Cape Colony (Dutch Kaapkolonie, from Kaap de Goede Hoop - cape Good Hope), Dutch and then English possession in South Africa. It was founded in 1652 at the Cape of Good Hope by the Dutch East India Company. In 1795, the Cape Colony was captured by Great Britain, in 1803-1806 it was under the control of the Dutch authorities, and in 1806 it was again captured by Great Britain. The territory of the Cape Colony was constantly expanding at the expense of the lands of Africans: Bushmen, Hottentots, and Bantu peoples. As a result of a series wars of conquest Boer and British colonialists eastern border The Cape Colony reached the Umtamvuna River by 1894. In 1895, it was included in the Cape Colony southern part Bechuana lands annexed in 1884-1885.

The creation of the Cape Colony marked the beginning of mass European colonization of Africa, when many states joined the colonization struggle for the most valuable areas of the Black Continent.

Colonial policy from the very beginning was associated with wars. The so-called trading war XVII and the 18th centuries were fought by European states for colonial and commercial dominance. At the same time, they were one of the forms of primitive accumulation. These wars were accompanied by predatory attacks on strangers colonial possessions, the development of piracy. Trade wars also engulfed the African coast. They contributed to the involvement of new overseas countries and peoples in the sphere of European colonial conquests. The reasons for the exceptional profitability of trade with colonial countries lay not only in its colonial nature. For the colonies, this trade was always unequal, and with the technological progress of European industry and the growing use of machines, this inequality steadily increased. In addition, the colonialists often acquired the products of the colonial countries through direct violence and robbery.

In the struggle of European states, the question was decided which of them would win trade, maritime and colonial hegemony and thereby ensure the most favorable conditions for the development of our own industry.

The Dutch and British ended the maritime and colonial dominance of Spain and Portugal back in late XVI the beginning of the 17th century. As a model capitalist state of this time, Holland surpassed any other European state in the number and importance of its colonial acquisitions. At the Cape of Good Hope, Holland founded its “settler” colonies.

A struggle developed between Europeans for colonies in Africa. At the very beginning of the 19th century, the British captured the Cape Colony. The Boers, pushed northward, created the South African Republic (Transvaal) and the Orange Free State on lands taken from the indigenous population. The Boers then took Natal from the Zulus. Over the next 50 years, England waged wars of extermination against the indigenous population (Kaffir Wars), as a result of which it expanded its possessions of the Cape Colony to the north. In 1843, they ousted the Boers and occupied Natal.

The northern coast of Africa was mainly captured by France, which by the middle of the 19th century took possession of all of Algeria.

In the early 20s of the 19th century, the United States bought land on the west coast of Africa from the leader of one of the local tribes to organize a settlement of blacks. The colony of Liberia created here was declared an independent republic in 1847, but in fact remained dependent on the United States.

In addition, the Spanish (Spanish Guinea, Rio de Oro), the French (Senegal, Gabon) and the British (Sierra Leone, Gambia, Gold Coast, Lagos) owned strongholds on the west coast of Africa.

The division of Africa was preceded by a series of new geographical explorations of the continent by Europeans. In the middle of the century, large Central African lakes were discovered and the sources of the Nile were found. The English traveler Livingston was the first European to cross the continent from the Indian Ocean (Quelimane in Mozambique) to the Atlantic (Luanda in Angola). He explored the entire course of the Zambezi, Lakes Nyasa and Tanganyika, discovered Victoria Falls, as well as Lakes Ngami, Mweru and Bangweolo, and crossed the Kalahari Desert. The last of the big ones geographical discoveries in Africa was the exploration of the Congo in the 70s by the Englishmen Cameron and Stanley.

One of the most common forms of European penetration into Africa was the continuously expanding trade in industrial goods in exchange for products from tropical countries through unequal payments; despite the official prohibition, the slave trade was carried out; enterprising adventurers penetrated deep into the country and, under the banner of the fight against the slave trade, engaged in robbery. Christian missionaries also played a significant role in strengthening the positions of European powers on the Dark Continent.

European colonialists were attracted to Africa by its enormous natural resources - valuable wild trees (oil palms and rubber trees), the possibility of growing cotton, cocoa, coffee, and sugar cane here. Gold and diamonds were found on the coast of the Gulf of Guinea, as well as in South Africa. The division of Africa became a matter of big policy for European governments.

South Africa, along with North Africa, Senegal and the Gold Coast, is one of those areas of the mainland where the colonists began moving inland. Back in the mid-17th century, Dutch and then German and French settlers acquired large areas in the Cape Province. The Dutch predominated among the colonists, so they all began to be called Boers (from the Dutch “boer” - “peasant”). The Boers, however, soon became far from peaceful farmers and herders who earned their own food by their own labor. The colonists - their number was constantly replenished by newly arrived settlers - by the beginning of the 19th century already owned vast fields and pastures and stubbornly infiltrated further into the interior regions. At the same time, they destroyed or expelled the desperately resisting Bushmen and other peoples of the Khoisan-speaking group, and took away their lands and livestock.

British missionaries, who sought to justify England's colonial policy, wrote with indignation in their reports at the beginning of the 19th century about the brutal, inhumane destruction of the local population by the Boers. The English authors Barrow and Percival portrayed the Boers as lazy, rude, ignorant people who cruelly exploited the “semi-savage natives.” Indeed, hiding behind the tenets of Calvinism, the Boers declared their “divine right” to enslave people with skin of a different color. Some of the conquered Africans were used on farms and were almost in the position of slaves. This applies primarily to the hinterland of the Cape Province, where the colonists had huge herds of cattle.

The farms were mostly subsistence farming. The herd often numbered 1,500-2,000 head of cattle and several thousand sheep, and they were looked after by Africans who were forced to work. Near urban settlements - Kapstad, Stellenbosch, Graf-Rheinst - in addition, the labor of slaves was used, delivered from afar. They worked in households, agricultural enterprises, vineyards and fields, as dependent artisans. The Boers constantly pushed the boundaries of their possessions, and only the Xhosa with heroic efforts held them back on the Fish River. For the first hundred and fifty years of its existence, the Cape Colony served mainly as a way station for the Dutch East India Company on its way to India, but then the colonists escaped its control. They founded, primarily under the influence of the Great French Revolution, “autonomous regions”, where, while extolling freedom in words, in reality they carried out territorial expansion and exploitation of the African population. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Cape Colony was captured by Great Britain. Since 1806, the residence of the English governor was located in Kapstad. A struggle began between two groups interested in colonial expansion - the Boers and the British. Both of them pursued the same goal - to exploit the population of Africa, but they differed in their immediate objectives, motives and forms of their activities, because they represented different stages and driving forces colonial expansion.

The Boers lost in this fight - they were unable to decisively switch to capitalist methods of exploitation. This was preceded by numerous disagreements and clashes, and many authors wrote the entire history of South Africa in the 19th century. even appears exclusively in the light of the “Anglo-Boer conflict”.

Soon after the Cape Colony became English proficiency, administrative power passed from Dutch authorities to English officials. Colonial forces were created, which included African “auxiliary” units. Boer farmers were heavily taxed. Since 1821, an increased influx of English settlers began. First of all, the administration provided them with the most fertile lands in the eastern part of the colony. From here they, having broken the decades-long resistance of the Xhosa, moved to the Kay River. By 1850, the area was annexed to the English colony, and then the entire Xhosa territory was conquered.

The British authorities supported capitalist colonization with appropriate measures, including the involvement of natives in the economy as labor. Slavery often continued to exist, albeit in an indirect form, in the form of forced labor or a system of labor. On large farms it only gradually gave way to the capitalist exploitation of African rural workers and tenants that still exists today ("squatter systems"). These forms of exploitation were by no means for African population more humane than slave labor and other forms of dependence on Boer farms. Boer farmers considered themselves to be deprived of their economic and political rights. They particularly protested the prohibition of slavery, the legislative acts of the British administration regarding the attraction and use of African workers, the transformation of Boer farms into concessions, the depreciation of the Dutch riksdaler and other factors of this kind.

By this time, the consequences of primitive, predatory methods of using the arable land and pastures of the Cape Province were also felt. Extensive cattle breeding and the existing order of land inheritance had previously pushed the colonists to move further into the interior of the country and capture new areas. In 1836, a significant part of the Boers moved away to free themselves from pressure from the British authorities. The “great trek” began, the resettlement of 5-10 thousand Boers to the north. In colonial apologetic historiography it is often romanticized and called the march of freedom. The Boers traveled in heavy wagons drawn by oxen, which served as their home on the way, and during armed skirmishes with Africans they turned into a fortress on wheels. Huge herds moved nearby, guarded by armed horsemen.

The Boers left the Orange River far behind, and here in 1837 they first met the Matabele. The Africans bravely defended their herds and kraals, but decisive battle At Mosig, their capital, in the south of the Transvaal, the Matabele warriors, who fought only with spears, could not resist the modern weapons of the Boers, although they fought to the last drop of blood. Thousands of them were killed. The Matabele as a whole hastily retreated north through the Limpopo and stole their cattle.

Another group of Boers, also carried away by a thirst for conquest, under the leadership of their leader Retief, crossed Drakensberg Mountains to Natal. In 1838, they carried out a massacre among the Zulu living here, established themselves in their lands and in 1839 proclaimed the independent Republic of Natal with its capital Pietermaritzburg. It was governed by the people's council. They built the city of Durban (or Port Natal, after the name of the coast, in honor of the landing of Vasco da Gama on it on Christmas Day 1497) and thus provided themselves with access to the sea. The land was divided into large farms of 3 thousand morgen (morgen - about 0.25 hectares) or more each. However, the English colonial administration of the Cape Province also had its sights set on the fertile lands of Natal for a long time. The British occupied Natal and declared it a colony in 1843. Although the right of settlement was recognized for the Boer farmers, most of them left their homes. They again crossed the Drakensberg Mountains with their herds and wagons and rejoined the Boers of the Transvaal. Nearby, north of the Vaal River, they formed three republics: Leidenburg, Zoutpansberg and Utrecht, which united in 1853 to form the Republic of South Africa (Transvaal).

A year later, the Orange Free State was proclaimed to the south. The British government and the colonial authorities of the Cape Province were forced to recognize the sovereignty of the newly formed Boer states, but did everything to keep them under their influence. The Orange Free State and the Transvaal were republics, peasant in essence, religiously ascetic in external attributes. From the middle of the 19th century. on the territory of Orange free state Merchants and artisans also settled, and a number of English colonists appeared.

The Calvinist Church, following its principles of isolation, adopted ossified forms of dogma.

To justify the exploitation of the African population, she developed a unique system of racial discrimination and declared it “divine providence.” In reality, the Boers drove off the lands and enslaved the settled indigenous population and clan groups of the Suto and Tswana tribes, seized vast territories and turned them into farms. Some Africans were pushed into reserves, while others were doomed to forced labor on farms. The Tswana defended themselves against forcefully imposed “defense” measures; many went west, to waterless areas that resembled deserts. But here, too, their leaders experienced pressure from two sides very early on.

Great Britain realized that these areas, devoid of economic value, were of great strategic importance: whoever owned them could easily surround the Boer possessions and secure their interests in the neighboring Transvaal. Then the German Empire, which also encroached on central Bechuanaland, captured South West Africa, and this sealed the fate of the Tswana tribes. Great Britain hastened to take advantage of the "aid" treaties it had fraudulently concluded long ago with some of their leaders, and in 1885 a small force of British colonial units actually occupied their territory.

Another important enclave for years successfully resisted the armed detachments of the Boers and their “trek”, undertaken in search of rich pastures and cheap labor - the territory of the Suto, led by the tribal leader Moshesh.

The Southern Sutho tribes lived in the mountainous upper reaches of the Orange River in what is now Lesotho. Fertile and rich in mountain pastures, this area was densely populated. Naturally, she early became the object of desire of Boer cattle breeders, and then of English farmers. Here, during the defensive battles against the Zulu and Matabele, the unification of the Suto tribes formed and strengthened. Under Moshesh I, a brilliant military leader and organizer, his people were united in the fight against European colonialism. In three wars (1858, 1865-1866, 1867-1868) they managed to defend their rich pastures and the independence of Basutoland.

But the Suto leaders could not resist for long the sophisticated tactics of the British colonial authorities, who sent traders, agents and missionaries from the Cape Province ahead of them. Moshesh himself even turned to the British asking for help in order to protect himself from the attacks of the Boers. In pursuance of the treaties, Great Britain established a protectorate over Basutoland in 1868, and a few years later directly subordinated it to the British administration of the Cape Colony. Then the Suto took up arms again. The Souto responded to the massive seizure of land, the introduction of a system of reserves, colonial taxation and the project of disarmament of Africans with a powerful uprising that lasted from 1879 to 1884. The British, not limiting themselves to punitive expeditions, somewhat modified and in some ways even weakened the protectorate system. As a result, they managed to bribe some of the leaders, make them more accommodating, and ultimately turn them into an important support for the colonial exploitation of Basutoland.

Thus, in the 70s, Great Britain established dominance over the Cape Colony, Natal and Basutoland. She now single-mindedly directed her actions against the Zulu state north of Natal, plotting both the encirclement and the capture of the Boer republics of Orange and Transvaal. Struggle colonial powers for the mastery of South Africa, she soon received a new powerful incentive: on the hot summer days of 1867, the first diamonds were found on the banks of the Orange River. Thousands of miners, merchants and small entrepreneurs flocked here. New urban settlements emerged.

The area east of the Vaal River to Kopje and Vornizigt, named after the British Colonial Secretary Kimberley, was littered with diamond deposits. The English colonial administration of the Cape Colony provided its entrepreneurs and merchants with control over the diamond mining zone and free access to it. In 1877, British troops attacked the Transvaal, but the Boers managed to repulse the attack, defend their sovereignty and retain their colonies, and in 1884 Great Britain again confirmed the Transvaal's limited independence.

However, the discovery of diamond placers on the Orange River, and in the early 80s - rich deposits of gold near Johannesburg in the Transvaal, set in motion forces that the Boers, cattle breeders and farmers, and even more so the African tribes and peoples, could not resist, although the latter exerted heroic resistance. From now on, colonial policy was determined by large English companies and associations of financial capital. Their operations were directed by Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), who became rich from stock market speculation in mining stocks. It took him only a few years to acquire many diamond mining concessions and then monopolize all diamond and gold mining in South Africa. In the 80s and 90s, the Rhodes group occupied a dominant position in the rapidly developing South African industry. with the support of Lord Rothschild, Rhodes became a leading financial tycoon of its time.

Since the 80s of the XIX century. The British monopolists dreamed of a continuous colonial complex in Africa “from Cape to Cairo.” Making these dreams a reality, they crushed Matabele resistance north of the Limpopo and forced tens of thousands of African miners and seasonal workers into work camps. Overwork brought them to complete exhaustion, and sometimes to physical death.

The South African resistance unfolded under extremely difficult conditions. Because of the complex intrigues that the British and the Boers waged against each other, Africans sometimes did not understand that both of these colonial powers were equally dangerous to the independence of the indigenous people. Often they tried to maneuver between two fronts, concluding agreements with the invader who at that moment seemed less dangerous to them. The consequences of such mistakes were even more terrible. While the Africans were gathering forces to repel one foreign conqueror, another, no less dangerous colonial robber, treacherously hiding behind the mask of an ally, approached the borders of their lands and villages and took them by surprise.

The Xhosa tribes were the first to rebel against Boer farmers who were seeking land grabs and the British colonialists. English settlers reached the Fish River in the 18th century and from this point filtered into the rich pastures of Xhosa pastoralists. The Xhosa, however, could not come to terms with the constant reduction of their pastures, the rustling of livestock, and the agreement imposed on them, which established the Fish River as their boundary of settlement. They invariably returned to familiar places pastures and settlements, especially during periods of drought. Then the Boers sent punitive expeditions against the Xhosa kraals.

The war of the Xhosa tribes, first against the Boer and then the English invaders, lasted for almost a hundred years. It appears in colonial historiography as the eight "Kaffir" wars. The first clashes with Europeans occurred in an atmosphere of hostility between individual tribal groups, in particular between the leaders of Gaika and Ndlambe. Thanks to this, the Boer, and most importantly, the British invaders successfully prevented the formation of a united front of Africans and were able to neutralize individual leaders. An example is the War of 1811, when, with the approval of Gaika, British troops took punitive action against some Xhosa groups under Ndlambe. Before this, the leaders Ndlambe and Tsungwa, bribed by extremist circles of the Boers and relying on the help of Hottentots fleeing forced labor, defeated the troops of the English general Vandeleur and approached the Keyman River. Therefore, the punitive actions of the British were characterized by cruelty; they did not take prisoners and killed the wounded on the battlefield.

It was necessary for the disparate Xhosa groups to unite and act together. This was the situation when a prophet named Nhele (Makana) appeared on the scene. Promoting his teachings and “visions” based on traditional African and Christian religious ideas, he tried to rally the Xhosa in the fight against the colonial exploiters. Only Ndlambe recognized him, and the British colonialists, capitalizing on this circumstance, concluded an “alliance agreement” with Gaika. In the battle with the allies, more than 2 thousand Xhosa warriors died and Nhele Xhosa itself lost the entire territory up to the Keiskama River: it was annexed to the Cape Colony. This war, the fourth in a row, was an important turning point. The threat of colonial conquest forced the leaders of individual tribes to forget their feuds and henceforth act together. Defensive battles strengthened the combat effectiveness of tribal alliances. In 1834, all the Xhosa who inhabited the border areas rebelled. They were well organized and used new tactical methods of warfare. Some colonial units were destroyed by partisans. However, the British eventually defeated the Xhosa again and annexed all the areas west of the Kei River to their colony (1847). The capture of Natal, first by Boer immigrants, and in 1843 by the British colonial administration, split the previously unified area of ​​settlement of both Nguni peoples - Xhosa and Zulu.

From that time on, the British administration persistently strived for new territorial conquests and the final conquest of the Xhosa. All treaties with individual leaders were annulled, so war broke out again (1850-1852). The battles were particularly long and persistent. This was the longest and most organized Xhosa rebellion. Inspired by the new prophet, Mlandsheni, the Xhosa declared to the invaders " holy war"They were joined by thousands of Africans, forcibly dressed in the uniforms of colonial soldiers, and Hottentot policemen. Armed with modern weapons, they significantly strengthened the anti-colonial uprising. At Christmas 1850, thousands of Xhosa warriors crossed the borders of British Capraria.

These actions were led by the Galek leader Kreli. We emphasize that at the same time the supreme leader Suto Moshesh fought against the British troops, and in 1852 his cavalry numbering 6-7 thousand people inflicted a temporary defeat on the British. The rebels also negotiated with some Griqua and Tswana leaders about joint action against the colonialists.

And yet the moment was missed when the uprising could be crowned with victory, at least temporarily. The English colonialists again managed to attract the leaders to their side with false promises and take possession of the last Xhosa lands in the Transkei. Now the borders of the English colonies abutted the territory of the Zulu tribal association.

The last time individual Xhosa tribes rose up against colonial enslavement and the complete loss of independence was in 1856-1857. The chiefs of Kreli and Sandili with their tribes on a small piece of land were besieged on all sides by English troops, and they were threatened with starvation. In this desperate situation, under the influence of the new prophet, they began to have chiliastic visions of the future: God’s judgment, they believed, would drive out the white foreigners; in the “future kingdom,” where the Christian doctrine will not find a place for itself, the dead will rise, first of all, immortal prophets and murdered leaders, and all the lost cattle will be reborn. This will put an end to any political and economic dependence. The Prophet Umlakazar called in his sermons: “Do not sow, next year the ears of corn will sprout on their own. Destroy all the maize and bread in the bins; slaughter the cattle; buy axes and expand the kraals so that they can accommodate all those beautiful cattle that will rise with us... God he is angry at the whites who killed his son... One morning, waking up from sleep, we will see rows of tables laden with food; we will put on the best beads and jewelry.”

Succumbing to these religious suggestions, the Xhosa slaughtered all their livestock - European missionaries alone call an impressive figure: 40 thousand heads - and began to wait for the “final judgment”. After the "day of resurrection", expected on February 18-19, 1857, thousands of Xhosa starved to death. The European conquerors, who supposedly had to leave the country due to lack of food, did not even think about leaving. Thus, the active struggle against colonialism gave way to the expectation of the intervention of supernatural forces and the advent of the “kingdom of justice.” From her, undoubtedly, the trapped Xhosa, who did not know the laws of social development, drew strength and hope. Only when the Xhosa were convinced that their visions had not come true did they in complete despair took up arms again. English troops without difficulty they defeated people half dead from hunger. Most the scythe died during hostilities or died of starvation. The rest submitted. Thus, almost a century of heroic resistance by the Xhosa ended tragically.

In the fight against the Xhosa, the colonialists usually encountered isolated isolated tribes, which only occasionally united to directly repel the conquerors. A much more dangerous enemy was the military alliance of tribes and the Zulu state.

The Zulu supreme leader Dingaan was at first very friendly towards the Boers and, not understanding their colonialist intentions, clearly in defiance of the English settlers and invaders, recognized the Boer ownership in southern Natal in the treaty. Soon, however, he realized his mistake and tried to correct it by ordering the killing of the Boer leader Piet Retief and his companions. War became inevitable. A stubborn bloody struggle began between the Zulu army and the Boer troops for lands and pastures in that part of Natal that belonged to the Zulu under Shaka. In 1838, with the support of the British, the Boers went on the offensive. In vain did Dingaan's army of 12 thousand people try to capture the Boer camp, protected by the Wagenburg. The Zulu suffered a heavy defeat. The battlefield was littered with the bodies of Africans, 3-4 thousand people died. The river in the valley of which the battle took place has since been called the Bloody River - Blood River. Dingaan was forced to withdraw his army north from the Tugela River. The Boers took possession of the huge herds that had previously belonged to the Zulu, and forced Dingaan to pay a large indemnity in cattle.

Subsequently, in this state there were many dynastic feuds, and there was a struggle for dominance between individual leaders and military commanders.

The Boers fueled discontent with the supreme leader Dingaan, and subsequently even took a direct part in the military actions of the contenders for the throne. In 1840, Dingaan was killed. A significant part of Natal fell into the hands of the Boer colonists, but the Zulu retained their independence, and even the English conquerors who appeared after the Boers for the time being did not dare to encroach on it.

However, the Zulu chiefs, unable to come to terms with the lack of grazing land and the threat of colonial annexation, again and again organized resistance. In 1872, Ketchwayo (1872-1883) became the main leader of the Zulu. Realizing the great danger looming over him, he tried to unite the Zulu tribes to fight back. Ketchwayo reorganized the army, restored military kraals and purchased modern weapons from European merchants in the Portuguese colony of Mozambique. By this time, the Zulu army numbered 30 thousand spearmen and 8 thousand soldiers under arms. But the conflict arose earlier than the supreme leader expected.

The English colonial authorities of Natal sought, in parallel with their advance in the Transvaal, to completely subjugate the Zulu. In 1878, they presented Ketchwayo with an ultimatum, essentially depriving the Zulu state of independence.

The British demanded to recognize the power of their resident, to allow missionaries into Zulu territory, to disband the combat-ready Zulu army, and to pay a huge tax. The Council of Chiefs and Military Commanders rejected the ultimatum. Then in January 1879, British troops invaded Zululand. This war, however, was destined to become one of the most difficult and bloody campaigns of English colonialism in the 19th century. According to official figures, military expenditure alone amounted to £5 million.

At first, the Zulu managed to inflict significant blows on the colonialists. Their successes sparked a series of uprisings on the borders of Natal and the Cape Colony, including among the Souto. Only after the British troops received significant reinforcements from the colonial administration were they able to defeat the Zulu. Ketchwayo was captured and sent to Robben Island. However, the British government has not yet decided to carry out a complete annexation of Zulu territory. By dividing the powerful Zulu state into 13 tribal territories that were constantly at war with each other, it thereby weakened it and established its indirect control over it. Ketchwayo was even temporarily returned from exile on the terms of his recognition of a de facto British protectorate. But subsequently Zululand was nevertheless annexed to the English possessions in Natal, and colonial relations of exploitation were established on its territory in the interests of European landowners and capitalists.

At all stages of pre-imperialist colonial expansion, African peoples and tribes who became victims of the first colonial conquests resisted them. To glorious traditions African peoples that modern Africans are rightly proud of include the defensive wars of the Ashanti, Xhosa, Basotho and Zulu, and also of Haj Omar and his followers in the first two-thirds of the 19th century. Unfortunately, they usually arose spontaneously. Individual tribes or tribal unions headed by the aristocracy, i.e. semi-feudal nobility often opposed foreign conquerors in disunity.

As in previous centuries, many anti-colonial movements and uprisings either took place under the religious banner of Islamic renewal or, as in South Africa, took on the character of Christian-animist messianism or prophetic preaching. Belief in the supernatural powers of leaders did not allow Africans to realistically assess the military superiority of their opponents. The visions and prophecies reflect the immaturity of the anti-colonial movement caused by social conditions that period. In addition, the resistance carried out by the tribes invariably aimed at restoring the old order. Even the liberation movement of the educated merchants, intellectuals and some of the leaders of West Africa could demand reforms and participation in government mainly on paper.

Although Africans resisted colonialism with determination and courage, their struggle was doomed to failure. The social and, consequently, military-technical superiority of Europe was too great for the peoples and tribes of Africa, who were at the stage of a primitive communal or early feudal system, to win not a temporary, but a lasting victory over it. Due to rivalry between various ethnic groups and internecine strife within the tribal aristocracy and the feudal stratum, resistance to foreign invaders was usually inconsistent, contradictory, and most importantly, lacked unity and was isolated from other actions of this kind.

The history of Africa dates back thousands of years; it is from here, according to the scientific world, that humanity originated. And here many peoples returned, however, only in order to establish their dominance.

The proximity of the north to Europe led to the fact that Europeans actively penetrated the continent in the 15-16th centuries. Also the African West, at the end of the 15th century it was controlled by the Portuguese, they began to actively sell slaves from the local population.

The Spaniards and Portuguese were followed by other states from Western Europe: France, Denmark, England, Spain, Holland and Germany.

As a result of this, East and North Africa found themselves under European yoke; in total, more than 10% of African lands were under their rule in the mid-19th century. However, by the end of this century, the extent of colonization had reached more than 90% of the continent.

What attracted the colonialists? First of all, natural resources:

• wild valuable trees in large quantities;
• growing diverse cultures(coffee, cocoa, cotton, sugar cane);
• gems(diamonds) and metals (gold).

The slave trade also gained momentum.

Egypt has long been drawn into the capitalist economy at the global level. After the Suez Canal was opened, England actively began to compete to see who would be the first to establish their dominance in these lands.

The English government took advantage of the difficult situation in the country, prompting the creation of an international committee to manage the Egyptian budget. As a result, an Englishman became the Minister of Finance, a Frenchman was in charge of public works. Then difficult times began for the population, which was exhausted from numerous taxes.

The Egyptians tried in various ways to prevent the creation of a foreign colony in Africa, but eventually England sent troops there to take over the country. The British were able to occupy Egypt by force and cunning, making it their colony.

France began the colonization of Africa from Algeria, where for twenty years it proved its right to rule by war. The French also conquered Tunisia with prolonged bloodshed.

Agriculture was developed in these lands, so the conquerors organized their own huge estates with vast lands on which Arab peasants were forced to work. Local peoples were convened to build facilities for the needs of the occupiers (roads and ports).

And although Morocco was very important to many European countries object, it remained free for a long time thanks to the rivalry of its enemies. Only after strengthening power in Tunisia and Algeria did France begin to subjugate Morocco.

In addition to these countries in the north, Europeans began to explore southern Africa. There, the British easily pushed the local tribes (San, Koikoin) into uninhabited territories. Only the Bantu peoples did not submit for a long time.

As a result, in the 70s of the 19th century, the English colonies occupied south coast without penetrating deep into the mainland.

The influx of people into this region is timed to coincide with the discovery in the river valley. Orange diamond. The mines became centers of settlements, and cities were created. Formed joint stock companies have always used the cheap power of the local population.

The British had to fight for Zululand, which was included in Natal. The Transvaal could not be completely conquered, but the London Convention implied certain restrictions for the local government.

Germany also began to occupy these same territories - from the mouth of the Orange River to Angola, the Germans declared their protectorate (southwest Africa).

If England sought to extend its power in the south, then France directed its efforts inland in order to colonize the continuous strip between the Atlantic and Indian oceans. As a result, under French rule turned out to be the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Guinea.

The British also owned some West African countries - mainly the coastal territories of the Gambia, Niger and Volta rivers, as well as the Sahara.

Germany in the west was able to conquer only Cameroon and Togo.

Belgium sent forces to the center of the African continent, so Congo became its colony.

Italy got some lands in northeast Africa - huge Somalia and Eritrea. But Ethiopia was able to repel the attack of the Italians; as a result, it was this power that was practically the only one that retained independence from the influence of Europeans.

Only two did not become European colonies:

• Ethiopia;
• Eastern Sudan.

Former colonies in Africa

Naturally, foreign ownership of almost the entire continent could not last long; the local population sought to gain freedom, since their living conditions were usually deplorable. Therefore, since 1960, the colonies quickly began to be liberated.

This year, 17 African countries became independent again, most of them former colonies in Africa France and those that were under UN control. In addition to this, they also lost their colonies:

• UK - Nigeria;
• Belgium - Congo.

Somalia, divided between Britain and Italy, united to form the Somali Democratic Republic.

And although Africans mostly became independent as a result of mass desire, strikes and negotiations, in some countries wars were still fought to gain freedom:

• Angola;
• Zimbabwe;
• Kenya;
• Namibia;
• Mozambique.

The rapid liberation of Africa from colonists led to the fact that in many created states geographical boundaries do not correspond to the ethnic and cultural composition of the population, and this becomes the reason for disagreements and civil wars.

And new rulers do not always comply with democratic principles, which leads to massive dissatisfaction and worsening of the situation in many African countries.

Even now in Africa there are such territories that are governed by European states:

• Spain - Canary Islands, Melilla and Ceuta (in Morocco);
• Great Britain - Chagos Archipelago, Ascension Islands, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha;
• France - Reunion, Mayotte and Eparce islands;
• Portugal - Madeira.

Colonization of Africa

Territorial claims of European powers to African lands in 1913

Belgium UK

Germany Spain

Italy Portugal

France Independent countries

The early colonization of Africa by European powers began in the 15th-16th centuries, when after the Reconquista the Spaniards and Portuguese turned their attention to Africa. Already at the end of the 15th century, the Portuguese actually controlled the western coast of Africa and in the 16th century launched an active slave trade. Following them, almost all Western European powers rush to Africa: the Dutch, the French, the British.

Arab trade with Zanzibar gradually led to the colonization of East Africa; Moroccan attempts to take over the Sahel have failed.

In the second half of the 19th century, especially after 1885, the process of colonization of Africa acquired such a scale that it was called the “race for Africa”; Almost the entire continent (except for Ethiopia and Liberia, which remained independent) by 1900 was divided between a number of European powers: Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy; Spain and Portugal retained their old colonies and somewhat expanded them.

During the First World War, Germany lost (mostly already in 1914) its African colonies, which after the war came under the administration of other colonial powers under the mandates of the League of Nations.

Decolonization of Africa

After World War II, the process of decolonization in Africa began rapidly. 1960 was declared the Year of Africa - the year of liberation of the largest number of colonies. In this year, 13 states gained independence.

Due to the fact that the borders of African states during the “Race for Africa” were drawn artificially, without taking into account settlement various peoples and tribes, as well as the fact that traditional African society was not ready for democracy, in many African countries after independence began civil wars. In many countries, dictators came to power. The resulting regimes are characterized by disregard for human rights, bureaucracy, and totalitarianism, which, in turn, leads to an economic crisis and growing poverty.

Geography of Africa

Relief For the most part it is flat, in the north-west there are the Atlas Mountains, in the Sahara - the Ahaggar and Tibesti highlands. In the east is the Ethiopian Highlands, to the south of it is the Kilimanjaro volcano (5895 m) - the highest point of the continent. In the south are the Cape and Drakensberg Mountains. The most low point(157 meters below sea level) is located in Djibouti, it is salt lake Assal.

Minerals

Africa is best known for its richest deposits diamonds (South Africa, Zimbabwe) and gold (South Africa, Ghana, Republic of Congo). There are oil fields in Algeria; bauxite is mined in Guinea and Ghana. Resources of phosphorites, as well as manganese, iron and lead-zinc ores are concentrated in the zone north coast Africa.

Inland waters

Africa is home to the second longest river in the world, the Nile, flowing from south to north. Other major rivers are the Niger in the west, the Congo in central Africa and the Zambezi, Limpopo and Orange rivers in the south.

The largest lake is Victoria. Other large lakes are Nyasa and Tanganyika, located in lithospheric faults. They extend from north to south.

Climate

The center of Africa and the coastal regions of the Gulf of Guinea belong to the equatorial belt, where there is heavy rainfall throughout the year and there is no change of seasons. To the north and south of the equatorial belt there are subequatorial belts. Here, in summer, humid equatorial air masses dominate (rainy season), and in winter, dry air from tropical trade winds (dry season). North and south of the subequatorial belts are the northern and southern tropical zones. They are characterized by high temperatures with little rainfall, which leads to the formation of deserts.

In the north is the largest desert on Earth, the Sahara Desert, in the south is the Kalahari Desert. The northern and southern ends of the continent are included in the corresponding subtropical zones.

On the eve of European colonization, the peoples of tropical and southern Africa were at different stages of development. Some had a primitive system, others had a class society. It can also be said that in Tropical Africa A sufficiently developed, specifically Negro statehood did not develop, even comparable to the states of the Incas and Mayans. How can we explain this? There are several reasons, namely: unfavorable climate, poor soils, primitive agricultural technology, low level of work culture, fragmentation of a small population, as well as the dominance of primitive tribal traditions and early religious cults. In the end, highly developed civilizations: Christian and Muslim differed from African ones in more developed cultural and religious traditions, that is, a more advanced level of consciousness than that of Africans. At the same time, remnants of pre-class relations persisted even among the most developed peoples. The decomposition of tribal relations most often manifested itself in the exploitation of ordinary community members by the heads of large patriarchal families, as well as in the concentration of land and livestock in the hands of the tribal elite.

IN different centuries both during the Middle Ages and in modern times, various state entities:Ethiopia (Axum), which was dominated by the Christian Monophysite church; a kind of confederation called Oyo arose on the Guinea coast; then Dahomey; in the lower reaches of the Congo at the end of the 15th century. such state entities as Congo, Loango and Makoko appeared; in Angola between 1400 and 1500. A short-lived and semi-legendary political association, Monomotapa, emerged. However, all these proto-states were fragile. Europeans who appeared on the coast of Africa in the 17th-18th centuries. launched a large-scale slave trade here. Then they tried to create their own settlements, outposts and colonies here.

In southern Africa, at the Cape of Good Hope, a site for the Dutch East India Company was established - Kapstadt (Cape Colony). Over time, more and more immigrants from Holland began to settle in Kapstadt, who waged a stubborn struggle with local tribes, Bushmen and Hottentots. At the beginning of the 19th century. The Cape Colony was captured by Great Britain, after which the Dutch-Boers moved to the north, subsequently founding the Transvaal and Orange republics. European Boer colonists increasingly explored southern Africa, engaging in the slave trade and forcing the black population to work in gold and diamond mines. In the English zone of colonization, the Zulu tribal community led by Chaka in the first third of the 19th century. managed to consolidate and subjugate a number of Bantu tribes. But the clash of the Zulus, first with the Boers, and then with the British, led to the defeat of the Zulu state.

Africa in the 19th century became the main springboard for European colonization. By the end of this century, almost all African continent, (with the exception of Ethiopia) was divided between Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium. Moreover, the first place in the number of colonies and native population belonged to Great Britain, second to France (mainly north and south of the Sahara), third to Germany, fourth to Portugal and fifth to Belgium. But little Belgium inherited a huge territory (about 30 times larger than the territory of Belgium itself), the richest in its natural resources - the Congo.

European colonialists, having done away with the primary proto-state formations of African leaders and kings, brought here forms of a developed bourgeois economy with advanced technology and transport infrastructure. The local population, experiencing a cultural “shock” from meeting with a civilization that was fabulously developed at that time, gradually became familiar with modern life. In Africa, as well as in other colonies, the fact of belonging to one or another metropolis immediately manifested itself. So, if the British colonies (Zambia, Gold Coast, South Africa, Uganda, Southern Rhodesia, etc.) found themselves under the control of economically developed, bourgeois and democratic England and began to develop more quickly, then the population of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea (Bissau) belonging to the more backward Portugal, more slowly.

Colonial conquests were not always economically justified; sometimes the struggle for colonies in Africa looked like a kind of political sport - to bypass an opponent at all costs and not allow oneself to be bypassed. Secularized European thought during this period abandoned the idea of ​​​​spreading the “true religion” -Christianity, but she saw the civilizing role of Europe in the backward colonies in the spread modern science and enlightenment. In addition, in Europe it has even become indecent not to have colonies. This can explain the emergence of the Belgian Congo, German and Italian colonies, which were of little use.

Germany was the last to rush to Africa, but nevertheless managed to capture Namibia, Cameroon, Togo and East Africa. In 1885, on the initiative of German Chancellor Bismarck, the Berlin Conference was convened, in which 13 European countries took part. The conference established rules for the acquisition of still independent lands in Africa, in other words, the remaining unoccupied lands were divided. TO end of the 19th century centuries in Africa, only Liberia and Ethiopia retained political independence. Moreover, Christian Ethiopia successfully repelled the attack of Italy in 1896 and even defeated Italian troops in the Battle of Adua.

The division of Africa also gave rise to such a variety of monopolistic associations as privileged companies. The largest of these companies was the British South African Company, created in 1889 by S. Rhodes and which had its own army. The Royal Niger Company operated in West Africa, and the British East Africa Company operated in East Africa. Similar companies were created in Germany, France, and Belgium. These monopolistic companies were a kind of state within a state and turned the African colonies with their population and resources into a sphere of complete subjugation. The richest African colony was South Africa, which belonged to Britain and Boer colonists from the Transvaal and Orange Republics, because gold and diamonds were found there. This led the British and Boers from Europe to start the bloody Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, in which the British won. The diamond-rich Transvaal and Orange republics became colonies of the British. Subsequently, in 1910, the richest British colony-South Africa formed the British Dominion - the Union of South Africa.

10.4.Colonialism as a way to modernize traditional societies. Pros and cons?

What are the reasons for the colonial success of Europeans in Asia and Africa? The main reason was the absence of a single national community of people in the countries conquered by Europeans, namely: the motley, diverse and multi-ethnic composition of the population, predetermined the absence of a single national consciousness so necessary for uniting the people and fighting foreigners. Most eastern and African communities of the time were a loose conglomerate, divided along clan, compatriot, tribal and religious boundaries, which made it easier for the colonialists, guided by the Roman rule: divide and conquer, to conquer.

Another reason was the desire of part of the elite and especially the emerging national bourgeoisie to join the benefits Western civilization, which were carried and introduced by the colonialists. The Marxist assertion that the colonies were created for “naked plunder” by the metropolises and that, most importantly, plunder brought nothing but ruin to the colonies and aggravated their backwardness from Western countries has long since become a thing of the past. Everything was much more complicated and ambiguous. Although it was naive to believe in the altruistic inclinations of Europeans who came to the East only to help lagging peoples and carry out the modernization they needed for their “happiness.” Of course not. Here we can recall the statement of the famous British imperialist Cecil Rhodes: ... we, colonial politicians, must take possession of new lands to accommodate the surplus population, to acquire new areas for selling goods produced in factories and mines.” European colonialists have repeatedly pointed out a direct connection with the successful solution of the social issue in their country, with successful colonial expansion and pumping out “ useful resources"from the colonies to the metropolis.

In the reading European society of that time, a certain romantic “fleur” of colonialist policies was formed in the countries of Asia and Africa. The works of such writers as Rudyard Kipling glorified the rude but honest warrior-British colonial soldier to the jaded and enfeebled city dweller. H. Rider Haggard and many other Western writers captivated readers with stories of the unimaginable adventures of noble and courageous Europeans in the barbaric African and Asian colonies, bringing the light of Western civilization to these godforsaken corners of the planet. As a result of mass replication similar literature in the West, the imperial ambitions and nationalistic sentiments of the Europeans were favorably clothed in the masking “toga” of Western progressivism and civilization in relation to the backward East.

At the same time, it is incorrect to represent all the British, like other Europeans, as exclusively rabid imperialists who think only about robbing the colonies. Within British society itself, attitudes towards colonial policy were very different; from praising the civilizing mission in the spirit of R. Kipling, or the utilitarian imperialist approach of S. Rhodes, to the moral condemnation of this policy. For example, the British magazine “Statesman” at one time described the results of English “rule” in India: “We are hated both by the classes that were influential and powerful before us, and by the students of our own educational institutions in India, schools and colleges, hated for our egoistic complete alienation of them from any honorable or profitable place in the government of their own country, are hated by the masses of the people for all the unspeakable suffering and the terrible poverty into which our rule over them has plunged them.”

Finally, in Great Britain, as in France, there were many people who believed that colonial policy extremely costly for the metropolis and that “the game is not worth the candle.” Today, more and more researchers in the West are coming to the conclusion that the colonial policies of Western countries were dictated by military-political and even ideological considerations that had nothing to do with real economic interests. In particular, P. Barok generally revealed a curious pattern: colonialist countries developed more slowly than countries that did not have colonies - the more colonies, the less development. Indeed, the maintenance of colonies in itself was not cheap for the Western metropolises. After all, the colonialists, in order to adapt the local economy to their needs, for example, to sell their goods, are sometimes simply forced to create a production and transport infrastructure in the colonies, including banks, insurance companies, post offices, telegraphs, etc. And this meant in practice the investment of large material and non-material resources to develop first the economy, then the necessary level of technology and education in the colonies. The interests of building a colonial economy gave impetus to the construction of roads, canals, factories, banks, and the development of domestic and foreign trade. And this, objectively, contributed to narrowing the gap between traditional eastern countries and modernized Western powers. The last thing that the advanced West bestowed on the lagging East and the African colonies was advanced bourgeois-liberal ideas, theories that gradually broke into the traditional patrimonial state structure. All this created conditions for transformation and modernization in colonial societies traditional world colonies and their involvement, albeit against their will, in common system world economy.

Moreover, the colonial authorities, primarily the British, paid serious attention to reforming the traditional structures of their colonies that hindered the development of market private property relations. Westernized democratic governance institutions unprecedented in the East were created. For example, in India, at the instigation of the British, the Indian National Congress (INC) was formed. An education reform was carried out according to British standards and the first three universities were opened in India in 1857 - Calcutta, Bombay, Madras. In the future, the number of Indian universities and colleges teaching in English and English programs learning was increasing. At the same time, many rich Indians received higher education in England itself, including at the best universities - Cambridge and Oxford. The British also did a lot to develop education. But books, newspapers, magazines and others printed publications, intended for readers throughout India, were published in English only. English language gradually became basic for all educated India.

Let us emphasize that all this was done by the British to satisfy their own needs. But objectively, colonial policy led to the formation of advanced bourgeois structures in the colonies, which contributed to the progressive socio-economic development of the colonies, albeit very painful. What ultimately happened during the violent colonial-capitalist modernization of Eastern societies? In the vast literature of oriental studies this is called the colonial synthesis: metropolis-colony. During the synthesis, there was a symbiosis of the old Eastern traditional socio-economic structure, with the European colonial administration that came here and Western capitalism. The articulation of two opposing structures: Western and Eastern took place in the throes of a forced and largely forced union. What made the colonial societies of the East even more heterogeneous: along with the archaic traditional social structure, an alien Western colonial structure appeared, and finally, a synthesized East-Western structure arose in the form of the comprador bourgeoisie, Western-oriented intelligentsia and bureaucrats. Under the influence of this synthesis, “eastern colonial capitalism” arose, which bizarrely combined the close relationship of native state and business structures with the European colonial administration and the bourgeoisie. Eastern colonial capitalism, therefore, was introduced onto the soil of the East precisely by an external factor - the conquest of the West, and was not a source internal development. Over time, this alien way of life, thanks to the patronage of the European colonial administration, began to take root on eastern soil and become increasingly stronger, despite the active resistance of traditional eastern structures.

It should be noted that attempts at bourgeois modernization and Europeanization in all colonial societies of the East met resistance from such social forces: the tribal system, religious clergy, aristocratic nobility, peasants, artisans, all those who were not satisfied with these changes and who were afraid of losing their usual way of life. They were opposed by a known minority of the indigenous population of the colonies: the comprador bourgeoisie, European-educated bureaucrats and intelligentsia, who tolerated and even actively took part in the development of bourgeois reforms, thereby collaborating with the colonial authorities. As a result, the colonial societies of the East split into two rather sharply opposing parts. /28This, of course, thwarted the plans of the colonial administration for the accelerated modernization of the colonies. But still, the colonial East moved towards irreversible changes.

The assimilation of Western ideas and political institutions also occurred in those eastern countries that did not experience direct military intervention by European powers: ( Ottoman Empire, Iran, Japan and China). All of them, to one degree or another (Japan was in the most advantageous position) experienced pressure from the West. Of course, the position of these countries was more advantageous compared to the eastern countries, which were turned into colonies of the West. The very example of an absolutely powerless India served as a stern warning for these countries and simply a vital necessity, carry out structural reforms, even despite all the resistance of society. The authorities of these states in the 19th century were well aware that the West would not leave them alone and that economic enslavement would be followed by political enslavement. Western pressure in itself was a serious historical challenge that needed to be answered urgently and urgently. The answer lay, first of all, in modernization, and, consequently, in the assimilation of the Western model of development, or, in any case, some of its individual aspects.

The beginning of the 20th century was the time of the greatest power of the West over the entire world, and this power was manifested in gigantic colonial empires. In total, by 1900, the colonial possessions of all the imperialist powers amounted to 73 million km (about 55% of the world's area), the population was 530 million people (35% of the world's population).

Colonialism has no good reputation anywhere. And this is quite understandable. The blood, suffering and humiliation endured during the colonial era cannot be attributed to the costs of progress. But to unequivocally assess Western colonialism as an absolute evil would, in our opinion, be incorrect. When was history in the East, before the Europeans, not written in blood, under the Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Timur? But by hacking the traditional structures of the East and African tribal communities, Western colonialism in all its modifications played decisive role an external factor, a powerful impulse from the outside, which not only awakened them, but also gave them a new rhythm of progressive development. In the 20th century the colonial world of Asia and Africa entered mainly transitional state, no longer in the traditional system of power-property, but still far from being a capitalist formation. The Colonial East and Africa served the interests of Western capitalism, and were necessary for it, but as a peripheral zone. That is, these vast territories acted as its structural raw material appendage, containing both pre-capitalist and capitalist elements introduced by the West. The situation in these countries was complicated by the fact that different types European colonial capitalism, without mastering most of the socio-economic space of the East and Africa, only increased the diversity and diversity of these societies, making them internally contradictory and conflicting. But even in this case, the role of Western colonialism as a powerful factor for the intensive development of Asia and Africa can be considered progressive.

Questions for self-test and self-control.

1.What role did the 16th-18th centuries play in the colonial expansion of Europeans? trading companies?

2. How can we explain the transition from European trade colonialism to the occupation type in the 19th century?

3. Why were a few European colonists able to establish control over vast areas of Asia and Africa? Explain?

4.What main models of colonization do you know?

6. What was the progressive influence of colonialism on the development of the countries of the East and Africa?

Basic literature

1.World history: a textbook for university students/ed. G.B. Polyak, A.N. Markova.-3rd ed.-M. UNITY-DANA, 2009.

2. Vasiliev L.S. General history. In 6 volumes. T.4. Modern times (XIX century): Textbook. manual.-M.: Higher. School, 2010.

3. Vasiliev L.S. History of the East: In 2 volumes. T.1. M. Higher School, 1998.

4.Kagarlitsky B.Yu. From empires to imperialism. The state and the emergence of bourgeois civilization.-M.: Publishing house. House of State University of Higher School of Economics, 2010.

5. Osborne, R. Civilization. New story Western world/ Roger Osborne; lane from English M. Kolopotina.- M.: AST: AST MOSCOW: KHRANITEL, 2008.

Further reading

1. Fernand Braudel. Material civilization, economics and capitalism. XV-XVIII centuries M. Progress 1992.

2. Fernandez-Armesto, F. Civilizations / Felipe Fernandez-Armesto; translated, from English, D. Arsenyeva, O. Kolesnikova.-M.: AST: AST MOSCOW, 2009.

3. Guseinov R. History of the world economy: West-East-Russia: Textbook. manual.-Novosibirsk: Sib. Univ. Publishing house, 2004.

4. Kharyukov L.N. Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia and Ismailism. M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 1995.