You are on page 1of 2

European dominance over the 19th century led to the need for more conquest and power

throughout the global world, now developing with new technological advancements from the
Industrial Revolution that promised economic success and political superiority in Europe. Power
from the country needed to be institutionalized throughout this phase of imperialism and
therefore, Europes power was aimed directly at the promising land in Africa after the Berlin
Conference (1884 - 1885). This colonization of land was termed as the Scramble for Africa. In
response towards the sudden conquest of their homeland, African actions and reactions varied as
some African nations were willing to negotiate deals with Europeans while other states resisted
heavily against the loss of their land, fearing the loss of their political independence and in
response, advocated for resistance against Europeans. From one viewpoint, African leaders
seemed to welcome European presence into their lands, willing to give up their land in hopes that
it would better their nation (Doc. 1, 2, and 3). In complete contrast, however, other African
nations seemed to despise Europes stance upon entering Africa, posing Europeans as murderers
(Doc. 4, 5, and 9). In response to the loss of their lands, Africans responded brutally by
advocating the need to unify and resist against European colonization in their land (Doc. 6 and
7).
From the perspective of European government as seen in Doc. 1, European government initially
seemed rational in their negotiations with Africa for their land, promising a reasonable amount
for any portion in exchange for land. In response to Europeans offer for the lands, African
tribes such as the Ashanti were willing to give up their land in hopes that the Europeans would
help recover its seacoast and other land boundaries (Doc. 3). On the contrary, a conflicting
perspective from an Ashanti leader would reject Europes offer (Doc. 2). Despite rejecting
Europes offer of protectorate status, the two nations remained civil and rational through
communication with African tribes respectfully declining, even offering to remain friendly with
Europeans. Overall, African reactions towards Europes offer from the perspectives of Doc. 1, 2,
and 3 showed political maturity with both sides of the negotiations remaining extremely civil. A
missing document that would further on this thesis would be a civilian from the European nation
who took notice of government actions. A careful eye with analytical insight of government
actions would help decipher the true motives of these decisions made by European government.
Distinct to this reaction, however, were the clear oppositions of Africa (Doc. 4 and 9) and
Europe (Doc. 5 and 8) to one another during the Scramble. Respectively, both regions posed the
opposite nation as murderers that destroyed villages, killed civilians, and tore apart states (Doc.
4, 5, 8, and 9). Seen in the point of view of an African veteran in Document 4, Africans were
posed in the documents as victims with Europeans being offenders, treating the Africans in a
form parallel to slavery with coerced human labor. Similarly, Document 9 takes perspective in
the view of another African chief. Within this document, it states the hardships and terror
Africans endured during the battles that occurred from the Scramble. Parallel yet unsimilar in
another manner, Europeans viewed themselves as the victims who fell prey to African terror
(Doc. 5 and 8). Depicted in Document 8 in the point of view of a German officer, Africans were
posed as attackers who kidnapped women and children as war prizes. These documents
contradict against one another and truly show the vicious tensions that lied between the
Europeans and Africans. A missing document that would help give insight to this situation would
be an unbiased civilian who witnessed the battles and outcomes. Being given access to these kind

of documents would truly reveal the victims and offenders of the war, though it has to be
unbiased.
Action was taken against European advancements into African institutions (Doc. 6 and 7).
Analyzed in the perspective of an African leader in Doc. 7, the Africans advocated to resist
against the Germans, rather dying to warfare than having death from imprisonment. Similarly
from the point of view of an Ashanti queen, action was taken for women to unify and fight
against the white men. Culturally, Africa as a whole seemed to promote the need for their
homeland to unite as one and resist against Europes attempt to scramble for African land. A
missing document that would assure the similar mindset for all of Africa support for unification
would be a document of an African civilian and their thoughts upon European colonization. If the
citizens of the nation also advocated the support for resistance, then Africa would truly be seen
as a whole nation against European settlements.
The advancements of Europeans into Africa for lands varied in responses in several ways. Africa
from certain perspectives supported European colonization in hopes that it would better their
homeland in several ways such as reclaiming certain land boundaries and the remaking of a
better nation (Doc. 1, 2 and 3). Contradicting to that point of view, however, were the
oppositions of the scramble due to the warfare that portrayed each states in negative images
(Doc. 4, 5, 8, and 9). Africa, as a nation, took action against Europe in which the unification of
all peoples were to resist against the European settlers (Doc. 6 and 7). This hope of new land for
European expansion created nothing but of a dilemma that involved a nation that stood up for
their homeland, willing to go through warfare to keep what is theirs.