How Did The Africans Fight Against European Colonization?
448736
well. Africans were in the most part unable to defend themselves from colonization due to the difference in weapon capability. There are various examples of this, especially with the various massacres in northern Africa. colonists basically left Africans busy enough by cutting their land into arbitrary sections that left rival tribes living together, actions that led to civil strife we are still trying to deal with today.
1011303
The Egptians have had writing for as long as anyone.  The Greeks, Romans, Vandals and Arabs all recorded their history in writing.\n\nSouth of the Sahara history was an opral tradition, although there are references to Africa in Greek, Roman, Arab, Indian and Chinese writings.\n\nThere has been a European colony on the Cape of Good Hope for about 400 years, so that history has been recorded.  Apart from that, there have been regular European contacts for about 600 years.
730410
NO EASY ANSWERS - but useful hints instead, from a (former) world history teacher. \n\n1. Think of who the slave traders wanted - mainly young men who were useful as laborers. So what would happen if a region where most people were farmers lost a lot of its strong workers? Also, think of how the people were removed, and how people would logically react. They didn't go willingly, and their families weren't happy about it. \n\n2. The examples are simply a list, and it's not useful to just copy from an email. Besides, your teacher probably used specific examples, and mine might be different. You'll find most of the anti-colonial resistance taking place between 1890 and 1960, and some examples you can look up are the Asante revolt, the Igbo Women's War, the Bambatha Uprising, the Chilembwe Revolt, the Maji-Maji Rebellion, and the Chimurenga/Second Chimurenga. You should be able to Google these or look them up in a book, or ask your school librarian and get answers fairly quickly - ones that you can remember on the upcoming test because you learned them for homework!\n\n3. Salt and gold had their uses, and more importantly, they were found in different parts of West Africa, so the people with salt traded it for gold, and vice versa. Again, not a tough one to look up yourself, and worth the effort. Try any middle school textbook chapter on precolonial Africa, and you should get a map of the salt and gold trade. \n\n4. Which defeat of Germany? Probably WWI. I don't know if Germany was defeated so much by events as by situations. The alliance against Germany included France, Russia, England and eventually the United States, and the entry of the US into WWI was important. The German u-boat sinking of the liner Lusitania triggered American entry. \n\nThe Bolshevik Revolution in Russia also stirred up a stong enemy in the east. \n\nGermany and its allies were surrounded by hostile powers and unable to get many products needed for fighting a war, including food for the soldiers. So their supply problem was also a cause of their defeat. \n\n5. The time period matters here, and you will have to filter through my ideas to find the ones that fit your class. \n\n- Developing economies grew slowly for a variety of reasons, including:\n  - colonizers made them serve the colonial market, producing less profitable goods, and/or selling them so cheaply as not to make a profit, therefore the colonized peoples never had money to spend on improving their production\n  - many colonies had labor laws that allowed colonizers to all but enslave the locals, which meant that there was little reason to educate the workforce or build for the future\n  - developed countries made and enforced rules that kept developing countries from making certain products (for example, England - which had colonized India - outlawed the production of cloth in India, which meant Indians could grow cotton, but coud only buy cloth from England, which helped the English factories and economy)\n  - Developing countries mainly produce farm, mine and fishery products, and they have to buy industrial products to make a profit, but prices for farm, mine and fishery products declined in the late 20th century, so that people in developing countries had to spend more of their production on equipment from developed economies\n  - In recent decades, developed countries lent money at interest to developing countries, which then had to pay back the interest. Large loans encouraged corruption in the developing world, and as a result the developing countries didn't, well, develop much, and so they were less and less able to pay back their growing debts. Or, for that matter, to do anything else that required money.
1096570
Good question.  My answer is that (a)the corrupt element controls the guns and the military and (b) the history of Africa is the history of TRIBALISM ('my people don't like your people and we never will'). Tribal animosities are encouraged by the dictators. Things don't seem to be getting better -- maybe the conern over the dark continent is just a waste of time and effort.
927231
Africa was not merely ruled by European authroity.\n\nEuropean authority 'invaded' africa and offered the africans education, health and food facilities in exchange for african resources (oil, cocoa, gold) and religion.\n\nEuropean religion was more or less forced on the africans to gain control over them.\n\nSlaves who were taken out of africa had their indigenous tradutional religions taken from and many were baptised  into the european religion (christianity) forcibly.\n\nOf course, when these africans and slaves were made to go the churches, instead of seeing the christian saints and gods, they saw their own traditional gods.  This is how voodoun evolved and grew.  Even now voodoun devotees will pray to christian saints along with their own voodoun gods.\n\n\nYes, a lot of africans got converted and became deeply religious.  But we now have a lot of africans (and even non-africans) returning back to the old religions of africa - ifa, orisha, voodoun, candomble and others
466591
The resources of Africa have historically been exploited by Europeans and Americans, etc. The Africans themselves have been largely cut out of the deal. \n\nA handful of African leaders get rich, the rest of the population dies of malaria and dysentery.
597869
Because, Americans know Africans will not play hit and run like they see in Iraq and other places. Africans will approach you and kill you, even if you are more armed and all they got is stone. ZULU style, or Mogadishu mob style. In an another words NO FEAR. That is why African citizens take their matters into their own hands against their oppresive regimes and rather have no law and government than a dictator.
158333
That's like asking what makes babies cry.  There are too many different causes to explain it fully, but the origin of many of these problems came from "the scramble for africa," when at the Berlin Conference of 1885, European nations including Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, Spain, and Belgium met in order to divide up the African continent amongst themselves.  In the process, they paid no attention to the territories of various ethnic groups.  Some groups found themselves neighbors of others they had long warred with - some groups found themselves split down the middle.  This all relates back to interstate conflict via the issue of sovereignty.  Ethnic groups war with each other over land as well as the resources reaped from these lands.  On a continent where drought and famine run rampant, land is the most important resource.  \n\nThis explanation really referrs to small-scale conflict, but large-scale conflict, meaning that which involves heads of state and/or military involvement, also is based on sovereignty.  Think about it.  Most of these countries are only 40-50 years into their independence, which they had to fight global superpowers to achieve.  Even the African UNION's charter is devoted mostly to respecting one another's borders and rights to rule their own lands - SOVEREIGNTY.  It's about resources, it's about machismo, it's about ethnic conflit and high-level corruption... interstate conflict in Africa is a huge topic.  If you narrow your question down a little, I'd be happy to help.  Email me (I have a Master's Degree in African Politics, so you can trust me!)
237143
They really didn't. The Europeans went there and took their resources and their land, and stole many of them as slaves to go work for them. I don't see how they benefitted whatsoever, really.
517064
You watch to much TV. When the settlers first came not all were unwelcome by the Indians-there was plenty of land. The settles brought things the Indians wanted. Fighting did not start right away. My family was from the Kickapoo tribe-you need to know your history better.
202923
Latin America was occupied and invaded etc. many times.  First the native peoples were there (via the landbridge a really long time ago).  Then, for instance (depends on the region), the Spanish came and subdued/killed/enslaved the natives.  After that, perhaps the Dutch or the Portugese came and fought a war with the Spanish and took over the region if they won.  When the slave trade started in Africa, that brought other people into play.  So, you can have a huge mix of people and heritages this way: cultural diversity.  Hope this helps.\n\nFR
579089
Read a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel or get it on video if you're lazy.  Basically the author of this book explains how geographic and climactic factors favored agriculture in Europe as their society evolved, this gave them a head start towards modern society.  Africa's climate continues to be less favorable for agriculture and industry.  And in many places their social structure remains focused on survival rather than "progress".  Thats not the whole story, but its a big piece of the puzzle.
866289
I think that is a really good thought provoking question.  But you have to consider to that Africa was also affected by the slavery trade as well as being Colonised by European countries.  In fact it wasn't until the late 20th century that South Africa was still under the complete control of European Colonists.  But as an African American I can say that I am very happy and fill privileged to be born in America.
969672
1. I presume that you do really mean African imperialism, which includes such empires as the Ashanti Empire, the Dahomey Empire, Great Zimbabwe etc. \n\n2. In which case, these are some of the "bad things":\na) slave labour of captured prisoners-of-war;\nb) punitive taxation of conquered tribes;\nc) forcing attractive women to be concubines;\nd) ruthless suppression of dissent.\n\n3. If you had meant European imperialism in Africa, then your question was very poorly drafted.
93187
some west africans worked for europeans helping to capture west africans and other africans to be taken through the triangle trade route for slavery.  africans had to stay aware of the europeans, so basicly they lived as paranoid people.
295942
talk about the colonization, and particularly, what happened when they left. When they left, because the africans wanted freedom, they took all of the educated people with them. They basically left (through various means) the africans with no experience in running their own country, no education, no recourses, no help, etc. Corruption quickly sprang up, lots of civil wars and discontent ensued. Good luck with the essay! Hope that helped a bit!
459072
the battle of the kop.it was in the boer war in africa