How did the European colonization of Africa take place?

[Yup]

Because African tribes weren't really unified. They didn't see the continent of Africa as a thing to protect. Only their own land/tribe. So it wasn't difficult for a unified Europe to take over piece by piece.

This. Other parts of Africa had not gotten their own shaka zulus to group the surrounding tribes under one unified culture. People were still divided in semi autonomous clusters and identified to a clan/group. On top of that....meeting euros did not reinforce any sense of unity if anthing it further alienated respective tribes to further identify to their clans. Some thought they could align with euros and defeat other tribes. Instead euros had a bigger plan in motion which ushered in trans atlantic slavery on a mass scale.

Slavery has always existed throughout the world but not under the guise of race.

 

[mbewane]

This. Other parts of Africa had not gotten their own shaka zulus to group the surrounding tribes under one unified culture. People were still divided in semi autonomous clusters and identified to a clan/group. On top of that....meeting euros did not reinforce any sense of unity if anthing it further alienated respective tribes to further identify to their clans. Some thought they could align with euros and defeat other tribes. Instead euros had a bigger plan in motion which ushered in trans atlantic slavery on a mass scale.

Slavery has always existed throughout the world but not under the guise of race.

Transatlantic slavery happened before the colonization tho breh. I agree with the rest.

 

[Yup]

Transatlantic slavery happened before the colonization tho breh. I agree with the rest.

Stand corrected. Thanks.

 

[TTT]

African groups at the time did not understand the racial solidarity that Europeans could exhibit when push came to shove. The earlier colonial experiences based on capitalist exploitation like the gold rush in parts of Africa gave way to just plain expression of white superiority. Africans rebelled against taxes levied on them and in many cases refused to be co-opted into the cash economy of the Europeans because we had no need for cash because the way of life back then was vastly different. If you look at the wars fought to pacify Africans before and after Berlin you can see the drop in numbers. For instance the Xhosa fought 9 wars against Europeans over a 100 year period , the Khoi fought the Dutch and there were Shona and Ndebele rebellions after that in Zimbabwe. Every group fought their own battles because they did not conceive nation states as encompassing what the Europeans obviously saw at the time. Some of them even got guns from other Europeans and were roped in to fight in some battles Europeans were fighting against each other. It is easy to see why some groups would for example see the British and Dutch killing each other over territory and not foresee that the creation of a unified country would leave them as the biggest losers. The Brits back then were adept at making promises they would not keep to various groups around the world like Africans,Asians and Middle easterners. I think without the efforts by the Europeans to coordinate they would have spent even more time trying to colonize the continent and fighting rebellions continuously.

 

[Poitier]

African groups at the time did not understand the racial solidarity that Europeans

They definitely knew their violent nature well ahead of time.

 

[Yup]

African groups at the time did not understand the racial solidarity that Europeans could exhibit when push came to shove. The earlier colonial experiences based on capitalist exploitation like the gold rush in parts of Africa gave way to just plain expression of white superiority. Africans rebelled against taxes levied on them and in many cases refused to be co-opted into the cash economy of the Europeans because we had no need for cash because the way of life back then was vastly different. If you look at the wars fought to pacify Africans before and after Berlin you can see the drop in numbers. For instance the Xhosa fought 9 wars against Europeans over a 100 year period , the Khoi fought the Dutch and there were Shona and Ndebele rebellions after that in Zimbabwe. Every group fought their own battles because they did not conceive nation states as encompassing what the Europeans obviously saw at the time. Some of them even got guns from other Europeans and were roped in to fight in some battles Europeans were fighting against each other. It is easy to see why some groups would for example see the British and Dutch killing each other over territory and not foresee that the creation of a unified country would leave them as the biggest losers. The Brits back then were adept at making promises they would not keep to various groups around the world like Africans,Asians and Middle easterners. I think without the efforts by the Europeans to coordinate they would have spent even more time trying to colonize the continent and fighting rebellions continuously.

Bravo.

 

[TTT]

They definitely knew their violent nature well ahead of time.

They did but there is a difference between fighting armies raised by charter companies and facing an organized and concerted efforts by Governments to colonize territories. The efforts of those joint stock companies were never going to be as effective as when their Governments took interest in running the colonies.

 

[Poitier]

ITT Africans pretending Africans couldn't have pictured European's imperialistic nature despite dealing with them 100s of years prior to industrialization as a means to absolve guilt and be victims.

The African aristocracy not only visited Europe but New World colonies and many had homes in Europe. They knew so stop pretending. Arabs, Asian, Natives all predicted the nature of these foreigners much sooner.

 

[How Sway?]

African groups at the time did not understand the racial solidarity that Europeans could exhibit when push came to shove. The earlier colonial experiences based on capitalist exploitation like the gold rush in parts of Africa gave way to just plain expression of white superiority. Africans rebelled against taxes levied on them and in many cases refused to be co-opted into the cash economy of the Europeans because we had no need for cash because the way of life back then was vastly different. If you look at the wars fought to pacify Africans before and after Berlin you can see the drop in numbers. For instance the Xhosa fought 9 wars against Europeans over a 100 year period , the Khoi fought the Dutch and there were Shona and Ndebele rebellions after that in Zimbabwe. Every group fought their own battles because they did not conceive nation states as encompassing what the Europeans obviously saw at the time. Some of them even got guns from other Europeans and were roped in to fight in some battles Europeans were fighting against each other. It is easy to see why some groups would for example see the British and Dutch killing each other over territory and not foresee that the creation of a unified country would leave them as the biggest losers. The Brits back then were adept at making promises they would not keep to various groups around the world like Africans,Asians and Middle easterners. I think without the efforts by the Europeans to coordinate they would have spent even more time trying to colonize the continent and fighting rebellions continuously.

 

[Dzali OG]

African groups at the time did not understand the racial solidarity that Europeans could exhibit when push came to shove. The earlier colonial experiences based on capitalist exploitation like the gold rush in parts of Africa gave way to just plain expression of white superiority. Africans rebelled against taxes levied on them and in many cases refused to be co-opted into the cash economy of the Europeans because we had no need for cash because the way of life back then was vastly different. If you look at the wars fought to pacify Africans before and after Berlin you can see the drop in numbers. For instance the Xhosa fought 9 wars against Europeans over a 100 year period , the Khoi fought the Dutch and there were Shona and Ndebele rebellions after that in Zimbabwe. Every group fought their own battles because they did not conceive nation states as encompassing what the Europeans obviously saw at the time. Some of them even got guns from other Europeans and were roped in to fight in some battles Europeans were fighting against each other. It is easy to see why some groups would for example see the British and Dutch killing each other over territory and not foresee that the creation of a unified country would leave them as the biggest losers. The Brits back then were adept at making promises they would not keep to various groups around the world like Africans,Asians and Middle easterners. I think without the efforts by the Europeans to coordinate they would have spent even more time trying to colonize the continent and fighting rebellions continuously.

Basically, "All white folks not bad...".

Dayum, we've been ignorant to racism for a long time.

 

[TTT]

ITT Africans pretending Africans couldn't have pictured European's imperialistic nature despite dealing with them 100s of years prior to industrialization as a means to absolve guilt and be victims.

The African aristocracy not only visited Europe but New World colonies and many had homes in Europe. They knew so stop pretending. Arabs, Asian, Natives all predicted the nature of these foreigners much sooner.

Where do you see anyone being absolved or being victims breh, do you seriously think Africa is one big country were some aristocracy somewhere visited Europe and went around telling every one of the thousand or so ethnic groups what was happening. Why would any African feel guilty about colonization to feel the need for any excuses.

 

[Poitier]

Where do you see anyone being absolved or being victims breh, do you seriously think Africa is one big country were some aristocracy somewhere visited Europe and went around telling every one of the thousand or so ethnic groups what was happening. Why would any African feel guilty about colonization to feel the need for any excuses.

"Africans are hospitable people"
"They tried fighting" with no mention of the prior 300 years being buddy buddy

 

[Khadafi1982]

wars.

Europeans had better technology. then the missionaries came afterwards to pacify the people

There were a handful of 'c00n' tribes that helped them too

Better Technology, simple as that. A 3000 well equipped men with a good supply chain could have conquered Central Africa easily. Luckily for my ancestors, we had diseases as allies that stopped Europeans from mass immigration. Contrast that from South Africa Cap. Also most of our Chiefdoms were not at states levels yet. Despite that we offered some resistance here and there. Most of our current problems come from the mistrust of people that are not part of our ethnic group. I promote the use of one to three languages and get rid of all the others. I used to see colonization in negative light but not anymore. If you look at written history since Sumer, pretty much everybody got invaded by someone with better technology. Plus how long it would have taken Africans to invent all these technologies by ourselves? Look at Turkey, they are the only middle-east country that went tow to toe against Europeans powerhouses for centuries because they quickly adopted Europeans technology without inventing anything. Quoting William McNeil "The history of Civilization is a history of the expansion of particulary attractive cultural and social patterns through conversion of barbarians to modes of life they found superior to their own".