Historical Problems of Imperial Africa - Essay Example

Economic explanations-These are the most common and popular and in several cases the most persistent. They were crucial since several of the many arguments are the ones still used to explain why there is underdevelopment in the 3rd world nations(that is neo-imperialism and neocolonialism). Most of the time, imperialism proponents frequently made use of economic arguments to urge empire-building and imperial expansion. Leopold, who was the King of the Belgians, had made an argument that colonies were the prime and chief source of Britain’s power and wealth.

Thus most of the protagonists made such arguments and justified the reason for the existence of colonies and why they were required. They also argued that colonies were prime sources of raw materials, markets for their manufactured goods, and outlets for surplus populations. The other major driving economic factor was capital imperialism which was the real motive for imperialistic exploits in Africa. Since opportunities were not adequate at home, there was a need to look for profitable investment opportunities so as to acquire surplus capital.

Militarism has been fronted especially as an explanation that made Bismarck suddenly change policy regarding German colonies in 1884. In their book Africa and the Victorians (1961), Gallagher and Robinson (with Alice Denny) argue that colonial acquisitions of Britain in Africa during the scramble were purely based on strategic concerns. Their work was mostly based upon documents in London’s Colonial and Foreign Offices. On the basis of this evidence, they argued that the British government’s major interest was not only in Africa but the real interest was in India and British interests along East Africa gained prominence basically due to the need of protecting sea routes to the East. These concerns mostly focused on the naval station which was just outside Cape Town in South Africa and the Suez Canal.

It was for the purposes of protecting these two strategic interests which made Britain annexed adjacent territories in southern Africa and East and northeastern Africa. Thus Suez Canal’s threat caused the British to make an intervention in Egypt so as to suppress the revolution of officers of the Egyptian army in 1882. Actually, the appearance of a rival from Europe made Britain respond. For instance, earlier on the British did not have much regard for the Mahdi’s forces in Sudan as a threat that was significant to their position in Egypt. When, however in 1898, the French sent a small force across Fashoda on the upper Nile, the British immediately responded with a large Anglo-Egyptian expedition upwards along the Nile so as to conquer Sudan.

Since the river Nile is Egypt’s lifeblood, Gallagher and Robinson make an argument that Britain’s main concern was to ensure there was no European rival controlling the upper Nile. However Nile’s source is Lake Victoria, and for this reason, the British felt there was a need to control Uganda as well. But practically, there was only one way to make it to Uganda-from east Africa’s coast, which is Kenya. Thus Britain made all these acquisitions from their preoccupation to control the Suez Canal.
It is therefore crystal clear that the scramble for and acquisition of Africa was purposely for strategic reasons, so as to ensure control of key resources for the economic and military success of the then European colonial masters and ensure that they remained powerful.