Grade 12 History FQT PDF

Grade 12 Key words and concepts Capitalism Industrial Revolution Imperialism “Social Darwinism” Mercantilism “Eastern Question” laissez-faire Balkan Wars Lesson 1 1.1. Development of Capitalism The Nature and Main Features o...

Grade 12 Key words and concepts Capitalism Industrial Revolution Imperialism “Social Darwinism” Mercantilism “Eastern Question” laissez-faire Balkan Wars Lesson 1 1.1. Development of Capitalism The Nature and Main Features of Capitalism Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:  list down the main features of capitalism.  describe the theoretical foundations of Marxian Economics. Brainstorming Questions » What were the main characteristic features of capitalism? » What were the essences of the capitalist system? As you learned in Grade 10, capitalism grew in the womb of decaying feudalism. It has become the dominant economic system in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism. Many historians agree that fully fledged capitalism emerged in North- western Europe, especially in Great Britain and the Netherlands, from the 16th to 17thcenturies, when mercantilism was established. Mercantilism is defined as the distribution of goods that are bought at a certain price and sold at a higher price in order to generate profits. The ethics fostered by the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century helped to consolidate capitalism in the Western world. Moreover, capitalism enjoyed the benefits of the rise of strong nation states in Europe. These nation-states succeeded in supporting the development of capitalism through reg- ulations, uniform monetary systems, public investment, etc. and eventually made possible the shift from public to private initiative. Subsequently, capitalism gradually 2  TextBook became the dominant economic system throughout the world. In the 18th century, mercantilism declined when a group of economic theorists led by Adam Smith challenged mercantilist doctrines. They believed that a state could only increase its wealth at the expense of another state’s wealth while the amount of the world’s wealth remained constant. As a result of the decline in mercantilism, industrial capitalism arose in the mid-18th century due to the vast accumulation of capital during the phase of merchant capitalism and its investment in machinery. Industrial capitalism marked development of manufacturing factory system and led to the global domination of capitalist mode of production. Capitalism had the following main characteristic features: 1. Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production, especially in the industrial sector. The economy is run by individuals (or corporations) who own and operate companies and make decisions on the use of resources. 2. Capitalist society was characterized by the split between two antagonistic classes: the capitalist class (the owners), which owned the means for pro- duction (property, plants, and equipment) and the working class, which sold their labor to the capitalist class in exchange for wages. 3. Unlike the previous systems, capitalism used accumulated capital to enlarge productive capacity rather than to invest in economically unproductive enter- prises, such as pyramids and cathedrals. 4. The motive for all companies in the capitalist system is to make and sell goods and services only for profits. 5. Capitalist societies believe markets should be left alone to operate without government intervention. This idea is known as laissez-faire. True capitalists believe that a free market will always create the right amount of supply to meet demand and all prices will adjust accordingly. The ideology of classical capitalism was articulated by Adam Smith (1723-1790) in his book entitled: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Na- tions (1776). He was a Scottish economist and moral philosopher, who is considered to be one of the fore father’s of capitalism. Smith recommended leaving economic decisions to the free play of self-regulating market forces. Smith supported the idea 3 Grade 12 that laissez fair economics that would benefit its practitioners while also promoting society’s general welfare. On the other hand, the growth of industrial capitalism in the 19th century created a vast new class of industrial workers whose generally miserable conditions inspired the revolutionary philosophy of Karl Marx. As Marx suggested, in the socialist system where there was no private ownership and all means of production were collective or state-owned, central planning determined how much should be produced and how all resources were allocated. Therefore, the antithesis of capitalism is Marxian Economics, named after Karl Marx. He believed that capitalism brings about class segregation between the capitalist class and the working class. According to Marx, the exploitation of the surplus val- ue of labour is one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. He said that the working people possess personal property or capital in the form of their labour. By selling their labour to other persons, workers enter into wage labour contracts. The work- ers profit from their labour and may use the subsequent earnings to buy necessi- ties. The employer, however, also earns a profit from the workers labour. Marx also argued that capitalist economies would weaken in systematic crises. These crises would cause social disturbance. Wealth would become more and more concentrated into the hand of even more privileged class. Marx also predicted the inevitable over- throw of capitalism in a proletarian-led class war. Figure 1.1 Karl Marx and Fredric Engels Activity 1.1 1. Organize a classroom debate in support or against the ideology of classical capi- talism versus Marxian Economics. 4  TextBook LESSON 2 1.2.The Industrial Revolution Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:  Analyze major factors that led to the Industrial Revolution;  examine the social and political results of the Industrial Revolution; and  notice global socio-economic changes during 1815-1914. Brainstorming Questions » What were the factors that led to the industrial revolution? » What were the political and socio-economic consequences of the industrial revo- lution? As you learnt in Grade 10, the industrial revolution was the first establishment of industrial capitalism in any country. It took place in Britain in the period between 1750/1780 and 1850. The industrial revolution was preceded and made possible by a long period of change and development going back at least to the mid-16thcentury and even to the Middle Ages. Moreover, change and development did not cease in the 1850’s but continued because of industrialization and the change which it brought was a continuing process. However, by 1850, Britain was already a mature industrial state. Its major industries and its transport system had been transformed by machin- ery and steam power. The industrial revolution meant that industrial production in major industries was transformed so that far greater and cheaper production was possible than ever be- fore. This cheap mass production was achieved by interconnecting organizational and technological changes. These organizational and technological changes were at the heart of the Industrial Revolution.There was a change from dispersed produc- tion in small units under the old putting out system to the new factory system of the industrial revolution. Under the new factory system industrial production was concentrated in large units, i.e., the factories which employed many workers in each factory. The industrial capitalist owned the factory and built the machinery in the factory. The power unit which operated the machinery, the raw materials processed 5 Grade 12 in the factory and the finished products. The workers in the factories owned only their labor power which they sold to the factory owner for money wages. The wage workers in the factories were hired and dismissed at the will of the industrial capitalist. The factory system and the pow- er operated machinery which went with the factory system had several advantages for the factory owner. The factory system was more productive, i.e., it enabled far more production in a given time at lower unit cost. The factory system was there- fore, more profitable provided that the goods which were produced could be sold. By 1850, the factory system was dominant in major industries in Britain, especially the cotton textile industry of Lancashire in the northwest of England. Small workshops and the putting out system still survived on a large scale in many industries, but the future belonged to the factory system. Machines in factories replaced or complemented work done by hand with human strength and skill. The industrial revolution took machinery a stage further. There were more machines of new types, and they were more complex and larger. The size and expense of machinery in the industrial revolution meant that by the late 18th cen- tury the employment of these machines required industrial capitalists and factory systems. The new machines in factories and elsewhere employed inanimate power. Inanimate power from water and from the wind has been used since the Middle Ages or in the case of sailing ships since ancient times. However, as the economy expanded and when industry needed a form of power greater than water could provide and more flexible than waterpower, a new form of power came into use, i.e., steam power. The heat to generate steam came from burning coal, which in Britain was cheap and abundant. The first commercially viable steam engine was constructed by Newcom- en around 1705/1709. But it could only be used for pumps chiefly in mining. James Watt in 1783/84 made a steam engine which was more powerful and more econom- ical in its use of fuel and adapted to operate machinery in factories. From 1780s, more and more factories adopted steam power. Steam power was also applied to land transport in the form of railways. The first modern railway was operated entirely by steam locomotives and carried passengers as well as freight. The Liverpool and Manchester railway was opened in 1830. By 1850, a network of railways connected all important places in Britain. 6  TextBook Activity 1.2 1. Why did the Industrial Revolution first take place in Britain? Political and Socio-economic Consequences of the Industrial Revolution Cheap mass production was one of the features of the industrial revolution. The ba- sic economic problem in industrial states was no longer the scarcity of commodities. Instead, the main problem became overproduction and the consequent difficulty of selling the commodities which were produced. Many poor people meant limited de- mand for the commodities produced. Before the industrial revolution, economic de- pression usually resulted from wars, big epidemics, or most often bad harvests. From the industrial revolution onwards, however, a normal cause of economic depression was overproduction caused by a lack of effective demand. The industrial revolution made the agricultural sector of advanced countries less dominant. People transferred to other sectors of the economy, and investment and production in other sectors increased. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, ad- vanced economies had a falling percentage of their population living in rural areas and employed in agriculture. Nevertheless, despite the decrease in the percentage of the population living in rural areas and engaged in agriculture in the more ad- vanced countries, agricultural productivity increased so that fewer people engaged in agriculture produced more food. In this way, agriculture could support larger ur- ban population and more people who were not engaged in agriculture. Agricultural productivity has increased in advanced countries because of the spread of better methods of agriculture. In the 19th and 20th centuries, science was also applied to increasing agricultural production, for example, the development of artificial fertil- izers and pesticides. The industrial revolution accelerated the shift from the country side to the towns and cities. More productive agriculture could feed this larger urban population. Pop- ulation expanded rapidly in Britain and other industrialized countries of the west despite bad living and working conditions for the working class. Probably, the main reasons for this population growth were that more food was available to support a larger population and industrialization with expanding economies could provide more employment for an expanding population. 7 Grade 12 As a result of the industrial revolution, a new class system developed with more class consciousness than ever before. A large industrial capitalist class was added to the existing bourgeoisie of merchants, professional people and bankers, making the bourgeoisie as a whole richer and more numerous. In the 19th century at different times in different countries, the bourgeoisie became the economically and politically dominant class, replacing the centuries-long domination of the land-owning nobility. Alongside the industrial bourgeoisie and because of industrialization, there devel- oped the new class of the industrial proletariat. There had always been wage work- ers, but these were now more numerous and were more and more concentrated in large factories especially in towns and cities. As the industrial proletariat became more conscious of itself as a class and more conscious that its interests were dif- ferent from and antagonistic to those of the bourgeoisie. The industrial proletariat came to provide the mass base for the new doctrines of socialism and the support for working class political parties with socialist programs governments and ruling classes were alarmed by the growth of socialism in the 19th century. Industrialization increased national wealth although this was very unevenly distributed. From about 1850, industry, technology, and science were applied to armies and navies. This meant that the already existing gap in power between western states and non-western states became bigger than ever before. This meant clashes of interest and confrontations between western states and non-western states. Conflicts could be resolved more easily by western states using military or naval force or both. Moreover, the growth of industry and the expansion of the western economy in general meant that western states became more interested in non-western areas of the world than before as sources of raw materials and as markets for export or potential markets. Also, steamships, railways and the electric telegraph (1840s on) improved transport and communications and tied the world more closely together than ever before. So that from the third quarter of the 19th cen- tury, the world became increasingly one single integrated capitalist world economy. The result of all these changes was the imperialism of the late 19th century, i.e., the expanding and accelerated drive for colonial acquisitions and spheres of influence. However, the earlier industrial revolution and the spread of industrialization had laid the groundwork for late-19th century imperialism. In fact, very large acquisi- tions of colonial territory took place in the 19th century before what is usually called the “Age of Imperialism,” beginning around 1885 or 1890. Finally, the industrial rev- 8  TextBook olution made economic, social, and cultural changes faster than ever before, so that “change became the norm”. Activity 1.3 1. Discuss the political and socio-economic consequences of the Industrial Rev- olution. LESSON 3 1.3. Nationalism Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:  list down major factors for the growth of nationalism;  discuss the salient features of nationalism in the 19th century; and  discuss how nationalism transformed its character in the period between the 1880s and 1914. Brainstorming Question » What were the major factors behind the growth of nationalism in the 19th century? Nationalism has been the most powerful political force since the 1850s in the West- ern world. Nationalism’s deepest roots lie in a shared sense of regional and cultural identity, especially as those roots are expressed in custom, language and religion. It influenced all classes but more so the urban than the rural peasants. Activity 1.4 1. Why did nationalism influence more the urban people than peasants in the countryside? What do you think is the reason behind this? Moreover, nationalism created the atmosphere which made World War I possible in that nationalism aggravated the great international crisis of 1905–1914 and made the peoples of Europe support the war when it broke out in July-August 1914. Na- tionalism, of course, did not begin in the middle of the nineteenth century, but it grew and intensified from then until World War I. The following factors promoted the growth of nationalism in the 19th century: 9 Grade 12 Compulsory primary education was used by the government for state building and inculcating patriotism. Governments also used compulsory military service to incul- cate patriotism and loyalty to the state and rulers. The cheap newspapers for the masses often had chauvinistic tones, but nationalism and hostile feelings towards neighboring states were also features of the “quality” newspapers for the upper and middle classes. Much of the literature of the years before World War I was also strongly nationalist and warned against the dangers of neighboring countries. Patriotic societies were created to inculcate patriotism, to agitate for stronger armament, and sometimes also to agitate for bigger colonial empires. Nationalism was stimulated by the wars of unification in Italy and Germany and of national liberation in the Balkans. British nationalism was stimulated by the small colonial wars which Britain fought so often, though the second Boer War (1899-1902) was an unpleasant shock which cooled down British aggressiveness for a time until it was revived by fear of Germany. In the USA, victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898 stimulated American nationalism. Pseudo-science also stimulated nationalism and inculcated aggressive hostile feelings towards neighboring states and the idea that war was inevitable. This pseudo- science is what became known as «Social Darwinism.» It was «Social Darwinism» that spread the idea that history is a struggle between states and nations for power, supremacy and even survival. The strongest state and nation, which were the best, would be the victors, while weak states and nations would be subjugated and even destroyed. In the period between the 1880s and 1914, nationalism transformed its character in several ways: First, more and more national movements appeared in Europe and in the Ottoman Empire outside Europe. Many of these movements were towards numerically quite small numbers of people living in quite small territories. Therefore, nationalism, which earlier in the nineteenth century had appeared to work towards greater unity, as in the case of Italy and Germany, now tends towards fragmentation. Second, language and ethnicity became the major criteria, especially language for nationalism. All over Europe, submerged minority nationalities were struggling to assert the rights of their languages to equality with previously dominated languages. So there were bitter disputes over language questions. Third, a national question became part of the domestic politics of many states, par- 10  TextBook ticularly multinationals like Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia, and others like Brit- ain with its serious Irish question. In terms of class, the new minority nationality movements attracted the petty bourgeois, because the success of a national move- ment and its language would mean not just more prestige for the nationality and its language but more employment in the public sector for the language speakers. Nationalism for the government was a two-edged weapon. Nationalism could be and was used to strengthen loyalty to the state and the ruler and to divert the workers away from socialism. However, where national minorities existed, nationalism could arise from the national demands of these national minorities and cause discontent and disloyalty. The USA was very successful in the nineteenth century in assimilating millions of emigrants who came to the USA from Europe. This success was made possible because migrants left Europe because they were dissatisfied with conditions in their home country. By becoming US citizens, they joined a country and a nation which offered them more economic opportunities and more social and political freedom. Activity 1.5 1. How did the USA become very successful in the nineteenth century in assim- ilating and turning millions of emigrants into Americans? LESSON 4 1.4. Unification of Italy Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:  state factors that facilitated the Italian unification;  appreciate the roles of leaders in the processes of Italian unification;  outline the process of the Italian unification; Brainstorming Question » What were the obstacles and favorable factors in the process of Italian unification? The political and social process that united the separate states of the Italian Peninsu- la into a single nation in the nineteenth century was known as Italian unification. It is 11 Grade 12 difficult to put the exact dates for the beginning and end of Italian reunification, but most historians agree that it began with the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the end of Napoleon’s rule, and it ended with the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. In 1852, Italy was still politically divided and Austrian influence was still supreme. In the north, the two rich provinces of Lombardy and Venetia were part of the Aus- trian Empire. In the north-central part of Italy, there were the petty states of Parma, Modena and Tuscany, which were very much under Austrian influence and ruled despotically by rulers related to the Hapsburg emperor of Austria. The Papal States still covered a vast territory across Italy, consisting of the provinces of the Romagna, the Marches, Umbria and Rome and the patrimony. In addition to being the spiritual head of Catholics all over the world, the pope was the sovereign ruler of the Papal States. Since 1849, there had been a French garrison in Rome to protect the pope against any revolution and to show Austria that France had an interest in Italy and did not accept that Italy was an exclusively Austrian sphere of influence. The south of Italy and the island of Sicily were part of the kingdom of Naples. The kingdom was poor, feudal and backward. It was ruled despotically, and its king was closely al- lied with Austria. In the northwest of Italy was the kingdom of Piedmont, consisting of the mainland territory, which was its most important territory, and the island of Sardinia. Piedmont was the only Italian state that was really independent of Austria and that had a constitution, a parliament and civil rights, though these had only ex- isted since 1848. This situation made it possible for Piedmont to take the lead in the movement for Italian unification. Because liberals and nationalists all over Italy saw their best hope of a united Italy in unification with Piedmont under the constitution- al monarchy of King Victor Emmanuel II (r.1849-1878) of Piedmont. Activity 1.6 1. Prepare a map that shows the Italian states mentioned above. The main obstacle to Italian political unification was the power of Austria. Austria wanted to maintain the status quo. Another obstacle was the weakness of national sentiment in Italy. A favorable factor in the struggle for unification was the diplomat- ic isolation of Austria after the Crimean war (1855–56) and rivalries between France and Austria in Italy, which meant that Italian nationalism was able to use French help for Italian aims. Camillo Cavour (1810–61) prime minister of Piedmont from 1852–62 was the main 12  TextBook architect of Italian unification “from above.” He prepared Piedmont for the role of leadership in Italian unification. In 1858, Cavour met the French emperor, Napoleon III, secretly at Plombiere, in France, and succeeded in reaching an agreement with Napoleon for an alliance of France and Piedmont against Austria. Cavour contributed a lot to the successful unification of Italy. In the end, Cavour successfully gained con- trol of Lombardy, Tuscany, Parma and Modena, which greatly helped the unification process. In April 1859, Cavour successfully provoked a declaration of war by Austria on Piedmont. Napoleon III then intervened on the side of Piedmont against Austria. The combined force invaded Lombardy and defeated the Austrian army at the Battles of Magenta and Salferino in June 1859. The Austrians were driven out of Lombardy but still held Venetia. One of the results of the Battle of Salferino was the establishment of the International Red Cross Association by the Swiss humanitarian Henri Dunant. Napoleon, however, concluded a unilateral peace treaty with Austria on the basis that Austria ceded Lombardy to Piedmont but kept Venetia. Other developments resulting from the war also took place. The papal province of Romagna and the states of Parma, Modena and Tuscany revolted against their rulers in 1859. Their rulers were overthrown. Provisional governments were established which were in close touch with the government of Piedmont and demanded union with Piedmont. Once the north had been united as the Kingdom of Italy, the unifi- cation movement turned to absorbing the powerful Kingdom of Two Sicilies in the south. In 1860, there was an uprising in Sicily against the unpopular government of the Kingdom of Naples. At that time, the successful military leader, Garibaldi, was invited to come from Piedmont to lead the Sicilian uprising. Garibaldi agreed to lead the Sicilian uprising provided that the people accepted the program of unification with the rest of Italy under Victor Emmanuel. He recruited his famous Thousand Vol- unteers in the North and took them to Sicily, where they joined by other volunteers, advanced up the peninsula and took the city of Naples on September 7, 1860. The reasons for Garibaldi’s success were: first, his own skill as a leader in guerril- la warfare and his magnetic personality, which made people of all classes eager to fight and die under his leadership. Second, his successful mobilization of the Sicilian masses. The masses supported him partly because of his personal qualities but also because they hoped that his movement would bring them freedom from oppression and bitter life. Third, on the mainland, his success was largely owing to the demor- 13 Grade 12 ali ation of the army of Naples and to the defeatism and treachery of many of the of icials of the Naples government he fall of Gaeta brought the uni ication movement to a successful conclusion nly Rome and Venetia remained to be added n ebruary 18 1861 Victor mmanuel assembled the deputies of all the states that acknowledged his supremacy at Turin, and in their presence, he assumed the title of King of Italy. Victor Emmanuel II, king of Piedmont, changed his title too to Victor Emmanuel II, king of Italy. Four months later, Cavour, having seen his life’s work nearly completed, died. igure 1 Camillo Cavour left and Giuseppe Garibaldi he talian government used the 1866 ustro Prussian War and the 18 0 1 ran- co Prussian ar to complete talian uni ication n 1866 in preparation for ar against Austria, Bismarck made an alliance with Italy on the basis that Italy would go to war against Austria on the side of Prussia and, in return, would get Venetia. In spite of Italy’s poor showing, Prussia’s success in the war forced Austria to cede Venetia n 18 0 the ranco Prussian ar forced Napoleon to ithdra rench troops from Rome he talian government therefore sent its troops and sei ed Rome in September 18 0 Rome soon became the capital of taly Activity 1.7 1. dentify the obstacles and favorable factors for talian uni ication 2. Why did Cavour stop Garibaldi’s advance at the River Volturno in September 1860 and decide to complete the defeat of the king of Naples by the army of Piedmont? 14  TextBook LESSON 5 1.5. Unification of Germany Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:  identify the factors that facilitated and hindered the unification of Germany;  list down major events in the process of unification of Germany; and  appreciate the roles of leaders in the processes of German unification. Brainstorming Question » Analyze the strategies that Bismarck used to unite Germany. In the 1850s, Germany was a loose confederation of 39 states called the German Con- federation (the Bund). The Bund was presided over by Austria, with Prussia second. The Bund was not a satisfactory form of unity for German nationalists who wanted real political unity for reasons of German nationalism and economic reasons. German nationalism was encouraged by the success of Italian national unification between 1859 and 1861. The obstacles to German unification were: Austria, which wanted to preserve the status quo. The German princes, wanted to keep their independence and the cultural differences between North and South Germany. In 1861, William I (r.1861–1888) was crowned King of Prussia. He and his war min- ister, Von Roon, proposed enlarging and reforming the Prussian army to give Prus- sia more influence against Austria and as security against France. But the proposal was opposed by the Prussian parliament, which refused to vote on the necessary new taxation. An important issue behind the Prussian parliament was who would control the army. The king, thus, appointed Otto von Bismarck as chief minister of Prussia. Bismarck (1815–1898) was politically conservative but a political realist and extremely able. He soon overcame the crisis by collecting additional taxation for the army reforms without the consent of Parliament. There was no resistance. Ger- man nationalism rapidly shifted from its liberal and democratic character in 1848 to Bismarck’s authoritarian rule. Bismarck knew that Germany could not be united under Prussia without war against Austria and probably France. Austria would not give up its leadership in the Bund 15 Grade 12 unless it suffered a defeat. The traditional French policy was to keep Germany politi- cally divided and therefore weak, so that France too would probably not accept Ger- man unification unless France suffered a military defeat. Bismarck also knew that his program of uniting Germany would not be possible without good relations between Prussia and Russia. Therefore, he exerted all his diplomatic skills to maintain good relations with Russia. He was helped by the fact that Prussia and Russia had a com- mon interest in opposing Polish nationalism. Both Russia and Prussia, particularly the first, had large areas of former Polish territories inhabited by the Poles. There- fore, during the great Polish revolt of 1863, Prussia was the only great power that was sympathetic to Russia. Figure 1.3 Otto Von Bismarck Therefore, Bismarck accomplished this through three military successes: He first al- lied with Austria to defeat Denmark in a short war fought in 1864, thus acquiring Shleswig-Holstein. In 1866, with the support of Italy, he virtually created the Aus- tro-Prussian War and won a decisive victory at the Battle of Koniggratz, which, al- lowed him to exclude long-time rival Austria when forming the North German Con- federation with the states that had supported Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War. The Confederation was the direct precursor to the 1871 Empire. Finally, Prussia defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71). The German Confederation was transformed into an Empire with the proclamation of Prussian King Wilhelm I as German Emperor at the Palace of Versailles, to the humiliation of France. 16  TextBook Activity 1.8 1. Identify the obstacles and favorable factors for the unification of Germany. 2. Make a comparative analysis of the unification of Italy and Germany. LESSON 6 1.6. The American Civil War Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:  outline the genesis and growth of slavery as one of the divisive issues;  debate on major steps and consequences of the American civil war; and  appraise the impacts of the American Civil War. Brainstorming Question » What were the divisive issues between Northern and Southern states of the USA? Origins of the Conflict As you learned in grade 10, the American Civil War was fought in the United States from 1861 until 1865 between the forces coming mostly from the 23 northern states of the union and the newly formed Confederate States of America, which consisted of 11 southern states that had declared their secession. There were several divisive issues between the north and south of the USA. The South resented the economic dominance of the North. The South wanted low tariffs to ensure cheaper imports from Europe while the North wanted protective tariffs to encourage their industries. The South emphasized states’ rights, i.e., the constitu- tional rights of the individual states of the USA while the North put more emphasis on the National Federal Government. However, the slavery issue outweighed all oth- er issues and was the only issue capable of producing secession and civil war. When the south lost control of the political institutions of the USA, they turned to secession, fearing that northern domination of the union would lead to attacks on slavery. 17 Grade 12 Tensions grew rapidly during the 1850s. The United States Republican Party was established in 1854. The new party opposed the expansion of slavery in the west- ern territories. The Republicans mobilized popular support among Northerners and Westerners who did not want to compete against slave labor. 1860 was a year of presidential election. At that time, the Republican Party had a very good candidate named Abraham Lincoln, who was an effective politician, an able speaker, and an attractive personality. He was a man who appealed to ordinary northerners because he was a self-educated man. In 1860, Lincoln’s election as President triggered seces- sion in the south as the south had warned before the elections. Lincoln’s election was seen as an intolerable threat to slavery in the south. Before Lincoln took office, seven states seceded from the union, establishing a rebel government, known as the Confederate States of America, on February 9, 1861. They took control of federal forts and property within their boundaries. Figure 1.4 Abraham Lincoln On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States. In his inaugural address, he called secession “legally void.” He stated he had no intent to invade the southern states but would use force to maintain possession of the fed- eral property. Then, Lincoln called for all of the states in the Union to send troops to recapture the forts and preserve the Union. 18  TextBook The Civil War and Its Results The northerners were willing to fight to end secession. The North initially was fight- ing to end secession not to end slavery. Nevertheless, slavery had caused secession and therefore the causes of the civil war were both slavery and secession. Why the Union prevailed (or why the Confederacy was defeated) in the Civil War has been the subject of extensive analysis and debate. Advantages are widely believed to have contributed to the union’s success. In the civil war between the North and the South, the North had most of the advantages. It had more states, a much bigger popu- lation, more skilled labor, far more industry, more railways, much greater agricultur- al production, except for cotton, much greater financial wealth, and also naval power to block the south and cut the south off essential imports. Although the British and French governments and ruling classes sympathized with the South’s “king cotton,” they were not strong enough to intervene in the war on the side of the south. Never- theless, the north did not win easily because the south had initially better generals and fought with great determination, and the defensive power of firearms favored the south. The war lasted from 1861 to 1865 and claimed the lives of 620,000 people. The Northern motive for making the war a struggle against slavery was more accept- able. Thus, making the civil war a struggle against slavery would make it politically and morally impossible for any European government to support the confederacy because slavery was now regarded in Europe as obsolete, totally wrong, and totally indefensible. In September 1862, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to become effec- tive as of January 1st, 1863. The proclamation said that all slaves in rebel-held territo- ry would be free as of January 1st, 1863. The proclamation helped the North to recruit African American troops and many African American troops did serve with distinc- tion in the Northern armies. The proclamation also damaged the south by encourag- ing slaves in the confederacy to run away from the plantations especially when the northern army advanced into the south. In April 1865, the Confederacy was finally defeated unconditionally and completely. A few days later on April 14, 1865 Lincoln was assassinated by a southern fanatic named John Wilkes Booth. The civil war decided once and for all the issues of secession and slavery. Both ended by the victory of the North. After the civil war, southern political leaders had virtually 19 Grade 12 no impact on the immediate post-war decisions. Thus, several amendments to the US constitution were made: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth. The Thirteenth abolished slavery, the Fourteenth granted citizenship to former slaves, and the Fif- teenth allowed them to vote. Activity 1.9 1. Mention any four divisive issues between the North and the South states of the USA that finally led to the American Civil War. LESSON 7 1.7. The Eastern Question Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:  understand the nature of the “Eastern Question”;  argue on the role of nationalism in the “Eastern Question”; and  analyze the causes and consequences of the Balkan Wars. Brainstorming Questions » What do you know about the “Eastern Question”? » What were the causes and results of the two Balkan Wars? The “Eastern Question” meant what would happen to the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and elsewhere as Ottoman power declined. In the Balkans, the Ottoman Em- pire was threatened by the militancy of Balkan national movements, backed usually by Russia. In particular, the Eastern Question was an issue of political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries. Moreover, it was the main cause of the subsequent strategic competition and political consider- ations of the European great powers in the region. 20  TextBook Map 1.1 Balkan Region As the collapse of the Ottoman Empire approached, the European powers engaged in a power struggle to safeguard their military, strategic and commercial interests in the Ottoman domains. The decline of the Ottoman Empire benefited Imperial Rus- sia; on the other hand, Austria-Hungary and the United Kingdom demanded the Em- pire’s preservation as being in their best interests. In the 1870s, the hardships of the Ottomans had increased; their treasury was empty, and they faced insurrections not only in Herzegovina and Bulgaria, but also in Ser- bia and Montenegro. However, the Ottoman Empire managed to crush the insurgents in August 1876. On the other hand, Russia now intended to enter the conflict on the side of the rebels, using rumors of Ottoman atrocities against the rebellious popula- tion as an excuse. In April 1877, Russia declared war against the Ottoman Empire. It had effectively se- cured Austrian neutrality with the Reichstadt Agreement of July 1876, under which Ottoman territories captured during the war would be partitioned between the Rus- sian and Austria-Hungarian Empires, with the latter obtaining Bosnia and Herzegov- ina. Britain did not involve itself in the conflict. However, when Russia threatened to conquer Constantinople (now Istanbul), Britain urged Austria and Germany to ally with it against Russia. Russia negotiated peace through the Treaty of San Stefano (3 March 1878), which stipulated independence for Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro; autonomy for Bulgaria; reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the ceding of Dobru- 21 Grade 12 ja and parts of Armenia; and a large indemnity to Russia. This would give Russia great influence in Southeastern Europe, as it could dominate the newly independent states. However, to reduce these advantages to Russia, the Great Powers (especially Britain) insisted on a thorough revision of the Treaty of San Stefano. At the Treaty of Ber- lin on July 13, 1878, the boundaries of the new states were adjusted in the Ottoman Empire’s favor. Bulgaria was divided into two states (Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia), as it was feared that a single state would be susceptible to Russian domination. Bos- nia and Herzegovina were transferred to Austrian control. Later, Austria-Hungary took advantage of the Ottoman crisis to annex the two provinces in 1908. This act outraged Pan-Slav nationalists in Serbia, who had long seen Serbia and anticipated a merger with Bosnia in a union of the southern Slavs. This eventually became an immediate cause of World War I. Germany drew away from Russia and became closer to Austria-Hungary, with whom it concluded the Dual Alliance in 1879. Germany was also closely allied with the Otto- man Empire. In return, the German government took over the reorganization of the Ottoman military and financial systems. It received several commercial concessions, including permission to build the Baghdad Railway, which secured for them access to several important economic markets and opened the potential for German entry into the Persian Gulf area, then controlled by Britain. German interests were driv- en not only by commercial interests, but also by a burgeoning rivalry with Britain and France. Meanwhile, Britain agreed to the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, thereby resolving differences between the two countries over international affairs. Britain also made peace with Russia in 1907 with the Anglo-Russian Entente. Activity 1.10 1. What were the motives behind Russian ambitions in the Balkans? Balkan Wars (1912-1913) The Balkan Wars were two successive military conflicts that took place in the Balkan Peninsula in 1912 and 1913 that deprived the Ottoman Empire of all its remaining territory in Europe except part of Thrace and the city of Adrianople. 22  TextBook The First Balkan War began in the Balkans when Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Greece joined forces to attack the Ottoman Empire. By the early 20th century, Bul- garia, Greece, Montenegro and Serbia had achieved independence from the Ottoman Empire, but large elements of their ethnic populations remained under Ottoman rule. In 1912, these countries formed the Balkan League with Russian support to take Macedonia away from Turkey. The First Balkan War began on October 8, 1912, and the Balkan allies were soon victorious. The Turkish collapse was so complete that an armistice was signed on December 3, 1912. A peace conference began in London, but, after a coup d’état by the Young Turks in Constantinople in January 1913, war with the Ottomans contin- ued. Again, the allies were victorious: Ioánnina fell to the Greeks and Adrianople to the Bulgarians. Under a peace treaty signed in London on May 30, 1913, the Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its remaining European territory, including all of Macedonia and Albania. Albanian independence was insisted upon by the European powers, and Macedonia was to be divided among the Balkan allies. The Second Balkan War erupted when the Balkan allies Serbia, Greece, and Bulgar- ia, quarreled among themselves over the partitioning of their conquests in Macedo- nia. The result was a resumption of hostilities between Bulgaria, on the one hand, and Serbia and Greece, which were joined by Romania, on the other. Serbia and Greece allied against Bulgaria, and the war began on the night of June 29–30, 1913, when King Ferdinand of Bulgaria ordered his troops to attack Serbian and Greek forces in Macedonia. Serbian and Greek forces were later joined by Romania to at- tack Bulgaria. The Ottoman Empire also attacked Bulgaria and advanced in Thrace, regaining Adrianople. On July 30, they concluded an armistice to end hostilities, and the Treaty of Bucharest was signed between the combatants on August 10, 1913. Under the terms of the treaty, Greece and Serbia divided most of Macedonia between themselves, leaving Bulgaria with only a small part of the region. The Balkan Wars were marked by ethnic cleansing, with all parties being responsible for grave atroc- ities against civilians. As a result of the Balkan Wars, Greece gained southern Mace- donia as well as the island of Crete. Serbia gained the Kosovo region and extended into northern and central Macedonia. Albania was made an independent state by a German prince. 23 Grade 12 The most alarming aspect of the war was the growth of tension between Austria-Hun- gary and Serbia. Serbia had extensive claims upon Albanian territory. Having ob- tained an assurance of German support, Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum on October 17, 1913, to force Serbia to withdraw from the Albanian borderlands. The conflict beetween Austria-Hungary and Serbia was aggravated by the assassination of the Austrian prince, Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist named Gavrilo Princip on June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia. This action convinced Austro-Hun- garia to attack Serbia to crush Serbia’s independence was the only solution. The in- vasion of Serbia by Austria-Hungary thus led the First World War. Activity 1.11 1. Discuss how the wars of unification in Italy and Germany, as well as the wars of national liberation in the Balkans, stimulated nationalism. Unit Summary Many historians have agreed that fully-fledged capitalism emerged in Northwestern Europe, especially in Great Britain and the Netherlands, from the 16th to 17th centuries. In due course, capitalism gradually became the dominant economic system through- out the world. Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production. Capitalist society was characterized by the split between two antagonistic classes: the capitalist class (the owners) and the working class. The industrial revolution was the first establishment of industrial capitalism in any country. It took place in Britain (c.1750/1780–1851). It had far-reaching economic, social, and political effects. The result of all these changes was the imperialism of the late nineteenth century, i.e., the expanding and accelerated drive for colonial acquisi- tions and spheres of influence. Nationalism has been the most powerful political force since the 1850s in the west- ern world. Nationalism’s deepest roots lie in a shared sense of regional and cultural identity, especially as those roots are expressed in custom, language, and religion. One national issue concerning the unification of Italy and the unification of Germany dominated the international politics of Europe in the nineteenth century. Nation- alism was also an important element in the “Eastern Question,” which was a major issue in international relations since the 1850s. 24  TextBook The Italian Unification was the political and social process that unified the states of the Italian Peninsula into a single nation in the 19th century. The Italian government used the 1866 Austro-Prussian War and the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War to com- plete Italian unification. In the 1850s, Germany was a member of a confederation of 39 states called the German Confederation (the Bund). The Bund was presided over by Austria, with Prussia second. The architect of the unification of Germany was Otto Von Bismarck. He knew that Germany could not be united under Prussia without war against Austria and probably France. Thus, Bismarck accomplished this through three military successes. There were several divisive issues between the north and south of the USA that led to the Civil War that lasted from 1861 to 1865. However, the slavery issue outweighed all other issues and was the only issue capable of producing secession and civil war. The victory of the North in the war decided once and for all the issues of secession and slavery. The “Eastern Question” meant what would happen to the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and elsewhere as Ottoman power declined. In the Balkans, the Ottoman Em- pire was threatened by the militancy of Balkan national movements, backed usu- ally by Russia. It was the main cause behind the subsequent strategic competition and political considerations of the European great powers in the region. The Balkan Wars were two successive military conflicts that took place in the Balkan Peninsula in 1912 and 1913 that deprived the Ottoman Empire of all its remaining territory in Europe. Unit Review Exercises Instruction I-Fill in the Blank Spaces 1. The kingdom which played a leading role the Italian unification was ______________. 2. One of the results of the Battle of Salferino was the establishment of the International Red Cross Association by the Swiss humanitarian named _______________. 3. In the 1850s, Germany was a loose confederation of 39 states called_______________. 4. The German state that led the unification of Germany was ______________. 25 Grade 12 5. The president of the Confederate States of America was ______________. 6. The amendment to the US constitution that abolished slavery was ____________. Instruction II: Give Short and Precise Answers to the Following Questions 1. What was the Industrial Revolution? 2. Mention at least four suggested causes of the Industrial Revolution. 3. List down the impacts of the industrial revolution on agriculture. 4. What is the definition of nationalism? 5. State the factors that facilitated the growth of nationalism in the nineteenth century. 6. What does the “Eastern question” mean? 7. How did the USA become very successful in the nineteenth century in assim- ilating and turning millions of emigrants into Americans? 8. Identify the obstacles and favorable factors for the unification of Germany. 9. Discuss the economic and social conditions of the North and the South on the eve of the civil war briefly. 10. Mention any four divisive issues between the North and the South states of the USA that finally led to the American civil war. 26  TextBook UNIT TWO AFRICA AND THE COLONIAL EXPERIENCE (1880S – 1960S) Unit Introduction This unit discusses the main historical developments in Africa from the 1880s to the 1960s. The period of European colonization is the focus of this unit and involves lessons such as: the Process of Colonization, African Resistance against Colonial Ex- pansion, Colonial Administration and the Colonial States. Learning Outcomes By the end of this unit, you will be able to: analyze the major issues in the history of colonial Africa; appreciate the resistance of African people against colonialism; examine the colonial social, economic and political administration; and identify the strength and weaknesses of African resistance to colonial rule. Lessons The Era of “Legitimate Trade” and Colonial Empires African Resistance against Colonial Expansion Colonial Administration and the Colonial States Keywords and Concepts  Resistance  Colonialism  Process of Colonization  Legitimate  Direct Rule  Indirect Rule  Trade Ideology LESSON 1 2.1. The Era of “Legitimate Trade” and Colonial Empires Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to: 27 Grade 12  explain the essence of the “Legitimate Trade”  discuss the infrastructure and ideology of the new imperialism  describe the motives behind the European partition of Africa  denounce the motives of the European powers. Brainstorming Questions » Why did the Europeans want to colonize Africa? » How could the European colonizers manage to easily defeat the African people and establish colonial states in Africa? The Birth and Expansion of the ‘Legitimate Trade’ The Trans-Atlantic Slave trade was referred to as the “Illegitimate Trade” because its commodities were humans or slaves rather than other goods. After the end of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the success of the abolitionist campaigns, the for- mer trade in humans or African slaves could not continue. For three centuries, the “Illegitimate Trade” in humans had dominated the commercial activities in the West African coastal areas. After the Industrial Revolution, the European colonial powers, particularly the British, took measures that first weakened and gradually abolished not only the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade but also the slave trade in general. The Eu- ropeans introduced a new trade in West Africa which they called the “Legitimate Trade” in which the principal commodities were no more human beings or African slaves. During the first half of the 19th century, new West African commodities replaced slaves as merchandise to be exported abroad. These commodities for export includ- ed items like gum, groundnuts, and palm. By the middle of the 19th century, palm oil became West Africa’s major export item. The ‘Legitimate Trade’, that replaced the ‘Illegitimate Trade’’, did not however economically prosper the West African states. It rather benefited most African rulers and wealthy merchants. The new “Legitimate Trade” could not bring significant improvement to the majority of West Africans. Indeed, the living condition of the people could not improve. The goods imported from Europe, which were cloth, alcoholic drinks and firearms could not contribute for the development of African native economies. The imported European clothes thoroughly weakened the development of the African indigenous craft industry. Afri- can peoples were attracted by imported European goods. The imported firearms too, had a negative impact. They not only undermined the indigenous African weapon 28  TextBook making industry, but also enabled the African rulers to get military might to plunder their own people. In fact, the imported firearms were not modern in the true sense of the term and could not enable African rulers to protect themselves and their people from the colonial powers, who were equipped with more sophisticated weapons. The European merchants, who were involved in the “Legitimate Trade” in West Afri- ca, had succeeded in controlling not only the export trade but also the internal trade in West Africa as well. The European traders maximized their profits as they served as intermediaries between the African merchants and the European traders. This increased commercial competition between the European merchants led to the Eu- ropean competition which eventually culminated in the ‘Scramble for Africa’ in the 1870’s and 1880’s to control sources of raw materials and markets. Activity 2.1 1. Discuss in group the impact of the Illegitimate Trade on Africa? 2. Can we blame only the European colonizers for the problems created in the West Africa during the Transatlantic Slave Trade? 3. Was Africa involved in the Transatlantic Slave Trade? Why? The Infrastructure and the Ideology of New Imperialism Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. When we say New Imperialism we are referring to a period of increased expansion of capitalism that was started in the second half the 19th century and continued until the outbreak of the First World War. In the period known as the New Imperialism, European powers wanted to control African colonies. After achieving unification, in the early 1870s, Germany and Italy joined the struggle to control territories in Africa. Following the rapid economic development that came as a result of adopting the economic policy of free trade, a serious financial crisis affected the western states in the early 1870s. In order to withstand the economic crisis and protect their eco- nomic interest, European states began to take measures. For instance, in the 1870s and the 1880s, the two major European colonial powers, Great Britain and France partitioned the western part of the African continent into their spheres of influence. The Berlin Conference of 1884/85 enabled European powers to divide Africa among themselves. That led to the physical occupation of territories in Africa which means the intensification the colonial conquest. There was European presence in Africa even before the start of the period of the New 29 Grade 12 Imperialism. The period of the New Imperialism differs from the earlier period in the sense that the Europeans came to Africa with a very developed technology. Before the 1870s, although the Europeans had contacts with the peoples of the coastal areas of Africa, particularly, West Africa, they were not equipped with efficient firearms to easily conquer the native peoples there. Moreover, the Europeans also lacked appro- priate means of communication to control Africa particularly the interior parts of Africa. In general, the European colonial powers had a great difficulty to penetrate deep into the African interior. At the early days of colonization, tsetse fly and mosquito had almost prevented the Europeans from entering the African interior. Eventually, the European colonizers managed to penetrate deep into the African interior with relative ease; thanks to technological advancement including the invention of better river boats, steam ship, better rifles, and the discovery of medicine to combat malar- ia. By 1880, a relatively small number of well-armed and properly trained European soldiers had managed to easily defeat the native Africans who had a marked numer- ical superiority over them. After the second Industrial Revolution, many of the European states became tech- nologically more advanced and they developed interest to colonize un-colonized ar- eas in Africa. Industrial development invited new powers to involve in the colonial contest. As we have already mentioned, Germany and Italy were newcomers in the colonial struggle to acquire colonies in Africa. Technology and involvement of new powers in the colonial struggle hastened the development and spread of the New Imperialism. The emerging European industries needed a huge capital investment. The financial capital required to run the new industries paved the way for the development of financial institutions like banking and capital markets that could finance the new industries. The expansion of industries in Europe not only demanded excess raw materials but also importing food for the then growing urban population in the in- dustrialized cities and towns. Technological advancement in maritime technology and navigation techniques enabled the European colonial powers to get raw mate- rials and food supply with relative ease traveling even to distant areas including the Far East. Improvement in ship building also encouraged the revival of militarism and aggression in the world. Great Britain, which was the first country to embark on the industrial revolution, was the strongest World Power of the period and had suprem- 30  TextBook acy in military and naval powers. Its technological superiority enabled Great Britain to build more efficient naval force. Soon other European colonial powers followed suit and modernized their armed forces including their navy. After the 19th century, the European colonial powers worked hard to consolidate their rule in the areas which they had already occupied. In fact, they also worked to get new colonies although there were no adequate territories to be newly colonized in Africa by then. The technological boom that came as a result of the New Imperialism had some neg- ative impacts on peoples who had their own polities. The militarily superior Euro- pean colonial states now managed to colonize the entre African continent except Ethiopia and Liberia, and many areas in Asia and the Pacific Islands. Although the European colonization of territories in Africa was started earlier, the scale had in- creased dramatically, and the European acquisition of territories reached its peak during the period known as the New Imperialism. When the First World War broke out in 1914, about 85 percent of the territories in the world had fallen under colo- nial rule. During the First World War, the colonized people followed their colonial masters paid sacrifices in military confrontations that had nothing to do with them. The Partition of Africa, Motives and Processes On the eve of the European Scramble for Africa, Western Europe had conducted the industrial revolution for a century and had clearly become the most powerful and technologically advanced continent in the world. Firearms, transportation, and communication technologies were developing very quickly, and national pride was growing in each European country. Furthermore, advances in medicine have enabled Europeans to spend longer periods in the tropics free of illness. An economic decline in the early 1870’s pushed some Europeans to look toward the non-industrial world, especially the African countries. They viewed these countries as both markets for their products and suppliers of natural resources to fuel their industries. In addition, the strongest European countries began to fear what would happen to the balance of power if their rivals acquired colonies in Africa. All of this resulted in the scramble for Africa. It began with slow territorial acquisition through the early 1880’s and was followed by a competitive rush to claim African lands after the Berlin Conference (1884–1885). Therefore, you will learn about the major developments that led to the Berlin conference. 31 Grade 12 Activity 2.2 1. Why did Great Britain and France manage to establish big colonial empires while others, like Italy and Germany, were unable to have an adequate number of colonial states in Africa? Because of her position as an industrial nation in the world, Britain dominated Afri- ca’s external trade until the second half of the 19th century. She produced industrial goods and exported them to Africa using her largest merchant navy. This provided her with an opportunity to establish trading stations and occupy bases and coastal colonies on the continent. As their home markets became saturated, these powers turned to Africa to sell their manufactured goods. As a result “protectionism” was encouraged more than “free trade”. This in turn increased the desire of the new in- dustrial powers to establish colonies or “protected” areas in Africa. Map 2.1 Africa in 1880 and 1913 While Britain, France and Belgium were advancing their arms into Africa, Germany, was waiting for its time. In 1884, Bismarck declared a German protectorate over three African territories, namely Togoland, Cameroon and Southwest Africa (pres- ent day Namibia). He then invited the major European powers to Berlin. The stated goals of the conference were to be the settlement of Congo claims between Britain, France, and Portugal and the Anglo-French rivalries along the Niger River. European powers recognized that rules were needed for controlling African territories, espe- cially for seizures that held the potential for European conflict. The Berlin Conference was held in Berlin (Germany) from November 1884 to Febru- ary 1885. It was Bismarck, the chancellor of Germany, who initiated the conference. The conference was an attempt by European leaders to add international agreement 32  TextBook to the carving up of Africa that was already underway. It involved representatives of 13 European countries. The European states were namely Britain, Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Russia, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark and Swe- den. In fact, the Ottoman Empire which has been thoroughly weakened and lost most of its former territories was not represented in the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885. Although the main agenda in the Berlin Conference was Africa, no African country, including Ethiopia and Liberia, was invited to take part in the Conference. By the time the conference ended (February 25, 1885), King Leopold of Belgium had secured ownership of the Congo Free State, and the conference recognized Leopold’s so-called “International Association” as the legitimate authority in the Congo basin. In return, the Belgian king agreed to allow European traders and missionaries free access to the area. Based on the Berlin negotiations, Leopold proclaimed his own personal kingdom, the ‘Congo Free State’, in 1885. France got acceptance of its claims to the French-Congo; Portugal lost most of its Congo claims; and European powers recognized Germany’s new protectorates. The European nations declared free trade along the Congo Basin and free navigation on the Niger River. The European colonial powers also consoli- dated their rule in the areas they already occupied and set out rules to occupy addi- tional new territories. Nevertheless, the most significant of these rules or General Act of Berlin was Article 36. It stated that colonial powers were obligated to notify each other when they claimed African territory. Furthermore, subsequent “effective occupation” of the claimed area was necessary for the claim to remain valid. LESSON 2 2.2. African Resistance against Colonial Expansion Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:  evaluate the impacts of colonialism on Africa;  determine the cause and effect of The Mahadist Movement;  sketch a map that shows settlement colonialism in Africa;  sympathize with the sacrifices that the Africans made to achieve political in- dependence. 33 Grade 12 Key words and concepts  Colonialism  Resistance  Scorched earth policy African Initiatives and Responses to Colonialism The Africans did not welcome the European colonizers who were uninvited guests in Africa. The Africans attempted to resist the European colonizers as much as they could. The colonial powers employed different methods to colonize Africa. They used fake treaties to extend their control of the continent. When treaties failed to bring them what they wanted, the European colonizers resorted to the use of force. The Af- ricans, on the other hand, reacted to the colonial aggression in two ways. The African reaction to colonial rule included both peaceful and violent methods. Practically, the African society resisted the colonizers using any means, and there was resistance in almost every region of European advance. But there were differences in the intensity of resistance from one region to another. The African resistance had a clear ideologi- cal basis, that is, the resistance was an attempt to safeguard their sovereignty. Samori Toure of Mandinka Samori Toure (c 1828- June 2, 1900) was a Muslim religious figure and a military leader, who is referred to as the founder of the Islamic Empire known as the Was- soulou Empire that was located in the present-day north and south eastern Guinea. The areas that were parts of the empire created by Samori Toure included the pres- ent-day territories of Sierra Leone, Cot d’ Ivoire and Burkina Faso. Samori Toure strongly resisted the colonial rule of France in West Africa until the French defeated and captured him in 1898. By the year 1867, Samori became a commander of a relatively strong army having his base at a place called Sanankoro in the highlands of Guinea. Samori Toure worked hard to create a well-trained and properly armed army that could help to build a strong and stable empire. In order to strengthen his army, Samori used to import firearms via Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone since 1876. His military power en- abled him to control the gold mine district known as Bure. And this increased Samori Toure’s economic strength. In 1878, Samori Toure proclaimed himself the leader of the Wassoulou Empire he created. Samori Toure made the town of Bissandugu the capital of his empire. He soon established strong political and commercial relations with the neighboring Toucouleur Empire. In 1881, after heavy fighting, Samori Toure 34  TextBook managed to control the essential Dyula trading post of Kankan which is found on the upper Milo River. By 1881, the territorial size of the Wassoulou Empire was enlarged and included parts of the present-day territories of Guinea, Mali, Sera Leone and Cot d’ Ivoire. The French attempt to expand in West Africa in the late 1870s, brought them to direct conflict with Samori Touri. The French were expanding towards the territories oc- cupied by the Wassoulou Empire. In early 1882, the French forces launched attack against the forces of Samori Toure. His forces successfully repulsed the French at- tack and retained their possessions there. In this battle, Samori Toure was surprised by the military discipline and quality of firearms of the French troops he defeated. Toure wanted to have well trained; disciplined and properly armed troops like the French soldiers. In order to create an efficient modern army, Samori Touri sought Eu- ropean assistance. In January 1885 he sent his envoys to the British colonial rulers in Freetown, Sierra Leone, promising to place his empire under British protection. The British were not willing to confront with the French by accepting Samori’s request to put his Empire under their protectorate. Nevertheless, the British agreed to sell modern weapons to Samori Touri. The French troops launched a military expedition in 1885 to control the Bure rich gold mines. The forces of Samori Touri, who were by then better armed, successfully resisted the French attack and launched a successful three directional counter-offen- sive and expelled the expanding French forces from Bure. Samori Touri’s army was well organized divided into infantry and cavalry units. Figure 2.1 Samori Toure 35 Grade 12 In March 1891, the French forces launched a military offensive against Samori in Eastern Guinea. Although the forces of Samori had scored victories in some battles, they could not totally expel the French troops from their empire. In June 1892, the French troops defeated the forces of Samori Touri and captured the capital of the em- pire, Bissangudu. To make matters even worse to Samori Touri, the British refused to sell firearms and ammunitions to Samori anymore. In the last resort, Samori Touri formed an anti-colonial coalition with the neighbor- ing Ashante Empire. Nevertheless, the alliance could not be fruitful as the British troops defeated the Ashante Empire in 1897. In the next year, i.e., 1898, Samori Touri lost almost all the territory of the empire he created to the French and was forced to retreat. Eventually, on 29 September 1898 Samori Touri surrendered to the French and was exiled to Gabon and died on 2 June 1990 in captivity. The attempts made by the Africans to stop the European powers from colonizing their countries were not successful. It was partly because the African resistances against the European invaders were not well-organized. The Europeans had also a marked superiority in military training and quality of firearms. Sometimes the Eu- ropeans were able to mobilize the Africans against fellow Africans who were deter- mined to fight them. The only successful anti-colonial struggle in Africa was that of Ethiopia. Ethiopians under Emperor Menelik II had managed to defeat the Italians at the battle of Adwa in 1896 and Ethiopia became the only country in Africa whose independence was recognized by the colonial powers in the era of colonialism. Activity 2.3 1. Describe the contribution of Samori Toure in the fight against colonialism. The Ashanti The Ashanti Empire was a pre-colonial West African state that emerged in the 17th century in what is today Ghana. The Ashanti, or Asante, were an ethnic sub-group of the Akan-speaking people and were composed of small chiefdoms. The Ashanti established their state around Kumasi in the late 1600s, shortly after their first encounter with Europeans. In some ways, the Empire grew out of the wars and dislocations caused by the Europeans who sought to control the famous gold deposits which gave this region its name, the Gold Coast. During this era, the Portu- 36  TextBook guese were the most active Europeans in West Africa. They made Ashanti a signifi- cant trading partner, providing wealth and weapons that allowed the small state to grow stronger than its neighbors. In the 18th century Ashanti was simply one of the Akan-speaking Portuguese trading partners in the region. That situation changed when Osei Tutu, the Asantehene (paramount chief) of Ashan- ti from 1701 to 1717, and his priest, KomfoAnokye, unified the independent chief- doms into the most powerful political and military state in the coastal region. The Asantehene organized the Asante Union, an alliance of Akan-speaking people who were now loyal to his central authority. The Asantehene made Kumasi the capital of the new empire. He also created a constitution, reorganized and centralized the mil- itary, and created a new cultural festival, Odwira, which symbolized the new union. Most importantly, he created the Golden Stool, which he argued represented the an- cestors of all the Ashanti. Upon that throne, Osei Tutu legitimized his rule and that of the royal dynasty that followed him. Gold was the major product of the Ashanti Empire. Osei Tutu made the gold mines royal possessions. He also made gold dust the circulating currency in the empire. Gold dust was frequently accumulated by the citizens of Asante, particularly by the evolving wealthy merchant class. The Ashanti Empire’s economy depended on the gold trade in the 1700s, but by the early 1800s, it had become a major exporter of enslaved people. In exchange, the Ashanti received luxury items and some manufac- tured goods, including most importantly, firearms. The consequence of this trade for the Ashanti and their neighbors was terrible. From 1790 until 1896, the Ashanti Empire was in a continuous state of war. These wars led to the acquisition of more slaves for trade. The constant warfare also weakened the Empire against the British, who eventually became their main enemy. Between 1823 and 1873, the Ashanti Empire resisted British advance on their territory. In 1874, however, British forces successfully invaded the Empire and briefly captured Kuma- si. The Ashanti rebelled against British rule and the Empire was again conquered in 1897. After another uprising in 1900, the British overthrew and exiled the Asante- hene and annexed the Empire into their Gold Coast colony in 1902. Urabi Pasha’s Rebellion in Egypt Ahmed Urabi, or Urabi Pasha, was an officer in the Egyptian army. Urabi participated in an 1879 mutiny that developed into the Urabi revolt against the administration 37 Grade 12 of Khedive Tewfik, which was under the influence of an Anglo-French dual rule. He was promoted to Tewfik’s cabinet and began reforms of Egypt’s military and civ- il administrations, but the demonstrations in Alexandria in 1882 led to the British bombardment and the occupation of Egypt. Urabi and his supporters were arrested. And exiled to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). This revolt, also known as the Urabi revolt, was primarily inspired by his desire for social justice for the Egyptians based on equal standing before the law. With the sup- port of the peasants as well, he launched a broader effort to try to free Egypt and Sudan from foreign control and to end the absolutist regime of the Khedive Ismael Pasha. The revolt, then, spread to express resentment at the influence of foreigners, including the aristocracy of the Ottoman Empire. Urabi was eventually captured and tried by the restored Khedivate for rebellion on December 3, 1882. Urabi was found guilty and was sentenced to death, but the sen- tence was immediately commuted to banishment for life. He left Egypt on December 28, 1882, for Ceylon. In May 1901, Khedive Abbas II, Tewfik’s son and successor, permitted Urabi to return to Egypt. Abbas was a nationalist and remained deeply opposed to British influence in Egypt. Urabi returned in 1901 and remained in Egypt until his death in 1911. Urabi›s revolt had a long-lasting significance in Egypt as the first instance of nationalistic sentiments in Egypt, which would later play a very important role in Egyptian history. Some historians also note that the 1881–1882 revolution laid the foundation for mass politics in Egypt. In 20th-century Egypt, particularly during the regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Urabi would come to be regarded as an Egyptian patriot and a national hero; he also inspired political activists living in Ceylon. The Mahadist Movement in the Sudan The Mahadist rebellion in the Sudan began in 1881 by Muhammad Ahmad, a Muslim holy man from Dongola who declared that he was the expected Mahdi. His followers, too, identified him as Al-Mahdi. In 1881, he organized a revolt, declaring that he was the expected Islamic savior, or Mahdi, and it was from this name that the Sudanese religious revivalist and anti-colonial movement was named the Mahadist movement. On August 12, 1881, Al-Mahdi won his first victory over the colonial forces at the battle of Aba. Again in November 1883, the Mahaddists won another victory over the 38  TextBook Anglo-Egyptian army in Kordofan Province. Subsequently, in 1885, Al-Mahdi’s forces captured Khartoum and killed Charles Gordon Pasha. Five months later, Muhammad Ahmad passed away. The Mahaddists were also known as the Dervishes (religious beggars) and later as the Ansars (helpers). Upon the death of the Mahdi in 1885, Khalifa Abdullah took the leadership. He set up a strong administrative system by appointing district governors responsible for collecting taxation strictly in accordance with the rules of the Quran. The British re- garded the successive victories of the Mahaddists as a threat and wanted to avenge the death of Charles Gordon. In 1896, the Anglo-Egyptian army, under the command of General Kitchner, advanced into the Sudan. Two years later, in 1898, this army in- flicted a final defeat upon the Mahadist forces at the battle of Omdurman. Sudan was occupied by the combined forces of Britain and Egypt. Following this, the British set up what they called the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium. Lord Kitchner was appointed as the first Governor-General of the Sudan. The Maji-Maji Rebellion In East Africa, the most serious challenge for the Germans was the widespread re- sistance of the people of Tanganyika. This rebellion broke out in the southern part of the colony, in the hinterland of Kilwa, in July 1905. It began in the Matumbi hills, following the imposition of heavy taxes and the use of forced labor in the cotton growing farma for export. The revolt spread rapidly throughout the region, with at- tacks on all foreigners: missionaries, administrators, and their Swahili/Arab clerks. It was a spontaneous revolt with no previous planning or central leadership. And yet, the peoples of Southern Tanzania came together in a way that is unique in the history of African resistance to colonialism. Instinctively, they turned to their beliefs in the powers of the spirit world. It was a deliberate attempt to overcome the prob- lems that had crippled earlier African resistance to European conquest, i.e., a lack of African unity and the European machine-gun. They sprinkled their bodies with magic water known as Maji-Maji, which they believed would turn the bullets of their enemies into water. It is therefore from this term that the resistance movement got the name Maji-Maji. Although the revolt spread to Morogoro and the outskirts of Dar es Selam, it had gradually lost its initial momentum. The power of Maji-Maji had been weakened and its political unity was gradually falling apart because of ethnic and other differences. In addition to this, by the end of 1905, the Germans had brought 39 Grade 12 reinforcements, recruited from Somaliland and New Guinea. As a result, in 1906, the Germans gradually reclaimed the central highland region under their control. They even perused a “scorched-earth” policy, destroying villages and laying waste vast stretches of southern and central Tanzania. Finally, they defeated the powerful Ngo- ni warriors in 1907. The war devastated several African villages and brought famine to the Africans. It also resulted in the destruction of trade and wealth in the country. In any case, the Maji-Maji revolt demonstrated the possibility of broader African an- ti-colonial nationalism. The sacrifice of the thousands of Tanzanians who died in the Maji-Maji revolt was important in inspiring the later generation of nationalists who brought their country to independence in the early 1960’s. LESSON 3 2.3. Colonial Administration and the Colonial States Competencies By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:  identify the difference between the colonial policies of Britain and France;  explain the political economy of colonial agriculture, mining and trade;  discuss the political, social and economic impacts of colonialism on Africa;  denounce the economic impact of colonialism. British and French Colonial Policies British Colonial Policy The British followed a colonial administration known as “indirect rule” which was most clearly formulated by Frederick Luggard. In 1922, Luggard published his book called “The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa.” He described the system of gov- ernment he had worked out for the administration in Northern Nigeria. He recom- mended its application to all British tropical African colonies. “Indirect rule” was believed by the British to be the cheapest and most effective way of administering a vast population stretched over even vaster territories with the minimum of Europe- an personnel. But “indirect rule” was far from being a clear-cut system. Its applica- tion varied enormously from colony to colony. 40  TextBook Brainstorming Question » How do British and French colonial policies differ from each other? The British based their colonial administration upon what they saw as a series of mi- nor but totally separate pre-colonial chiefdoms. To make this a reality, they empha- sized differences in dialects and redefined them as totally separate languages. They described customary differences in dress, housing, and religious practices in terms of rigid “tribal” distinctions. Indeed, it has been argued that colonial authorities in- vented “tribalism.” By insisting on the strength of “tribal” differences and rivalries, colonists made it more difficult for Africans to achieve unity in opposition. The Brit- ish thus made use of the age-old imperial maxim: “divide and rule.” The French Colonial Policy The French believed that by teaching the colonial peoples the French language, sub- jecting them to French law, and giving them French civil and political rights, they could assimilate the people they colonized. Throughout their colonies in Africa, the French applied this theory in full only in Senegal. In 1848, France conferred French citizenship on the Senegalese and also gave them the right to elect a representative, called a deputy, to the French National Assembly (the lower house of the French parliament) in Paris. In accordance with the policy of assimilation, the Senegalese were given the French system of local gov- ernment based on communes. All the indigenous inhabitants were French citizens and enjoyed the same civil and political rights as Frenchmen. People born in other parts of the French colonies could become French citizens only if they could read, write, and speak French well. Albert Sarraut, Minister of Colonies in 1920–24 and 1932–33, was the individual who laid the foundations for the French colonial policy of administration usually known as “Direct Rule.” Sarraut’s outlook was very different from that of the English- men. It was less respectful of African personalities while also being more fraternal toward Africans. Sarraut never talked about allowing the Africans to develop along their own lines. His dominant thought was that France and her African colonies must be kept as united in peace as they had been in war. There were two major differences between the British and French methods of using 41 Grade 12 African chiefs in local government. The first was that the British tried as much as possible to ensure that all the chiefs they used were traditional rulers, as the French were not particularly keen on this point. The second was that the British were more inclined to respect the chiefs under them and to give them more powers than the French did. It was above all in education that French policy differed from the British. Although a few mission schools received government subsidies for exceptional effi- ciency, nine-tenths of the formal education in French Africa was given by the state. All the teaching was in French. It is, however, noteworthy that, ultimately, the French and British methods virtually led to the same result. They caused African chiefs to lose their traditional character and made them dependent on their colonial masters. During the colonial period, Belgium had some colonial possessions in Africa. Belgian African colonial possessions included Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi. Belgian colonial rule in the Congo was based on the idea of a “colonial trinity” in which interests of the state, missionaries and pirvate companies were all considered. Portuguese colonial rule in Africa, particularly in Angola and Mozambique, included both oppressive and liberal methods. There was no clear landmarked policy to ad- minister the Portuguese colonies in Africa. We can say that the Portuguese colonial system of administration was more or less oppressive. In fact, there were few liberal policies like the assimilation policy. The assimilation policy was never fully imple- mented, but it kept native African peoples in Portuguese colonies hoping that one day they would behave and live like white Portuguese. German colonial rule in Africa from 1884-1914 was an expression of nationalism and moral superiority. The Germans pursued a colonial administrative policy of di- rect rule like the French to maximally exploit the resources of the people of Tangan- yika. The Germans employed direct rule, assigning enough personnel or manpower to administer their colonial possession of Tanganyika. The Political Economy of Colonial Agriculture, Mining and Trade One of the driving factors for the European conquest of Africa was economic motive. That was the need for raw materials for European industries and new markets for manufactured goods. Colonial governments often encouraged Africans to undertake cash crop production. A major role was filled in this process by African chiefs, wheth- er “traditional” or newly created. The chiefs were often given the task of establishing their own export plantations using unpaid force labor of their subjects. The most 42  TextBook important cash crops were palm oil, palm kernels, peanuts, cocoa, coffee and cotton. Small-scale peasant farmers had dominated the cash crop production in much of tropical Africa. Ground nuts remained the main cash crop in Cote d’Ivoire, Angola, Tanganyika, Uganda and Eastern Belgian Congo. Cocoa was even more successful as a dominant cash crop in northern Nigeria and Senegal. Coffee was developed as a profitable cash crop and remained the principal export crop of the Gold Coast and southwestern Nigeria. Cotton, which was low-priced and labor-intensive, was usu- ally produced only under pressure from Europeans. To satisfy the demands of the French textile industry, peasant production of cotton was made compulsory in cer- tain parts of Ubangui Chari (Central Africa Republic), Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Mali and Niger. In Southern Sudan, between the Blue Nile and White Nile, the British government sponsored a vast irrigation scheme to promote the peasant production of cotton. African tenants, however, lost access to land for growing food and only received 40% of the profits from their cotton. Most of the African peasant farmers still graze most of their own basic food. Cheap rice from French Indo-China was imported into French West African colonies and sold at rates which undercut local food producers. African peasant farmers, who had often started the growth of cash crops for export under pressure from colonial taxa- tion, rapidly became dependent upon the imports which their crops might buy. In general, during the 1920’s and 1930’s, African farmers were paid less for what they produced, but had to pay more for what they bought. Thus, it was particularly the case after the “Great Depression,” which struck Europe and the United States in 1929-30. With failing real incomes and the constant pressure of colonial taxation, African peasants had to bring more and more land into cash-crop production. Food crops were neglected, the soil became exhausted, and in times of drought, famine struck. In 1931, famine killed nearly half the population in some areas of Niger. Mining The sector of the colonial economy most profitable for capital investment was min- ing. Colonial authorities assumed all rights over minerals within their territories. They were then leased to European-owned companies to exploit. The British thus took over the gold fields of Asante. The other major mineral resources which attract- ed European mining capital to West Africa were the ancient tin-mines of the Jos pla- teau region in northern Nigeria. These were exploited by low-technology, open-caste 43 Grade 12 mining using huge quantities of unskilled African labor. The richest parts of tropical Africa for European mineral exploitation in the colonial period were the central Af- rican region of Katanga (Shaba) and the Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) “copper belt”. The Union Muniere Company has obtained exclusive control of copper-mining in Ka- tanga. They drew much of their initial labor from the area near Northern Rhodesia. The settlement of white farmers along the Northern Rhodesia line of rail was to grow maize and cattle to feed the Katanga miners. Southern Rhodesia was another important zone of European mining enterprises. Besides the coal of Hwange, which provided the copper belt (Katanga) mines with most of their industrial fuel, Southern Rhodesia became a major producer of gold, copper, and asbestos. The dominant industrial mining center of southern Africa was the Witwatersrand. Activity 2.4 1. Discuss in groups the history of African resistance against colonial rule in any one of the African countries. Unit Summary The suppression of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, the commodities of which were slaves, was a long process that took about half a century. The British were the first to take measures to bring an end to the “illegitimate trade”. The reason why the British decided to stop the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade has to do with the industrial revolu- tion. After the British embarked on the industrial revolution, they realized that the black people could help them much if the British remain in Africa and produce raw materials for the growing European industries. They also thought that Africa could be a potential market for European manufactured goods. The European scramble for Africa began slowly in the 1870’s and reached its peak in the late 1880’s and 1890’s. Between 1885 and 1900, European powers were racing against each other to control territories in Africa. The Berlin Conference of 1884–85 was an attempt made by the European leaders to add international agreement to the carving up of Africa that was already under way. It involved representatives from many European countries. The participants agreed to notify others of the areas they captured. 44  TextBook Africans fought against European invaders. In this regard, we can mention the strug- gle led by Samori Toure of the Muslim empire of Mandinka against French penetra- tion of West Africa, Urabi Pasha’s resistance in Egypt, the Mahadist Movement in Sudan, and the Maji-Maji Rebellion in Tanganyika. The British followed a colonial administration known as ‘Indirect Rule’ which was formulated by Frederick Luggard. The French pursued a colonial administrative policy known as ‘Direct Rule.” Albert Sarraut, Minister of Colonies in 1920-24 and 1932-33, was the individual who laid the foundations for the French colonial policy of administration of “Direct Rule”. Unit Review Exercises Instructions: Fill in the blanks 1. The British colonial policy was designed by ________________________. 2. Direct rule was the colonial policy of the ___________. 3. The anti colonial struggle in west Africa against the French was led by ____________. 4. The Mau Mau was an anti-colonial movement in ______________. 5. ___________ have been a serious political problem for independent African states.