“In the first half of the 20th century, Sudan, which included the territories of present-day Sudan and South Sudan, was ruled by a dual colonial government known as the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium (1899–1956)” (Seri-Hersch, Iris). The Condominium allowed British to maintain the authority of both Egypt and Sudan while occupying the Nile. Conquered by the British Empire, the colonial era in Sudan directed the country into North and South. However, positive changes associate amongst the North, while a mostly negative influence hovered over the South. With intentions to conquer Sudan, the British Empire took control of the North, leaving Christian authority to determine the future of the South. Altogether, colonialism in Sudan established positive
…show more content…
As the British heavily invested time to introduce modernization, education, and religion in the North, "the British authorities claimed that the south was not ready to open up to the modern world, [they wanted to] reserve [the] purely African way of life of the southern people" (Heleta, Savo). The "divide-and-rule" policy slowed down Southern economic and social development. Additionally, Southern Sudanese provinces were separated from the rest of the country; This slowed down their economic and social development (Heleta, Savo). Unlike the North, British wanted to prevent education from spreading in the South. “[To] prevent educated urban class and religious leaders from influencing social and political life in southern Sudan, the British authorities gave ‘power’ to the tribal leaders and ruled through them," because they had little education and were the best way to ensure schooling would not spread (Heleta, Savo). Finally, religious expansion was a system that British did not allow to proceed in the South. As noted above, Christian influence took over the South. With the help of Christian missionaries, they worked to prevent the spread of Islam. British wanted to Islamic practices in the North and Christian practices in the South (Heleta, …show more content…
Today, it is believed that in the case of Sudan, recent conflict between the North and the South lie between the “divide-and-rule” and “indirect rule” policies implemented by British colonial authorities (Heleta, Savo). British paid much attention to the North and South during the time of colonization. However, they worked to achieve goals in the North while making everything weaker in the South. They played an active role in the colonization of the North, providing much significance to the development of the country. As they paid attention to the South, it was to only ensure that they were not developing aspects of the North. For example, post-independence conflict in Sudan was primarily caused by ethnic divisions. “The south became economically underdeveloped and cut out from the rest of the country due to the British segregationist policies.” This is in a result of an underdevelopment and lack of political organizations and unity that the South experienced over the North (Heleta, Savo). Regional differences also resulted in a “deeply divided and economically differentiated Sudan – an Arab-dominated north, economically and politically stronger than an underdeveloped and weaker African south. The southern provinces, sidelined during the British rule, continued to be marginalized and underdeveloped in
As the British heavily invested time to introduce modernization, education, and religion in the North, "the British authorities claimed that the south was not ready to open up to the modern world, [they wanted to] reserve [the] purely African way of life of the southern people" (Heleta, Savo). The "divide-and-rule" policy slowed down Southern economic and social development. Additionally, Southern Sudanese provinces were separated from the rest of the country; This slowed down their economic and social development (Heleta, Savo). Unlike the North, British wanted to prevent education from spreading in the South. “[To] prevent educated urban class and religious leaders from influencing social and political life in southern Sudan, the British authorities gave ‘power’ to the tribal leaders and ruled through them," because they had little education and were the best way to ensure schooling would not spread (Heleta, Savo). Finally, religious expansion was a system that British did not allow to proceed in the South. As noted above, Christian influence took over the South. With the help of Christian missionaries, they worked to prevent the spread of Islam. British wanted to Islamic practices in the North and Christian practices in the South (Heleta, …show more content…
Today, it is believed that in the case of Sudan, recent conflict between the North and the South lie between the “divide-and-rule” and “indirect rule” policies implemented by British colonial authorities (Heleta, Savo). British paid much attention to the North and South during the time of colonization. However, they worked to achieve goals in the North while making everything weaker in the South. They played an active role in the colonization of the North, providing much significance to the development of the country. As they paid attention to the South, it was to only ensure that they were not developing aspects of the North. For example, post-independence conflict in Sudan was primarily caused by ethnic divisions. “The south became economically underdeveloped and cut out from the rest of the country due to the British segregationist policies.” This is in a result of an underdevelopment and lack of political organizations and unity that the South experienced over the North (Heleta, Savo). Regional differences also resulted in a “deeply divided and economically differentiated Sudan – an Arab-dominated north, economically and politically stronger than an underdeveloped and weaker African south. The southern provinces, sidelined during the British rule, continued to be marginalized and underdeveloped in