How did the European colonization of Africa take place?

[mbewane]

Songhai Empire?
Mali Empire?
Ethiopian kingdoms/empires?
Somali Ajuraan Empire?
Fulani Jihadist?
Moors?
Mutapa Empire?

There were many Africans on that conquering stuff. The Zulu's iirc outright slaughtered British(or Boers) soliders when the two groups had a meeting. The Malians slaughtered the incoming Portuguese right on sight. Though I do agree that there were some peaceful Africans like the Igbo's of the Nri Kingdom.

The Oyo Empire and Dahomey Empirw were bent on conquering each other and they were one of the main players of the slave trade. Also colonization came much after the Atlantic slave trade.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there were none, but I said "from what I know" (meaning : I may be wrong) there was less big-scale fighting than in Europe, where there was almost always someone trying to conquer the whole damn continent (from the inside or the outside). And Europeans, for reasons I pointed out in another thread, were always about conquering other continents.

And the slave trade obviously opened the door to colonization, by weakening Africa and its empires.

 

[Yup]

This is an excuse.



Which is why I don't buy the "they didn't know" and "they were fooled" narratives Africans claim.

You had a few rulers who fought back against slavery but many who didn't care til the tables turned.

I am not saying thats the only reason.

 

[Kitsch]

The Oyo Empire and Dahomey Empirw were bent on conquering each other and they were one of the main players of the slave trade.

Dahomey was paying tributary to Oyo for a while till they (Dahomey) started killing those attempting to collect it (as did other groups). You couple that with the revolts, Fulani Jihad and In-fighting.

Also colonization came much after the Atlantic slave trade.

Nobody is disputing this.

 

[Misreeya]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there were none, but I said "from what I know" (meaning : I may be wrong) there was less big-scale fighting than in Europe, where there was almost always someone trying to conquer the whole damn continent (from the inside or the outside). And Europeans, for reasons I pointed out in another thread, were always about conquering other continents.

And the slave trade obviously opened the door to colonization, by weakening Africa and its empires.

You need to remember Western Europe is a small continent in comparison to Africa. As i remembered reading the Songhai Empire was equal in comparison to 1/3 the landmass of United States. Also lets not forget the Nile Valley kingdoms which is present day North Sudan and Egypt, which controlled a large landmass area including the Levant and parts of the horn of Africa.

 

[mbewane]

You need to remember Western Europe is a small continent in comparison to Africa. As i remembered reading the Songhai Empire was equal in comparison to 1/3 the landmass of United States. Also lets not forget the Nile Valley kingdoms which is present day North Sudan and Egypt, which controlled a large landmass area including the Levant and parts of the horn of Africa. I understand you are Kenya, and there were not many empires there besides the Swahilis or the coastal people.

That's exactly my point : smaller continent, so I think more fighting among tribes in it to control it (again, I may be wrong). And def more incentive to go try and conquer other continents.

Why would think I'm from Kenya?

 

[Poitier]

I understand you are Kenya, so your area is not historically significant

 

[Misreeya]

That's exactly my point : smaller continent, so I think more fighting among tribes in it to control it (again, I may be wrong). And def more incentive to go try and conquer other continents.

Why would think I'm from Kenya?

i think you said you were Kenya the other thread, which they were doing a coli consensus. lol, that is what i thought i read. Question where do you think the levant is located? it is definitely not Africa. You have to look at the Almoravids they had a landmass from present day Northern Senegal to Spain.

My mistake you put part African and European on the coli consensus. I apologize for assuming.

 

[Misreeya]

In a weird way it is true, however the wording is pretty harsh, i must admit. So i may edit it out.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

This is an excuse.



Which is why I don't buy the "they didn't know" and "they were fooled" narratives Africans claim.

You had a few rulers who fought back against slavery but many who didn't care til the tables turned.

Agreed...

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there were none, but I said "from what I know" (meaning : I may be wrong) there was less big-scale fighting than in Europe, where there was almost always someone trying to conquer the whole damn continent (from the inside or the outside). And Europeans, for reasons I pointed out in another thread, were always about conquering other continents.

The wars in Europe seem bigger, because Europe is very small compared to Africa. But trust me there was Africans conquering Africans especially in the Sahel area of West Africa. You had Mandinkas, Fulanis, Tuaregs,etc all conquering each others and having rivals. The Great Sonni Ali Ber of the Songhai Empire was probably Africa's biggest conqueror since Ramses the II.

What I am just trying is Africans were not weak pacifist naive people like some people seem to think they actually held their own many times.

And the slave trade obviously opened the door to colonization, by weakening Africa and its empires.

I disagree. During the slave trade Africa and Europe were on an equal footing. The big African empires at the time weren't really weakened by the slave trade(the only one really was Kongo Kingdom), again the big reason Europeans colonized Africa was do to the luck of being industrialized before everyone else; having a head start. Like I said it wasn't just Africa but China and even India.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

. I understand you are Kenya, so your area is not historically significant(groups such as the Kikuyus, Banda, Luo etc) besides the Swahilis or the coastal people.

 

[mbewane]

i think you said you were Kenya the other thread, which they were doing a coli consensus. lol, that is what i thought i read. Question where do you think the levant is located? it is definitely not Africa. You have to look at the Almoravids they had a landmass from present day Northern Senegal to Spain.

My mistake you put part African and European on the coli consensus. I apologize for assuming.

No problem breh.

For me (french-speaking), "Le Levant" is another way of calling the middle-east.

 

[mbewane]

The wars in Europe seem bigger, because Europe is very small compared to Africa. But trust me there was Africans conquering Africans especially in the Sahel area of West Africa. You had Mandinkas, Fulanis, Tuaregs,etc all conquering each others and having rivals. The Great Sonni Ali Ber of the Songhai Empire was probably Africa's biggest conqueror since Ramses the II.

What I am just trying is Africans were not weak pacifist naive people like some people seem to think they actually held their own many times.



I disagree. During the slave trade Africa and Europe were on an equal footing. The big African empires at the time weren't really weakened by the slave trade(the only one really was Kongo Kingdom), again the big reason Europeans colonized Africa was do to the luck of being industrialized before everyone else; having a head start. Like I said it wasn't just Africa but China and even India.

Gotcha. As I stated in my first post, I was posting to according to my limited knowledge about African empires. Got to read up more on all of this

 

[BmoreGorilla]

they took that shyt over with guns. Took a map of Africa and divided it up for different European countries.

The Italians couldn't take Ethiopia tho

 

[Yehuda]

My family is african...the ancestors say. That many came bringing to tribal gifts (ie/alcohol,etc...) and since hospitality is ingrained african culture....exchanges were made ie/ chiefs daughter, precious items, etc... What they didnt understand is that euros didnt share the same cultural peepective. Therefore, believed to be inferior and eady to manipulate. Add to the fact that some tribes were feuding or just not in good terms and yoy have a recipe for disaster.

Also I have a theory: from what I know Africans were not that much on that conquer shyt, and most tribes bargained arrangments between them to live in peace. Of course wars existed, but def not as much as in Europe. Africa is HUGE so land is less fought over there than in Europe. So maybe the initial mindset of local rulers was like : Well, who are these new guys, let's see how we can make business together and co-exist. On the contrary Euros had been fighting wars since forever in Europe so they've always had that mentality. So they easily won.

Some people believe the environment (tropical weather for the most part, nature itself etc) in Africa allowed culture and civilization to prosper, thus constant conflict between Africans within the continent wasn't necessary, as opposed to Europe, where the harsh environment (cold weather, rough terrain, lack of resources etc) cave people lived in turned them into savages who constantly go to war and invade other territories for whatever resources they can get their hands on.