Why was there a 'scramble for Africa' in the late 19th century?

It was a widely held belief in Europe, that imperialism could help ease political and domestic tensions, reflected when Cecil Rhodes said: ‘if you want to avoid civil war, you must be an imperialist’. This can be seen as a motive for gaining colonies in Africa therefore. In Germany, social unrest loomed as a result of growing Socialism, discontent caused by rapid industrialisation and being under autocratic rule, despite having a democratic constitution. As a result, Bismarck used imperialism - gaining territory in Africa to diffuse the tensions, as it focused people’s attention on affairs away from home, and maintained the elite, and therefore stability. This motive was used by other politicians to a lesser extent, but nevertheless contributed to the colonisation of Africa. Once again however, alone it does not explain why there was a ‘scramble’.

Many European countries were jealous of Britain’s Empire, with Wilhelm II saying ‘Germany must have its place in the sun’. They wanted to expand their own nations to gain prestige and reflect their power. This desire for nationalism can be seen expressed in the ‘scramble for Africa’, where European powers acquired colonies because they didn’t want to appear inferior. After the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War for example, they were determined to restore a national prestige, to overcome the hostility that existed between the state and the Roman Catholic Church and to gain support for the Third Republic. They did this by colonising an Empire in West Africa. Similarly, the British government felt threatened by rising powers such as Germany and the United States, who had larger land masses and populations, developing economies and navies. As a result, they wanted to ensure Britain remained a world power, and felt that the way to do this was to gain colonies, ‘dominating the breadth of the African continent from Egypt to South Africa, as well as Nigeria and the Gold Coast’. The desire therefore for European powers to gain prestige that came with colonies, led to the ‘scramble for Africa’, to some extent, as each country wanted to gain as much as possible, and not be left behind.

Some historians have suggested that another reason for the ‘scramble for Africa’ was Liberalism, which when combined with social Darwinism and the idea of the survival of the fittest, ‘encouraged the view that Europe was going down into the so-called Dark Continent to raise up and civilise the savage natives’. The Europeans saw themselves as a superior civilised race and in a sense it was a mission to spread this civilisation. However, this could be seen as justification for their actions rather than motivation. Combined with this, individual European nations saw themselves in a struggle for survival with other ethnic groups, contributing to the ‘scramble’ as each nation wanted to prove its superiority and gain colonies that would aid its quest for survival. Furthermore, national religious denominations, mainly Protestant and Catholic, exerted pressure on their governments to colonise nations in Africa before other nations did, ensuring that their denomination was spread. This can be seen as a contributory factor to the ‘scramble for Africa’, as governments could not ignore the Church due to the influence it had within the country.

The ‘scramble for Africa’ was certainly encouraged by nations wanting to ‘gain diplomatic advantages in Europe’. Bismarck for example encouraged French expansion within Africa, as he believed it would lead to tensions with Britain as they encroached on her territory. Bismarck believed this would then work to his advantage as the two powers would never unite to form an alliance against Germany, bolstering her position within Europe. This explanation certainly does not explain why the whole ‘scramble’ occurred, but it does help explain the motives of some nations.

The activity of natives in Africa also determined to some extent why there was a ‘scramble’. As social unrest developed in areas that had previously been under informal control, like Egypt, European powers were drawn in to protect their interests. ‘Paper imperialism’ was no longer enough to ensure the protection of their trade routes and markets. This led to ‘firming up interest in informal areas’  and therefore occupation and colonial rule.  

All of the factors explored contributed to nations wanting to colonise Africa, but it was the rivalry that existed between the European powers, as suggested by Robinson and Gallagher, that really drove the ‘scramble’ and gave it its momentum in the 1880s and 1890s. As Bismarck suspected for example, tensions did increase between Britain and France, and as a result Britain became more aggressive in her expansionist policy, annexing the Sudan in 1898 using military tactics. None of the European Powers wanted to be left with nothing, and rather than risk letting an economic rival gain land that might be economically valuable in the future, they used anticipatory annexation. For example, Germany annexed South West Africa and at the time it held no economic value. However, it was later found to be a large source of diamonds. It can be seen as ‘a reactive process at once unplanned and opportunistic’. Some historians have also suggested that tensions within Europe had reached a peak and to avoid war between European powers, tensions had to be released in other forms, and gaining territory in Africa over another power was one.

Finally, individual men in Africa can be seen contributing to the ‘scramble’. French soldiers for example often tried to extend their existing borders and colonise new land without any instruction from governments in Europe, hoping to gain prestige for their country, personal recognition and promotion. Again, this would create tensions, and other nations would respond by expanding too, therefore giving the ‘scramble’ a momentum that was not directed by government.

Overall, it can be seen that the ‘scramble for Africa’ was as a result of many factors, each affecting individual nations to different extents. Rivalry between Britain and France was especially potent in involving the two nations in a ‘scramble’ for territory, whereas a desire to improve trade and protect informal interests was the main motive for others. The issue of prestige played an important role in drawing many countries into the ‘scramble’, such as Italy who wanted to become a great power. Economic reasons however must be acknowledged as playing a leading role, as ultimately each nation wanted economic gain, and Africa offered this possibility. Although economic development was not assured, rivalry between powers ensured that none wanted to risk not gaining territory, lest it did turn out to be beneficial. Therefore west European nations all entered the ‘scramble’, each hoping to gain the most strategic locations.

Word count: 1,990

Bibliography

P.J Cain and A.G Hopkins, British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion 1688 – 1914 (Longman 1993)

J. A Hobson, Imperialism: A Study (London, Allen and Unwin 1938)

Thomas Pakenham, The Scramble for Africa (Abacus 1991)

E. Penrose, European Imperialism (Frank Cass and Company Limited 1975)

Andrew Porter, The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume 3, The Nineteenth Century (Oxford University Press 1999)

Martin Pugh, A Companion to Modern History 1871 – 1945 (Blackwell Publishers 1997)

R. Robinson and J. Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism (Macmillan 1981)

http:/www.sparknotes.com/history

Plan

Intro: - New Imperialism. Many factors led to the scramble ‘one of the most remarkable events in the history of the world’(Scott Keltie – The Scramble pg xxiii), but none of them conclusively explain why it happened at the time it did as conditions had been like they were for a while, or why there was a sudden urgency to gain land in Africa. Some of the explanations are true for some countries but perhaps not others. It was begun by King Leopold II of Belgium assumed control over the Congo Basin believing it to be rich in minerals. This upset the balance, and threatened eg. Britain, who had influence in Africa, but didn’t occupy it. This now wasn’t enough. Between 1976 when this occurred and by 1914, only 2 countries remained independent – Ethiopia and Liberia. 30 new colonies and protectorates had been created, 10 million square miles had been gained and 110 million people by European powers - The Scramble for Africa – pg. .Africa is now 47 independent states. Britain ‘dominated the breadth of the African continent from Egypt to South Africa, as well as Nigeria and the Gold Coast’ (http:/www.sparknotes.com/history), France gained an empire in west Africa – Morocco and Madagascar, Germany had Tanzania and Libia, Belgium the Congo, Portugal had Angola and Mozambique and Italy had bits too. Growing interest in the continent due to explorers such as David Livingstone reporting new things and venturing into the centre.

• Economic reasons – European countries hit a time of economic depression ‘The Great Depression’ 1870s – 1890s (although depression is disputed by historians, comtempories believed it was so can explain things) and they were manufacturing more than they had a market for due to industrialisation. They believed Africa would create a market. Also, other countries such as Italy had introduced protection, making it difficult to trade within Europe. Furthermore, it was believed that having an Empire would allow the mother country to avoid extreme economics, eg. Boom and bust. It could provide cheap labour. Africa was thought possible to provide cheap raw materials. Businesses pushed for expansion in Africa to export their goods and get the raw materials, eg. German Colonial Association. Many of these however are actually made up of politicians and the aristocracy using the economic argument as a disguise for nationalist beliefs. People like Chamberlain hoped that this would lead almost to self sufficiency and therefore independence from boom and bust. Gave people somewhere to invest their surplus capital says Hobson ‘surplus capital in Europe was the driving force behind the expansion into Africa’ – somewhere that they believed was safe due to the gvt having control of it. In practice however, most invested it elsewhere, eg. The French invested in the Russian railway, and Germany in Austria, as this gave them higher returns. There was the hope that Africa had gold, diamond and mineral reserves that would make any colonisers rich. Economic reasons do not explain it fully however as little money comparatively was made from Africa and trade mainly occurred with Dominion colonies – white settlements. By 1911, out of 2.8million square miles and 40 million people only 3.8% of British overseas trade came from Africa – The Oxford History pg 6. Marxist writers supported this economic argument. Clear now that imperial enthusiasts had unrealistic hopes of what the benefits Africa could bring to the economy.
• Geopolitics - Trade routes could be expanded and maintained with colonies in Africa, eg. Britain had the Suez and Cape colony and she needed to protect them to get to India, therefore colonised other parts of Africa. 1882 – Britain occupied Egypt to protect the Suez. Also, with the hope of creating trade routes that ran throughout Africa, location within the continent was also important. Other countries had trade routes to Asia, so the west coast was a strategic location. Also provided places for refuelling the European navies.
• Social Imperialism – gaining land could ease tensions at home. Chamberlain believed that the wealth created by imperialism would provide money for social reform. Germany faced social unrest as a result of rapid industrialisation, transition to modern society, autocratic rule still despite being democracy on paper, pressure from liberals and socialism and Bismarck thought that imperialism could keep political stability by diffusing political tensions and maintain the elite. Cecil Rhodes said: ‘if you want to avoid civil war, you must be an imperialist’ pg.14, European Imperialism. Also provided employment for some elites abroad who didn’t fit in with the democracy at home and could rule autocratically in the colonies.
• Having land in Africa could work to the advantage as bartering within Europe. Bismarck used this tactic to play France and England off against one another by encouraging France to expand into Africa, hoping it would alienate Britain who had territory there, so that they wouldn’t form an alliance against Germany, securing her position in Europe.
• Nationalism - Countries wanted prestige. Gaining an Empire could be seen as gaining power. In France for example it was restoring the prestige lost by the defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and gain a national identity to overcome the hostility that existed between the state and the Roman Catholic Church and support the 3rd Republic. Britain wanted to ensure that she remained a world power and thought Africa could do this by providing economic growth. She was at a disadvantage to Germany and the USA who had developing economies due to industrialisation, growing navy and greater land mass and population. Wilhelm II said ‘Germany must have its place in the sun’.
• Liberalism – The Liberal tradition emphasised ‘self improvement and the perfectibility of man’. This combined with the social Darwin belief in the survival of the fittest ‘encouraged the view that Europe was going down into the so-called Dark continent to raise up and civilise the savage natives’. Europeans saw themselves as a superior civilised race - missionary. Was this justification rather than motivation however? The Protestants and Catholics placed pressure on their governments to colonise before another country with the opposing denomination did, and the gvts couldn’t ignore this pressure. Individual Europeans nations also believed that they were in a struggle for survival with other ethnic groups and needed to gain colonies to win.
• Individuals eg. French army men, were desperate to raise their positions and improve their career prospects, so often pushed the boundaries of land they occupied to expand, contributing to the scramble. Eg, France extended west African colonies. These men often acted without backing from the gvt. Scramble developed a momentum of its own without direction from the gvt.
• Scramble was created by rivalry after Britain makes a move, this made it gain momentum in the 1880s and 1890s eg. Between France and Britain – Britain annexed the Sudan using military despite French resentment about encroachment onto their territory. 1898 nearly war. Before this British annexation had been limited and cautious, as gaining colonies had been seen as too expensive. Believed as possible explanation by Gallagher and Robinson – pg 10 British Imperialism. It was ‘a reactive process at once unplanned and opportunistic’ The Oxford History, pg 15. No country wanted to be left with nothing, and would rather have land themselves than let an economic rival get it, even if they didn’t know what they would do with the land – it might hold future profit. Eg. Germany annexed south west Africa – at the time it had no economic value, but it was later found to be full of diamonds. Anticipatory annexation.
• ??? Tensions in Europe became so great that without going to war with other European powers, which nobody wanted to do, expansion was the only way to release the tension – eg. Industrial rev had created economic rivals, growing pop, agricultural problems???
• Scramble also determined by the activity of non-Europeans. As social unrest developed in areas that had previously just been informally influenced or around a trade route, European powers were drawn in to protect their interests, and led to colonial rule - pg 15, European Imperialism. ‘Firming up interest in informal areas’ Companion pg, 243. ‘paper imperialism’ (The Scramble, pg xxv) wasn’t enough. EXAMPLE – Burma 1886???

 

---