Not specific at all really. Decent but not good. 2/5.
HIST 2707 Midterm Study Guide
There are several key themes that are present in the study questions that were provided. I'm going to give a summary of each topic, and at the end of each summary there's going to be information on which weeks covered that topic. For further information, you can look at notes or readings from the weeks in question. Some of these questions will be on the midterm I believe, so you definitely want to get acquainted with the ideas behind them.
Some of the questions are more broad, with multiple subunits. I recommend you read through this and then go look more in-depth in the readings if you still don't know if you can answer to the best of your ability. The midterm itself has 3 parts: Part I has three broad questions, and you answer two. Part II has 4 or 5 narrower questions, choose three. Part III is identifying terms in about two sentences. There are going to be 8, and you choose 5 to answer. These are all in the readings or in lectures, just understand what they mean, you don't have to give a huge answer.
Don't forget about the age old question of Protein in the red blood cells containing heme groups, is what?
Atlantic Slave Trade:
After European empires started making colonies in the Americas, they needed workers for their plantations in the New World. The people who were already living there were dying off rapidly, due to conflict with the invaders and illness. Because they had never had contact with the diseases the European explorers carried with them, the indigenous peoples were in no shape to work as forced labour. In addition, many of them were nomadic and did not have experience with such things as mining, farming, or metalworking. Because of all these issues, European powers needed another workforce, and not only were there not enough of their own people, but it would be hard to justify taking Europeans as slaves. We also discuss several other topics like what is augmented product?
Africans were perfect for the kind of work the Europeans needed. They were used to living in tropical climates, they had knowledge of farming and mining, they were resistant to the diseases that had decimated the American populations and most importantly, they were different. European empires made deals with African leaders where they would bring goods down to Africa, which would be exchanged for slaves taken from rival peoples. These slaves would be taken to the Americas, where they would harvest raw materials to be sent to Europe, which were made into goods. This was the Trans Atlantic Triangle trade. While African leaders almost certainly did not know the extent to which slaves would be abused, many of them cooperated with the slavers. Toward the end of the slave trade, when Europeans would travel into Africa and kidnap slaves after it was outlawed by Britain, the rulers would have known quite a bit more about what was going on in the castles where slaves were kept, and would therefore be even more complicit. There are many numbers for how many slaves were taken over, usually around 12 million. Walter Rodney, however, has stated that many of them were undocumented and it's impossible to count it, although it is likely twice as many.
If you want to learn more check out what are the components of search engine?
As Europe developed over several hundred years, empires began to industrialise, with Britain first among them. With the industrial revolution, capitalist markets were more interested in wage labour, and slavery began to be too expensive. This, combined with liberal objections to the practice, led to Britain's outlawing of slavery in 1807. This industrial capitalism would go on to lead to colonial rule, as industrial powers required markets, cheap wage labour and raw materials. When other European nations began to industrialise, they turned to African colonies to provide these things. This led to cash crop economies, and monopolies in the colonies.
African resistance was also an important factor in the ending of slavery. They fought in artistic forms in Europe as well as actively struggling against its control. Olaudah Equiano and Ottabah Cupoano, both freed slaves, were very important to the British abolitionist movement, writing in the 1780s. Olaudah Equiano published a book about his capture, showing slavery as a horrible experience, which was used by abolitionist movements. In 1787, Ottabah Cupano suggested to the British they make a naval power to stop the slave trade, which happened 30 years later. He said if the British created a naval power in West Africa to block the trade, it could be stopped.
There were also revolts in many areas by slaves, notably Haiti's revolution against France. Brazil also HIST 2707 Page 1
experienced slave revolts, in particular due to a Yoruba group that were brought together, so they could all speak the same language. Normally, slavers would mix the people up so that they could not conspire together. If you want to learn more check out What are the principles of jus in bello?
(Slavery was studied in weeks 1 and 3)
In 1652, the Dutch made a supply settlement at the Cape, in the interests of giving their ships a waystation between their home and their colonies in southeast Asia. The British also used the port on their way to India, which would eventually lead to conflict. Anyway, in order to subsist, the outpost had to trade with the local peoples, the Khoisan. Now, much like with the Americas, these people weren't resistant to European diseases, and sickness was a major issue in their interactions. Also like the Americas, European expansion in South Africa was more like an expanding power conflicting with the peoples around it rather than an empire deciding it had total dominance over an area. We also discuss several other topics like What is a probability distribution?
The settlers, who were called the Boers, tried to trade for cattle from the Khoisan peoples, but cattle was very important to their society, and it was hard to get very much. This led to a war in 1657, which the Khoisan won. However, the Dutch brought reinforcements later, and defeated them in a second conflict in the 1670s. The Boers took the best land, forcing the other peoples away. White settlements spread quickly across South Africa, because European diseases weakened the Khoisan peoples and because European settlers had better weapons. The Knoisan took on a lesser role in society, and were persecuted.
In 1795, the British took over the Cape. There was a brief period in which they gave it back, but in 1806 they reclaimed it. They had their eyes on the Cape as a safe place for their ships on their way to India. Britain tried to control the region and create stability by making an empty land between the Boers and Don't forget about the age old question of What are the dimensions of religion
the Xhosa people, who they were in conflict with. This was too expensive to maintain, however, and so they gave the land back to the Xhosa. The Boers, of course, didn't like that, and it was one in a list of grievances against the British that led to the Great Trek, a migration out of British-held territories. Another of the major issues for the Boers was the criminalisation of slavery in 1834. Many Boers were too poor to pay wage labour, and wanted to continue to exploit the native peoples.
The Boers expanded to areas not yet controlled, although they avoided Zulu lands because they were not strong enough to defeat the Zulus. They created two republics, which continued to expand. The British, concerned that the Boers would take over coastal regions, and so they created the Natal colony to stop the Boer expansion. Britain wanted to maintain a monopoly on the coast, afraid of other European nations coming in and taking over.
In the 1870s, after all this conflict was beginning to settle down, a large deposit of diamonds was found in Kimberly. Cecil Rhodes came in and monopolised the industry, also introducing industrialisation to the mines and instituting migrant labour. People were going to these diamond mines to work and get money so they could defend their people.
By 1879, the British decided to take everyone over, starting with the Africans. They defeated all the major kingdoms, the Pedis and Hausas and Zulus and everyone else. By the 80s, only three places survived because of British protection. The Swazis, the Sotho, and the Tswana, which left to the creation of hose states. They overturned the stability by taking everything over.
To top off this mineral revolution, huge amounts of gold were found in Transvaal, one of the Boer republics, in the 1880s. Their president, Kruger, became very rich and heavily taxed businesses. This affected British-owned operations quite badly, and led to a major conflict between the British and the Boers. The British attempt to overthrow President Kruger was thwarted, and Cecil Rhodes resigned as premier of South Africa, but the tension was still very deep between the nations. This victory had caused a rise in Afrikaner nationalism, but the British were not going to be defeated. They invaded in 1899, starting the Anglo-Boer War. The more powerful British army destroyed the Boer military, and Boers were rounded up and put in camps, many of them dying there. This treatment was abhorrent to the Liberals in Britain, and led to an opening of dialogues in 1908, six years after the war's end, to give South Africa to the Boers. South Africa became independent from British rule in 1910, but the agreement was that it was to be ruled by those of European descent. From then on, Afrikaners were
HIST 2707 Page 2
agreement was that it was to be ruled by those of European descent. From then on, Afrikaners were asserting their dominance, which eventually culminated in the institution of apartheid in 1948.
The British had only made sure of the rights of white people when making the agreement, and so the new government was free to pass such laws as the Native Land Act, which forced people of certain races to live in specific places, and gave 87% of the land to white settlers. The racially oppressed had concerns even before the British left, and had formed leagues to have their voices heard. However, the Afrikaners didn't really have to listen to them.
(South Africa was studied in weeks 2 and 5)
Algerian resistance against France:
In 1798, Algeria had a trading relationship with Napoleon in France, but France wanted more colonies, since they’d lost Canada and Haiti. When Napoleon came to Algeria, they sold him a lot of wheat, and he refused to pay. France eventually colonised them in the 1830s. According to France, this was to deal with a major piracy issue, but that wasn’t really the case. They just wanted to raise public opinion of their unpopular king by expanding their empire.
Under France, Algeria was a settler colony, with Europeans coming in and taking the best land. As they came in, there was resistance in the form of jihad. A man named Abdul Kadir became their leader, using religious mentality to mobilise them against French rule. He was able to resist the settler colony's power.
The peoples in Algeria are Arabs and Berbers. Berbers had lived in North Africa for millennia, and Arabs moved in during the rise of Islam. The Berbers were nomadic peoples, which causes conflict over resources. They formed clans and family groups. But, when there was an outside aggression, they would coalesce into one group. In this case, in the form of jihad, a struggle that went on for almost 20 years.
However, the French were a larger power, and had a stronger force. Once the leader was dealt with, the movement disappeared.
In east Algeria, Kabyle people were still fighting until 1879. Finally, in 1879, the French were able to fully occupy Algeria. Hundreds of thousands of French were killed, but even more Arabs and Berbers died. In the wake of this came European settlers, making their homes in the best land in the coastal region. The land was taken from those who owned it and given to the settlers.
As well, France tried to put the Berber groups under tribal law, rather than the sharia law they already lived with. Successfully implementing this would have driven a wedge between Berber and Arab societies, taking away cultural and religious norms. Instead, there was a huge outcry, which served to further unite the two groups, and France stopped trying to do that.
(Algeria was studied in week 4)
European power in Egypt pre-1880:
After throwing out Napoleon, a Mamluk named Muhammed Ali came to power in Egypt. He is considered to be the moderniser of Egypt, taking the nation out from its weakness and corruption. Within 20 years, he made it into one of the most powerful provinces of the Ottomans, to the point where they could actually challenge the ruling empire itself. His aim was to turn his rule into a new dynasty.
Muhammed Ali's military was drawn from three sources. The first group, the cavalry, came from the Ottomans; the second from Sudan; and the third from the Egyptian people. He drilled and organised these armies in the European military style.
Among his main enemies were the Mamluks, who he'd tried to massacre in 1811. Some of them ran away to northern Sudan, and he came down after them and colonised the region. Because of this, Sudan was part of Egypt until the 1950s, under different rulers. In his newly colonised Sudanese territory, Muhammed Ali tried to introduce agricultural reforms, and introduced cotton production in Egypt, inspired by that of Sudan. This led to major economic growth.
HIST 2707 Page 3
The Egyptian farmers would provide the government wheat and cotton, which they would sell to Europe in exchange for arms and goods. With these new resources, the Egyptian state expanded to the Red Sea and Saudi Arabia.
During his reign, there was an increased European interest in Egypt because of his heavy involvement with them. The Europeans forced him, in 1838, to open up the Egyptian market to them. Among other things Europe was interested in ivory trade in Sudan, and Britain began to use Egypt for this. Britain was very interested in Egypt, because they could use it as a much faster route to India, building a railroad in the Suez area (this was before the canal was built) to take materials from ship to ship, rather than going around Africa. They invested a lot in railroad systems all around there in the 1850s.
In the 1860s, Muhammad Ali's grandson Ismail Basha was the ruler of Egypt. He agreed with the French on the building of the Suez canal to open the Mediterranean to the Red Sea.
For a short time, during the American Civil War, Egypt was the number one cotton provider in the world and Ismail Basha became very rich. Most of that money went into modernising Egypt. But, in 1863, America was back in action. The cotton production slowed, after Ismail had borrowed a lot of money to build up his nation in the expectation that he would be able to pay it back from cotton revenue. In 1876, Ismail Basha was unable to pay the debts to the European banks from the Suez Canal, so the French and British forced him to declare bankruptcy. They created a French-British oversight committee to control the financial institutions of Egypt in the 1880s. This was the first step of colonialism, controlling the Egyptian economy.
In 1881 the nationalist military rose up in protest, led by Urabi Basha. The French were colonising Tunisia at the time, leaving the British to handle this rebellion. This, combined with their interest in the canal, led them to declare that Egypt was a British colony in 1882 after the rebellion.
(The colonisation of Egypt was studied in week 4)
Role of Missionaries:
One of the main reasons Europeans came to Africa was to spread Christianity. Europeans had the erroneous idea that if they were not Christian, Muslim or Jewish, Africans had no religion. As such, missionaries were often sent with/as explorers into the continent. These were more successful in the 1800s than earlier, helping to make clinics and schools and promoting trade and education. Earlier missionaries often faced the difficulty that many African rulers were also religious leaders, and not willing to cede any power to a new religion.
It should be noted, however, that Christianity was not new to Africa. Portuguese contact with central African kingdoms had led peoples to become Christians as far back as the late fifteenth century, and non-European forms of Christianity were much older. Some of the first states to become Christian were African, and although many of those later became Islamic, Ethiopia still practiced its original Christianity, and 10% of Egypt's population adheres to Coptic Christianity. The majority of Christianity now in Africa was, indeed, from European missionaries, though.
Missionaries like David Livingstone managed to combine religious teaching with scientific exploration. Africa has since been a favourite place for missionaries. The impact of this spread of Christianity significantly affected Africa, both positively and negatively. It gave them skills and knowledge, but also gave them ideas that condemned the traditional African religions like ancestor worship or their beliefs in spirits. It was used to denigrate African culture, and as such there was a push against it.
Educated, Christian Africans would reject European churches and make their own, called Ethiopian Churches. The Bible talks about equality, and European policies were too racist for that. Because of how widespread it is, Christianity has many versions, adapting to each culture it comes across as any religion that attempts to provide answers must. African churches allowed African culture to be expressed in worship. They incorporate things Europe would not, that are not antagonistic to Christianity, such as dancing. They moved away in large numbers to make major churches of their own. Most of this started around 1850.
Missionaries also brought education, which led to a western-educated elite. These elite later became HIST 2707 Page 4
Missionaries also brought education, which led to a western-educated elite. These elite later became nationalistic. All the different ethno-linguistic groups came together, learned a common language and were treated the same. This group became a part of colonialism, often demanding more moderate treatment and were the ones who eventually led decolonisation after WWII.
Missionaries were also respected by many African leaders, and one ruler famously asked his missionary friend whether he should sign an agreement with Cecil Rhodes. The missionary told him that it was a simple trade agreement, like his father had signed, and the king signed. Only later did he discover that the missionary lied, and the territory was now part of Rhodesia. This was a major way in which missionaries were important to the spread of Euro-centric ideologies and power.
(The role of missionaries was studied in week 4, although they were mentioned in other lectures)
Scramble for Africa:
The Scramble for Africa was a major event from the 1880s to 1900, in which European empires came into Africa and divided it up into colonies. At first it was a very tense competition, with industrialised states seeking out new markets and peoples to exploit for raw materials, and almost led to war. However, German chancellor Otto von Bismarck called for a meeting of European rulers in Berlin to discuss how Africa would be partitioned. They decided that in order to colonise a territory, a power had to make a treaty with the local people (they often lied to the locals about what was in the treaties), and bring it to the conference to ratify it. Then, the power would annex the colony and bring it under their rule. Colonies became a status symbol, with European nations feeling the need to take them just to have them, as well as for more practical concerns.
There were many motivations leading European colonists to come to Africa. There was a desire to spread Christianity, which combined with a sense of wonder toward this unseen continent. They had the idea that Africa was unspoiled and more or less uninhabited, and wanted to explore the continent. At the Berlin Conference, Europeans were essentially drawing lines on a map of a continent they had never seen before, with no regard to who might be living there or what the land might be like.
Possibly the biggest factor in the beginning of colonialism, though, was the rise of industrial capitalism. Industrialised nations needed markets to sell their goods in and raw materials with which to make those goods. They took over Africa in order to turn African colonies into captive markets, and to force the people to work in cash crop economies, producing materials to send to Europe rather than working for their own benefit. African nations rarely put up effective resistance to this, for a variety of reasons. In every case, Europeans had automatic weapons, and Africans did not, which gave colonial powers a huge military advantage. African nations that resisted were mowed down by Maxim guns (with the exception of Ethiopia, who successfully pushed back Italian forces and maintained independence well into the 20th century). In addition to this, African nations were not unified, and often belligerent to their neighbours. This made it easy for European countries like France to manipulate them, making deals with stronger nations while they wiped out the weaker ones, and then turning on their supposed allies once there was no one left to help them.
Many African nations resisted colonialism of course, most famously Ethiopia. The Italians signed an agreement with the Ethiopian king Menelik, with two translations. The Amharic version stated that Ethiopia could trade with Europe through Italy if they wanted, and the Italian version said Ethiopia was an Italian protectorate. Menelik protested this to the Berlin Conference, and Italy invaded, bringing about 20,000 troops. Ethiopia responded with about 100,000 soldiers, and forced Italy to retreat. Ethiopia was considered the last uncolonised black nation, and has been idolised ever since. This was the only successful form of resistance, in part because Menelik had traded quite a bit with Europeans and built up a large supply of arms. He was not the only one to do this (for instance, Mali had a considerable amount of weaponry, but they had fallen victim to France's manipulation of tension between African states), but he was the most successful in modernising and defending his nation. If African states had been more unified, they might have been able to fight off colonialism better.
The colonial powers didn't want to use taxpayer money to develop the colonies so they called up private companies, gave them land and allowed them to force people to work for them. They allocated land to these concessionary companies, or chartered companies, as they were called and the companies colonised on behalf of the nation.
HIST 2707 Page 5
The government would pass a law and say they gave the company power to take over the place, and they would make their own armies and militias to take over. They were supposed to do four things. Open up the colonies, make sure there was law and order, et rudimentary administration, invest in
railroads and introduce cash crop economies. It was clearing the way for long-range capitalist rule. These companies were short-sighted, using crude and cruel methods, motivated by short-term profit, with no sense of long-term investment. This made their practices brutal, with barely any concern for the lasting impact of their actions.
(The Scramble for Africa was studied in weeks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Berlin Conference was studied in weeks 3, 4 and 5, and concessionary companies were studied in week 5)
Rebellion in German colonies:
Germany faced several rebellions in its colonies, namely in Namibia and Tanganyika (now Tanzania). The people who lived in southern Tanzania came together in a unique way to resist colonialism. They turned to traditional religious beliefs to unite people against colonial rule. These fighters held the belief that if they drank or sprinkled certain water on themselves the bullets of the Germans would not affect them. They were able to defeat the Germans in 1906 until the Germans brought more support from outside. They were a major early resistance movement. The aftermath of this made the Germans reduce the use of violence and encourage the attendance of schools. They also made European employers take some responsibility.
In Namibia, the Germans faced another resistance. Namibia was home to several ethnic groups, among them the Herero and Nama. In 1896 an epidemic ravaged the Herero region, and most of the cattle died. The Germans thought they could bring German settlers to the area and take over the few remaining cattle for ranges. The Herero and Nama rose up in a major uprising because of this in 1904, killing over 100 traders and settlers. The German general, called von Trotha, issued an extermination proclamation saying the Herero had to leave the colony or die, and 16,000 of 80,000 Herero left, with about 1000 reaching Botswana. This is considered the first modern genocide.
(German colonies were studied in week 5)
World War One:
WWI had a significant impact in Africa. Although it was a European war, the main aggressors were colonial powers, and that meant African colonies were brought into it. It started in East Africa with the Germans in Tanzania, then South Africa invaded Namibia and Togo and Cameroon fought against their neighbours. By the end of the war Germany had lost its colonies, with Belguim taking Rwanda and Burundi, South Africa taking Namibia, France taking Togo and part of Cameroon, and the British taking the rest of Cameroon and Tanzania.
France took many African soldiers to Europe to fight on the main fronts, due to their dire situation for most of the war. Africans would fight alongside Europeans, and would fight against Europeans. They would ask why they were fighting each other, since they were all white, and this led to a sense of disillusionment. Seeing Europeans in this way started agitation for more equal treatment, since those fighting in Europe had seen that white people were no better than them. Of course, this was not to the extent that it was after the Second World War. At this point, it was much more moderate. Nobody was agitating to end colonialism, just to be treated better. They also saw the poverty in Europe, which was different from all the white people in Africa being really rich.
Number-wise, 1 million Africans participated in the war. 100,000 died of disease. The British recruited 50,000 soldiers from Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Gold coast for the East African campaign. The French took 150,000 to fight in Europe, and 30,000 of them died.
(World War One was studied in week 5)
Rapid growth and revolutionary trends in pre-colonial Africa:
Before colonialism really hit, African states had seen massive growth, with many new powers coming onto the scene. Mali, for instance, was a newly-expanding state that was heavily armed, which was later colonised by France. Ethiopia and Egypt, under Menelik and Muhammed Ali respectively, had been
HIST 2707 Page 6
colonised by France. Ethiopia and Egypt, under Menelik and Muhammed Ali respectively, had been modernising after the European model, although Egypt had accrued debt in the European way too and was bought out. Shaka used his control over cattle and military power to lead the Zulus to regional dominance, bringing the population from two thousand in the early 19th century, to a million by the end of the century. The Zulus even managed to deal the British a heavy defeat, before the British came back with Maxim guns. In what is now northern Nigeria, Usman Dan Fodiyo led a fundamentalist Islamic nation, unifying major Hausa city-states and expanding his rule.
All over the continent, states were growing and developing, and some were modernising and trading for weapons. While the advent of European colonialism halted the bulk of this development, the development itself may be partially to blame. With all these states growing and warring, there was very little cohesion between nations in Africa. This allowed European nations to come in and take over one nation at a time, rather than face a unified resistance.
(The rapid growth of various peoples and states was studied in weeks 2, 3 and 4. For more information on the modernisation of Ethiopia and Egypt, I also put up notes for the class AFRI 2002, which covers those. Most of that is covered in AFRI 2002 week 3, but weeks 1 and 2 also contain some information about Menelik's rule in Ethiopia)
HIST 2707 Page 7