The Scramble for Africa

Is this New Imperialism different from the old imperialism?

• What was going on in Africa during the 1500s?
• Not much. Only a couple of Portuguese trading outposts along the coastline to help with trade in Asia. Europeans, only interested in securing profitable trade relations with Asian countries, never ventured inland in Africa.
• When did things change?
• The Boer War in South Africa marks the turning point for New Imperialism. This is the first major fight between native Europeans over African territory. This war sparked more European interest in colonizing Africa. By 1880, European nations were in a race to get their hands on as much African land as possible, regardless of the potential economic gains that the land offered. 
• Berlin Conference
• Similar to the Open Door Policy, which said that all European nations could exploit the failing Chinese Empire, the Berlin Conference said that European rule in Africa should be based off of "effective occupation" and that no single nation could take more land if they were not actually using it. This allowed for more European nations to exploit Africans and create colonies.

What caused this New Imperialism?

• Increasing economic competition between European nations led to a chain reaction scramble for Africa. If one European nation had African colonies, then every European nation had join the bandwagon lest they be left out of the potential economic gains in Africa.

• Many people also felt that more colonies meant greater nations. The idea of amassing large amounts of land was championed by imperialists who encouraged their nations to grab as much land as possible in Africa.

• Europe's technological superiority meant that any African uprisings could be quickly suppressed. The steamship and the telegraph also allowed for quicker communication and travel between the colonies and Europe.

• The last major reason for the New Imperialism in Africa was the idea that whites had the duty of civilizing the lesser African people. Many Americans used the ideology of the white man's burden to justify ruling over the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. Again, this mentality was used to justify exploiting and ruling over the Africans, who were viewed as savages.

Were these colonies even useful?

Bismarck said that the African colonies reminded him of a "poor but proud nobleman who wore a fur coat but could not afford a shirt underneath"

• Africa had the appearance of wealth while in reality there was little profit to be gained there. The native Africans were too poor to purchase excessive amounts of European goods and much of the continent is barren. This led to many European nations ultimately giving up their colonies in Africa as they were of little use.

What did Hobson have to say about it?

• Hobson, a British economist, was disgusted by the harsh British tactics used during the Boer war and he argued that the rush to acquire African colonies stemmed from unregulated capitalism. He believed that the entire country did not benefit from the acquisition of these colonies, but that only a few unscrupulous groups made any real money at the expense of the African natives. Instead, he believed that European nations should focus on domestic reform and reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.