So how exactly did this go down?

That's pretty awesome.

>Tippu Tip
ebin :DDDD

ethiopia are honorary whites

And why do you think that happened?

Keep in mind that I will dock you points if you use "IQ" or "Intelligence" in your argument.

>ywn wrek italians for your emperor

Africans have lower IQs because they have less intelligence than everyone else.
Fuck off, lefty/pol/.

>all those white Ethiopians
Literally what?

Paler I'd say, maybe to represent all of the different Ethnicities?

ethiopia has around 5-6 ethnicities represented in its empire

Well like why does it seem that technology and shit never really diffused further down the Nile into deeper Africa? You find communique between the far east and europe but areas further down into Africa were essentially parts beyond in the minds the eurasian civilizations.

Even Oman conquered the east African coast, so it was literally just blacks that were inferior.

Use Google brah.

>Did Europeans just decided to walk into desert and plant flags?
not even close

thank you for the grade school version of history.

Basically the normal process was missionaries - soldiers - colonists. The missionaries were almost always the first ones to reach the tribes in the interior of Africa, because they were generally the only ones insane enough to just walk off into the jungle looking for uncontacted tribes (professional explorers were also a thing, but generally they were more on the lookout for things like navigable rivers and mountain ranges and stuff, and their contact with individual African tribes was generally fairly fleeting.) The missionary would most likely have a translator and a couple of native porters, and would go to the chief of the village with gifts and ask to be allowed to set up a church.

The chief would either say no, say no and execute him, or say yes. Most would say yes, probably simply out of curiosity and the vague hope that it might lead to more objects of European manufacture becoming available. Hey, why not - he's only one man, right? So the missionary would built his mission, which would function both as a church for the adults and a school for the children. Although religion would be the main thing on the curriculum, the missionary would probably try to give the local children some basic secular education as well.

The next Europeans to turn up would be the soldiers. What they did next depended greatly on what part of Africa we're talking about. In the Congo, for example, European mercenaries would turn up a village and tell everyone that they were now rubber harvesters, on pain of amputation. In most of Africa, however, the soldiers would come along and built a fort somewhere, probably at some strategic point like a river confluence. Sometimes they would get permission from the chief with gifts. Sometimes they would ask for permission after the fort was constructed, or simply not ask at all. If things got a little too tense with the locals, the missionary might step in to mediate for the European soldiers. Or he might bitch them out and tell them to be more diplomatic because he'd just spent years building a mission and making friends with the locals only to have them turn up and cause trouble. Sometimes the soldiers would heed a priest's advice, and sometimes not, but either way they were usually not there for the natives, at least not at first.

See, what is wrong about is that you definitely did need boots on the ground in order to stake a claim to an area. The 19th century might have been the era of the gentleman, but it wasn't that gentlemanly - simply planting a flag would get you squat if you didn't have the guns to back it up. You might not have any Europeans in the thousands of miles of territory behind your fort, but as long as other powers would have to go past your fort to advance, and leave their supply lines exposed, you had a certain amount of control over the area. It wasn't necessarily about direct control so much as diplomatic leverage back home - even a single outpost might be enough to tip the diplomatic scales in your favour when it came time for the other side to weigh the pros and cons of trying to push their claim further.

So little makeshift forts started springing up across Africa. (In China today there is the concept of a nail house. These are sometimes local residents who refuse to move out in the face of a new development, but often they are just a shell of a building, made from the cheapest concrete possible, thrown up almost overnight by an unscrupulous landowner in the path of a new road or something in order to extort more compensation. In the same way, European nations put up nail forts to frustrate the ambitions of rival European nations in the area. They usually had little or nothing to do with controlling the local Africans, at least at first).

What invariably happened next would be that one of the local tribes would show up at the fort asking for protection. They had no quarrel with the Europeans, after all, and no reason to assume they would be enemies. Whereas they would have long-standing grievances will all their local neighbours. So when they saw a fort with (relatively) strong walls and lots of guns to defend it, they saw an opportunity rather than a threat.

Mostly this applied to the weaker tribe in the area, the one under pressure from its neighbours and in need of a safe place to avoid being wiped out. For the sake of argument lets call this tribe the Bongo (which is the name of half a dozen tribes across Africa, although I'm not referring to any specific one here). The tribal chief of the Bongo would go up to the fort and try to parlay, quite possibly with the help of a missionary as interpreter, and be told that the Europeans were there to claim the area for the great and glorious [European empire that the chief has never heard of]. Which would come as something as a surprise given that the soldiers in the fort would probably be doing very little fighting and conquering, and would probably mostly be waiting for further orders and dying of malaria (their main role, after all, was simply to be there).

Either way, the end point of the negotiation generally was that if the Bongo pledged their allegiance to the far distant home-country of the men who'd built the fort, they'd get guns and European soldiers to smite their enemies.

And smite they would. This arrangement almost always resulted in the tribe who allied itself with Europeans becoming the dominant tribe in the area. So the uncharted piece of Africa, home to many tribes, that the missionary and soldiers had reached a few years before can now reasonably be called Bongoland. And since the Bongo people have sworn allegiance to whichever European empire it was that got there first, Bongoland is therefore a colony of that empire.

Next comes the colonists. Possibly. It depended greatly on how fertile the land was, and how accessible from the coast. In some areas European colonists would start arriving in ever greater number and appropriate more and more land - but only from the tribes who had once been the Bongo's enemies. The Bongo would still be armed and equipped by the colonial power, either as allies or as fully fledged auxiliary colonial soldiers, to put down the inevitable rebellions. Exploitative colonial greed to our modern sensibilities, but the tribes losing their land would have been slaughtering the Bongo and stealing land from them for decades before European arrival, so we can safely assume that the Bongo's attitude to the whole colonisation business, and their role as lackeys of the capitalist-imperialist system, would be: turn around's fair play. For some reason many modern people refer to this as the 'divide and rule' strategy of the European colonisers, as if all the noble savages had been perfectly united before the arrival of white men tore them asunder from their dark-skinned brothers, and had not, in fact, hated each other's guts since time immemorial.

Often though there simply weren't enough Europeans in the area to affect the local population much. European traders would probably come in, and maybe set up logging or mining operations which employed locals. But for a great many Africans the only time their 'colonisers' impinged on their lives would be when the local District Commissioner passed through on his tour of his district - which might happen once a month, once every few months, or once a year.

These were often very young men, maybe only twenty one years old, who were given responsibility for tens of thousands - or even hundreds of thousands - of natives spread out over hundreds of square miles. They essentially held court at every village they passed through. They would listen to any grievances the local chief might have with the colonial government, try to resolve any local disputes that the chief couldn't handle for whatever reason, and mediate between chiefs from different villages if they came into conflict, and collect any taxes due. Then they would continue on their way, and the local people wouldn't see a European again for another couple of months. The District Commissioner would have a company of native troops with them to enforce their judgements, but mostly they ruled with a fairly light touch.

I've heard that Ethiopia is a pretty fucked up place due to that, something about a small ethnicity holding all the power and fucking over everyone else.

It was mostly a rule based on the personal relationships the Commissioner formed with the chiefs in his district - after all, in the chief's view, being the personal friend of someone who was basically the ruler of his own small country had a certain cachet to it. And for the common people, it was nice to know that if those bastards from the tribe in the next valley over raided them and stole their cattle, that polite, friendly white man would send in his riflemen to fuck them up. For many parts of Africa, the arrival of Europeans probably began the first peaceful period in their history, as tribes that had waged more or less permanent low-level war against their neighbours suddenly found that cattle raiding and skirmishing with your neighbours was Not The Done Thing any more. Or rather, had it explained to them at rifle point. This, combined with the mission schools that would still be operating in the area, was the extent of the impact of colonisation on quite a lot of Africa.

How far along this process had gone determined who got to claim what areas when the Europeans powers met to carve up Africa. In the very remotest areas - particularly the deserts, which were impassable to everyone - the argument over who had the better claim had a more theoretical aspect. But for most of Africa possession really was 9/10ths of the law, and the negotiations were firmly based on how many guns, forts and allied natives each power had in that area. If you see a line on a map of Africa, it usually doesn't mean that some brandy-swilling, be-whiskered European gentleman sitting in a salon in London or Berlin thought that would be a jolly good place to put it.

It more likely means that some sweaty, sun-burned, malaria-stricken European soldiers had to schlep all the way out there and put up a few log, or mud-brick, walls which then constituted their home for the next few months. Which was exactly as much fun as it sounds, i.e. not in the slightest. So instead of 'just decided to walk into desert and plant flags', rather 'were ordered to head off on a gruelling death march into the unknown to build a little ramshackle outpost of European civilisation, thousands of miles from home, and hold it until reinforced (or until everyone died of dengue fever)'.

Still, white man's burden and all that.

(pic not really related, but why not?)

This is why I bother with Veeky Forums

disclaimer: Africa is a huge place and there were many different European powers taking part in its colonisation, so while this is a decent overview of the general course of European colonisation in Africa, especially in the 1880 to 1914 period, there were plenty of cases where things happened differently.

I can hear lefty/pol/ firing up their keyboards to give you a damn good seeing to for this imperialist, misogynistic, bourgeoise, nazi, reactionary, hate speech.
Pray tell, did you deliberately structure the language used to render the reader further ingrained in the timeframe and attitude of the protagonists?

...

I like these posts

this is the bong method of doing things and you leave out the occasional rape, murder, thiefing, forced labour and whatnot by the rights of having rifles

over everyone

user this is a vast generalization that ignores the foundations of european exploration and exploitation of african resources arises longer than the great Scramble.

In fact the chiefs in most regions were by that time highly influenced by European norms and even identities. Look at the Five Communes of Senegal given representation in French Legislation, the Sherbros of Sierra Leone, the Luso-Africans from Senegal down to Mozambique and other European aligned black and mixed race "white" identified Africans who had for centuries laid the ground work for colonization.

Thisof course is ignoring say the involvement of the French in the Niger bend actively seeking the support of so called "White" Songhai, Fulani, Tuareg and Mauritians to propel the will of France and actively disenfranchising the majority agrarians Songhai and other farmer people.

Looking at the documentation the French allowed the continuation of enslavement and serfdom, they gave land to Tuareg and actively provided them white privileges rather than native status.

Its far more complicated than you are putting it, but 7/10 because its better than most of Veeky Forums

An allowance for inaccuracy could be chalked up to her generalizing the British method of colonizing Africa as opposed to the French method.

what user also kindly forget is how european powers didnt just pop up by curiousity
they had interests, in form of companies, supported by arms
the sole interest of making money and using locals were spared not because of some sort of generousity or helpful intentions, but because lack of force to deal with them all at once

the ppl who lived there were viewed as
resources for labour
problems in the way of making many shekels
the Bongo tribe were often ruled through a puppet or better still, once they werent so cooperative replaced by Obongo tribe

europeans knew open hostility isnt fruitful for business but if all else failed, they simply marched if the possibility was there

some of the african states were established and overthrowing their rules was a question of power not politics

this is amazing. tell me more.

Can someone explain this, I thought Germany and Japan were Italy's friends why did they support the Ethiopians

Japan saw us as little brothers fighting against Western Imperialism

Germans fucked their way into relavancy, example; Peter Usinov's ggg-grandfather was German painter Eduard Zander and his wife Ethiopian aristocrat Court-Lady Isette-Werq in Gondar.

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
This sounds like British colonialism, wasn't it a bit different for different countries? Didn't the French for example manage things more directly, as well as invest more in infrastructure in an effort to civilise the natives?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Italo-Ethiopian_War

Still waiting for a post on the Dutch.

>For some reason many modern people refer to this as the 'divide and rule' strategy of the European colonisers, as if all the noble savages had been perfectly united before the arrival of white men tore them asunder from their dark-skinned brothers, and had not, in fact, hated each other's guts since time immemorial.

ha ha ha bloody well said

The goal was in part to deny territory to their rivals and they were willing to do so even if they did not profit from it.

They were never going to directly rule over some tribe 100s of miles from the nearest navigable river, instead they demonstrated their ability to control static points like trade bottlenecks and settlements and used that as leverage to extend military supply routes through the area. Beyond this most tribes were left to rule themselves, in some areas where profit was to be had would authority be extended to facilitate and protect investments.

When 2 powers clashed they would negotiate clear dividing lines to reduce the risk of mistakes. Both powers didn't want to have to support large garrisons to contain a saber rattling neighbor. Often these borders divided tribes but they could be easily ignored by civilians, it wouldn't be until the 20th century that they became a source of territorial disputes.

>tfw no Cape to Cairo Railway

Ethiopia was educated
They were exposed to other civilizations early and became Christian

Wasn't Ethiopia Coptic since before the rise of Islam?

Until 1959 when Coptic pope granted it its own patriarch.
It's in the running with Armenia as the first state to nationally Christianize.

I only know about Yorubaland but basically the answer is perfidy.

>Bongoloids set up trading post
>Local little shit prince decides to attack other city-states
>Gets rekt and runs to bongs for help
>They offer him protectorate status
>rinse and repeat
>Bongs eventually control all of Nigeria.

>honorable
>human

>anglos
>the best

What did he mean by this?

...

>Retartugal

if only people still thought like this these days. africa might not be the shithole it is but populated by whites.

...

Leftards BTFO
Paul was right again

Nah. I've never been to lefty/pol/ but I regularly post in African threads so I'm usually the one you mean when you say lefty/pol/

His posts were great and I'm glad he's actually giving a proper (If Anglo-centric) account of colonisation instead of just destroying the thread as many people do to African threads. Usually this topic is haram.

>portugal
y does it keep happening

How come Sub-Saharan Africans failed to develop an extensive writing system? It's been nagging at me, and angering me. It held them back severely, especially in maintaining their kingdoms, also it makes it hard to get first hand information on what may have happened way back when.

>us

Are you an Ethiopianon? How are things over there?

They did have several.

No I'm Beta Israeli American user.

because they're niggers

Lack of paper like materials to write on?

>Tippu Tip

They had wood, they had stones. They knew how to carve.

someone should screencap this

>For some reason many modern people refer to this as the 'divide and rule' strategy of the European colonisers, as if all the noble savages had been perfectly united before the arrival of white men tore them asunder from their dark-skinned brothers, and had not, in fact, hated each other's guts since time immemorial.
sides are currently with John Glenn

>tfw born in the wrong century

not at that point, italy was still fully in the allied camp and were the ones who were supposed to keep the germans out of austria

only after it's diplomatic isolation did italy aproach germany and bassicly gave austria to hitler

I like you Veeky Forums

...

Doing gods work man, people like you are why i browse Veeky Forums as much as i do. Pic related i'm quite happy.

But it wasn't what that user said either though at all.

He does mention in

>In the Congo, for example, European mercenaries would turn up a village and tell everyone that they were now rubber harvesters, on pain of amputation.

Sorry,

Meant to reference
In response to

It goes both ways though.

It's not uncommon on /pol/ to see the argument that the indigenous black populations should have been genocided.

This ignores the reality, as explained excellently in this thread, that relationships with at least some of the natives were absolutely key to the initial success of European colonization efforts.

>anglos
>any good at all

Well they kind of did, but why would they bother if they could just use Arabic or Latin script?

Did those civilizations engage in a lot of trade, especially over long distances? If they didn't, that might be why they never developed writing. Lots of earliest examples of writing are just business records, afaik the most common theory is that writing was originally invented to make complex, long distance trade easier.

But if you live a fairly isolated life and don't trade over long distances, or if most of your work is subsistence farming, then writing isn't too useful to you at first.

not necessarily trade, but organising production in general. Africa generally lacked centralised government so there was never a need to keep track of thousands of bushels of wheat at a time.

>. Africa generally lacked centralised government
I was under the impression that East and west Africa had organized kingdoms? Though the East probably imported writing a lot earlier given that they had a christian tradition there.

African kingdoms were more tribal confederacies. You got the title of king if a lot of chiefs were paying tribute to you, but generally apart from that annual (or bi-annual or whatever) payment, kings didn't do much to organise the economic activity of their kingdom.

Writing developed in Mesopotamia because civilisation was organised around city states, which are obviously much more centralised than tribal farmers to begin with, and furthermore they were palace economies. Essentially it was like early communism: every worker was an employee of the state, and all the goods produced in the state were stored in the state's warehouses. This meant that they needed an extremely developed bureaucracy, which in turn needed some sort of system of notation to keep track of the vast amounts of goods coming in, as they passed through the hands of many different bureaucrats.

>African kingdoms were more tribal confederacies.
Depends where you are really.

Italy once claimed that though, after they got their ass beat. The Italians straight up said that Ethiopians are romans who became black from the sun, so losing to them was okay.jpeg

I think the Nile is not very navigable after a point. I know that once you get to South Sudan anyway, it becomes a massive crocodile and malaria filled swamp that took months to pass even in the 1800s.

It's less the swamp and more the cataracts that make boat travel down the full length of the Nile inviable.

>kong empire

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountains_of_Kong

What do you want to know about them?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong_Empire
>Founding of Kong dynasty by Seku Wattara
>Seku Wattara
>King Kong

Why were all those pre-colonial African states so isolated from each other? Was the geography really so foreboding that the existing states couldn't exploit those areas for agriculture or anything? It's just so strange that in 1880 there existed an entire continent with vast stretches of nothingness over whom no one controlled - and then suddenly a pocket of civilization, and then more nothingness. And the people on that continent didn't even have the excuse that the Amerindians did in getting there really late.

I wonder if any of the African states nominally claimed those areas. Or maybe it was a difference in the concept of land ownership that stopped them from carving up the regions where they lived as the Europeans did?

What the fuck are you going to do with 400 square dick lengths of jungle or the fucking sahara?

Well the sahara obviously nothing. It's a desert, no one can live there without a source of water.

But couldn't the jungle be cleared for agriculture, the trees used for lumber, the game hunted or domesticated, the fur sold? Or was the environment not conducive to that e.g. the trees were shit for use as lumber, the soil was bad or whatever?

The Portuguese actually burned down forests in South America to make space for plantations, the remaining trees would be sold as exotic wood. But when you're a jungle monkey who's used to pick his food out of the trees, why would you do that? There's no need to develop agriculture either.

Well you could say the same thing about hunter-gatherers in prehistoric Eurasia too, why would they settle down when they can just pick food off the trees and hunt? But in that case, clearly the ones that settled down and adopted agriculture there were very successful. So what was the difference? A lack of wild grains to use as an intermediary and encourage sedentary life before agriculture became the norm? Less arable land? More easily gathered food?

>More easily gathered food?

I think this might be the issue. We hunted our prey to extinction on many of the places we went to, eventually a new source of food would be needed. Most of Africa also doesn't suffer from harsh winters so there's no need to stockpile food. Even during the dry season you can find food.