The “economic civilization” of most of Africa (with the exception of the “river civilization” of the Nile Valley) had developed 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.

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

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

Animal husbandry (mainly cattle breeding) was auxiliary in the economy of 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 was not of great interest to them. There were no precious reserves discovered here, and it was difficult to penetrate deep into the mainland. Until the end of the 18th century. Europeans knew only the outlines of the coasts and river mouths, where strong trading posts were created and from where slaves were exported to America. Africa's role is reflected in geographical names, which gave white to certain sections of the African coast: Ivory Coast, Gold Coast, Slave Coast.

Until the 80s XIX 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 just two decades, all of Africa was divided between European powers. This happened at a time when almost all of America had already achieved political independence. Why did Europe suddenly become interested in the African continent?

The most important reasons are as follows

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. XIX 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 clothed by the weaving factories of Manchester and provided with tools by the workshops of Birmingham.”

2. By the end of the 19th century. Quinine was discovered as a remedy for malaria. Europeans were able to penetrate deep into malarial territories.

3. By this time, industry in Europe began to develop rapidly, the economy was booming, and European countries were getting back on their feet. This was a period of relative political calm in Europe - there were 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. Borders in Africa were “cut” without taking into account the geographical and ethnic characteristics of the territory. Currently, 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 that approximately coincide with ethnic boundaries.

By the beginning of the 20th century. all of Africa was divided between 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 the Europeans, armed with the advanced rifled firearms invented by that time, with spears and arrows.

The period of active colonization of Africa began. Unlike America or Australia, there was no mass European immigration. Throughout the African continent in the 18th century. there was only one compact group of immigrants - the Dutch (Boers), numbering only 16 thousand people ("Boers" from the Dutch and German word "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 mulattoes 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 main indicators of economic development and social sphere the region occupies the position of a global outsider.

The most pressing problems of humanity are most relevant in Africa. Not all of Africa has such low indicators, but the few more fortunate countries are only “islands of relative prosperity” among poverty and acute problems.

Perhaps Africa's problems are caused by difficult natural conditions and a long period of colonial rule?

Undoubtedly, these factors played their negative role, but others also acted alongside them.

Africa belongs to the developing world, which in the 60s and 70s. demonstrated high rates of economic, and in certain areas and social development. In the 80-90s. the problems sharply worsened, the rate of economic growth decreased (production began to fall), which gave rise to the conclusion: “The developing world has stopped developing.”

However, there is a point of view that involves the identification 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 reasons, which lead to the strengthening of the traditional system without destroying it. Has Africa experienced a process of development of 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. In relation to Africa, this means expanding external contacts and its inclusion in the world system; i.e. Africa must learn to “play by global rules.” Will this inclusion in modern world civilization destroy Africa?

One-sided, traditional development leads to autarky (isolation) and a lag behind world leaders. Rapid modernization is accompanied by a painful breakdown of the existing socio-economic structure. The optimal combination is a reasonable combination of development and modernization and, most importantly, a gradual, step-by-step transformation, without catastrophic consequences and taking into account local specifics. Modernization has an objective nature, and there is no way to do without it.

North Africa.

North Africa, the part of the continent closest to Europe, attracted the attention of the leading colonial powers - France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain. Egypt was the subject of rivalry between Britain and France, Tunisia between France and Italy, Morocco between France, Spain and (later) Germany; Algeria was the primary object of interest for France, and Tripolitania and Cyrenaica for Italy.

The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 sharply intensified the Anglo-French struggle for Egypt. The weakening of France after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 forced it to cede the leading role in Egyptian affairs to Great Britain. In 1875, the British bought a controlling stake in the Suez Canal. True, in 1876 joint Anglo-French control over Egyptian finances was established. However, during the Egyptian crisis of 1881-1882, caused by the rise of the patriotic movement in Egypt (the Arabi Pasha movement), Great Britain managed to push France into the background. As a result of a military expedition in July-September 1882, Egypt found itself occupied by the British and actually became a British colony.

At the same time, France managed to win the fight for the western part of North Africa. In 1871, Italy attempted to annex Tunisia, but was forced to retreat under pressure from France and Great Britain. In 1878, the British government agreed not to interfere with the French seizure of Tunisia. Taking advantage of a minor conflict on the Algerian-Tunisian border in March 1881, France invaded Tunisia (April-May 1881) and forced the Bey of Tunisia to sign the Treaty of Bardos on May 12, 1881, effectively establishing a French protectorate (formally proclaimed June 8, 1883). Italy's plans to acquire Tripolitania and the Tunisian port of Bizerte failed. In 1896 it recognized the French protectorate over Tunisia.

In the 1880-1890s, France focused on expanding its Algerian possessions in the southern (Saharan) and western (Moroccan) directions. In November 1882, the French captured the Mzab region with the cities of Ghardaia, Guerrara and Berrian. During a military campaign from October 1899 to May 1900, they annexed the southern Moroccan oases of Insalah, Touat, Tidikelt and Gurara. In August-September 1900, control was established over Southwestern Algeria.

At the beginning of the 20th century. France began preparing to take over the Sultanate of Morocco. In exchange for recognizing Tripolitania as the sphere of interests of Italy, and Egypt as the sphere of interests of Great Britain, France was given free rein in Morocco (secret Italian-French agreement of January 1, 1901, Anglo-French treaty of April 8, 1904). On October 3, 1904, France and Spain reached an agreement on the division of the Sultanate. However, German opposition prevented the French from establishing a protectorate over Morocco in 1905-1906 (the first Moroccan crisis); however, the Algeciras Conference (January-April 1906), although it recognized the independence of the sultanate, at the same time sanctioned the establishment of French control over its finances, army and police. In 1907, the French occupied a number of areas on the Algerian-Moroccan border (primarily the Oujada district) and the most important Moroccan port of Casablanca. In May 1911 they occupied Fez, the capital of the sultanate. The new Franco-German conflict caused by this (the second Moroccan (Agadir) crisis) in June-October 1911 was resolved by a diplomatic compromise: according to the treaty of November 4, 1911, for the cession of part of the French Congo, Germany agreed to a French protectorate in Morocco. The official establishment of the protectorate occurred on March 30, 1912. According to the Franco-Spanish treaty on November 27, 1912, Spain received the northern coast of the sultanate from the Atlantic to the lower reaches of Mului with the cities of Ceuta, Tetuan and Melilla, and also retained the southern Moroccan port of Ifni (Santa- Cruz de Mar Pequeña). At the request of Great Britain, the Tangier district was turned into an international zone.

As a result of the Italo-Turkish War (September 1911 - October 1912), the Ottoman Empire ceded Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan to Italy (Treaty of Lausanne October 18, 1912); from them the colony of Libya was formed.

West Africa.

France played a major role in the colonization of West Africa. The main object of her aspirations was the Niger Basin. French expansion went in two directions - eastern (from Senegal) and northern (from the Guinean coast).

The colonization campaign began in the late 1870s. Moving east, the French encountered two African states located in the upper reaches of the Niger - Ségou Sikoro (Sultan Ahmadou) and Wasulu (Sultan Toure Samori). On March 21, 1881, Ahmad formally ceded to them the lands from the sources of the Niger to Timbuktu (French Sudan). During the war of 1882-1886, having defeated Samori, the French reached Niger in 1883 and built their first fort in Sudan here - Bamako. By agreement on March 28, 1886, Samori recognized the dependence of his empire on France. In 1886-1888, the French extended their power to the territory south of Senegal all the way to the English Gambia. In 1890-1891 they conquered the kingdom of Segu-Sikoro; in 1891 they entered into a final battle with Samori; in 1893-1894, having occupied Masina and Timbuktu, they established control over the middle reaches of the Niger; in 1898, having defeated the state of Uasulu, they finally established themselves in its upper reaches.

On the Guinea coast, the French strongholds were trading posts on the Ivory Coast and the Slave Coast; back in 1863-1864 they acquired the port of Cotona and the protectorate over Porto Novo. In this region, France faced competition from other European powers - Great Britain, which in the early 1880s launched expansion on the Gold Coast and in the Lower Niger basin (Lagos colony), and Germany, which established a protectorate over Togo in July 1884. In 1888, the British, having defeated the state of Great Benin, subjugated vast territories in the lower reaches of the Niger (Benin, Calabar, the kingdom of Sokoto, part of the Hausan principalities). However, the French managed to get ahead of their rivals. As a result of the victory in 1892-1894 over the powerful kingdom of Dahomey, which blocked the French from accessing Niger from the south, the western and southern streams of French colonization were united, while the British, who encountered stubborn resistance from the Ashanti Federation, were unable to break through to Niger from the Gold Coast region; the Ashanti were conquered only in 1896. The English and German colonies on the Guinea coast found themselves surrounded on all sides by French possessions. By 1895, France had completed the conquest of the lands between Senegal and the Ivory Coast, calling them French Guinea, and pressed small English (Gambia, Sierra Leone) and Portuguese (Guinea) colonies to the West African coast. On August 5, 1890, an Anglo-French agreement on delimitation in West Africa was concluded, which set a limit to English expansion to the north: the British protectorate of Nigeria was limited to the lower reaches of the Niger, the Benue region and the territory extending to the southwestern shore of Lake. Chad. The borders of Togo were established by Anglo-German agreements on July 28, 1886 and November 14, 1899 and by the Franco-German agreement on July 27, 1898. Having captured the territory from Senegal to Lake. Chad, French in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. launched an offensive north into areas populated mainly by Arabs. In 1898-1911 they subjugated a vast territory east of the Niger (Air plateau, Tenere region), in 1898-1902 - the lands north of its middle reaches (Azawad region, Iforas plateau), in 1898-1904 - the area north of Senegal (Auker and Al-Jouf regions). Most of Western Sudan (modern Senegal, Guinea, Mauritania, Mali, Upper Volta, Cote d'Ivoire, Benin and Niger) came under French control. In the northwestern part of West Africa (modern Western Sahara), the Spaniards managed to gain a foothold. September 1881 they began the colonization of Rio de Oro (the coast between Cape Blanco and M. Bojador), and in 1887 declared it a zone of their interests. Under treaties with France on October 3, 1904 and November 27, 1912, they expanded their colony to the north, annexing the southern Moroccan region of Seguiet el-Hamra.

Central Africa.

Equatorial Africa turned out to be an area of ​​struggle between Germany, France and Belgium. The strategic goal of these powers was to establish control over Central Sudan and penetrate the Nile Valley.

In 1875, the French (P. Savorgnan de Brazza) began to advance east from the mouth of Ogove (northwestern Gabon) to the lower reaches of the Congo; in September 1880 they declared a protectorate over the Congo Valley from Brazzaville to the confluence of the Ubangi. At the same time, expansion in the Congo basin began in 1879 by the International African Association, which was under the patronage of the Belgian King Leopold II (1865-1909); At the head of the expeditions she organized was the English traveler G.M. Stanley. The rapid advance of the Belgians in the Nile direction displeased Great Britain, which prompted Portugal, which owned Angola, to declare its “historical” rights to the mouth of the Congo; in February 1884, the British government officially recognized the Congolese coast as a sphere of Portuguese influence. In July 1884, Germany declared a protectorate over the coast from the northern border of Spanish Guinea to Calabar and began to expand its possessions in the eastern and northeastern directions (Cameroon). As a result of de Brazza's second expedition (April 1883 - May 1885), the French subjugated the entire right bank of the Congo (French Congo), which led to conflict with the Association. To solve the Congo problem, the Berlin Conference was convened (November 1884 - February 1885), which divided Central Africa: the “Congo Free State” was created in the Congo Basin, headed by Leopold II; the right bank remained with the French; Portugal abandoned its claims. In the second half of the 1880s, the Belgians undertook a broad expansion to the south, east and north: in the south they conquered the lands in the upper reaches of the Congo, including Katanga, in the east they reached Lake. Tanganyika, in the north approached the sources of the Nile. However, their expansion encountered strong opposition from France and Germany. In 1887, the Belgians tried to occupy the areas north of the Ubangi and Mbomou rivers, but in 1891 they were driven out of there by the French. According to the Anglo-Belgian Treaty on May 12, 1894, the “Free State” received the left bank of the Nile from Lake. Albert to Fashoda, but under pressure from France and Germany he had to limit his advance north to the Ubangi-Mbomou line (agreement with France of August 14, 1894). The German advance from Cameroon into central Sudan was also stopped. The Germans managed to expand their possessions to the upper reaches of the Benue and even reach the lake. Chad is in the north, but the western passage to Central Sudan (through the Adamawa Mountains and the Borno region) was closed by the British (Anglo-German Treaty of November 15, 1893), and the eastern route through the river. Shari was cut off by the French, who won the “race to Chad”; The Franco-German agreement on February 4, 1894 established the eastern border of German Cameroon as the southern bank of Chad and the lower reaches of the Chari and its tributary Logone.

As a result of the expeditions of P. Krampel and I. Dybovsky in 1890-1891, the French reached the lake. Chad. By 1894, the area between the Ubangi and Shari rivers (the Upper Ubangi colony; modern Central African Republic) came under their control. By agreement with Great Britain on March 21, 1899, the Wadai region between Chad and Darfur fell into the French sphere of influence. In October 1899 - May 1900, the French defeated the Rabah Sultanate, occupying the regions of Bargimi (lower Shari) and Kanem (east of Lake Chad). In 1900-1904 they advanced even further north up to the Tibesti highlands, subjugating Borka, Bodele and Tibba (the northern part of modern Chad). As a result, the southern stream of French colonization merged with the western one, and West African possessions merged with Central African ones into a single massif.

South Africa.

In South Africa, the main force of European expansion was Great Britain. In their advance from the Cape Colony to the north, the British had to deal not only with native tribes, but also with the Boer republics. In 1877 they occupied the Transvaal, but after the Boer uprising at the end of 1880 they were forced to recognize the independence of the Transvaal in exchange for its renunciation of independent foreign policy and from attempts to expand their territory east and west.

In the late 1870s, the British began fighting for control of the coast between the Cape Colony and Portuguese Mozambique. In 1880 they defeated the Zulus and turned Zululand into their colony. In April 1884, Germany entered into competition with Great Britain in southern Africa, which declared a protectorate over the territory from the Orange River to the border with Angola (German South-West Africa; modern Namibia); The British managed to retain only the port of Walvis Bay in the area. The threat of contact between German and Boer possessions and the prospect of a German-Boer alliance prompted Great Britain to intensify efforts to “encircle” the Boer republics. In 1885, the British subjugated the lands of the Bechuanas and the Kalahari Desert (Bechuanaland Protectorate; modern Botswana), driving a wedge between German South-West Africa and the Transvaal. German South-West Africa found itself squeezed between the British and Portuguese colonies (its borders were determined by the German-Portuguese agreement of December 30, 1886 and the Anglo-German agreement of July 1, 1890). In 1887, the British conquered the Tsonga lands located north of Zululand, thus reaching the southern border of Mozambique and cutting off the Boers' access to the sea from the east. With the annexation of Kaffraria (Pondoland) in 1894, the entire east coast South Africa.

Since the late 1880s, the main instrument of British expansion was the Privileged Company of S. Rhodes, who put forward a program for creating a continuous strip of British possessions “from Cairo to Kapstadt (Cape Town).” In 1888-1893, the British subjugated the Mashona and Matabele lands located between the Limpopo and Zambezi rivers (Southern Rhodesia; modern Zimbabwe). In 1889 they conquered the territory north of the Zambezi - Barotse Land, calling it Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia). In 1889-1891, the British forced the Portuguese to withdraw from Manica (modern Southern Zambia) and abandon their plans to expand the territory of Mozambique into westward(agreement June 11, 1891). In 1891 they occupied the area west of the lake. Nyasa (Nyasaland; modern Malawi) - and reached the southern borders of the Congo Free State and German East Africa. They, however, failed to take Katanga from the Belgians and advance further north; S. Rhodes's plan failed. From the mid-1890s, Britain's main goal in South Africa was to annex the Boer republics. But an attempt to annex the Transvaal through a coup d'etat (Jamson's Raid) at the end of 1895 failed. Only after the difficult and bloody Anglo-Boer War (October 1899 - May 1902) were the Transvaal and the Orange Republic included in the British possessions. Together with them, Swaziland (1903), which had been under the protectorate of the Transvaal since 1894, came under British control.

East Africa.

East Africa was destined to become the object of rivalry between Great Britain and Germany. In 1884-1885, the German East Africa Company, through treaties with local tribes, declared its protectorate over the 1800-kilometer strip of the Somali coast from the mouth of the Tana River to Cape Guardafui, including over the rich Witu Sultanate (in the lower reaches of the Tana). At the initiative of Great Britain, who feared the possibility of German penetration into the Nile Valley, her dependent Sultan of Zanzibar, suzerain of the East African coast north of Mozambique, protested, but it was rejected. In contrast to the Germans, the British created the Imperial British East African Company, which hastily began to capture pieces of the coast. Territorial confusion prompted the rivals to conclude an agreement on disengagement: the mainland possessions of the Zanzibar Sultan were limited to a narrow (10-kilometer) coastal strip (Anglo-French-German declaration of July 7, 1886); the dividing line between the British and German zones of influence ran along a section of the modern Kenyan-Tanzanian border from the coast to lake. Victoria: the areas to the south of it went to Germany (German East Africa), the areas to the north (with the exception of Witu) - to Great Britain (treaty November 1, 1886). On April 28, 1888, the Zanzibar Sultan, under pressure from Germany, transferred to it the regions of Uzagara, Nguru, Uzegua and Ukami. In an effort to reach the source of the Nile, the Germans launched an offensive inland in the late 1880s; they attempted to bring Uganda and the southernmost Sudanese province of Equatoria under their control. However, in 1889 the British managed to subjugate the state of Buganda, which occupied the bulk of Ugandan territory, and thereby block the Germans’ path to the Nile. Under these conditions, the parties agreed to conclude a compromise agreement on July 1, 1890 on the delimitation of lands west of the lake. Victoria: Germany renounced its claims to the Nile basin, Uganda and Zanzibar, receiving in return the strategically important island of Helgoland (North Sea) in Europe; The western border of German East Africa became the lake. Tanganyika and lake Albert Edward (modern Lake Kivu); Great Britain established a protectorate over Witu, Zanzibar and Fr. Pemba, but abandoned attempts to obtain a passage between German possessions and the Congo Free State, which would have connected its North and South African colonies. By 1894 the British had extended their power to all of Uganda.

XVIII--XIX centuries. Mass colonization of Africa

Cape Colony (Dutch Kaapkolonie, from Kaap de Goede Hoop - Cape of Good Hope), a Dutch and then English possession in South Africa. It was founded in 1652 at the Cape of Good Hope by the Dutch East India Company. In 1795, the Cape Colony was captured by Great Britain, in 1803-1806 it was under the control of the Dutch authorities, and in 1806 it was again captured by Great Britain. The territory of the Cape Colony was constantly expanding at the expense of the lands of Africans: Bushmen, Hottentots, and Bantu peoples. As a result of a series of wars of conquest by the Boer and British colonialists, the eastern border of the Cape Colony reached the Umtamvuna River by 1894. In 1895, the southern part of the Bechuana lands, annexed in 1884-1885, was included in the Cape Colony.

The creation of the Cape Colony marked the beginning of mass European colonization of Africa, when many states joined the colonization struggle for the most valuable areas of the Black Continent.

Colonial policy from the very beginning was associated with wars. The so-called trade wars of the 17th and 18th centuries were fought by European states for colonial and commercial dominance. At the same time, they were one of the forms of primitive accumulation. These wars were accompanied by predatory attacks on foreign colonial possessions and the development of piracy. Trade wars also engulfed the African coast. They contributed to the involvement of new overseas countries and peoples in the sphere of European colonial conquests. The reasons for the exceptional profitability of trade with colonial countries lay not only in its colonial nature. For the colonies, this trade was always unequal, and with the technological progress of European industry and the growing use of machines, this unequivalence steadily increased. In addition, the colonialists often acquired the products of the colonial countries through direct violence and robbery.

In the struggle of European states, the question was decided which of them would win trade, maritime and colonial hegemony and thereby provide the most favorable conditions for the development of their own industry.

The Dutch and British put an end to the maritime and colonial dominance of Spain and Portugal at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. As a model capitalist state of this time, Holland surpassed any other European state in the number and importance of its colonial acquisitions. At the Cape of Good Hope, Holland founded its “settler” colonies.

A struggle developed between Europeans for colonies in Africa. In the very early XIX century, the British captured the Cape Colony. The Boers, pushed to the north, created the South African Republic (Transvaal) and the Orange Free State on lands taken from the indigenous population. The Boers then took Natal from the Zulus. Over the next 50 years, England waged wars of extermination against the indigenous population (Kaffir Wars), as a result of which it expanded its possessions of the Cape Colony to the north. In 1843, they ousted the Boers and occupied Natal.

The northern coast of Africa was mainly captured by France, which by the middle of the 19th century took possession of all of Algeria.

In the early 20s of the 19th century, the United States bought land on the west coast of Africa from the leader of one of the local tribes to organize a settlement of blacks. The colony of Liberia created here was declared an independent republic in 1847, but in fact remained dependent on the United States.

In addition, the Spanish (Spanish Guinea, Rio de Oro), the French (Senegal, Gabon) and the British (Sierra Leone, Gambia, Gold Coast, Lagos) owned strongholds on the west coast of Africa.

The division of Africa was preceded by a series of new geographical explorations of the continent by Europeans. In the middle of the century, large Central African lakes were discovered and the sources of the Nile were found. The English traveler Livingston was the first European to cross the continent from the Indian Ocean (Quelimane in Mozambique) to the Atlantic (Luanda in Angola). He explored the entire course of the Zambezi, Lakes Nyasa and Tanganyika, discovered Victoria Falls, as well as Lakes Ngami, Mweru and Bangweolo, and crossed the Kalahari Desert. The last of the major geographical discoveries in Africa was the exploration of the Congo in the 70s by the Englishmen Cameron and Stanley.

One of the most common forms of European penetration into Africa was the continuously expanding trade in industrial goods in exchange for products from tropical countries through unequal payments; despite the official prohibition, the slave trade was carried out; enterprising adventurers penetrated deep into the country and, under the banner of the fight against the slave trade, engaged in robbery. Christian missionaries also played a significant role in strengthening the positions of European powers on the Dark Continent.

European colonialists were attracted to Africa by its enormous natural resources - valuable wild trees (oil palms and rubber trees), the possibility of growing cotton, cocoa, coffee, and sugar cane here. Gold and diamonds were found on the coast of the Gulf of Guinea, as well as in South Africa. The division of Africa became a matter of big policy for European governments.

South Africa, along with North Africa, Senegal and the Gold Coast, is one of those areas of the mainland where the colonists began moving inland. Back in the mid-17th century, Dutch and then German and French settlers acquired large areas in the Cape Province. The Dutch predominated among the colonists, so they all began to be called Boers (from the Dutch “boer” - “peasant”). The Boers, however, soon became completely peaceful farmers and cattle breeders who earned their own food through their own labor. The colonists - their number was constantly replenished by newly arrived settlers - by the beginning of the 19th century already owned vast fields and pastures and stubbornly infiltrated further into the interior regions. At the same time, they destroyed or expelled the desperately resisting Bushmen and other peoples of the Khoisan-speaking group, and took away their lands and livestock.

British missionaries, who sought to justify England's colonial policy, wrote with indignation in their reports at the beginning of the 19th century about the brutal, inhumane destruction of the local population by the Boers. The English authors Barrow and Percival portrayed the Boers as lazy, rude, ignorant people who cruelly exploited the “semi-savage natives.” Indeed, hiding behind the tenets of Calvinism, the Boers declared their “divine right” to enslave people with skin of a different color. Some of the conquered Africans were used on farms and were almost in the position of slaves. This applies primarily to the hinterland of the Cape Province, where the colonists had huge herds of cattle.

The farms were mostly subsistence farming. The herd often numbered 1,500-2,000 head of cattle and several thousand sheep, and they were looked after by Africans who were forced to work. Near urban settlements - Kapstad, Stellenbosch, Graf-Rheinst - in addition, the labor of slaves was used, brought from afar. They worked in households, agricultural enterprises, vineyards and fields, as dependent artisans. The Boers constantly pushed the boundaries of their possessions, and only the Xhosa with heroic efforts held them back on the Fish River. For the first hundred and fifty years of its existence, the Cape Colony served mainly as a way station for the Dutch East India Company on its way to India, but then the colonists escaped its control. They founded, primarily under the influence of the Great French Revolution, “autonomous regions”, where, while extolling freedom in words, in reality they carried out territorial expansion and exploitation of the African population. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Cape Colony was captured by Great Britain. Since 1806, the residence of the English governor was located in Kapstad. A struggle began between two groups interested in colonial expansion - the Boers and the British. Both of them pursued the same goal - to exploit the population of Africa, but they differed in their immediate objectives, motives and forms of their activities, because they represented different stages and driving forces of colonial expansion.

The Boers lost in this fight - they were unable to decisively switch to capitalist methods of exploitation. This was preceded by numerous disagreements and clashes, and many authors wrote the entire history of South Africa in the 19th century. even appears exclusively in the light of the “Anglo-Boer conflict”.

Soon after the Cape Colony became an English possession, administrative power passed from the Dutch authorities to English officials. Colonial forces were created, which included African “auxiliary” units. Boer farmers were heavily taxed. Since 1821, an increased influx of English settlers began. First of all, the administration provided them with the most fertile lands in the eastern part of the colony. From here they, having broken the decades-long resistance of the Xhosa, moved to the Kay River. By 1850, the area was annexed to the English colony, and then the entire Xhosa territory was conquered.

The British authorities supported capitalist colonization with appropriate measures, including the involvement of natives in the economy as labor. Slavery often continued to exist, albeit in an indirect form, in the form of forced labor or a system of labor. On large farms, it only gradually gave way to the capitalist exploitation of African rural workers and tenants that still exists today ("squatter systems"). These forms of exploitation were by no means more humane for the African population than slave labor and other forms of dependence on Boer farms. Boer farmers considered themselves to be deprived of their economic and political rights. They particularly protested the prohibition of slavery, the legislative acts of the British administration regarding the attraction and use of African workers, the transformation of Boer farms into concessions, the depreciation of the Dutch riksdaler and other factors of this kind.

By this time, the consequences of primitive, predatory methods of using the arable land and pastures of the Cape Province were also felt. Extensive cattle breeding and the existing order of land inheritance had previously pushed the colonists to move further into the interior of the country and capture new areas. In 1836, a significant part of the Boers moved away to free themselves from pressure from the British authorities. The “great trek” began, the resettlement of 5-10 thousand Boers to the north. In colonial apologetic historiography it is often romanticized and called the march of freedom. The Boers traveled in heavy wagons drawn by oxen, which served as their home on the road, and during armed skirmishes with Africans, they turned into a fortress on wheels. Huge herds moved nearby, guarded by armed horsemen.

The Boers left the Orange River far behind, and here in 1837 they first met the Matabele. The Africans courageously defended their herds and kraals, but in the decisive battle of Mosig, their capital, in the south of the Transvaal, the Matabele warriors, who fought only with spears, could not resist the modern weapons of the Boers, although they fought to the last drop of blood. Thousands of them were killed. The Matabele as a whole hastily retreated north through the Limpopo and stole their cattle.

Another group of Boers, also carried away by a thirst for conquest, under the leadership of their leader Retief, crossed the Drakensberg Mountains into Natal. In 1838, they carried out a massacre among the Zulu living here, established themselves in their lands and in 1839 proclaimed the independent Republic of Natal with its capital Pietermaritzburg. It was governed by the people's council. They built the city of Durban (or Port Natal, after the name of the coast, in honor of the landing of Vasco da Gama on it on Christmas Day 1497) and thus provided themselves with access to the sea. The land was divided into large farms of 3 thousand morgen (morgen - about 0.25 hectares) or more each. However, the English colonial administration of the Cape Province also had its sights set on the fertile lands of Natal for a long time. The British occupied Natal and declared it a colony in 1843. Although the right of settlement was recognized for the Boer farmers, most of them left their homes. They again crossed the Drakensberg Mountains with their herds and wagons and rejoined the Boers of the Transvaal. Nearby, north of the Vaal River, they formed three republics: Leidenburg, Zoutpansberg and Utrecht, which united in 1853 to form the Republic of South Africa (Transvaal).

A year later, the Orange Free State was proclaimed to the south. The British government and the colonial authorities of the Cape Province were forced to recognize the sovereignty of the newly formed Boer states, but did everything to keep them under their influence. The Orange Free State and the Transvaal were republics, peasant in essence, religiously ascetic in external attributes. From the middle of the 19th century. Merchants and artisans also settled on the territory of the Orange Free State, and a number of English colonists appeared.

The Calvinist Church, following its principles of isolation, adopted ossified forms of dogma.

To justify the exploitation of the African population, she developed a unique system of racial discrimination and declared it “divine providence.” In reality, the Boers drove off the lands and enslaved the settled indigenous population and clan groups of the Suto and Tswana tribes, seized vast territories and turned them into farms. Some Africans were pushed into reserves, others were doomed to forced labor on farms. The Tswana defended themselves against forcefully imposed “defense” measures; many went west, to waterless areas that resembled deserts. But here, too, their leaders experienced pressure from two sides very early on.

Great Britain realized that these areas, devoid of economic value, were of great strategic importance: whoever owned them could easily surround the Boer possessions and secure their interests in the neighboring Transvaal. Then the German Empire, which also encroached on central Bechuanaland, captured South West Africa, and this sealed the fate of the Tswana tribes. Great Britain hastened to take advantage of the "aid" treaties it had fraudulently concluded long ago with some of their leaders, and in 1885 a small force of British colonial units actually occupied their territory.

Another important enclave for years successfully resisted the armed detachments of the Boers and their "trek" undertaken in search of rich pastures and cheap labor - the territory of the Suto, led by the tribal leader Moshesh.

The Southern Sutho tribes lived in the mountainous upper reaches of the Orange River in what is now Lesotho. Fertile and rich in mountain pastures, this area was densely populated. Naturally, she early became the object of desire of Boer cattle breeders, and then of English farmers. Here, during the defensive battles against the Zulu and Matabele, the unification of the Sutho tribes formed and strengthened. Under Moshesh I, a brilliant military leader and organizer, his people were united in the fight against European colonialism. In three wars (1858, 1865-1866, 1867-1868) they managed to defend their rich pastures and the independence of Basutoland.

But the Suto leaders could not resist for long the sophisticated tactics of the British colonial authorities, who sent traders, agents and missionaries from the Cape Province ahead of them. Moshesh himself even turned to the British asking for help in order to protect himself from the attacks of the Boers. In pursuance of the treaties, Great Britain established a protectorate over Basutoland in 1868, and a few years later directly subordinated it to the British administration of the Cape Colony. Then the Suto took up arms again. The Souto responded to the massive seizure of land, the introduction of a system of reserves, colonial taxation and the project of disarmament of Africans with a powerful uprising that lasted from 1879 to 1884. The British, not limiting themselves to punitive expeditions, somewhat modified and in some ways even weakened the protectorate system. As a result, they managed to bribe some of the leaders, make them more accommodating, and ultimately turn them into an important support for the colonial exploitation of Basutoland.

Thus, in the 70s, Great Britain established dominance over the Cape Colony, Natal and Basutoland. She now single-mindedly directed her actions against the Zulu state north of Natal, plotting both the encirclement and the capture of the Boer republics of Orange and Transvaal. The struggle of the colonial powers to take control of South Africa soon received a new powerful stimulus: on the hot summer days of 1867, the first diamonds were found on the banks of the Orange River. Thousands of miners, merchants and small entrepreneurs flocked here. New urban settlements emerged.

The area east of the Vaal River to Kopje and Vornizigt, named after the British Colonial Secretary Kimberley, was dotted with diamond deposits. The English colonial administration of the Cape Colony provided its entrepreneurs and merchants with control over the diamond mining zone and free access to it. In 1877, British troops attacked the Transvaal, but the Boers managed to repulse the attack, defend their sovereignty and retain their colonies, and in 1884 Great Britain again confirmed the Transvaal's limited independence.

However, the discovery of diamond placers on the Orange River, and in the early 80s - rich deposits of gold near Johannesburg in the Transvaal, set in motion forces that the Boers, cattle breeders and farmers, and even more so, could not resist. African tribes and peoples, although the latter offered heroic resistance. From now on, colonial policy was determined by large English companies and associations of financial capital. Their operations were directed by Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), who became rich from stock market speculation in mining stocks. It took him only a few years to acquire many diamond mining concessions and then monopolize all diamond and gold mining in South Africa. In the 80s and 90s, the Rhodes group occupied a dominant position in the rapidly developing South African industry. With the support of Lord Rothschild, Rhodes became the leading financial magnate of his time.

Since the 80s of the XIX century. The British monopolists dreamed of a continuous colonial complex in Africa “from Cape to Cairo.” Making these dreams a reality, they crushed Matabele resistance north of the Limpopo and forced tens of thousands of African miners and seasonal workers into work camps. Overwork brought them to complete exhaustion, and sometimes to physical death.

The South African resistance unfolded under extremely difficult conditions. Because of the complex intrigues that the British and the Boers waged against each other, Africans sometimes did not understand that both of these colonial powers were equally dangerous to the independence of the indigenous people. Often they tried to maneuver between two fronts, concluding agreements with the invader who at that moment seemed less dangerous to them. All the more terrible were the consequences of such mistakes. While the Africans were gathering forces to repel one foreign conqueror, another, no less dangerous colonial robber, treacherously hiding behind the mask of an ally, approached the borders of their lands and villages and took them by surprise.

The Xhosa tribes were the first to rebel against Boer farmers who were seeking land grabs and the British colonialists. English settlers reached the Fish River in the 18th century and from this point filtered into the rich pastures of Xhosa pastoralists. The Xhosa, however, could not come to terms with the constant reduction of their pastures, the rustling of livestock, and the agreement imposed on them, which established the Fish River as their boundary of settlement. They invariably returned to their usual pastures and settlements, especially during periods of drought. The Boers then sent punitive expeditions against the Xhosa kraals.

The war of the Xhosa tribes, first against the Boer and then the English invaders, lasted for almost a hundred years. It appears in colonial historiography as the eight "Kaffir" wars. The first clashes with Europeans occurred in an atmosphere of hostility between individual tribal groups, in particular between the leaders of Gaika and Ndlambe. Thanks to this, the Boer, and most importantly, the British invaders successfully prevented the formation of a united front of Africans and were able to neutralize individual leaders. An example is the War of 1811, when, with the approval of Gaika, British troops took punitive action against some Xhosa groups under Ndlambe. Before this, the leaders Ndlambe and Tsungwa, bribed by extremist circles of the Boers and relying on the help of Hottentots fleeing forced labor, defeated the troops of the English general Vandeleur and approached the Keyman River. Therefore, the punitive actions of the British were characterized by cruelty; they did not take prisoners and killed the wounded on the battlefield.

It was necessary for the disparate Xhosa groups to unite and act together. This was the situation when a prophet named Nhele (Makana) appeared on the scene. Promoting his teachings and “visions” based on traditional African and Christian religious ideas, he tried to rally the Xhosa in the fight against the colonial exploiters. Only Ndlambe recognized him, and the British colonialists, capitalizing on this circumstance, concluded an “alliance agreement” with Gaika. In the battle with the allies, more than 2 thousand Xhosa warriors died and Nhele Xhosa itself lost all the territory up to the Keiskama River: it was annexed to the Cape Colony. This war, the fourth in a row, was an important turning point. The threat of colonial conquest forced the leaders of individual tribes to forget their feuds and henceforth act together. Defensive battles strengthened the combat capability of tribal alliances. In 1834, all the Xhosa who inhabited the border areas rebelled. They were well organized and used new tactical methods of warfare. Some colonial units were destroyed by partisans. However, the British eventually defeated the Xhosa again and annexed all the areas west of the Kei River to their colony (1847). The capture of Natal, first by Boer immigrants, and in 1843 by the British colonial administration, split the previously unified area of ​​settlement of both Nguni peoples - Xhosa and Zulu.

From that time on, the British administration persistently strived for new territorial conquests and the final conquest of the Xhosa. All treaties with individual leaders were annulled, so war broke out again (1850-1852). The battles were particularly long and persistent. This was the longest and most organized Xhosa rebellion. Inspired by the new prophet, Mlandsheni, the Xhosa declared a “holy war” on the invaders. They were joined by thousands of Africans, forcibly dressed in the uniforms of colonial soldiers, and Hottentot policemen. Armed with modern weapons, they significantly strengthened the anti-colonial uprising. On Christmas Day 1850, thousands of Xhosa warriors crossed the borders of British Capraria.

These actions were led by the Galek leader Kreli. We emphasize that at the same time the supreme leader Suto Moshesh fought against the British troops, and in 1852 his cavalry numbering 6-7 thousand people inflicted a temporary defeat on the British. The rebels also negotiated with some Griqua and Tswana leaders about joint action against the colonialists.

And yet, the moment was missed when the uprising could have been crowned with victory, at least temporarily. The English colonialists again managed to attract the leaders to their side with false promises and take possession of the last Xhosa lands in the Transkei. Now the borders of the English colonies abutted the territory of the Zulu tribal association.

The last time individual Xhosa tribes rose up against colonial enslavement and the complete loss of independence was in 1856-1857. The chiefs of Kreli and Sandili with their tribes on a small piece of land were besieged on all sides by English troops, and they were threatened with starvation. In this desperate situation, under the influence of the new prophet, they began to have chiliastic visions of the future: God’s judgment, they believed, would drive out the white foreigners; in the “future kingdom,” where the Christian doctrine will not find a place for itself, the dead will rise, first of all, immortal prophets and murdered leaders, and all the lost cattle will be reborn. This will put an end to any political and economic dependence. The Prophet Umlakazar called in his sermons: “Do not sow, next year the ears of corn will sprout on their own. Destroy all the maize and bread in the bins; slaughter the cattle; buy axes and expand the kraals so that they can accommodate all those beautiful cattle that will rise with us... God he is angry at the whites who killed his son... One morning, waking up from sleep, we will see rows of tables laden with food; we will put on the best beads and jewelry.”

Succumbing to these religious suggestions, the Xhosa slaughtered all their livestock—European missionaries call an impressive figure: 40 thousand heads—and began to wait for the “final judgment.” After the "day of resurrection", expected on February 18-19, 1857, thousands of Xhosa starved to death. The European conquerors, who supposedly had to leave the country due to lack of food, did not even think about leaving. Thus, the active struggle against colonialism gave way to the expectation of the intervention of supernatural forces and the advent of the “kingdom of justice.” From her, undoubtedly, the trapped Xhosa, who did not know the laws of social development, drew strength and hope. Only when the Xhosa were convinced that their visions had not come true did they, in complete despair, take up arms again. The English troops easily defeated people half dead from hunger. Most of the Xhosa died during the hostilities or died of starvation. The rest submitted. Thus, almost a century of heroic resistance by the Xhosa ended tragically.

In the fight against the Xhosa, the colonialists usually encountered isolated isolated tribes, which only occasionally united to directly repel the conquerors. A much more dangerous enemy was the military alliance of tribes and the Zulu state.

The Zulu supreme leader Dingaan was at first very friendly towards the Boers and, not understanding their colonialist intentions, clearly in defiance of the English settlers and invaders, recognized the Boer possessions in southern Natal in the treaty. Soon, however, he realized his mistake and tried to correct it by ordering the killing of the Boer leader Piet Retief and his companions. War became inevitable. A stubborn bloody struggle began between the Zulu army and the Boer troops for lands and pastures in that part of Natal that belonged to the Zulu under Shaka. In 1838, with the support of the British, the Boers went on the offensive. In vain did Dingaan's army of 12 thousand people try to capture the Boer camp, protected by the Wagenburg. The Zulu suffered a heavy defeat. The battlefield was littered with the bodies of Africans, 3-4 thousand people died. The river in the valley of which the battle took place has since been called the Bloody River - Blood River. Dingaan was forced to withdraw his army north from the Tugela River. The Boers took possession of the huge herds that had previously belonged to the Zulu, and forced Dingaan to pay a large indemnity in cattle.

Subsequently, in this state there were many dynastic feuds, and there was a struggle for dominance between individual leaders and military commanders.

The Boers fueled discontent with the supreme leader Dingaan, and subsequently even took a direct part in the military actions of the contenders for the throne. In 1840, Dingaan was killed. A significant part of Natal fell into the hands of the Boer colonists, but the Zulu retained their independence, and even the English conquerors who appeared after the Boers for the time being did not dare to encroach on it.

However, the Zulu leaders, unable to come to terms with the lack of pastures and the threat of colonial annexation, organized resistance again and again. In 1872, Ketchwayo (1872-1883) became the main leader of the Zulu. Realizing the great danger looming over him, he tried to unite the Zulu tribes to fight back. Ketchwayo reorganized the army, restored military kraals and purchased modern weapons from European merchants in the Portuguese colony of Mozambique. By this time, the Zulu army numbered 30 thousand spearmen and 8 thousand soldiers under arms. But the conflict arose earlier than the supreme leader expected.

The English colonial authorities of Natal sought, in parallel with their advance in the Transvaal, to completely subjugate the Zulu. In 1878, they presented Ketchwayo with an ultimatum, essentially depriving the Zulu state of independence.

The British demanded to recognize the power of their resident, to allow missionaries into Zulu territory, to disband the combat-ready Zulu army, and to pay a huge tax. The Council of Chiefs and Military Commanders rejected the ultimatum. Then in January 1879, British troops invaded Zululand. This war, however, was destined to become one of the most difficult and bloody campaigns of English colonialism in the 19th century. According to official figures, military expenditure alone amounted to £5 million.

At first, the Zulu managed to inflict significant blows on the colonialists. Their successes sparked a number of uprisings on the borders of Natal and the Cape Colony, including among the Souto. Only after the British troops received significant reinforcements from the colonial administration were they able to defeat the Zulu. Ketchwayo was captured and sent to Robben Island. However, the British government has not yet decided to carry out a complete annexation of Zulu territory. By dividing the powerful Zulu state into 13 tribal territories that were constantly at war with each other, it thereby weakened it and established its indirect control over it. Ketchwayo was even temporarily returned from exile on the terms of his recognition of a de facto British protectorate. But subsequently Zululand was nevertheless annexed to the English possessions in Natal, and colonial relations of exploitation were established on its territory in the interests of European landowners and capitalists.

At all stages of pre-imperialist colonial expansion, African peoples and tribes who became victims of the first colonial conquests resisted them. The glorious traditions of the African peoples, of which modern Africans are rightly proud, include the defensive wars of the Ashanti, Xhosa, Basotho and Zulu, and also the Hajj Omar and his followers in the first two thirds of the XIX century. Unfortunately, they usually arose spontaneously. Individual tribes or tribal unions led by the aristocracy, i.e. semi-feudal nobility, often opposed foreign conquerors in disunity.

As in previous centuries, many anti-colonial movements and uprisings either took place under the religious banner of Islamic renewal or, as in South Africa, took on the character of Christian-animist messianism or prophetic preaching. Belief in the supernatural powers of leaders did not allow Africans to realistically assess the military superiority of their opponents. The visions and prophecies reflect the immaturity of the anti-colonial movement caused by the social conditions of the period. In addition, the resistance carried out by the tribes invariably aimed at restoring the old order. Even the liberation movement of the educated merchants, intellectuals and some of the leaders of West Africa could demand reforms and participation in government mainly on paper.

Although Africans resisted colonialism with determination and courage, their struggle was doomed to failure. The social and, consequently, military-technical superiority of Europe was too great for the peoples and tribes of Africa, who were at the stage of a primitive communal or early feudal system, to win not a temporary, but a lasting victory over it. Due to rivalry between different ethnic groups and civil strife within the tribal aristocracy and the feudal stratum, resistance to foreign invaders was usually inconsistent, contradictory, and most importantly, it was devoid of unity and isolated from other actions of this kind.

On the eve of European colonization, the peoples of Tropical and Southern 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 a sufficiently developed, specifically Negro statehood did not develop, even comparable to the states of the Incas and Mayans. How can we explain this? There are several reasons, namely: unfavorable climate, poor soils, primitive agricultural technology, low level of work culture, fragmentation of a small population, as well as the dominance of primitive tribal traditions and early religious cults. In the end, highly developed civilizations: Christian and Muslim differed from African ones 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 most often manifested itself in the exploitation of ordinary community members by the heads of large patriarchal families, as well as in the concentration of land and livestock in the hands of the tribal elite.

In different centuries, both during the Middle Ages and in modern times, various state formations arose in Africa: Ethiopia (Axum), which was dominated by the Christian Monophysite church; a kind of confederation called Oyo arose on the Guinea coast; then Dahomey; in the lower reaches of the Congo at the end of the 15th century. such state entities as Congo, Loango and Makoko appeared; in Angola between 1400 and 1500. A short-lived and semi-legendary political association, Monomotapa, emerged. However, all these proto-states were fragile. Europeans who appeared on the coast of Africa in the 17th-18th centuries. launched a large-scale slave trade here. Then they tried to create their own settlements, outposts and colonies here.

In southern Africa, at the Cape of Good Hope, a site for the Dutch East India Company was established - Kapstadt (Cape Colony). Over time, more and more immigrants from Holland began to settle in Kapstadt, who waged a stubborn struggle with local tribes, Bushmen and Hottentots. At the beginning of the 19th century. The Cape Colony was captured by Great Britain, after which the Dutch-Boers moved to the north, subsequently founding the Transvaal and Orange republics. European Boer colonists increasingly explored 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 Chaka 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, and Belgium. Moreover, the first place in the number of colonies and native population belonged to Great Britain, second to France (mainly north and south of the Sahara), third to Germany, fourth to Portugal and fifth to Belgium. But little Belgium inherited a huge territory (about 30 times larger than the territory of Belgium itself), the richest in its natural resources - the Congo.

European colonialists, having done away with the primary proto-state formations of African leaders and kings, brought here forms of a developed bourgeois economy with advanced technology and transport infrastructure. The local population, experiencing a cultural “shock” from meeting with a civilization that was fabulously developed at that time, gradually became familiar with 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.) found themselves under the control of economically developed, bourgeois and democratic England and began to develop more quickly, then the population of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea (Bissau) belonging to the more backward Portugal, more slowly.

Colonial conquests were not always economically justified; sometimes the struggle for colonies in Africa looked like a kind of political sport - to bypass an opponent at all costs and not allow oneself to 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 enlightenment. In addition, in Europe it has even become indecent not to have colonies. This can explain the emergence of the Belgian Congo, German and Italian colonies, which were of little use.

Germany was the last to rush to Africa, but nevertheless managed to capture Namibia, Cameroon, Togo and East Africa. In 1885, on the initiative of German Chancellor Bismarck, the Berlin Conference was convened, in which 13 European countries took part. The conference established rules for the acquisition of still independent lands in Africa, in other words, the remaining unoccupied lands were divided. By the end of the 19th century, only Liberia and Ethiopia retained political independence in Africa. Moreover, Christian Ethiopia successfully repelled an Italian attack 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 African Company, created in 1889 by S. Rhodes and which had 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, and Belgium. These monopolistic 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. The richest African colony was South Africa, which belonged to Britain and Boer colonists from the Transvaal and Orange Republics, because gold and diamonds were found there. This led the British and Boers from Europe to start the bloody Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, in which the British won. The diamond-rich Transvaal and Orange republics became colonies of the British. 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? The main reason was the absence of a single national community of people in the countries conquered by Europeans, namely: the motley, diverse and multi-ethnic composition of the population, predetermined the absence of a single national consciousness so necessary for uniting the people and fighting foreigners. Most eastern and African communities of the time were a loose conglomerate, divided along clan, compatriot, tribal and religious boundaries, which made it easier for the colonialists, guided by the Roman rule: divide and conquer, to conquer.

Another reason was the desire of part of the elite and especially the emerging national bourgeoisie to join the benefits of Western civilization that the colonialists carried and introduced. The Marxist assertion that colonies were created for “naked plunder” by the metropolises and that, most importantly, plunder brought nothing but ruin to the colonies and aggravated their backwardness from Western countries is long gone. Everything was much more complicated and ambiguous. Although it was naive to believe in the altruistic inclinations of Europeans who came to the East only to help lagging 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 population, to acquire new areas for selling goods produced in factories and mines.” European colonialists have repeatedly pointed to a direct connection with the successful solution of the social issue in their country, with successful colonial expansion and the pumping of “useful resources” from the colonies to the metropolis.

In the reading European society of that time, a certain romantic “fleur” of colonialist policies was formed in the countries of Asia and Africa. The works of such writers as Rudyard Kipling glorified the rude but honest warrior-British colonial soldier to the jaded and enfeebled city dweller. H. Rider Haggard and many other Western writers captivated readers with stories of 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 mass circulation of such literature in the West, the imperial ambitions and nationalistic sentiments of Europeans were advantageously clothed in the masking “tega” of Western progressivism and civilization in relation to the backward East.

At the same time, it is incorrect to represent all the British, like other Europeans, as exclusively rabid imperialists who think only about robbing the colonies. Within British society itself, attitudes towards colonial policy were 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: “We are hated both by the classes that were influential and powerful before us, and by the students of our own educational institutions in India, schools and colleges, hated for 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 unspeakable suffering and the terrible poverty into which our rule over them has plunged them.”

Finally, in Great Britain, as in France, there were many people who believed that 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 are coming 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: colonialist countries developed more slowly than countries that did not have colonies - the more colonies, the less development. Indeed, the maintenance of colonies in itself was not cheap for the Western metropolises. After all, 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 to develop first 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, and the development of domestic and foreign trade. And this, objectively, contributed to reducing the gap between the traditional eastern countries and the modernized Western powers. The last thing that the advanced West bestowed on the lagging East and the African colonies 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 governance institutions unprecedented in the East were created. For example, in India, at the instigation of the British, the Indian National Congress (INC) was formed. An education reform was carried out according to British standards and the first three universities were opened in India in 1857 - Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. Subsequently, the number of Indian universities and colleges teaching in English and with English curricula increased. At the same time, many rich Indians received higher education in England itself, including at the best universities - Cambridge and Oxford. The British also did a lot to develop education. But books, newspapers, magazines and others printed publications, intended for readers throughout India, were published in English only. English language gradually became basic for all educated India.

Let us emphasize that all this was done by the British to satisfy their own needs. But objectively, colonial policy led to the formation of advanced bourgeois structures in the colonies, which contributed to the progressive socio-economic development of the colonies, albeit very painful. What ultimately happened during the violent colonial-capitalist modernization of Eastern societies? In the vast literature of oriental studies this is called the colonial synthesis: metropolis-colony. During the synthesis, there was a symbiosis of the old Eastern traditional socio-economic structure, with the European colonial administration that came here and Western capitalism. The articulation of two opposing structures: Western and Eastern took place in the throes of a forced and largely forced union. What made the colonial societies of the East even more heterogeneous: along with the archaic traditional social structure, an alien Western colonial structure appeared, and finally, a synthesized East-Western structure arose in the form of the comprador bourgeoisie, Western-oriented intelligentsia and bureaucrats. Under the influence of this synthesis, “eastern colonial capitalism” arose, which bizarrely combined the close relationship of native state and business structures with the European colonial administration and the bourgeoisie. Eastern colonial capitalism, thus, 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, this alien way of life, thanks to the patronage of the European colonial administration, began to take root on eastern soil and become increasingly stronger, despite the active resistance of traditional eastern structures.

It should be noted that attempts at bourgeois modernization and Europeanization in all colonial societies of the East met resistance from such social forces: the tribal system, religious clergy, aristocratic nobility, peasants, artisans, all those who were not satisfied with these changes and who were afraid of losing their usual way of life. They were opposed by a known minority of the indigenous population of the colonies: the comprador bourgeoisie, European-educated bureaucrats and intelligentsia, who tolerated and even actively took part in the development of bourgeois reforms, thereby collaborating with the colonial authorities. As a result, the colonial societies of the East split into two rather sharply opposing parts. /28This, of course, thwarted the plans of the colonial administration for the accelerated modernization of the colonies. But still, the colonial East moved towards irreversible changes.

The assimilation of Western ideas and political institutions also occurred in those eastern countries that did not experience direct military intervention by European powers: (Ottoman Empire, Iran, Japan and China). All of them, to one degree or another (Japan was in the most advantageous position) experienced pressure from the West. Of course, the position of these countries was more advantageous compared to the eastern countries, which were turned into colonies of the West. The very example of an absolutely powerless India served as a stern warning for these countries and simply a vital necessity 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 that economic enslavement would be followed by political enslavement. Western pressure in itself was a serious historical challenge that needed to be answered urgently and urgently. The answer lay, 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 greatest power of the West over the entire 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 km (about 55% of the world's area), the population was 530 million people (35% of the world's population).

Colonialism does not enjoy a good reputation anywhere. And this is quite understandable. The blood, suffering and humiliation endured during the colonial era cannot be attributed to the costs of progress. But to unequivocally assess Western colonialism as an absolute evil would, in our opinion, be incorrect. When was history in the East, before the Europeans, not written in blood, under the Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Timur? But by breaking into 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 the outside, which not only awakened them, but also gave them a new rhythm of progressive development. In the 20th century The colonial world of Asia and Africa entered basically 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 for it, but as a peripheral zone. That is, these vast territories acted as its structural raw material appendage, containing both pre-capitalist and capitalist elements introduced by the West. The situation of these countries was complicated by the fact that different types of European colonial capitalism, without mastering 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 conflicting. 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-test and self-control.

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

2. How can we explain the transition from European trade colonialism to the occupation type in the 19th century?

3. Why were a few European colonists able to establish control over vast areas of Asia and Africa? Explain?

4.What 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. T.4. Modern times (XIX century): Textbook. manual.-M.: Higher. School, 2010.

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

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

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

additional literature

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

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

3. Guseinov R. History of the world economy: West-East-Russia: Textbook. manual.-Novosibirsk: Sib. Univ. Publishing house, 2004.

4. Kharyukov L.N. Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia and Ismailism. M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 1995.

Introduction

Conclusion

Application

Bibliography

Introduction

Relevance.

The relevance of this topic lies mainly in the fact that the history of the colonial division of Africa is an important part of the history of international relations in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. African problems had a direct impact on the development of Anglo-Russian and Anglo-German and other relations, and on the formation of the Entente. Formation of military-political alliances in late XIX V. reflected the entire spectrum of international relations and interstate conflicts, including the African region, and determined the influence of the colonial division of Africa on the foreign policy development of the colonial states. The African vector of their foreign policy is directly related to the evolution of foreign policy in general, and also reflects the process of development of the national-state and mass consciousness of Europeans.

Historiography.

This topic is not well studied, since today there are no serious, generalizing works covering the topic of colonization of African countries.

Among Soviet scientists, historical publications can be distinguished, the authors of which were the classics of Russian historiography Yu.L. Yelets, K.A. Skalkovsky, I.I. Zashchuk, were dedicated to the strategic regions of Africa that were important for tsarism. In these studies, Russian African studies has made a big step forward. K.A. Skalkovsky made the first attempt in Russian historiography to determine Russia’s place in the colonial division of Africa and the role of the African vector in foreign policy Russian Empire. His research was written based on materials mainly from the Russian press. At the same time, his book does not fit into the canons of the journalistic genre. A quarter of a century of work in the editorial office of the foreign department of St. Petersburg Vedomosti and Novoye Vremya, a broad outlook, and the abilities of a political analyst allowed K.A. It is sufficient for Skalkovsky to cover in detail and deeply many issues related to Russian penetration into Africa, to pose problems that are important for a historian. He stated that Russia had colonial interests in Africa and defended them through diplomatic and military means. K.A. Skalkovsky noted that the African coast of the Red and Mediterranean Seas was primarily of strategic importance for Russia “in the event of a naval war.”

Among the foreign historiographers, one can single out the following: Gell, Davidson, Carlyle, Chalmers, etc.

All of the above-mentioned historians in their works examined all spheres of life in African countries during the period of colonialism, but the opinions of Soviet and foreign scientists differ.

Goals:

The objectives of this essay are:

1) determining the reasons for the colonial division of Africa;

2) identification of forms and methods of exploitation of African colonies.

Tasks:

To achieve the intended goals, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

1 - determine the reasons for the colonial division of Africa.

2 - identify forms and methods of exploitation of African colonies.

1. Reasons for the colonial division of Africa

Division of Africa(Also race for africa or fight for africa, - a period of intense competition between a number of European imperialist powers for research and military operations, ultimately aimed at capturing new territories in Africa.

Although similar activities had taken place before, the most intense competition occurred during the period of new imperialism, especially after the adoption of the General Act of the Berlin Conference in 1885. The culmination of the “Scramble for Africa” is considered to be the Fashoda incident, which brought Great Britain and France to the brink of war in 1898. By 1902, European powers controlled 90% of Africa.

In sub-Saharan Africa, only Liberia (patronized by the United States) and Ethiopia retained independence. The colonial division of Africa ended the year the First World War began, when Great Britain officially annexed Egypt. Two years earlier, Morocco was divided under the Treaty of Fez, and Italy, as a result of the Italo-Turkish war, gained control of Libya.

A special section was devoted to the goals of colonizing Africa. International Geographical Conference, held in 1878 in Brussels. It was convened on the initiative of the Belgian king Leopold II, stockbroker and financier, cunning creator" Free State of the Congo." The conference was attended by chairmen geographical societies European countries, travelers to Africa, diplomats. At the end of the conference, proposals were adopted to intensify the fight against the African slave trade and to spread the values ​​of European civilization among African peoples. It was decided to create an international commission for the study and civilization of central Africa. As a "patron" of the conference Leopold II at the end of 1876 authorized the formation of the so-called International Association. Under its cover, he began to create a Belgian colony in Africa. Since 1879, the Belgians began to seize territories in the Congo River basin.

2. Forms and methods of exploitation of African colonies

With the transition from manufacture to large-scale factory industry, significant changes occurred in colonial policy. Colonies are economically more closely connected with the metropolises, turning into their agricultural and raw materials appendages with a monocultural direction of development Agriculture, into markets for industrial products and sources of raw materials for the growing capitalist industry of the metropolises. For example, the export of English cotton fabrics to India increased 65 times from 1814 to 1835. The spread of new methods of exploitation, the need to create special bodies of colonial administration that could consolidate dominance over local peoples, as well as the rivalry of various layers of the bourgeoisie in the metropolises led to the liquidation of monopoly colonial trading companies and the transition of captured countries and territories under the state administration of the metropolises. The change in the forms and methods of exploitation of the colonies was not accompanied by a decrease in its intensity. Enormous wealth was exported from the colonies. Their use led to accelerated socio-economic development in Europe and North America. Although the colonialists were interested in increasing the marketability of peasant farming in the colonies, they often supported and consolidated feudal and pre-feudal relations, considering the feudal and tribal nobility in the colonized countries as their social support. With the beginning of the industrial era, Great Britain became the largest colonial power. Having defeated France during a long struggle in the 18th and 19th centuries, she increased her possessions at her expense, as well as at the expense of the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Colonial expansion was also carried out by other powers. France subjugated Algeria (1830-48). In 1885, the Congo became the possession of the Belgian King Leopold II, and a system of forced labor was established in the country.

Colonial rule was administratively expressed either in the form of a "dominion" (direct control of the colony through a viceroy, captain-general or governor-general) or in the form of a "protectorate". The ideological justification of colonialism came through the need to spread culture (culture trading, modernization, westernization) - the “burden white man"The Spanish version of colonization implied the expansion of Catholicism, Spanish through the encomienda system. The Dutch version of the colonization of South Africa implied apartheid, the expulsion of the local population and their confinement in reservations or bantustans. The colonists formed communities completely independent of the local population, which were made up of people of various classes, including criminals and adventurers. Religious communities were also widespread (the Puritans of New England and the Mormons of the Wild West). The power of the colonial administration was exercised according to the principle of “divide and conquer”, and therefore it supported local rulers who willingly accepted external signs of power and methods of leadership. Organizing and supporting conflicts among hostile tribes (in colonial Africa) or local religious communities (Hindus and Muslims in British India), as well as through apartheid, was common. Often the colonial administration supported oppressed groups to fight their enemies (the oppressed Hutus in Rwanda) and created armed forces from the natives (Gurkhas in Nepal, Zouaves in Algeria). All this caused a response in the form of uprisings, and years in which there was peace on the African continent were very rare. So in 1902/03 the Ovimbundu tribe in Angola rebelled against the Portuguese. In 1905, armed resistance began against the German administration in Tanganyika, and the uprising against the French in Madagascar lasted for six years, ending in 1904. Islamists rebelled in Tunisia.

colonial section africa colony

Conclusion

Thus, having considered the questions of this essay, we found that colonial conquests on the African continent began at the end of the 15th century. By the Portuguese. Colonial wars led to the destruction of local industries and the death of entire states.

The colonialists exported gold, diamonds, spices, ivory and slaves for next to nothing. The slave trade continued until the mid-19th century. It cost the people of Africa at least 100 thousand people.