The Berlin Conference of 1884–85, also known as the Congo Conference (German: Kongokonferenz) or West Africa Conference (Westafrika-Konferenz), regulated European colonization and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period, and coincided with Germany's sudden emergence as an imperial power. Called for by Portugal and organized by Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany, its outcome, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, can be seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. The conference ushered in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, which eliminated or overrode most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance.
Can somebody put this in normal everyday English please? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Berlin Conference of 1884–85, also known as the Congo Conference (German: Kongokonferenz) or West Africa Conference (Westafrika-Konferenz), regulated European colonization and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period, and coincided with Germany's sudden emergence as an imperial power. Called for by Portugal and organized by Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany, its outcome, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, can be seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. The conference ushered in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, which eliminated or overrode most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance.
Can somebody put this in normal everyday English please?"
You was robbed.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Berlin Conference of 1884–85, also known as the Congo Conference (German: Kongokonferenz) or West Africa Conference (Westafrika-Konferenz), regulated European colonization and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period, and coincided with Germany's sudden emergence as an imperial power. Called for by Portugal and organized by Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany, its outcome, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, can be seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. The conference ushered in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, which eliminated or overrode most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance.
Can somebody put this in normal everyday English please?"
It's when the European powers divided Africa into spheres of interest/exploitation to avoid conflict amongst themselves and get on with the serious business of plundering the place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Berlin Conference of 1884–85, also known as the Congo Conference (German: Kongokonferenz) or West Africa Conference (Westafrika-Konferenz), regulated European colonization and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period, and coincided with Germany's sudden emergence as an imperial power. Called for by Portugal and organized by Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany, its outcome, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, can be seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. The conference ushered in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, which eliminated or overrode most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance.
Can somebody put this in normal everyday English please?
It's when the European powers divided Africa into spheres of interest/exploitation to avoid conflict amongst themselves and get on with the serious business of plundering the place. "
Interestingly, King Albert of the Belgians picked up the whole of the Congo at a knockdown price and was allowed to keep it as a personal fiefdom. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Probably saw the potential in Africa that the Africans couldnt turn in to business.
Maybe through lack of inteligance , maybe they didnt want to.
All they did was sort out who was going to get what where |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Probably saw the potential in Africa that the Africans couldnt turn in to business.
Maybe through lack of inteligance , maybe they didnt want to.
All they did was sort out who was going to get what where"
Ish - it took the Europeans decades to map and divide the place properly.
Look at Southern Sudan - the surveying team that started out tried to take in to account local geography and tribal territories but by the time they got to the end and most of them had died they gave up and used straight lines. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It was the beginning of the chemical industry, which was pioneered by the new German chemists.
Of course to pioneer any industry you need the raw materials.
The British really put all their umph into India and missed out on much of Africa |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Seems pretty self explanatory;
However:
Before that point: Most European nations had done trade directly in Africa. With local leaders/ tribes.
Britain was already " colonising" but British colonialism did actually take heed of local leaders, incorporating them into the " colonial hierarchy" ( though it was still a form of control and exploitation)
Other European nations ( led by Belguim, followed by France and Germany) thought that to exploit Africa's resources fully , they needed to take Africa over and exploit it themselves.
Berlin Conference " divided up" Africa into zones for each nation to exploit.
( hence the old " Belgian Congo" etc)
The difference between "British Empire" colonialism and European colonialism is that the British used local indigenous leaderships ( under their control) to run the colonies : whereas the Europeans completely disregarded ( and destroyed) local hierarchies, and imposed their own government directly.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems pretty self explanatory;
However:
Before that point: Most European nations had done trade directly in Africa. With local leaders/ tribes.
Britain was already " colonising" but British colonialism did actually take heed of local leaders, incorporating them into the " colonial hierarchy" ( though it was still a form of control and exploitation)
Other European nations ( led by Belguim, followed by France and Germany) thought that to exploit Africa's resources fully , they needed to take Africa over and exploit it themselves.
Berlin Conference " divided up" Africa into zones for each nation to exploit.
( hence the old " Belgian Congo" etc)
The difference between "British Empire" colonialism and European colonialism is that the British used local indigenous leaderships ( under their control) to run the colonies : whereas the Europeans completely disregarded ( and destroyed) local hierarchies, and imposed their own government directly.
"
The French parts of Africa were left with good cuisine and the British parts of Africa got roads and sewers, while the Africans of the Belgian Congo had their hands cut off if they didn't provide enough rubber. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And when the Portuguese " gave" Mozambique and Angola their independence back, they completely destroyed all the infrastructure they had put in :
And deliberately left it fucked up."
Yes, my parents passed through Angola just as the Portuguese pulled out - said they took everything they could, right down to the lightbulbs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems pretty self explanatory;
However:
Before that point: Most European nations had done trade directly in Africa. With local leaders/ tribes.
Britain was already " colonising" but British colonialism did actually take heed of local leaders, incorporating them into the " colonial hierarchy" ( though it was still a form of control and exploitation)
Other European nations ( led by Belguim, followed by France and Germany) thought that to exploit Africa's resources fully , they needed to take Africa over and exploit it themselves.
Berlin Conference " divided up" Africa into zones for each nation to exploit.
( hence the old " Belgian Congo" etc)
The difference between "British Empire" colonialism and European colonialism is that the British used local indigenous leaderships ( under their control) to run the colonies : whereas the Europeans completely disregarded ( and destroyed) local hierarchies, and imposed their own government directly.
"
The less smelly shit sandwich compared to the other shit sandwiches, eh? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
