In 1870, European powers controlled barely 10 percent of African territory. By 1914, that figure had risen to nearly 90 percent. This “Scramble for Africa”—one of the most dramatic territorial seizures in history—transformed a continent of complex polities into a patchwork of European colonies. The borders drawn by European diplomats, often with little knowledge of African realities, created the framework for modern African states, embedding conflicts and contradictions that persist to this day.
Understanding contemporary Africa—its political instability, ethnic tensions, resource conflicts, and development challenges—requires understanding how the continent was carved up by distant European powers pursuing their own interests with little regard for African peoples or preexisting political arrangements.
Historical Context¶
Africa Before the Scramble¶
Pre-colonial Africa was not the “dark continent” of European imagination but a diverse array of sophisticated political systems:
- Major empires: The Sokoto Caliphate, Ethiopian Empire, Ashanti Kingdom, and Zulu state exercised authority over vast territories
- Trading networks: Trans-Saharan trade and Indian Ocean commerce connected Africa to global markets
- Complex societies: From centralized monarchies to stateless societies, Africa displayed remarkable political diversity
- Population: An estimated 90-100 million people lived in thousands of distinct ethnic and political communities
Europeans had long-established coastal trading posts, particularly for the slave trade, but penetration of the interior was limited by disease, African resistance, and lack of economic incentive.
Factors Enabling the Scramble¶
Several developments in the mid-19th century made rapid colonization possible:
Medical advances: Quinine prophylaxis against malaria dramatically reduced European mortality in tropical Africa, making long-term occupation feasible.
Military technology: Breech-loading rifles and, especially, the Maxim machine gun gave small European forces devastating advantages over African armies. The technology gap that had limited conquest now enabled it.
Transportation: Steamships and later railways allowed projection of power into the interior and extraction of resources.
Economic pressures: The Long Depression of 1873-1896 created pressures for new markets and sources of raw materials. Industrial economies needed rubber, palm oil, copper, and other African resources.
Nationalist competition: European great power rivalry extended to imperial prestige. Colonies became markers of national greatness.
The Trigger Events¶
Several events accelerated the scramble:
King Leopold’s Congo: Belgium’s King Leopold II, acting as a private entrepreneur, began establishing control over the Congo Basin in the late 1870s. His activities threatened to exclude other powers from Central Africa.
French expansion: France pushed into West Africa from Senegal and began eyeing the Congo region, alarming other powers.
British concerns: Britain, with existing interests in South Africa, Egypt, and West African trading posts, worried about being excluded from the interior.
German entry: Bismarck’s Germany, previously uninterested in colonies, suddenly claimed territories in 1884, adding another competitor.
The result was a rush to claim territory before rivals could do so.
Key Events¶
The Berlin Conference (1884-1885)¶
The Berlin Conference, convened by Bismarck, established the rules for the partition of Africa. Fourteen nations participated; no Africans were invited. The conference’s key provisions:
Free trade in the Congo Basin: The Congo would be open to trade by all nations, preventing Leopold from establishing a monopoly.
Freedom of navigation: The Niger and Congo rivers were declared open to international navigation.
Effective occupation: Powers claiming territory must establish effective administrative control—merely planting a flag was insufficient.
Notification: Powers must notify others of new territorial claims.
The conference did not actually partition Africa—that would happen over the following decades—but it established the framework within which partition occurred. It legitimized colonization while seeking to prevent European conflicts over African territory.
The Carve-Up¶
Following Berlin, European powers raced to claim territory:
British acquisitions: Britain consolidated control over Nigeria, Ghana (Gold Coast), Kenya, Uganda, Rhodesia, and expanded from Cape Colony toward Egypt, pursuing Cecil Rhodes’s dream of a Cape-to-Cairo corridor.
French empire: France claimed the largest territory—most of West Africa and equatorial Africa—creating French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa, along with Madagascar.
German colonies: Germany acquired Togoland, Kamerun, German Southwest Africa (Namibia), and German East Africa (Tanzania).
Belgian Congo: Leopold’s personal fiefdom became notorious for brutal exploitation before being transferred to the Belgian state in 1908.
Portuguese territories: Portugal consolidated control over Angola and Mozambique, its oldest African possessions.
Italian ambitions: Italy claimed Eritrea, Somalia, and later conquered Libya, though its attempt to conquer Ethiopia failed catastrophically at Adwa in 1896.
Spanish holdings: Spain held small territories in Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea.
African Resistance¶
Africans did not passively accept colonization. Resistance was widespread:
Ethiopian victory: Emperor Menelik II’s forces crushed an Italian invasion at the Battle of Adwa (1896), preserving Ethiopian independence—the only African state to successfully resist European conquest.
Ashanti Wars: The Ashanti Kingdom fought multiple wars against British expansion before final defeat in 1900.
Herero and Nama resistance: In German Southwest Africa, the Herero and Nama peoples revolted in 1904. Germany’s response—systematic extermination—constituted the 20th century’s first genocide.
Maji Maji Rebellion: In German East Africa, the Maji Maji uprising (1905-1907) united diverse peoples before brutal suppression.
Zulu resistance: The Zulu kingdom was defeated only after fierce resistance, including the famous British disaster at Isandlwana.
These resistance movements were ultimately crushed by superior firepower, but they demonstrated that colonization was never consensual.
The Congo Atrocities¶
Leopold’s Congo Free State became a byword for colonial brutality:
- Forced labor extracted rubber under threat of mutilation and death
- Villages that failed to meet quotas faced collective punishment
- Soldiers collected severed hands as proof of punishments inflicted
- Population declined catastrophically—estimates range from 1 to 10 million deaths
- International outcry, including from missionaries and journalists, eventually forced Belgium to annex the territory from Leopold
The Congo atrocities revealed colonialism’s darkest face, though similar (if less extreme) exploitation occurred throughout colonial Africa.
Consolidation of Control¶
By 1914, the partition was essentially complete. Colonial administrations established control through:
Divide and rule: Colonial powers exploited and often exacerbated ethnic divisions, favoring some groups over others.
Indirect rule: Particularly in British colonies, existing African authorities were co-opted as intermediaries, preserving local power structures while serving colonial purposes.
Direct rule: French colonies experienced more centralized administration, attempting to assimilate Africans into French culture.
Extraction: Colonial economies were structured to export raw materials to Europe, not to develop African industry or agriculture for African benefit.
Labor systems: From formal slavery (abolished gradually) to forced labor to migrant labor systems, colonial economies depended on coerced African work.
Major Actors¶
King Leopold II of Belgium¶
Leopold II epitomized colonial rapacity. Unable to secure Belgian government support for colonies, he operated the Congo as a personal possession:
- Presented his venture as humanitarian, ending the Arab slave trade
- Created a system of exploitation that killed millions
- Extracted enormous personal wealth from rubber and ivory
- Only international pressure forced him to cede control to Belgium
Leopold demonstrated how colonial rhetoric of civilization could mask brutal exploitation.
Cecil Rhodes¶
British mining magnate and politician Cecil Rhodes embodied imperial ambition:
- Made his fortune in South African diamonds and gold
- Founded Rhodesia (Zimbabwe and Zambia) as a personal colony
- Dreamed of British control from Cape to Cairo
- Combined genuine belief in British civilizing mission with ruthless pursuit of profit
- His legacy remains controversial—Rhodes Scholarships versus colonial exploitation
Otto von Bismarck¶
Germany’s chancellor initially opposed colonialism as a distraction from European concerns. His sudden conversion in 1884 reflected:
- Desire to create colonial issues that would complicate Anglo-French relations
- Domestic political calculations—colonial enthusiasm could unite fractious parties
- Recognition that Germany could not be excluded from the imperial competition
- Strategic concerns about coaling stations and naval power
Bismarck’s Berlin Conference established the rules for orderly partition.
African Leaders¶
African agency, though ultimately overwhelmed, shaped the scramble:
Menelik II of Ethiopia: Skillfully played European powers against each other while modernizing his military, enabling victory at Adwa.
Samori Ture: Created a substantial empire in West Africa and resisted French conquest for nearly two decades.
Cetshwayo of the Zulus: Led fierce resistance to British expansion before defeat.
Kabaka Mwanga of Buganda: Attempted to play off British, French, and Arab interests before British triumph.
These leaders pursued strategies ranging from accommodation to resistance, but the technological and organizational gap ultimately proved insurmountable.
Consequences¶
Arbitrary Borders¶
The scramble’s most visible legacy is Africa’s borders. Drawn by Europeans with little knowledge of African realities, these borders:
- Divided ethnic groups across multiple colonies (the Somali across five territories, the Ewe between British and German colonies)
- Combined hostile groups within single administrative units
- Ignored geographic and economic logic
- Created landlocked territories dependent on neighbors for access to the sea
- Established the framework for post-independence states
The Organization of African Unity’s 1964 decision to accept colonial borders as permanent recognized the impossibility of untangling them—but also locked in their contradictions.
Economic Extraction¶
Colonial economies were designed for extraction, not development:
- Infrastructure (railways, ports) connected mines and plantations to export points, not African communities to each other
- Cash crops replaced food agriculture, creating dependencies
- African industry was suppressed to protect European manufacturers
- Education and healthcare remained minimal
- The economic structures created by colonialism persisted after independence
Contemporary Africa’s position in the global economy—exporting raw materials, importing manufactured goods—reflects colonial patterns.
Political Distortions¶
Colonial rule distorted African politics:
- Traditional authorities were either destroyed or co-opted as colonial intermediaries
- Ethnic identities were hardened and politicized for administrative convenience
- Democratic experience was absent—Africans were subjects, not citizens
- The colonial state was extractive and coercive, a model inherited by post-colonial governments
- Boundaries between “tribes” that had been fluid became rigid
The Path to Decolonization¶
Colonial rule also planted seeds of its own destruction:
- Western education created African elites who demanded the rights Europeans claimed for themselves
- Colonial armies trained African soldiers who would later fight for independence
- World War II weakened European powers and spread anti-colonial ideologies
- The contradiction between fighting fascism and maintaining empire became untenable
The era of decolonization was implicit in colonialism’s own contradictions.
Lessons for Today¶
History Shapes the Present¶
Contemporary African challenges—from ethnic conflict to economic underdevelopment to political instability—cannot be understood without reference to colonialism. This does not mean Africans lack agency or that all problems trace to colonialism, but the colonial period created structures and patterns that persist.
Understanding this history is essential for crafting effective policies toward Africa today.
Borders Are Political Constructs¶
The African experience demonstrates that borders are human creations, not natural features. They can be changed—but changing them is extraordinarily difficult and often violent. The international community’s acceptance of colonial borders, however arbitrary, reflected a judgment that the alternative—redrawing them—would be worse.
This lesson applies to border disputes worldwide. Existing borders, even unjust ones, have a status that aspiring revisionist powers challenge at great risk.
Great Power Competition Harms the Weak¶
The scramble was partly driven by European competition—powers seized territory not because they wanted it but to prevent rivals from getting it. Africans paid the price for European rivalry.
This pattern recurs. When great powers compete in third regions, local populations often suffer. Contemporary great power competition in Africa (between China, the United States, and others) should be mindful of this history.
Humanitarian Rhetoric Can Mask Exploitation¶
Leopold justified his Congo venture as humanitarian. European powers claimed to be bringing civilization to Africa. These claims coexisted with brutal exploitation.
Contemporary skepticism about humanitarian intervention reflects this history. Claims to be acting for others’ benefit deserve scrutiny.
Resource Extraction Persists¶
The scramble was substantially about resources—rubber, palm oil, minerals, land. Contemporary Africa remains primarily an exporter of raw materials. The patterns established in the colonial era—extraction for external benefit, limited local processing, dependence on commodity prices—persist.
Breaking these patterns requires intentional effort to develop African industry and diversify African economies.
Conclusion¶
The Scramble for Africa was one of history’s great acts of collective theft. In barely three decades, a handful of European powers seized an entire continent, imposing borders, systems, and structures that continue to shape African realities more than a century later.
Understanding this history is not about assigning guilt or demanding reparations—though those debates have their place—but about comprehending why Africa is as it is. The ethnic conflicts that destabilize nations, the economic structures that perpetuate poverty, the political patterns that produce instability—all have roots in the colonial partition.
The scramble also offers lessons for contemporary international relations. It demonstrates how great power competition can devastate weaker regions, how arbitrary political arrangements can acquire enduring force, and how economic structures created for extraction are difficult to transform.
Africa today is not merely living with the scramble’s legacy—it is actively contesting and reshaping it. African agency, suppressed during the colonial era, has reasserted itself. But the starting point for that agency—the borders, institutions, and economic relationships inherited from colonialism—continues to constrain possibilities. The scramble ended over a century ago, but its consequences remain very much with us.
Sources & Further Reading¶
- Pakenham, Thomas. The Scramble for Africa: White Man’s Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912. Random House, 1991.
- Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Houghton Mifflin, 1998.
- Wesseling, H.L. Divide and Rule: The Partition of Africa, 1880-1914. Praeger, 1996.
- Herbst, Jeffrey. States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control. Princeton University Press, 2000.
- Michalopoulos, Stelios, and Elias Papaioannou. “The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa.” American Economic Review 106, no. 7 (2016): 1802-1848.