Bookshot #184: The Scramble for Africa

This big doorstopper of a book has been on my bookshelf since I don't know when. I'm pretty sure I

inherited this one from my parents, so it probably sat on their bookshelf since I don't know when because I don't remember purchasing it despite the fact I have Pakenham's excellent book The Boer War (which I do remember purchasing.) And having made my way through all six hundred and eighty pages of it, I'm still not entirely sure what I think about this book.

Let's start with the obvious: this was written in 1991 and it feels like it, too. I'm sure there have been more up-to-date assessments of the Scramble since then (at least I hope so) but when Pakenham pegs apartheid in South Africa as being the most poisonous legacy of the Scramble, it makes sense in the context of the immediate post-Cold War, pre-ending of Apartheid era in which he was writing. I, reading this in 2024, 33 years after Pakenham wrote the book would be more inclined to point the finger at the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its continuing instability, war, and usage as a resource sink as the most poisonous legacy of the Scramble. (Though if South Africa flies apart in the coming years, it might nose back ahead in that debate.) 

The second aspect of it being written thirty years ago is that its perspective is painfully dated as well. You're left wondering, 'Gosh, what did all the Africans think of all this?' And while you do meet various Kings, Emir, Sultans, Chiefs, and Potentates that get conquered or resist conquest (at least for a while), you don't get a sense of what the regular people thought about it all. In Pakenham's defense, I'm not sure you could effectively get that perspective across in the course of one book (Africa is a big, big place, and perspectives/points of view, would, naturally vary.) 

I suppose if you approach this book with the attitude that 'The Scramble' was a European phenomenon and a European affair, so this is going to be a fairly broad-brush portrait of the events of that period, it... works. But this is one of the first history books I can recall reading where I've been like, 'Man, this needs an update.'

So, the Scramble itself. 

A lot of this is just so weird at first-- initially, King Leopold of Belgium (and not Belgium itself) wanted to grab a good chunk of what is now the Congo for himself, but outside of that most European powers were content to have strategic points to serve their interests-- Britain to protect it's passage to India (Ghana, Gambia, the Cape Colony) and France in Algeria, the joint rule with Egypt. Italy and Germany weren't really in the game at all. The early stages of the scramble were mainly caught up with exploring the Congo basin and just finding out how far the river extends and how navigable it actually was. (The usual suspects of Stanley and Livingstone are big players here, along with the French explorer Brazza and Cecil Rhodes. The names you would expect to find in a general history book.)

With Leopold racing to secure his hold on the Congo basin, other powers started to hone in as well-- with Portugal concluding an agreement with Britain to block access to the sea-- which would be vital to Leopold's success. Together, with a crisis over the financial stability in the joint arrangement between Britain and France over Egypt, Bismark brings the Berlin Conference to 'set some rules' (ugh, the ugly European paternalism) for how to deal with Africa. He, so benevolent, wants to prevent war from breaking out but also uses it as a cover to seize some colonies for Germany, and then it's game on. The European powers race to snatch up the continent.

The Scramble itself was ultimately a tragedy for the continent. The abuses of Leopold's system in the Congo Free State ultimately lead Belgium to take direct control. (Folks who didn't meet their rubber quota would have their hands chopped off, villages burned, mass killings, etc.) But the French operated in much the same way, even if they claimed loftier, higher ideals. I think Britain was probably the most uncomfortable with the idea of abuses of native populations, but proved to be utterly useless at doing anything about it-- advancing self-rule for the Boer Republics they conquered in the Boer War- ostensibly assuming that a pro-British electorate would put someone in charge who would rein abuses- in this case of Chinese migrant workers- in proved to be hollow, as Boer majorities paved the way for a Boer dominated Union of South Africa that laid down the paving stones of the apartheid system.

The Berlin Conference also squeezed Europe tighter into the system of alliances that would ultimately explode the entire system into the First World War-- which saw Germany stripped of its colonies mainly to the benefit of Britain, but France picked up a couple as well.

Commercial interests drove this, resource extraction made Europeans rich, and although- and this may be an embellishment on Pakenham's part, I don't know- a truly hilarious number of white people do get eaten by cannibals, there is no denying that any imperialism was bad imperialism when all is said and done. And you only have to look at how quickly some of the European powers exited their colonies after World War II to see that it wasn't about Christianity, civilization, and commerce-- there was only one 'C' really in charge and that was the last one on the list. The other two had very little to do with it all.

Overall: I do think that this is a subject sorely in need of an update by somebody. In terms of a broad, general history of the period, I think it suffices, but it is told from a very Euro-centric point of view, which I think is to its overall detriment. If a slightly dated, Euro-centric point of view doesn't bother you, then it's largely okay. It's a bit grim and somewhat depressing (for obvious reasons) but Pakenham's account of the exploration of the Congo basin especially illustrates how you could get caught up in the adventure of it all, no matter the consequences of the colonization that inevitably followed. My Grade: ** out of ****.