Home / IBDP History: European imperialism and the partition of Africa (1850–1900)-HL option 1 -Paper 3

IBDP History: European imperialism and the partition of Africa (1850–1900)-HL option 1 -Paper 3

Question

To what extent did economic motives dominate the European annexation of Africa?

Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to consider the merits or otherwise of the suggestion that economic motives dominated the European annexation of Africa. It is likely that they will consider other factors in their responses, however, there is no prescribed response. A balanced judgment is expected.

Indicative content

  • The industrialization that took place in Europe contributed to the need for raw materials and Africa was seen as a major source of such materials.
  • There was need for alternative areas for European investment and Africa seemed a possible area for such investment.
  • Similarly, the saturation of markets in Europe fostered the need to look for alternative markets abroad.
  • The role played by traders in both West and East Africa could be considered as examples of economic motives.
  • Other motives that candidates may consider would include humanitarian factors like the need to stop the slave trade and introduce legitimate trade. Strategic factors led to the annexation of places like Egypt, South Africa and East Africa.
  • The role of the missionaries in the spread of the Christian faith may also be considered.
  • Political rivalries between the European powers in their pursuit of economic advantage may also be considered.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

Discuss the reasons for, and consequences of, the British occupation of Egypt.

Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to offer a considered and balanced review of a range of reasons for the British occupation of Egypt, and the outcome of this occupation. Candidates are required to address both parts of the question. There is no prescribed response.

Indicative content

Reasons:

  • Candidates may refer to the fact that Egypt was important to Britain for both economic and strategic reasons.
  • The British government was interested in stabilizing the area and British traders were interested in controlling businesses in the region.
  • The British and the French had made major investments in the construction of the Suez Canal and therefore the British felt a need to occupy Egypt in order to safeguard their interests along the canal.
  • Further, the occupation of Egypt and thus the control of the Suez Canal would assure Britain of a shorter route to India.
  • Keep USSR and the Germans away from this area.

Consequences:

  • Candidates may refer to the intense rivalry between Britain and France that in turn contributed to the scramble for Africa.
  • There was an intensification in the nationalistic movement among many of the people of Egypt and this led to war with the British.
  • The occupation also led to British colonization of territories along the Nile.
  • The Berlin Conference whose aim was to avoid war among colonial countries.
  • Other countries like Germany, Italy, Belgium, were drawn into the annexation of Africa.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

“Traders rather than explorers played the dominant role in promoting European interest in Africa in the period from 1850 to 1900.” Discuss.

Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to offer a considered and balanced review of the role played by both traders and explorers in creating European interest in Africa before reaching a conclusion as to which of the two played the more prominent role in the period from 1850 to 1900.

Indicative content
Traders
• The industrial revolution meant that raw materials had to be found and markets for finished products established. Traders had a role in identifying areas that supported their interests and the interests of the colonial countries.
• Candidates may refer to the activities of traders in the early period of the Scramble in extending colonial jurisdiction along the coast, in West Africa in particular. They would typically extend the area in which they operated and then ask their government to offer them protection from their rivals.
• Traders gradually moved into the interior from the coast, revealing the economic potential of Africa and thus furthering European interest there.
• Some of the traders set up trading companies that increased awareness of Africa’s trading potential. Some of these, such as the Imperial British East Africa Company (William Mackinnon) and the German East Africa Company (Karl Peters), played a key role in the partition of Africa. Many of these companies were established by explorers, and candidates may well stress the strong link between exploration and commercial interests.
• Many traders were also involved in local politics and in identifying potential collaborators, for example Goldie, as the head of the Royal Niger Company in West Africa.

Explorers
• The main aim of the explorers was to discover those places in Africa unknown to Europeans. This in itself stimulated interest.
• Many explorers became national heroes. The public followed their exploits in the press and it has been argued that this put popular pressure on governments to partake in the Scramble.
• Candidates may suggest that many explorers favoured colonialism and that some, including Livingstone, suggested that their governments establish colonies in Africa.
• Many explorers, for example Stanley and Peters, used their activities as a means of opening the continent to colonization and would typically persuade the rulers they encountered to sign treaty forms that conceded territorial rights to European powers or chartered companies.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, the list is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

To what extent did the economic and political weaknesses of African states contribute to the European annexation of Africa?

Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates will consider the merits or otherwise of the suggestion that the various political and economic weaknesses of African states contributed to the European partition of the continent. They may also address other factors including the military and organizational prowess of the colonial powers, as well as their superior resources. Candidates may stress that not all African states were weak and refer to examples of those that offered strong resistance to colonization.

Indicative content
Economic and political weaknesses
• Candidates should stress the ways in which the nature of states facilitated the partition of Africa. They should explain how the small size of states, and sometimes their acephalous organization, was a significant factor in their inability to resist colonial conquest. Some of the larger empires that could have offered meaningful resistance had disintegrated in the decades preceding the scramble.
• Rivalry or disunity within states meant that there was no unified aim in fighting against the colonial powers. These divisions were exacerbated by the fact that some states chose to collaborate with the colonizer.
• Many African states had weapons, but these were clearly inferior to the firepower produced by the industrial economies of Europe. Many states did not have the economic means to acquire modern weaponry, or were unable to do so due to geographical factors.
• Many African societies lacked strong political structures and this meant that they did not have properly trained soldiers or standing armies. However some states (such as the Mandinka and Ethiopian empires) had strong armies and stable political systems. These states were able to provide stern resistance to the colonizer.

Other factors
• The political, economic and military strengths of European powers can be stressed alongside the corresponding weaknesses of African states.
• Improved means of transport and communications, such as the steamship and telegraph, made the interior of the continent more accessible and facilitated the administration of newly-acquired territories.
• The discovery of new medicines, especially the use of quinine as a treatment for malaria, assisted the colonial powers in their efforts to penetrate the interior of the continent.
• In many of the areas, missionaries opened up the path for European partition and were able to gain the trust of the local people. This made it easy for them to pave the way for the partition. The role played by traders and explorers could also be considered.
• Candidates may briefly mention other factors, such as the economic and/or strategic ambitions of European states that motivated their annexation of the continent.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, the list is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Scroll to Top