European Colonization of Sub-Saharan Africa?

Question

I have got a brief overview from my geography book. I think it is taking a very uncontrovirsial viewpoint on the subject. I would like to know what others think of this poticular issue and what they think are importand aspects of it. What kind of imprint on the culture, politics, ecconomics, language, etc. has Eropean colinization had on Africa. How did it affect Africa and how has it affected Africa now that it is decolonized by Europe? Do you think that it is stell colonized but not directly from a political statement? Like the continued dependince on the exports of materials. I just feel like the book has left a lot off about the issue.

Answer 1

Huge question!

Before 1400, most Africans lived in self-sufficient villages in poverty. They belonged to tribes which from time to time went to war with each other.

Doesn't look much different now.

But now Africa is plugged in to the world economy. There are cities, and some people are making money doing business successfully. Some development is happening ie roads, schools, condoms, treatments for basic diseases. Famine only happens in war zones, not just when there's drought. None of this progress would be happening without world engagement with Africa.

Politics - European armies and navies created artificial countries in Africa, just as they had created them centuries earlier in Europe. They introduced ideas at decolonisation like democracy which work poorly or not at all in most of Africa. But Africans no longer accept traditional tribal leadership either. It's too early to say what the full effect will be.

Langauge - many countries use a European language as a lingua franca - a means of general communication among the educated classes. If you have a country with eleven major languages, it's a practical choice.

The deepest impact has been on religion. Christianity and Islam have largely displaced indigenous religions, breaking the link from the land and culture to ritual and faith. Beliefs and values brought in by lower social class people from traditional religion are often dismissed by the more-educated classes as superstitions.

Before 1400, some Africans were being captured and forced to go overseas as slaves by Arab slave traders on the E coast. Later the Portuguese, on the west coast, and then other Europeans, became the dominant slavers. Slavery hurts whoever is doing it.

In conclusion, I see Africa as at a midpoint on the spectrum of impact between Asia and the Americas. In India, Indonesia, Iran and most countries of Asia, the Europeans have been and gone and left not much influence behind. Some Asian people have learned some European languages, and many countries have developed good working democracies. But their religions, cultures, values are as strong and as fundamentally indigenous as they ever were. In the Americas, indigenous cultures were almost overwhelmed by the impact of European colonisation, and while some significant influence of pre-Columbian ways is still manifest in Mexico, Colombia, etc, it is really only in Bolivia and Ecuador, and to some extent Peru and Guatemala, that it seems to me convincing that the indigenous culture is basically intact and evolving. In Africa it is much more true to say htat the Europeans have been and gone and Africa still feels very African, but slavery and colonial dependence have left them with an inferiority complex in contrast to the cultural self-assurance of many Asians.

Answer 2

Effective at what? The question is far from clear. If it means effective at subduing local polities, then the answer is false. There were 2 countries to escape colonization: Liberia (which one may argue was a colony itself in a way) and Ethiopia (except for the brief period of fascist Italian rule).

Answer 3

As Thabo Mbeki's brother said: South Africa was better under colonial rule.