The Rise of Fascism and World War II in Europe
I. World Fascism
Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Vargas
II. Fall of Weimar/Rise of HitlerIII. Hitler as Chancellor
--Nazi Goals--
A. Economic RecoveryB. RearmamentC. Lebensraum
IV. Hitler’s Foreign Policy
A. Anschluss
B. Czechoslovakia, Chamberlin, and Appeasement
C. Poland
V. War
A. Fall of France
B. Battle of Britain
C. Invasion of Soviet Union
D. U.S. Enters War--D-Day
VI. Holocaust
A. Hitler’s View of Race
B. Phases in Evolution of Nazi Policy
1933-1935:
Ø Boycotts
Ø Work Discrimination
Ø Individual Action
1935-1938:
Ø Nuremburg Laws
Ø "German blood and honor"
Ø Reich Citizenship Laws
1938-1941: Escalation
Ø Kristallnacht
Ø Ghettoization
Ø "Final Solution" (Lebensunwertes Leben)
C. Reinhard Heydrich: The Wansee Conference
D. Lessons?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Purges
Modern History Sourcebook: Stalin's Purges, 1935 History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course (Moscow,1948),pp.324-327,329
In 1936, Stalin began to attack his political opponents in a series of" purges" aimed at destroying the vestiges of political opposition to him. What follows is the official explanation from textbooks published before Stalin's excesses were repudiated by his successors.
The achievements of Socialism in our country were a cause of rejoicing not only to the Party, and not only to the workers and collective farmers, but also to our Soviet intelligentsia, and to all honest citizens of the Soviet Union.
But they were no cause of rejoicing to the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes; on the contrary, they only enraged them the more as time went on.
They infuriated the lickspittles of the defeated classes - the puny remnants of the following of Bukharin and Trotsky.
These gentry were guided in their evaluation of the achievements of the workers and collective farmers not by the interests of the people, who applauded every such achievement, but by the interests of their own wretched and putrid faction, which had lost all contact with the realities of life. Since the achievements of Socialism in our country meant the victory of the policy of the Party and the utter bankruptcy of their own policy, these gentry, instead of admitting the obvious facts and joining the common cause, began to revenge themselves on the Party and the people for their own failure, for their own bankruptcy; they began to resort to foul play and sabotage against the cause of the workers and collective farmers, to blow up pits, set fire to factories, and commit acts of wrecking in collective and state farms, with the object of undoing the achievements of the workers and collective farmers and evoking popular discontent against the Soviet Government. And in order, while doing so, to shield their puny group from exposure and destruction, they simulated loyalty to the Party, fawned upon it, eulogized it, cringed before it more and more, while in reality continuing their underhand. subversive activities against the workers and peasants.
At the Seventeenth Party Congress, Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky made repentant speeches, praising the Party and extolling its achievements to the skies. But the congress detected a ring of insincerity and duplicity in their speeches; for what the Party expects from its members is not eulogies and rhapsodies over its achievements, but conscientious work on the Socialist front. And this was what the Bukharinites had showed no signs of for a long time. The Party saw that the hollow speeches of these gentry were in reality meant for their supporters outside the congress, to serve as a lesson to them in duplicity, and a call to them not to lay down their arms.
Speeches were also made at the Seventeenth Congress by the Trotskyites, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who lashed themselves extravagantly for their mistakes, and eulogized the Party no less extravagantly for its achievements. But the congress could not help seeing that both their nauseating self-castigation and their fulsome praise of the party were only meant to hide an uneasy and unclean conscience. However, the Party did not yet know or suspect that while these gentry were making their cloying speeches at the congress they were hatching a villainous plot against the life of S. M. Kirov.
On December 1, 1934, S. M. Kirov was foully murdered in the Smolny, in Leningrad, by a shot from a revolver.
The assassin was caught red-handed and turned out to be a member of a secret counter-revolutionary group made up of members of an anti-Soviet group of Zinovievites in Leningrad.
S. M. Kirov was loved by the Party and the working class, and his murder stirred the people profoundly, sending a wave of wrath and deep sorrow through the country.
The investigation established that in 1933 and 1934 an underground counter-revolutionary terrorist group had been formed in Leningrad consisting of former members of the Zinoviev opposition and headed by a so-called "Leningrad Centre." The purpose of this group was to murder leaders of the Communist Party. S. M. Kirov was chosen as the first victim. The testimony of the members of this counter-revolutionary group showed that they were connected with representatives of foreign capitalist states and were receiving funds from them.
The exposed members of this organization were sentenced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. to the supreme penalty - to be shot.
Soon afterwards the existence of an underground counter-revolutionary organization called the "Moscow Centre" was discovered. The preliminary investigation and the trial revealed the villainous part played by Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yevdokimo and other leaders of this organization in cultivating the terrorist mentality among their followers, and in plotting the murder of members of the Party Central Committee and of the Soviet Government.
To such depths of duplicity and villainy had these people sunk that Zinoviev, who was one of the organizers and instigators of the assassination of S. M. Kirov, and who had urged the murderer to hasten the crime, wrote an obituary of Kirov speaking of him in terms of eulogy, and demanded that it be published.
The Zinovievites simulated remorse in court; but they persisted in their duplicity even in the dock. They concealed their connection with Trotsky. They concealed the fact that together with the Trotskyites they had sold themselves to fascist espionage services. They concealed their spying and wrecking activities. They concealed from the court their connections with the Bukharinites, and the existence of a united Trotsky-Bukharin gang of fascist hirelings.
As it later transpired, the murder of Comrade Kirov was the work of this united Trotsky-Bukharin gang....
The chief instigator and ringleader of this gang of assassins and spies was Judas Trotsky. Trotsky's assistants and agents in carrying out his counter-revolutionary instructions were Zinoviev, Kamenev and their Trotskyite underlings. They were preparing to bring about the defeat of the U.S.S.R. in the event of attack by imperialist countries; they had become defeatists with regard to the workers' and peasants' state; they had become despicable tools and agents of the German and Japanese fascists.
The main lesson which the Party organizations had to draw from the trials of the persons implicated in the foul murder of S. M. Kirov was that they must put an end to their own political blindness and political heedlessness, and must increase their vigilance and the vigilance of all Party members....
Purging and consolidating its ranks, destroying the enemies of the Party and relentlessly combating distortions of the Party line, the Bolshevik Party rallied closer than ever around its Central Committee, under whose leadership the Party and the Soviet land now passed to a new stage - the completion of the construction of a classless, Socialist society.
In 1936, Stalin began to attack his political opponents in a series of" purges" aimed at destroying the vestiges of political opposition to him. What follows is the official explanation from textbooks published before Stalin's excesses were repudiated by his successors.
The achievements of Socialism in our country were a cause of rejoicing not only to the Party, and not only to the workers and collective farmers, but also to our Soviet intelligentsia, and to all honest citizens of the Soviet Union.
But they were no cause of rejoicing to the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes; on the contrary, they only enraged them the more as time went on.
They infuriated the lickspittles of the defeated classes - the puny remnants of the following of Bukharin and Trotsky.
These gentry were guided in their evaluation of the achievements of the workers and collective farmers not by the interests of the people, who applauded every such achievement, but by the interests of their own wretched and putrid faction, which had lost all contact with the realities of life. Since the achievements of Socialism in our country meant the victory of the policy of the Party and the utter bankruptcy of their own policy, these gentry, instead of admitting the obvious facts and joining the common cause, began to revenge themselves on the Party and the people for their own failure, for their own bankruptcy; they began to resort to foul play and sabotage against the cause of the workers and collective farmers, to blow up pits, set fire to factories, and commit acts of wrecking in collective and state farms, with the object of undoing the achievements of the workers and collective farmers and evoking popular discontent against the Soviet Government. And in order, while doing so, to shield their puny group from exposure and destruction, they simulated loyalty to the Party, fawned upon it, eulogized it, cringed before it more and more, while in reality continuing their underhand. subversive activities against the workers and peasants.
At the Seventeenth Party Congress, Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky made repentant speeches, praising the Party and extolling its achievements to the skies. But the congress detected a ring of insincerity and duplicity in their speeches; for what the Party expects from its members is not eulogies and rhapsodies over its achievements, but conscientious work on the Socialist front. And this was what the Bukharinites had showed no signs of for a long time. The Party saw that the hollow speeches of these gentry were in reality meant for their supporters outside the congress, to serve as a lesson to them in duplicity, and a call to them not to lay down their arms.
Speeches were also made at the Seventeenth Congress by the Trotskyites, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who lashed themselves extravagantly for their mistakes, and eulogized the Party no less extravagantly for its achievements. But the congress could not help seeing that both their nauseating self-castigation and their fulsome praise of the party were only meant to hide an uneasy and unclean conscience. However, the Party did not yet know or suspect that while these gentry were making their cloying speeches at the congress they were hatching a villainous plot against the life of S. M. Kirov.
On December 1, 1934, S. M. Kirov was foully murdered in the Smolny, in Leningrad, by a shot from a revolver.
The assassin was caught red-handed and turned out to be a member of a secret counter-revolutionary group made up of members of an anti-Soviet group of Zinovievites in Leningrad.
S. M. Kirov was loved by the Party and the working class, and his murder stirred the people profoundly, sending a wave of wrath and deep sorrow through the country.
The investigation established that in 1933 and 1934 an underground counter-revolutionary terrorist group had been formed in Leningrad consisting of former members of the Zinoviev opposition and headed by a so-called "Leningrad Centre." The purpose of this group was to murder leaders of the Communist Party. S. M. Kirov was chosen as the first victim. The testimony of the members of this counter-revolutionary group showed that they were connected with representatives of foreign capitalist states and were receiving funds from them.
The exposed members of this organization were sentenced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. to the supreme penalty - to be shot.
Soon afterwards the existence of an underground counter-revolutionary organization called the "Moscow Centre" was discovered. The preliminary investigation and the trial revealed the villainous part played by Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yevdokimo and other leaders of this organization in cultivating the terrorist mentality among their followers, and in plotting the murder of members of the Party Central Committee and of the Soviet Government.
To such depths of duplicity and villainy had these people sunk that Zinoviev, who was one of the organizers and instigators of the assassination of S. M. Kirov, and who had urged the murderer to hasten the crime, wrote an obituary of Kirov speaking of him in terms of eulogy, and demanded that it be published.
The Zinovievites simulated remorse in court; but they persisted in their duplicity even in the dock. They concealed their connection with Trotsky. They concealed the fact that together with the Trotskyites they had sold themselves to fascist espionage services. They concealed their spying and wrecking activities. They concealed from the court their connections with the Bukharinites, and the existence of a united Trotsky-Bukharin gang of fascist hirelings.
As it later transpired, the murder of Comrade Kirov was the work of this united Trotsky-Bukharin gang....
The chief instigator and ringleader of this gang of assassins and spies was Judas Trotsky. Trotsky's assistants and agents in carrying out his counter-revolutionary instructions were Zinoviev, Kamenev and their Trotskyite underlings. They were preparing to bring about the defeat of the U.S.S.R. in the event of attack by imperialist countries; they had become defeatists with regard to the workers' and peasants' state; they had become despicable tools and agents of the German and Japanese fascists.
The main lesson which the Party organizations had to draw from the trials of the persons implicated in the foul murder of S. M. Kirov was that they must put an end to their own political blindness and political heedlessness, and must increase their vigilance and the vigilance of all Party members....
Purging and consolidating its ranks, destroying the enemies of the Party and relentlessly combating distortions of the Party line, the Bolshevik Party rallied closer than ever around its Central Committee, under whose leadership the Party and the Soviet land now passed to a new stage - the completion of the construction of a classless, Socialist society.
Friday, February 20, 2009
PRIMO LEVI ASSIGNMENT
Dr. Schmoll Primo Levi Essay Assignment
Reading Due: Monday 3/2 Essay Due: Monday 3/9
WARNING!!! This is not intended to be a re-telling of the book. I have read it many times, so instead of describing “what” happened, analyze the meaning of what happened.
In a well crafted 3 page essay (typed, double-spaced) you must answer one of the following questions. For each question, you may want to consult some sources other than Levi and class notes. You should feel free to read scholarly journals, other books, magazines, or even movie interpretations of this time period.
1. Look at other experiences of the Holocaust. Considering these other experience, is Levi’s account typical?
http://www.holocaustsurvivors.org/survivors.php
http://www.adl.org/children_holocaust/children_main1.asp
http://www.tellingstories.org/
2. Is Survival in Auschwitz an optimistic or pessimistic book?
3. Look at other experiences of genocide in the 20th century. What are the common elements that define genocide?
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/genocide_massacre.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rwanda/reports/dsetexhe.html
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/64283/first-genocide-of-the-20th-century-herero-and-nama-genocide.html
4. Watch at least three films on the Holocaust and discuss which issues have been most important in the film interpretation of this time period. After reading Levi, how do you feel that Levi would respond to such film depictions of something like the Holocaust? (Europa, Europa, Life is Beautiful, Schindler’s List, The Pianist)
5. Why study the holocaust? Use Levi as a central source for this question.
(beware, warning, take cover, ahhh)
6. Holocaust survivor and renowned psychologist Victor Frankl said, "We who lived in the concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's way."
Considering the experiences of Primo Levi, evaluate the validity of Frankl's statement. Would Levi agree or disagree that certain shreds of human dignity might remain even in something like the Holocaust?
7. CREATIVE OUTLET: Choose one of the non-Jewish Germans in Survival in Auschwitz and imagine a post-war conversation between that person and Levi. Your entire essay for this option will be the text of that conversation.
TURNITIN.COM
ü A paper copy of your paper is due at the beginning of class.
ü An electronic copy of your essay is due at turnitin by midnight on the due date.
ü You do not need to print out anything at all from turnitin.
ü Remember, whatever outside sources you use MUST BE CORRECTLY
ATTRIBUTED in your essay. You may use any citation format.
ü Also, remember, there are many Levi essays on the web and floating around campus. Don’t be lured in by such stupidity. If nothing else, be original.BEWARE!!!!! This option is dangerous!!!
Reading Due: Monday 3/2 Essay Due: Monday 3/9
WARNING!!! This is not intended to be a re-telling of the book. I have read it many times, so instead of describing “what” happened, analyze the meaning of what happened.
In a well crafted 3 page essay (typed, double-spaced) you must answer one of the following questions. For each question, you may want to consult some sources other than Levi and class notes. You should feel free to read scholarly journals, other books, magazines, or even movie interpretations of this time period.
1. Look at other experiences of the Holocaust. Considering these other experience, is Levi’s account typical?
http://www.holocaustsurvivors.org/survivors.php
http://www.adl.org/children_holocaust/children_main1.asp
http://www.tellingstories.org/
2. Is Survival in Auschwitz an optimistic or pessimistic book?
3. Look at other experiences of genocide in the 20th century. What are the common elements that define genocide?
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/genocide_massacre.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rwanda/reports/dsetexhe.html
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/64283/first-genocide-of-the-20th-century-herero-and-nama-genocide.html
4. Watch at least three films on the Holocaust and discuss which issues have been most important in the film interpretation of this time period. After reading Levi, how do you feel that Levi would respond to such film depictions of something like the Holocaust? (Europa, Europa, Life is Beautiful, Schindler’s List, The Pianist)
5. Why study the holocaust? Use Levi as a central source for this question.
(beware, warning, take cover, ahhh)
6. Holocaust survivor and renowned psychologist Victor Frankl said, "We who lived in the concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's way."
Considering the experiences of Primo Levi, evaluate the validity of Frankl's statement. Would Levi agree or disagree that certain shreds of human dignity might remain even in something like the Holocaust?
7. CREATIVE OUTLET: Choose one of the non-Jewish Germans in Survival in Auschwitz and imagine a post-war conversation between that person and Levi. Your entire essay for this option will be the text of that conversation.
TURNITIN.COM
ü A paper copy of your paper is due at the beginning of class.
ü An electronic copy of your essay is due at turnitin by midnight on the due date.
ü You do not need to print out anything at all from turnitin.
ü Remember, whatever outside sources you use MUST BE CORRECTLY
ATTRIBUTED in your essay. You may use any citation format.
ü Also, remember, there are many Levi essays on the web and floating around campus. Don’t be lured in by such stupidity. If nothing else, be original.BEWARE!!!!! This option is dangerous!!!
Russian Revolution
Post War World Chaos
Russian Revolution:
I. Tsarist Failure
II. February Revolution
III. October Revolution
IV. Rise of Stalin
O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who broughtest man to birth.
Thou who fructifies the earth,
Thou who restorest to centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical chords...
Thou, splendour of my spring, O thou,
Sun reflected by millions of hearts.
(A. O. Avdienko)
Russian Revolution:
I. Tsarist Failure
II. February Revolution
III. October Revolution
IV. Rise of Stalin
O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who broughtest man to birth.
Thou who fructifies the earth,
Thou who restorest to centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical chords...
Thou, splendour of my spring, O thou,
Sun reflected by millions of hearts.
(A. O. Avdienko)
Friday, February 13, 2009
READING GUIDE FOR STORM OF STEEL
What is your favorite time that Junger is injured?
What weapons are used in this book?
Find somewhere in the book when Junger describes nature.
What is the most compelling description of combat? Is this surprising?
Where do you see Junger drinking?
Is this book sad?
Does the author take a stance for or against war?
Does this book have a political perspective?
How does the book end?
What weapons are used in this book?
Find somewhere in the book when Junger describes nature.
What is the most compelling description of combat? Is this surprising?
Where do you see Junger drinking?
Is this book sad?
Does the author take a stance for or against war?
Does this book have a political perspective?
How does the book end?
World War One Outline
The Great War
I. Origins of War:
A. Nationalist Conflict
B. The Alliance System
C. Assassination
D. Mobilization
E. Romantic Nationalism
II. Outbreak of War
A. Western Front
B. Eastern Front
C. World War
1. Gallipoli
2. Genocide
3. Total war
III. Ending the War:
A. The War at Sea (and how it backfired)
B. Enter the U.S.
C. Germany’s 1918 Offensive
D. Treaty of Versailles
I. Origins of War:
A. Nationalist Conflict
B. The Alliance System
C. Assassination
D. Mobilization
E. Romantic Nationalism
II. Outbreak of War
A. Western Front
B. Eastern Front
C. World War
1. Gallipoli
2. Genocide
3. Total war
III. Ending the War:
A. The War at Sea (and how it backfired)
B. Enter the U.S.
C. Germany’s 1918 Offensive
D. Treaty of Versailles
Scramble for Africa Documents
The Boer War
The Boer War of 1899 was a dirty little conflict which involved all the Boer Republics and the British empire. It started a result of cultural resentment between the Boers (Dutch settlers) and immigrating British. It began as an uprising of British immigrants against the Boer government. The British Empire, seeing their subjects misteated, decided to get involved. At first the war was fought with the honor typically associated with the British, but, in the end, it turned nasty.
Problems began with the discovery of gold in the Transvaal. Thousands of British miners flooded into the Boer culture, almost overnight. This disruption caused the Boers to resent the new immigrants. They decided to make the British second-class citizens; paying high taxes and not getting the right to vote. The British miners understandably unhappy with this situation. They decided to follow the example set by the French and Americans, they revolted. If it had stopped there, the Boer War would have been nothing but an obscure trivia question, but it didn't; the British empire chose to get involved. British troops began building up on the Transvaal borders. A threat was made, a threat was ignored, and a war began.
At first, the war went well for the Boers. These Dutch farmers handily beat the famous British army in several encounters, yet their success would not last. The better trained British army captured the capital of the Orange Free State, Johannesburg and Pretoria. The British had claimed yet another victory for the crown. The Boers though, refused to admit defeat.
Upon their devastating defeats at the hands of the British, the Boers realized that a new strategy had be developed if they were to have a prayer of defeating the British. The Dutch farmers couldn't win in a stand up fight against the better trained British soldiers. Taking a queue from the American Revolutionaries, the Boers began successfully using guerrilla tactics against the British. The British soon realized that harsh means would have to be used in order to crush the motivated Boers.
In a despicable move, the British began imprisoning Boer women and children in concentration camps. Over 26,000 of these innocent civilians died in the British concentration camps. The Boers were broken.
A treaty was signed at Vereeniging. The defeated Boers had no choice but to submit to the British demands. The Treaty of Vereeniging made the Transvaal and the Orange Free State into British colonies. The Boers have never forgotten the British cruelty, and until recently the Boers had almost totally isolated themselves from other cultures. The British victory was a bitter pill for the Boers to swallow.
SUEZ CANAL
In 1859, Egyptian workers started working on the construction of the Canal in conditions described by historians as slave labor, and the project was completed around 1867. On November 17, 1869, the Canal was officially inaugurated by Khedive Ismail in an extravagant and lavish ceremony. French, British, Russian, and other Royalty were invited for the inauguration which coincided with the re-planning of Cairo. A highway was constructed linking Cairo to the new city of Ismailia, an Opera House was built, and Verdi was commissioned to compose his famous opera, "Aida" for the opening ceremony. Ironically, Verdi did not complete the work in time and "Aida" premiered at the Cairo Opera a year later.
The following is from http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/suezcanal.htm:
The total original cost of building the canal was about $100 million, about twice its original estimated coast. However, about three times that sum was spent on later repairs and improvements.
The completion of the Suez Canal was a cause for considerable celebration. In Port Said, the extravaganza began with fireworks and a ball attended by six thousand people. They included many heads of state, including the Empress Eugenie, the Emperor of Austria, the Prince of Wales, the Prince of Prussia and the Prince of the Netherlands. Two convoys of ships entered the canal from its southern and northern points and met at Ismailia. Parties continued for weeks, and the celebration also marked the opening of Ismail's old Opera House in Cairo, which is now gone.
The canal had a dramatic effect on world trade almost from the time it was opened, and even on world politics. Now, it was much easier for European nations to penetrate and colonize Africa.
Because of external debts, the British government purchased the shares owned by Egyptian interests, namely those of Said Pasha, in 1875, for some 400,000 pounds sterling. Yet France continued to have a majority interest. Under the terms of an international convention signed in 1888 (The Convention of Constantinople), the canal was opened to vessels of all nations without discrimination, in peace and war. Nevertheless, Britain considered the canal vital to the maintenance of its maritime power and colonial interests.
The White Man's Burden
Some colonists really thought they were having a civilizing effect on Africa and Asia, bringing not only the benefits of ports and railways, but also a justice system and the Christian religion. It is less likely that economic factors played a large part in the "Scramble for Africa".
It is true that the African colonies supplied raw materials (metals, food stuffs, timber etc.), but they never became the markets for manufactured goods that some had hoped for. The colonies were expensive to administer and expensive to defend. They never really made any money. As a famous English historian, A.J.P. Taylor, wrote after the Second World War:
"Tot up the national balance sheet of any imperial country over the last fifty years and you will find the community is staggeringly out of profit."
Interestingly, some of the biggest overseas profits were made in countries which were not colonized. China, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, Brazil and Argentina, for example, offered some of the best sources of raw materials and markets for manufactured goods, without Europeans having to pay the costs of colonization.
“Take up the White Man's burden The savage wars of peace Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought, Watch Sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hope to naught ....”
“Take up the White Man's burden Ye dare not stoop to less Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloak your weariness; By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your Gods, and you.”
“Take up the White Man's burden Have done with childish days The lightly proffered laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise. Come now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years, Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers!”
From 'The Five Nations' Rudyard Kipling
Belgium
An important factor in the "Scramble for Africa" was the sense of "grabbing" territory, even if it was impenetrable jungle or waterless desert, simply to prevent a neighbour in Europe from putting up his flag on the same land. It was King Leopold of Belgium, and his claim to the huge Congo Basin, who contributed most to this sense of urgency. He was prepared to pay from his own pocket for a colony bigger than his own country. Caught in the frenzy, Portugal felt obliged to extend its old claims, going back to the 16th century, to enormous parts of Angola and Mozambique.
The Congo provides the most curious and the most bloody example of European colonisation in Africa.
Belgium had only become independent in 1830 and was obliged by law to be a neutral country. Consequently, it could not engage in any adventures in Europe alongside the big powers. Although the Belgian people and government were not particularly enthusiastic, the king, Leopold, was desperate to give the country an Empire. "There are no small nations .... only small minds", he is quoted as saying.
Creating an "Association Internationale Aticaine", he had, by 1875, laid claim to a huge territory, eighty times the size of his own country, in the Congo basin. It was the king's own property, paid for entirely out of his own pocket. By the 1880's, however, his finances were in difficulty and, by a series of royal ordinances, the colonial tax-collectors were authorised to go into villages and extract quotas of rubber from the villagers as taxation.
The British Consul in the "Congo Independent State", Roger Casement, produced a famous report in 1903, in which he revealed how Congolese natives were being systematically mutilated (hands, ears, noses cut oft), ',whipped and executed for not 'producing enough wild rubber for their (taxes. The scandals grew so great that ithe Belgian parliament demanded that their king relinquish his private colony and hand it over to the Belgian state (1908). The Congo had become the most notorious of all European colonies in Africa.
The Fashoda Crisis (1898)
The Berlin Conference set the rules for the division of Africa, but it also made the colonial powers even more aggressive in their pursuit of unclaimed territory. A pattern was emerging between the two greatest colonial countries.
France was clearly expanding in a west to east direction, from French West Africa to French Somaliland, while Britain had expanded in a north-south direction, from Egypt to the Cape. The point where the two axes crossed was the Sudan. Here a small French expedition, under Major Marchand, reached Fashoda, on the Upper Nile, in 1898. This was followed, only two months later, by a much bigger British force under Lord Kitchener. The two leaders did not know whether to sit down and have a drink together or fight. Both claimed Fashoda and the Sudan for their own countries.
In London and Paris, for the last time in their histories, there was talk of war between Britain and France. However, the diplomats knew it was absurd for their countries to go to war over a distant African village. Quietly, an agreement was reached. France would recognise the British presence in Egypt and Sudan and Britain would recognise France's presence in Morocco. With colonial differences settled, the two countries could concentrate on a far more pressing subject; coming together in an Entente Cordiale to face a common danger -Germany.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/uni/uk/18/ffashoda1898.htm
Hoping to cut off the British Cape to Cairo route, the French Government signed orders on February 24, 1896 instructing Captain Marchand to lead an expedition to the Upper Nile and occupy Fashoda. The Marchand Mission, seven French officers and a force of 120 Senegalese tirailleurs, landed at Fashoda on July 10, 1898 and raised the French flag.
On September 2, 1898, British General Kitchener opened the Sudan by defeating the Mahdists at the battle of Omderman. Having learned of the occupation of Fashoda from a captured band of Mahdists, Kitchener set out with five steamers carrying British and Sudanese soldiers. On September 19, Kitchener and his troops landed at Fashoda, where he met Captain Marchand. Kitchener protested the French occupation, claiming Fashoda for Britain by right of conquest (i.e., the victory at Omdurman), while Marchand maintained that the area belonged to France by virtue of the presence of French troops. When Marchand refused to leave, Kitchener raised the Egyptian flag alongside the French in keeping with Britain's "two flags" policy.
France expressed a desire to negotiate spheres of influence in Africa, but Britain refused to enter into negotiations until Marchand and his troops had evacuated Fashoda. On October 17, both the French and the British began shows of strength in strategic areas.
Eventually realizing the hopelessness of the situation, France agreed to remove her troops, and, on December 4, 1898, ordered the evacuation of Fashoda. On March 21, 1899 a convention was signed with France renouncing all claims to Fashoda.
GREAT EXPLORERS OF THE AGE
Rene Caillie (1799-1838), a Frenchman, was the first European to visit Timbuktu and survive to tell the tale. Imagine his disappointment when he discovered that the city wasn't made of gold, as legend said, but of mud. His journey started in West Africa in March 1827, headed towards Timbuktu where he stayed for two weeks. He then crossed the Sahara (the first European to do so) in a caravan of 1,200 animals, then the Atlas Mountains to reach Tangier in 1828, from where he sailed home to France.
Richard Burton (1821-1890) was not only a great explorer but also a great scholar (he produced the first unabridged translation of The Thousand Nights and a Night). His most famous exploit is probably his dressing as an Arab and visiting the holy city of Mecca (in 1853) which non-Muslims are forbidden to enter. In 1857 he and Speke set off from the east coast of Africa (Tanzania) to find the source of the Nile. At Lake Tanganyika Burton fell seriously ill, leaving Speke to travel on alone.
John Hanning Speke (1827-1864) spent 10 years with the Indian Army before starting his travels with Burton in Africa. Speke discovered Lake Victoria in August 1858 which he initially believed to be the source of the Nile. Burton didn't believe him and in 1860 Speke set out again, this time with James Grant. In July 1862 he found the source of the Nile, the Ripon Falls north of Lake Victoria.
David Livingstone (1813-1873) arrived in Southern Africa as a missionary with the aim of improving the life of Africans through European knowledge and trade. A qualified doctor and minister, he had worked in a cotton mill near Glasgow, Scotland, as a boy. Between 1853 and 1856 he crossed Africa from west to east, from Luanda (in Angola) to Quelimane (in Mozambique), following the Zambezi River to the sea. Between 1858 and 1864 he explored the Shire and Ruvuma river valleys and Lake Nyasa (Lake Malawi). In 1865 he set off to find the source of the River Nile.
Henry Morton Stanley (1841-1904) was a journalist sent by the New York Herald to find Livingstone who had been presumed dead for four years as no-one in Europe had heard from him. Stanley found him at Uiji on the edge of Lake Tanganyika in Central Africa on 13 November 1871. Stanley's words "Dr Livingstone, I presume?" have gone down in the history as one of the greatest understatements ever. Dr Livingstone is said to have replied, "You have brought me new life." Livingstone had missed the Franco-Prussian War, the opening of the Suez Canal, and the inauguration of the transatlantic telegraph. Livingstone refused to return to Europe with Stanley and continued on his journey to find the source of the Nile. He died in May 1873 in the swamps around Lake Bangweulu. His heart and viscera were buried, then his body was carried to Zanzibar, from where it was shipped to Britain. He was buried at Westminster Abbey in London.
Unlike Livingstone, Stanley was motivated by fame and fortune. He travelled in large, well-armed expeditions -- he had 200 porters on his expedition to find Livingstone, who often travelled with only a few bearers. Stanley's second expedition set off from Zanzibar towards Lake Victoria (which he sailed around in his boat, the Lady Alice), then headed into Central Africa towards Nyangwe and the Congo (Zaire) River, which he followed for some 3,220 kilometres from its tributaries to the sea, reaching Boma in August 1877. He then set off back into Central Africa to find Emin Pasha, a German explorer believed to be in danger from warring cannibals.
Mary Kingsley’s (1862-1900) father spent most of his life accompanying noblemen around the world, keeping diaries and notes which he hoped to publish. Educated at home, she learned the rudiments of natural history from him and his library. He employed a tutor to teach his daughter German so she could help him translate scientific papers. His comparative study of sacrificial rites around the world was his major passion and it was Mary's desire to complete this which took her to West Africa after her parents' deaths in 1892 (within six weeks of each other). Her two journeys weren't remarkable for their geological exploration, but were remarkable for being undertaken, alone, by a sheltered, middle-class, Victorian spinster in her thirties without any knowledge of African languages or French, or much money (she arrived in West Africa with only £300). Kingsley did collect specimens for science, including a new fish which was named after her. She died nursing prisoners of war in Simon's Town (Cape Town) during the Anglo-Boer War.
NAMIBIA—HERERO GENOCIDE
The German Emperor replaced Major Leutwein with another commander, this time a man notorious for brutality who had already fiercely suppressed African resistance to German colonisation in East Africa. Lieutenant-General Lothar von Trotha said, 'I wipe out rebellious tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only following this cleansing can something new emerge'. Von Trotha brought with him to German South West Africa 10,000 heavily-armed men and a plan for war.Under his command, the German troops slowly drove the Herero warriors to a position where they could be hemmed in by attack on three sides. The fourth side offered escape; but only into the killing wastes of the Kalahari desert. The German soldiers were paid well to pursue the Herero into this treacherous wilderness. They were also ordered to poison the few water-holes there. Others set up guard posts along a 150-mile border: any Herero trying to get back was killed.On October 2, 1904, von Trotha issued his order to exterminate the Herero from the region. 'All the Herero must leave the land. If they refuse, then I will force them to do it with the big guns. Any Herero found within German borders, with or without a gun, will be shot. No prisoners will be taken. This is my decision for the Herero people'.After the Herero uprising had been systematically put down, by shooting or enforced slow death in the desert from starvation, thirst and disease (the fate of many women and children), those who still lived were rounded up, banned from owning land or cattle, and sent into labour camps to be the slaves of German settlers. Many more Herero died in the camps, of overwork, starvation and disease. By 1907, in the face of criticism both at home and abroad, von Trotha's orders had been cancelled and he himself recalled, but it was too late for the crushed Herero. Before the uprising, the tribe numbered 80,000; after it, only 15,000 remained.During the period of colonisation and oppression, many women were used as sex slaves. (This had not been von Trotha's intention. 'To receive women and children, most of them ill, is a serious danger to the German troops. And to feed them is an impossibility. I find it appropriate that the nation perishes instead of infecting our soldiers.') In the Herero work camps there were numerous children born to these abused women, and a man called Eugen Fischer, who was interested in genetics, came to the camps to study them; he carried out medical experiments on them as well. He decided that each mixed-race child was physically and mentally inferior to its German father (a conclusion for which there was and is no respectable scientific foundation whatever) and wrote a book promoting his ideas: 'The Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene'. Adolf Hitler read it while he was in prison in 1923, and cited it in his own infamous pursuit of 'racial purity'.
The Berlin Conference: General Act of Feb. 26, 1885
It was not until after the mid-nineteenth century that the imperialist great powers of Europe showed renewed interest in the continent of Africa, particularly in the hitherto unexplored central regions comprising modern-day Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe. This interest was heightened by the expected opportunities for raw materials and investment that these territories could provide for Europe's continuing industrialization. There was competition, of course, among the powers as they eyed the opportunities and set the stage for intrusion. Much interest was concentrated on the Congo region (modern Zaire) upon which King Leopold II of Belgium had set his sights (it later turned out to be a lucrative source of rubber). However, the old colonial nation of Portugal, with African interests in Angola and Mozambique extending back over three centuries, also saw the Congo region as its historical sphere of influence. International rivalry and diplomatic infighting such as developed out of this competition for influence prompted France and Germany to suggest the notion of a European conference to resolve contending claims and provide for a more orderly ‘carving up’ of the continent. The Conference met at Berlin from November 1884 through Februart 1885 and resulted in the following agreement--The Berlin Act of 1885. It was attended by representatives of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Russia, U.S.A., Portugal, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Turkey.
The Act allotted "spheres of influence" to the relevant powers and established the Congo basin as the Congo Free State under the sovereignty of Leopold II in his personal capacity as head (and chief financial backer) of the private International Congo Association. Some of the main provisions of the Act are as follows; note in particular the doctrine of "effective occupation" as prescribed in Art. XXXV.
Chap. I [relating to the Congo River Basin and adjacent territories]
I. The trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom
II. All flags, without distinction of nationality, shall have free access to the whole of the coast-line of the territories . . .
III. Goods of whatever origin, imported into these regions, under whatsoever flag, by sea or river, or overland, shall be subject to no other taxes than such as may be levied as fair compensation for expenditure in the interests of trade . . .
IV. Merchandise imported into these regions shall remain free from import and transit duties [subject to review after 20 years]
V. No power which exercises or shall exercise sovereign rights in the . . regions shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favor of any kind in matters of trade...
VI. All the powers exercising sovereign rights or influence in the aforesaid territories bind themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being and to help in suppressing slavery, and especially the Slave TradeChristian missionaries, scientists, and explorers, with their followers, property, and collections, shall likewise be the objects of especial protection.Freedom of conscience and religious toleration are expressly guaranteed to the natives, no less than to subjects and to foreigners . . .
Chap. II Documents relative to the Slave Trade
IX. ............the Powers which do or shall exercise sovereign rights or influence in the territories forming the .. basin of the Congo declare that these territories may not serve as a market or means of transit for the trade in slaves, of whatever race they may be. Each of the Powers binds itself to employ all the means at its disposal for putting an end to this trade and for punishing those who engage in it.
The Scramble for Africa: Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 to Divide Africa
Meeting at the Berlin residence of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in 1884, the foreign ministers of fourteen European powers and the United States established ground rules for the future exploitation of the "dark continent." Africans were not invited or made privy to their decisions.
Photo from the book The Horizon: History of Africa, American Heritage Publishing Co., New York, 1971, page 452.
Result of Colonization:
The European colonial powers shared one objective in their African colonies; exploitation. But in the way they governed their dependencies, they reflected their differences. Some colonial powers were themselves democracies (the United Kingdom and France); others were dictatorships (Portugal, Spain). The British established a system of indirect rule over much of their domain, leaving indigenous power structure in place and making local rulers representatives of the British Crown. This was unthinkable in the Portuguese colonies, where harsh, direct control was the rule. The French sought to create culturally assimilated elites what would represent French ideals in the colonies. In the Belgian Congo, however, King Leopold II, who had financed the expeditions that staked Belgium's claim in Berlin, embarked on a campaign of ruthless exploitation. His enforcers mobilized almost the entire Congolese populations to gather rubber, kill elephants for their ivory, and build public works to improve export routes. For failing to meet production quotes, entire communities were massacred. Killing and maiming became routine in a colony in which horror was the only common denominator. After the impact of the slave trade, King Leopold's reign of terror was Africa's most severe demographic disaster. By the time it ended, after a growing outcry around the world, as many as 10 million Congolese had been murdered. In 1908 the Belgium government administrators, and the Roman Catholic Church each pursued their sometimes competing interest. But no one thought to change the name of the colonial capital: it was Leopoldville until the Belgian Congo achieved independence in 1960.
The following material is from the book Geography: Realms, Regions and Concepts, by H. J. de Blij, Peter O. Muller, 2003
1884-1885 - Berlin West African Conference carves Africa into spheres of control
In November 1884, the imperial chancellor and architect of the German Empire, Otto von Bismarck, convened a conference of 14 states (including the United States) to settle the political partitioning of Africa. Bismarck wanted not only to expand German spheres of influence in Africa but also to play off Germany's colonial rivals against one another to the Germans' advantage. Of these fourteen nations, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Portugal were the major players in the conference, controlling most of colonial Africa at the time.
The Berlin Conference was Africa's undoing in more ways than one. The colonial powers superimposed their domains on the African Continent. By the time Africa regained its independence after the late 1950s, the realm had acquired a legacy of political fragmentation that could neither be eliminated nor made to operate satisfactorily. The African politico-geographical map is thus a permanent liability that resulted from the three months of ignorant, greedy acquisitiveness during a period when Europe's search for minerals and markets had become insatiable.
The Boer War of 1899 was a dirty little conflict which involved all the Boer Republics and the British empire. It started a result of cultural resentment between the Boers (Dutch settlers) and immigrating British. It began as an uprising of British immigrants against the Boer government. The British Empire, seeing their subjects misteated, decided to get involved. At first the war was fought with the honor typically associated with the British, but, in the end, it turned nasty.
Problems began with the discovery of gold in the Transvaal. Thousands of British miners flooded into the Boer culture, almost overnight. This disruption caused the Boers to resent the new immigrants. They decided to make the British second-class citizens; paying high taxes and not getting the right to vote. The British miners understandably unhappy with this situation. They decided to follow the example set by the French and Americans, they revolted. If it had stopped there, the Boer War would have been nothing but an obscure trivia question, but it didn't; the British empire chose to get involved. British troops began building up on the Transvaal borders. A threat was made, a threat was ignored, and a war began.
At first, the war went well for the Boers. These Dutch farmers handily beat the famous British army in several encounters, yet their success would not last. The better trained British army captured the capital of the Orange Free State, Johannesburg and Pretoria. The British had claimed yet another victory for the crown. The Boers though, refused to admit defeat.
Upon their devastating defeats at the hands of the British, the Boers realized that a new strategy had be developed if they were to have a prayer of defeating the British. The Dutch farmers couldn't win in a stand up fight against the better trained British soldiers. Taking a queue from the American Revolutionaries, the Boers began successfully using guerrilla tactics against the British. The British soon realized that harsh means would have to be used in order to crush the motivated Boers.
In a despicable move, the British began imprisoning Boer women and children in concentration camps. Over 26,000 of these innocent civilians died in the British concentration camps. The Boers were broken.
A treaty was signed at Vereeniging. The defeated Boers had no choice but to submit to the British demands. The Treaty of Vereeniging made the Transvaal and the Orange Free State into British colonies. The Boers have never forgotten the British cruelty, and until recently the Boers had almost totally isolated themselves from other cultures. The British victory was a bitter pill for the Boers to swallow.
SUEZ CANAL
In 1859, Egyptian workers started working on the construction of the Canal in conditions described by historians as slave labor, and the project was completed around 1867. On November 17, 1869, the Canal was officially inaugurated by Khedive Ismail in an extravagant and lavish ceremony. French, British, Russian, and other Royalty were invited for the inauguration which coincided with the re-planning of Cairo. A highway was constructed linking Cairo to the new city of Ismailia, an Opera House was built, and Verdi was commissioned to compose his famous opera, "Aida" for the opening ceremony. Ironically, Verdi did not complete the work in time and "Aida" premiered at the Cairo Opera a year later.
The following is from http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/suezcanal.htm:
The total original cost of building the canal was about $100 million, about twice its original estimated coast. However, about three times that sum was spent on later repairs and improvements.
The completion of the Suez Canal was a cause for considerable celebration. In Port Said, the extravaganza began with fireworks and a ball attended by six thousand people. They included many heads of state, including the Empress Eugenie, the Emperor of Austria, the Prince of Wales, the Prince of Prussia and the Prince of the Netherlands. Two convoys of ships entered the canal from its southern and northern points and met at Ismailia. Parties continued for weeks, and the celebration also marked the opening of Ismail's old Opera House in Cairo, which is now gone.
The canal had a dramatic effect on world trade almost from the time it was opened, and even on world politics. Now, it was much easier for European nations to penetrate and colonize Africa.
Because of external debts, the British government purchased the shares owned by Egyptian interests, namely those of Said Pasha, in 1875, for some 400,000 pounds sterling. Yet France continued to have a majority interest. Under the terms of an international convention signed in 1888 (The Convention of Constantinople), the canal was opened to vessels of all nations without discrimination, in peace and war. Nevertheless, Britain considered the canal vital to the maintenance of its maritime power and colonial interests.
The White Man's Burden
Some colonists really thought they were having a civilizing effect on Africa and Asia, bringing not only the benefits of ports and railways, but also a justice system and the Christian religion. It is less likely that economic factors played a large part in the "Scramble for Africa".
It is true that the African colonies supplied raw materials (metals, food stuffs, timber etc.), but they never became the markets for manufactured goods that some had hoped for. The colonies were expensive to administer and expensive to defend. They never really made any money. As a famous English historian, A.J.P. Taylor, wrote after the Second World War:
"Tot up the national balance sheet of any imperial country over the last fifty years and you will find the community is staggeringly out of profit."
Interestingly, some of the biggest overseas profits were made in countries which were not colonized. China, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, Brazil and Argentina, for example, offered some of the best sources of raw materials and markets for manufactured goods, without Europeans having to pay the costs of colonization.
“Take up the White Man's burden The savage wars of peace Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought, Watch Sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hope to naught ....”
“Take up the White Man's burden Ye dare not stoop to less Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloak your weariness; By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your Gods, and you.”
“Take up the White Man's burden Have done with childish days The lightly proffered laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise. Come now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years, Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers!”
From 'The Five Nations' Rudyard Kipling
Belgium
An important factor in the "Scramble for Africa" was the sense of "grabbing" territory, even if it was impenetrable jungle or waterless desert, simply to prevent a neighbour in Europe from putting up his flag on the same land. It was King Leopold of Belgium, and his claim to the huge Congo Basin, who contributed most to this sense of urgency. He was prepared to pay from his own pocket for a colony bigger than his own country. Caught in the frenzy, Portugal felt obliged to extend its old claims, going back to the 16th century, to enormous parts of Angola and Mozambique.
The Congo provides the most curious and the most bloody example of European colonisation in Africa.
Belgium had only become independent in 1830 and was obliged by law to be a neutral country. Consequently, it could not engage in any adventures in Europe alongside the big powers. Although the Belgian people and government were not particularly enthusiastic, the king, Leopold, was desperate to give the country an Empire. "There are no small nations .... only small minds", he is quoted as saying.
Creating an "Association Internationale Aticaine", he had, by 1875, laid claim to a huge territory, eighty times the size of his own country, in the Congo basin. It was the king's own property, paid for entirely out of his own pocket. By the 1880's, however, his finances were in difficulty and, by a series of royal ordinances, the colonial tax-collectors were authorised to go into villages and extract quotas of rubber from the villagers as taxation.
The British Consul in the "Congo Independent State", Roger Casement, produced a famous report in 1903, in which he revealed how Congolese natives were being systematically mutilated (hands, ears, noses cut oft), ',whipped and executed for not 'producing enough wild rubber for their (taxes. The scandals grew so great that ithe Belgian parliament demanded that their king relinquish his private colony and hand it over to the Belgian state (1908). The Congo had become the most notorious of all European colonies in Africa.
The Fashoda Crisis (1898)
The Berlin Conference set the rules for the division of Africa, but it also made the colonial powers even more aggressive in their pursuit of unclaimed territory. A pattern was emerging between the two greatest colonial countries.
France was clearly expanding in a west to east direction, from French West Africa to French Somaliland, while Britain had expanded in a north-south direction, from Egypt to the Cape. The point where the two axes crossed was the Sudan. Here a small French expedition, under Major Marchand, reached Fashoda, on the Upper Nile, in 1898. This was followed, only two months later, by a much bigger British force under Lord Kitchener. The two leaders did not know whether to sit down and have a drink together or fight. Both claimed Fashoda and the Sudan for their own countries.
In London and Paris, for the last time in their histories, there was talk of war between Britain and France. However, the diplomats knew it was absurd for their countries to go to war over a distant African village. Quietly, an agreement was reached. France would recognise the British presence in Egypt and Sudan and Britain would recognise France's presence in Morocco. With colonial differences settled, the two countries could concentrate on a far more pressing subject; coming together in an Entente Cordiale to face a common danger -Germany.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/uni/uk/18/ffashoda1898.htm
Hoping to cut off the British Cape to Cairo route, the French Government signed orders on February 24, 1896 instructing Captain Marchand to lead an expedition to the Upper Nile and occupy Fashoda. The Marchand Mission, seven French officers and a force of 120 Senegalese tirailleurs, landed at Fashoda on July 10, 1898 and raised the French flag.
On September 2, 1898, British General Kitchener opened the Sudan by defeating the Mahdists at the battle of Omderman. Having learned of the occupation of Fashoda from a captured band of Mahdists, Kitchener set out with five steamers carrying British and Sudanese soldiers. On September 19, Kitchener and his troops landed at Fashoda, where he met Captain Marchand. Kitchener protested the French occupation, claiming Fashoda for Britain by right of conquest (i.e., the victory at Omdurman), while Marchand maintained that the area belonged to France by virtue of the presence of French troops. When Marchand refused to leave, Kitchener raised the Egyptian flag alongside the French in keeping with Britain's "two flags" policy.
France expressed a desire to negotiate spheres of influence in Africa, but Britain refused to enter into negotiations until Marchand and his troops had evacuated Fashoda. On October 17, both the French and the British began shows of strength in strategic areas.
Eventually realizing the hopelessness of the situation, France agreed to remove her troops, and, on December 4, 1898, ordered the evacuation of Fashoda. On March 21, 1899 a convention was signed with France renouncing all claims to Fashoda.
GREAT EXPLORERS OF THE AGE
Rene Caillie (1799-1838), a Frenchman, was the first European to visit Timbuktu and survive to tell the tale. Imagine his disappointment when he discovered that the city wasn't made of gold, as legend said, but of mud. His journey started in West Africa in March 1827, headed towards Timbuktu where he stayed for two weeks. He then crossed the Sahara (the first European to do so) in a caravan of 1,200 animals, then the Atlas Mountains to reach Tangier in 1828, from where he sailed home to France.
Richard Burton (1821-1890) was not only a great explorer but also a great scholar (he produced the first unabridged translation of The Thousand Nights and a Night). His most famous exploit is probably his dressing as an Arab and visiting the holy city of Mecca (in 1853) which non-Muslims are forbidden to enter. In 1857 he and Speke set off from the east coast of Africa (Tanzania) to find the source of the Nile. At Lake Tanganyika Burton fell seriously ill, leaving Speke to travel on alone.
John Hanning Speke (1827-1864) spent 10 years with the Indian Army before starting his travels with Burton in Africa. Speke discovered Lake Victoria in August 1858 which he initially believed to be the source of the Nile. Burton didn't believe him and in 1860 Speke set out again, this time with James Grant. In July 1862 he found the source of the Nile, the Ripon Falls north of Lake Victoria.
David Livingstone (1813-1873) arrived in Southern Africa as a missionary with the aim of improving the life of Africans through European knowledge and trade. A qualified doctor and minister, he had worked in a cotton mill near Glasgow, Scotland, as a boy. Between 1853 and 1856 he crossed Africa from west to east, from Luanda (in Angola) to Quelimane (in Mozambique), following the Zambezi River to the sea. Between 1858 and 1864 he explored the Shire and Ruvuma river valleys and Lake Nyasa (Lake Malawi). In 1865 he set off to find the source of the River Nile.
Henry Morton Stanley (1841-1904) was a journalist sent by the New York Herald to find Livingstone who had been presumed dead for four years as no-one in Europe had heard from him. Stanley found him at Uiji on the edge of Lake Tanganyika in Central Africa on 13 November 1871. Stanley's words "Dr Livingstone, I presume?" have gone down in the history as one of the greatest understatements ever. Dr Livingstone is said to have replied, "You have brought me new life." Livingstone had missed the Franco-Prussian War, the opening of the Suez Canal, and the inauguration of the transatlantic telegraph. Livingstone refused to return to Europe with Stanley and continued on his journey to find the source of the Nile. He died in May 1873 in the swamps around Lake Bangweulu. His heart and viscera were buried, then his body was carried to Zanzibar, from where it was shipped to Britain. He was buried at Westminster Abbey in London.
Unlike Livingstone, Stanley was motivated by fame and fortune. He travelled in large, well-armed expeditions -- he had 200 porters on his expedition to find Livingstone, who often travelled with only a few bearers. Stanley's second expedition set off from Zanzibar towards Lake Victoria (which he sailed around in his boat, the Lady Alice), then headed into Central Africa towards Nyangwe and the Congo (Zaire) River, which he followed for some 3,220 kilometres from its tributaries to the sea, reaching Boma in August 1877. He then set off back into Central Africa to find Emin Pasha, a German explorer believed to be in danger from warring cannibals.
Mary Kingsley’s (1862-1900) father spent most of his life accompanying noblemen around the world, keeping diaries and notes which he hoped to publish. Educated at home, she learned the rudiments of natural history from him and his library. He employed a tutor to teach his daughter German so she could help him translate scientific papers. His comparative study of sacrificial rites around the world was his major passion and it was Mary's desire to complete this which took her to West Africa after her parents' deaths in 1892 (within six weeks of each other). Her two journeys weren't remarkable for their geological exploration, but were remarkable for being undertaken, alone, by a sheltered, middle-class, Victorian spinster in her thirties without any knowledge of African languages or French, or much money (she arrived in West Africa with only £300). Kingsley did collect specimens for science, including a new fish which was named after her. She died nursing prisoners of war in Simon's Town (Cape Town) during the Anglo-Boer War.
NAMIBIA—HERERO GENOCIDE
The German Emperor replaced Major Leutwein with another commander, this time a man notorious for brutality who had already fiercely suppressed African resistance to German colonisation in East Africa. Lieutenant-General Lothar von Trotha said, 'I wipe out rebellious tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only following this cleansing can something new emerge'. Von Trotha brought with him to German South West Africa 10,000 heavily-armed men and a plan for war.Under his command, the German troops slowly drove the Herero warriors to a position where they could be hemmed in by attack on three sides. The fourth side offered escape; but only into the killing wastes of the Kalahari desert. The German soldiers were paid well to pursue the Herero into this treacherous wilderness. They were also ordered to poison the few water-holes there. Others set up guard posts along a 150-mile border: any Herero trying to get back was killed.On October 2, 1904, von Trotha issued his order to exterminate the Herero from the region. 'All the Herero must leave the land. If they refuse, then I will force them to do it with the big guns. Any Herero found within German borders, with or without a gun, will be shot. No prisoners will be taken. This is my decision for the Herero people'.After the Herero uprising had been systematically put down, by shooting or enforced slow death in the desert from starvation, thirst and disease (the fate of many women and children), those who still lived were rounded up, banned from owning land or cattle, and sent into labour camps to be the slaves of German settlers. Many more Herero died in the camps, of overwork, starvation and disease. By 1907, in the face of criticism both at home and abroad, von Trotha's orders had been cancelled and he himself recalled, but it was too late for the crushed Herero. Before the uprising, the tribe numbered 80,000; after it, only 15,000 remained.During the period of colonisation and oppression, many women were used as sex slaves. (This had not been von Trotha's intention. 'To receive women and children, most of them ill, is a serious danger to the German troops. And to feed them is an impossibility. I find it appropriate that the nation perishes instead of infecting our soldiers.') In the Herero work camps there were numerous children born to these abused women, and a man called Eugen Fischer, who was interested in genetics, came to the camps to study them; he carried out medical experiments on them as well. He decided that each mixed-race child was physically and mentally inferior to its German father (a conclusion for which there was and is no respectable scientific foundation whatever) and wrote a book promoting his ideas: 'The Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene'. Adolf Hitler read it while he was in prison in 1923, and cited it in his own infamous pursuit of 'racial purity'.
The Berlin Conference: General Act of Feb. 26, 1885
It was not until after the mid-nineteenth century that the imperialist great powers of Europe showed renewed interest in the continent of Africa, particularly in the hitherto unexplored central regions comprising modern-day Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe. This interest was heightened by the expected opportunities for raw materials and investment that these territories could provide for Europe's continuing industrialization. There was competition, of course, among the powers as they eyed the opportunities and set the stage for intrusion. Much interest was concentrated on the Congo region (modern Zaire) upon which King Leopold II of Belgium had set his sights (it later turned out to be a lucrative source of rubber). However, the old colonial nation of Portugal, with African interests in Angola and Mozambique extending back over three centuries, also saw the Congo region as its historical sphere of influence. International rivalry and diplomatic infighting such as developed out of this competition for influence prompted France and Germany to suggest the notion of a European conference to resolve contending claims and provide for a more orderly ‘carving up’ of the continent. The Conference met at Berlin from November 1884 through Februart 1885 and resulted in the following agreement--The Berlin Act of 1885. It was attended by representatives of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Russia, U.S.A., Portugal, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Turkey.
The Act allotted "spheres of influence" to the relevant powers and established the Congo basin as the Congo Free State under the sovereignty of Leopold II in his personal capacity as head (and chief financial backer) of the private International Congo Association. Some of the main provisions of the Act are as follows; note in particular the doctrine of "effective occupation" as prescribed in Art. XXXV.
Chap. I [relating to the Congo River Basin and adjacent territories]
I. The trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom
II. All flags, without distinction of nationality, shall have free access to the whole of the coast-line of the territories . . .
III. Goods of whatever origin, imported into these regions, under whatsoever flag, by sea or river, or overland, shall be subject to no other taxes than such as may be levied as fair compensation for expenditure in the interests of trade . . .
IV. Merchandise imported into these regions shall remain free from import and transit duties [subject to review after 20 years]
V. No power which exercises or shall exercise sovereign rights in the . . regions shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favor of any kind in matters of trade...
VI. All the powers exercising sovereign rights or influence in the aforesaid territories bind themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being and to help in suppressing slavery, and especially the Slave TradeChristian missionaries, scientists, and explorers, with their followers, property, and collections, shall likewise be the objects of especial protection.Freedom of conscience and religious toleration are expressly guaranteed to the natives, no less than to subjects and to foreigners . . .
Chap. II Documents relative to the Slave Trade
IX. ............the Powers which do or shall exercise sovereign rights or influence in the territories forming the .. basin of the Congo declare that these territories may not serve as a market or means of transit for the trade in slaves, of whatever race they may be. Each of the Powers binds itself to employ all the means at its disposal for putting an end to this trade and for punishing those who engage in it.
The Scramble for Africa: Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 to Divide Africa
Meeting at the Berlin residence of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in 1884, the foreign ministers of fourteen European powers and the United States established ground rules for the future exploitation of the "dark continent." Africans were not invited or made privy to their decisions.
Photo from the book The Horizon: History of Africa, American Heritage Publishing Co., New York, 1971, page 452.
Result of Colonization:
The European colonial powers shared one objective in their African colonies; exploitation. But in the way they governed their dependencies, they reflected their differences. Some colonial powers were themselves democracies (the United Kingdom and France); others were dictatorships (Portugal, Spain). The British established a system of indirect rule over much of their domain, leaving indigenous power structure in place and making local rulers representatives of the British Crown. This was unthinkable in the Portuguese colonies, where harsh, direct control was the rule. The French sought to create culturally assimilated elites what would represent French ideals in the colonies. In the Belgian Congo, however, King Leopold II, who had financed the expeditions that staked Belgium's claim in Berlin, embarked on a campaign of ruthless exploitation. His enforcers mobilized almost the entire Congolese populations to gather rubber, kill elephants for their ivory, and build public works to improve export routes. For failing to meet production quotes, entire communities were massacred. Killing and maiming became routine in a colony in which horror was the only common denominator. After the impact of the slave trade, King Leopold's reign of terror was Africa's most severe demographic disaster. By the time it ended, after a growing outcry around the world, as many as 10 million Congolese had been murdered. In 1908 the Belgium government administrators, and the Roman Catholic Church each pursued their sometimes competing interest. But no one thought to change the name of the colonial capital: it was Leopoldville until the Belgian Congo achieved independence in 1960.
The following material is from the book Geography: Realms, Regions and Concepts, by H. J. de Blij, Peter O. Muller, 2003
1884-1885 - Berlin West African Conference carves Africa into spheres of control
In November 1884, the imperial chancellor and architect of the German Empire, Otto von Bismarck, convened a conference of 14 states (including the United States) to settle the political partitioning of Africa. Bismarck wanted not only to expand German spheres of influence in Africa but also to play off Germany's colonial rivals against one another to the Germans' advantage. Of these fourteen nations, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Portugal were the major players in the conference, controlling most of colonial Africa at the time.
The Berlin Conference was Africa's undoing in more ways than one. The colonial powers superimposed their domains on the African Continent. By the time Africa regained its independence after the late 1950s, the realm had acquired a legacy of political fragmentation that could neither be eliminated nor made to operate satisfactorily. The African politico-geographical map is thus a permanent liability that resulted from the three months of ignorant, greedy acquisitiveness during a period when Europe's search for minerals and markets had become insatiable.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Midterm Review
Midterm Examination Study Guide/Dr. Schmoll/History 102
TEST DATE: MONDAY, FEB. 9
YOU MUST BRING A BLUE BOOK FOR THIS TEST!
I. Identifications: 50% (You answer 5 out of 6)
These are terms that are of particular relevance to the historical period
we have covered. You must identify as completely as possible in a single paragraph (who what when where) and give the significance of the term.
KEY TERMS LIST:
Continental System
Napoleonic Code
Battle of Waterloo
Napoleon on Elba
Congress of Vienna
Decembrist Revolt
Volk
William Blake
Estates General
The Bastille
Louis XIV (14th)
Louis XVI (16th)
Marie Antoinette
"L'etat C'est Moi”
Representation of the People Act
Otto von Bismarck
Peter the Great
The Sadler Committee
Crystal Palace
Factory Act of 1833
Charles Fourier
Galileo
Sir Isaac Newton
Salon Movement
Franz Anton Mesmer
Oath of the Tennis Court
Max. Robespierre
The Great Fear
Franco-Prussian War
Thermidorean Reaction
Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen
Reign of Terror
Communist Manifesto
II. Essay: 50% (You answer 1 of 2)
There will be two essay questions. You will choose one and write a thorough and
detailed essay. The essay topics will come from the following areas:
1. Candide: Think about how this book represents the period of the Ancien Regime. Link it, the way we did in discussion, to the historical themes of the time.
2. Origins and outcome of the French Revolution
With this one, focus on the principle material and ideological causes from lecture and readings, the significance of the French Revolution in sculpting Modern Europe.
3. The rise and fall of Napoleon. Did his leadership of France betray the ideals of the French Revolution or fulfill them?
4. Otto von Bismarck and the unification of Germany.
TEST DATE: MONDAY, FEB. 9
YOU MUST BRING A BLUE BOOK FOR THIS TEST!
I. Identifications: 50% (You answer 5 out of 6)
These are terms that are of particular relevance to the historical period
we have covered. You must identify as completely as possible in a single paragraph (who what when where) and give the significance of the term.
KEY TERMS LIST:
Continental System
Napoleonic Code
Battle of Waterloo
Napoleon on Elba
Congress of Vienna
Decembrist Revolt
Volk
William Blake
Estates General
The Bastille
Louis XIV (14th)
Louis XVI (16th)
Marie Antoinette
"L'etat C'est Moi”
Representation of the People Act
Otto von Bismarck
Peter the Great
The Sadler Committee
Crystal Palace
Factory Act of 1833
Charles Fourier
Galileo
Sir Isaac Newton
Salon Movement
Franz Anton Mesmer
Oath of the Tennis Court
Max. Robespierre
The Great Fear
Franco-Prussian War
Thermidorean Reaction
Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen
Reign of Terror
Communist Manifesto
II. Essay: 50% (You answer 1 of 2)
There will be two essay questions. You will choose one and write a thorough and
detailed essay. The essay topics will come from the following areas:
1. Candide: Think about how this book represents the period of the Ancien Regime. Link it, the way we did in discussion, to the historical themes of the time.
2. Origins and outcome of the French Revolution
With this one, focus on the principle material and ideological causes from lecture and readings, the significance of the French Revolution in sculpting Modern Europe.
3. The rise and fall of Napoleon. Did his leadership of France betray the ideals of the French Revolution or fulfill them?
4. Otto von Bismarck and the unification of Germany.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
