Menelik II even managed to participate in the division of Africa, more than doubling the boundaries of his state at the expense of various tribes in the south, west and east.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for self-examination and self-control.

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

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

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

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

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

Main literature

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

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

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

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

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

additional literature

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

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

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

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

It has many millennia, and according to some scientific hypotheses, it was in Africa that the first people appeared, who subsequently multiplied and populated all other lands of our planet (well, except for Antarctica). So, according to these hypotheses, Africa is the cradle of mankind. And it is not surprising that many people were drawn to this continent, and they returned, sometimes as explorers, and sometimes as conquerors, such is our human nature.

The first European colonies in Africa began to appear at the beginning of the 15-16th century. The British and French showed genuine interest in North Africa, and especially in one of the cradles of human civilizations - Egypt with its majestic pyramids and the mysterious Sphinx. The Portuguese were the first to penetrate West Africa, creating their colonies there. Subsequently, representatives of other European countries also joined them: Holland, Belgium, Germany.

The greatest peak of colonialism in Africa came in the 19th century, here interesting fact: at the beginning of the century before last, only 10% of African territories were European colonies, but at its end, 90% (!) African lands were already European colonies. Only two African countries managed to maintain full independence: and Eastern Sudan. All the other countries were under someone's heel, so many countries of North Africa belonged to France: Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, in each of them French domination was established by force. For some other countries, such as, say, the already mentioned Egypt, there was even a desperate military struggle between France and England. The latter was also not opposed to taking possession of this tidbit, but in Egypt the British had to meet with a strong and talented enemy, the famous general Napoleon Bonaparte, who would soon become the French emperor, conquer all of Europe and reach right up to Moscow. Although further military defeats by Napoleon reduced the influence of France in North Africa, Egypt did, in the end, go to the British.

The Portuguese, thanks to their brave sailors and cartographers, were the first to reach West Africa, where they entered into numerous contacts with the local population and founded their colonies, Angola, a huge African country, whose area is several times larger than the area of ​​small Portugal, became the largest Portuguese colony in West Africa. .

The British also did not catch crows, and in addition to Egypt, they founded many colonies, both in West and East and South Africa. Subsequently, representatives of other European states also came to Africa: the Germans managed to capture part of the territory of West Africa: Cameroon, Togo and Namibia (the latter country still strongly resembles Germany with its cozy cities built by the Germans themselves).

The Belgians, since by the time they appeared the African coast was already occupied by other Europeans, decided to move deep into the African continent, where they founded their colony in the country of Congo (Central Africa). The Italians received land in eastern Africa: the countries of Somalia and Eritrea became their colonies.

What attracted Europeans to Africa? First of all, numerous Natural resources, as well as human resources - that is, slaves into which the Europeans actively turned the local population. Further, the slaves were taken to the New World for hard work on local sugar plantations. In general, the slave trade is one of the darkest pages of African history, about which there will be a separate article on our website.

Returning to colonialism, in addition to its clearly negative consequences, there were some positive aspects. So the Europeans brought a certain civilization, culture to Africa, built cities, roads, Christian missionaries went along with the soldiers who wanted to convert the local population to Christianity (whether it be Protestantism or Catholicism), they did a lot to educate Africans, built schools taught African natives European languages(first of all, English, but also French, Spanish, Portuguese, German) and other sciences.

THE DECLINE OF COLONIALISM

Everything comes to an end sooner or later, and the end came to colonialism in Africa, the decline of which began in the 60s of the last century. It was at this time that active socio-political movements for the declaration of independence began in various African countries. Somewhere it is possible to gain independence peacefully, but somewhere it was not without armed struggle, as, for example, in Angola, where a real war of independence against Portuguese rule took place, which, however, after that turned into a civil war between Angolans who were carried away by communist ideas (the MPLA party) and those who wanted to build communism in Angola and the Angolans, who did not like it, but that's another story.

Also, the negative impact of colonialism after its collapse was the fact that some newly created African countries contained a heterogeneous cultural and even hostile population. Sometimes this led to real civil wars, as we say it was in Nigeria, a former English colony, where, after the declaration of independence, the Ibo and Yoruba tribes were hostile to each other in one country. But again, that's another story...

OVERVIEW OF AFRICA

The name "Africa" ​​from the Latin africus - frost-free,

from a tribe of Africans who lived in North Africa.

The Greeks - "Libya".

AFRICA, the second largest continent after Eurasia. 29.2 million km2 (with islands 30.3 million km2).

The Atlantic is washed from the west. approx., from the north - the Mediterranean m., from the north-east. - Red m., with V. - Indian approx. The shores are slightly indented; max. cr. Hall. - Guinean, Somali Peninsula. Geologically, the advantage platform with a Precambrian crystalline base overlain by younger sedimentary rocks. Folded mountains are located only in the northwest. (Atlas) and to the south (Cape Mountains). Wed height above the level of m. 750 m. The relief is dominated by high stepped plains, plateaus and plateaus; in the inner districts - extensive tectonic depressions (Kalahari in South. A., Congo in Central. A., etc.). From the Red m. and to the river. Zambezi Africa is fragmented by the world's largest system of fault depressions (see East African Rift System), partly occupied by lakes (Tanganyika, Nyasa, and others). Along the edges of the depressions are the volcanoes Kilimanjaro (5895 m, the highest point of A.), Kenya, and others. Minerals of world importance: diamonds (South and West A.), gold, uranium (South A.), ores of iron, aluminum ( West A.), copper, cobalt, beryllium, lithium (mainly in South A.), phosphorites, oil, natural gas (North and West A.).

In A. to S. and S. from the zone of equiv. climates are followed by zones subeq., tropical. and subtropical. climate. Wed-mon. summer temperatures approx. 25-30oC. In winter, high positive temperatures also predominate. temperatures (10-25 oС), but in the mountains there are temperatures below 0 oС; snow falls annually in the Atlas Mountains. Naib. amount of precipitation in eq. zone (cf. 1500-2000 mm per year), on the coast of the Gulf of Guinea. up to 3000-4000 mm. To the north and south of the equator, precipitation decreases (100 mm or less in deserts). Main the flow is directed to Atlantic Ocean: rivers: Nile (the longest in A.), Congo (Zaire), Niger, Senegal, Gambia, Orange, etc .; cr. bass river. Ind. OK. - Zambezi. OK. 1/3A. - area inside runoff in the main time watercourses. Naib. cr. lakes - Victoria, Tanganyika, Nyasa (Malawi). Ch. types of vegetation - savannahs and deserts (the largest - the Sahara), occupying approx. 80% sq. A. Wet equiv. evergreen forests are typical for eq. zone and coastal districts subeq. zones. To the north or south of them - sparse tropical. forests turning into savannahs, and then into deserted savannahs. In the tropical A. (main arr. in reserves) - elephants, rhinos, hippos, zebras, antelopes, etc .; lions, cheetahs, leopards, etc. kr. predators. Numerous monkeys, small predators, rodents; in dry districts, an abundance of reptiles. Lots of birds including ostriches, ibises, flamingos. Termites, locusts, and tsetse fly damage the farm.

political map Africa

History of the colonization of Africa

Even at the end of the 19th century, there were only a few feudal monarchies in Africa (in Morocco, Ethiopia, Madagascar), the territories of Egypt, Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, Tunisia were formally part of Ottoman Empire. South of the Sahara (on the territory of Sudan, Mali, Benin), early feudal states also developed, although they were weaker than in northern Africa. The majority of the population lived in a primitive communal system at the level of tribal unions. Bushmen and Pygmies lived in the Stone Age. In general, the history of sub-Saharan Africa is poorly understood.

It began with the journey of Vasco da Gama to India in 1498. Initially, only coastal territories were developed, where Europeans founded trading posts and strongholds for trading in slaves, ivory, gold, etc. In the XVII century, the Portuguese founded colonies in Guinea, Angola, Mozambique, on the so-called. Zanzibar (the coast of modern Kenya), etc., the Dutch are small lands in the Gulf of Guinea and in southern Africa the Cape Colony (it was inhabited by the Boers - the descendants of the Dutch were conquered by Great Britain in 1806, the Boers went deeper, where they founded the Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free state. In 1899-1902 conquered by Great Britain), the French - in Madagascar. By the middle of the 19th century, there was no significant increase in the area of ​​occupied territories in Africa, only new colonialists appeared, primarily the British, who turned around with might and main a little later. By 1870, the Portuguese possessions were localized (Portuguese Guinea, Angola, Mozambique), the Dutch disappeared, but the French expanded (Algeria, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Gabon). The Spaniards penetrated into northern Morocco, Western Sahara and Rio Muni (Eq. Guinea), the British - into the Slave Coast, Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, southern Africa.

The mass penetration of Europeans into the interior of Africa began in the late 70s of the XIX century. The British captured the lands of the Zulu, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Nigeria, Kenya, in 1881-82. Egypt (formally remaining subject to Turkish Sultan, Egypt was an English colony), in 1898 Sudan (formally Sudan was an Anglo-Egyptian co-ownership). In the 1880s, the French conquered vast but sparsely populated territories in the Sahara, Sahel and equatorial Africa (French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa), as well as Morocco and Madagascar. Belgium got Ruanda-Urundi, the vast Belgian Congo (from 1885 to 1908 the personal possession of King Leopold II). Germany captured Southwest Africa and German East Africa (Tanganyika), Cameroon, Togo, Italy - Libya, Eritrea and most of Somalia. There were no US dominions. By 1914, when I broke out World War for the redivision of the world, there were only 3 independent states in Africa: Ethiopia (it was never a colony, only in 1935-41 it was occupied by Italy and included in Italian East Africa), Liberia (in December 1821, the American colonization society bought from local leaders the Kwa tribe a piece of land and settled on it freed slaves - Negroes from the United States. In 1824, the settlement was named Monrovia after US President J. Monroe. Later, the territory of a number of settlements was named Liberia, and on July 26, 1847, a republic was proclaimed there. American Capital firmly occupied key positions in the economy of the republic, the United States placed military bases in Liberia.) and South Africa (since 1910 the British dominion, since 1948 the National Party (Afrikaners) began to pursue a policy of apartheid (separation), based on the concentration of all political and economic power in the hands of the whites.Since 1961, withdrew from the Commonwealth and became South Africa). After World War I, the German colonies passed to Great Britain (Tanganyika), South Africa (South-West Africa), France (Cameroon, Togo).

Egypt was the first country to free itself from colonialism in 1922.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most important reasons for colonization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe Africa's problems are due to complex natural conditions, a long period of colonial rule?

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

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

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

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

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