|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 18, 2022 11:09:19 GMT
No, it is not. It is all over the place like a mad woman’s breakfast. Without structure, you can’t have direction. Without direction, you can’t have accuracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 18, 2022 11:12:26 GMT
Britain didn't engage in colonialism because they wanted to ''civilize the savages'' that was a justification for engaging in colonialism. Afaik france is the only power that engaged in colonialism for this reason You should stop quoting disconnected phrases out of context. It was not referring solely to Britain, but to every European Great Power. The result of selective quoting is just stirring up an argument for no point. |
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Jul 18, 2022 16:38:47 GMT
Those Videos show clearly why happen Scramble for Africa
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835 
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 21, 2022 13:59:18 GMT
Britain didn't engage in colonialism because they wanted to ''civilize the savages'' that was a justification for engaging in colonialism. Afaik france is the only power that engaged in colonialism for this reason
Nations are not individuals. Even individuals often have multiple, sometimes conflicting aims. In all nations involved, including the non-European ones, there were multiple aims and sometimes also one 'reason' would be given to excuse an action. All the nations involved committed what would now be called atrocities, as did locals often when they could, either to Europe/Arab intruders or each other. I can speak most for Britain because that's the one I know best and there were many conflicts on the issue for multiple reasons. Britain could easily have ended up with more of Africa than it did IF it had wished but for much of the time the government didn't want that. Which was why Gordon died at Khartoum after he rejected orders from London to withdraw. Often it were people on the ground seeking to push the advance of the borders for assorted reasons - military prestige, economic advantage, seeking to exclude possible rivals etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Aug 20, 2022 18:58:05 GMT
Had the west not participated in the scramble for Africa, the ottoman empire would have had more significant influence in the region through the slave trade. It is an interesting concept, especially considering how the African nations would turn out. European imperialism had encouraged missionaries and education to be taught in the African colonial schools.
I honestly see even the transatlantic slave trade lasting perhaps slightly longer because a part of the call for the scramble for Africa was to stop the native trafficking of human beings while simualtansly the Europeans sometimes did practice neo-slavery. I think at anything, no scramble for Africa could increase the possibility of Liberia being under the control of the USA if the Americans indeed wished too
Though I know the British had all most destroyed the transatlantic slave trade by 1861
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Aug 22, 2022 3:09:40 GMT
If the west and participated in the scramble for Africa, the ottoman empire would have had more significant influence in the region through the slave trade. It is an interesting concept, especially considering how the African nations would turn out. European imperialism had encouraged missionaries and education to be taught in the African colonial schools. [iframe title="YouTube video player" width="560" height="349" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WiTIe7wCqfc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="1"][/iframe] I honestly see even the transatlantic slave trade lasting perhaps slightly longer because a part of the call for the scramble for Africa was to stop the native trafficking of human beings while simualtansly the Europeans sometimes did practice neo-slavery. I think at anything, no scramble for Africa could increase the possibility of Liberia being under the control of the USA if the Americans indeed wished too Though I know the British had all most destroyed the transatlantic slave trade by 1861 Thanks, but I actually finished the timeline I made this post for. I decided to just not say anything about sub-saharan africa, As for north Africa, Britain still gets Suez and France (and possibly other contintental european powers) get the Barbary coast. The rest of Egypt remained under Muhammad Ali Pasha's dynasty. here's the timeline if you're interested |
|
