The origins of the European colonization can be traced back to several various starting points. However, it was European nationalism and ideologies that would crave up the continent of Africa throughout the nineteenth century. Many African nations where seized, and controlled by the European powers. Additionally, the mission of many European countries such as Portugal, England, and France wanted to spread Christianity among the natives. Also, the European nations sought to take control of the natural resources that had been discovered in the African nations that were controlled by Europeans. Despite European influences and ideologies many African nations resisted the colonization from the European powers. However, “when African states directly resisted European encroachments, the costs were high” (Gilbert and Reynolds 268). Two different African nations that embodied the resistances of colonization, and the European influences and ideologies were the people from Sudan, and the Congo. The people from the Sudan fought against the British imperialism and colonialism meanwhile, in Congo it was the Belgium and King Leopold II that were securing a foothold in Africa. The technological advances in weaponry were far superior for the Europeans compared to their counterparts.
…show more content…
“European armies began to adopt breechloaders in the 1840s” (Gilbert and Reynolds 268) and by the mid-nineteenth century England would adopt their entire armed forces to breechloaders. The significance was that breechloaders were easier to use, and reload. Additionally, breechloaders held more ammo, and were extremely accurate. The “Brussels Convention of 1890 forbade Europeans to sell modern firearms to Africa” (Gilbert and Reynolds 268) and having superior firepower laid the groundwork for Europe to colonize Africa. The Brussels Convention and its stipulation of forbidding of selling modern firearms to Africa would be resourceful when Britain meets resistance from the Sudanese army at the battle of Omdurman in 1898. The battle of Omdurman in 1898 was the representations of a small European force with aid of African allies, and superior weapon technology to their counterparts the Sudanese army. The Sudanese army was roughly about 40,000 soldiers strong, and would send “wave after wave of cavalry and into a storm of machine-gun” (Gilbert and Reynolds 269) fire. Additionally, the Sudanese were out matched by the English troops through the use of advance weaponry. The battle of Omdurman was an example of other African nations that resisted the European powers. The reason Britain was on the quest to colonize as many countries as possible had several factors which were economics, and ideologies. “Industry became increasingly important to Europe and competition for Africa’s resources became more intense” (Gilbert and Reynolds 271) the true nature of the beast was Britain did not want to be out done by its European rivals. Additionally natural resources in Great Britain have reached its limit, and the demand for production was overwhelming. Additionally, Britain would never be able to come out and say that they are these African nations. In fact how Britain would justify their actions was by telling their population that the only reason Britain was down in Africa was to spread their ideology. Because Britain was a well-developed nation it was Britain’s obligation to help bring the “uncivilized” to becoming “civilized”. However, the western ideologies that were brought to Africa were not in vein, the advancement of medicine, western education, and systems of government all were helpful. …show more content…
Except that before Britain brought these gifts of western ideologies, and philosophies Britain, and many other European nations brought war and bloodshed to Africa. The Sudan people are a great example of enforcing rule, and ideologies on a population. Even though the Sudanese army had courage to fight the colonization of Britain, the Sudanese army did fall under the British rule. Similar to other African countries “courage was no match for modern weapons” (Gilbert and Reynolds 269) and eventually African countries fell to the opposition, which was a European power. Another country that fell victim to European might was the Congo. Belgium, which historically may not be viewed as a military dominate force globally such as Britain, Germany or the Unites States. Belgium ruled the African nation of Congo with an iron fist, and King Leopold II would use anti-slavery as
“European armies began to adopt breechloaders in the 1840s” (Gilbert and Reynolds 268) and by the mid-nineteenth century England would adopt their entire armed forces to breechloaders. The significance was that breechloaders were easier to use, and reload. Additionally, breechloaders held more ammo, and were extremely accurate. The “Brussels Convention of 1890 forbade Europeans to sell modern firearms to Africa” (Gilbert and Reynolds 268) and having superior firepower laid the groundwork for Europe to colonize Africa. The Brussels Convention and its stipulation of forbidding of selling modern firearms to Africa would be resourceful when Britain meets resistance from the Sudanese army at the battle of Omdurman in 1898. The battle of Omdurman in 1898 was the representations of a small European force with aid of African allies, and superior weapon technology to their counterparts the Sudanese army. The Sudanese army was roughly about 40,000 soldiers strong, and would send “wave after wave of cavalry and into a storm of machine-gun” (Gilbert and Reynolds 269) fire. Additionally, the Sudanese were out matched by the English troops through the use of advance weaponry. The battle of Omdurman was an example of other African nations that resisted the European powers. The reason Britain was on the quest to colonize as many countries as possible had several factors which were economics, and ideologies. “Industry became increasingly important to Europe and competition for Africa’s resources became more intense” (Gilbert and Reynolds 271) the true nature of the beast was Britain did not want to be out done by its European rivals. Additionally natural resources in Great Britain have reached its limit, and the demand for production was overwhelming. Additionally, Britain would never be able to come out and say that they are these African nations. In fact how Britain would justify their actions was by telling their population that the only reason Britain was down in Africa was to spread their ideology. Because Britain was a well-developed nation it was Britain’s obligation to help bring the “uncivilized” to becoming “civilized”. However, the western ideologies that were brought to Africa were not in vein, the advancement of medicine, western education, and systems of government all were helpful. …show more content…
Except that before Britain brought these gifts of western ideologies, and philosophies Britain, and many other European nations brought war and bloodshed to Africa. The Sudan people are a great example of enforcing rule, and ideologies on a population. Even though the Sudanese army had courage to fight the colonization of Britain, the Sudanese army did fall under the British rule. Similar to other African countries “courage was no match for modern weapons” (Gilbert and Reynolds 269) and eventually African countries fell to the opposition, which was a European power. Another country that fell victim to European might was the Congo. Belgium, which historically may not be viewed as a military dominate force globally such as Britain, Germany or the Unites States. Belgium ruled the African nation of Congo with an iron fist, and King Leopold II would use anti-slavery as