The most obvious lingering effect of colonization is the existence of fractured and awkward African nations. During the scramble for Africa, powerful European countries got together and drew a bunch of imaginary lines. They used these lines to separate one territory from another. The lines helped these colonizing countries to avoid conflict with one another as they sought to grow wealthy by accumulating African resources. In the short run such boundaries were probably expedient. However, Africa was not represented at the conference that determined its entire future and the boundaries that were drawn have since created painful and unnecessary divisions and animosities.

For instance, while the people of Gambia are entirely surrounded by the people of Senegal and while they are originally of the exact same culture and heritage, they are now at odds with one another, frequently quarrelling, rarely cooperating, and occasionally threatening war. This is because the British colonized the Gambia and the French colonized Senegal. Try finding one example of a divisive and artificial border in each region of the African continent (North, West, South and East).

A far more poisonous legacy comes from the decision of some European nations to elevate the people of one tribe or ethnic group above the others. Many different European nations favored a single ethnic group if it proved particularly willing to cooperate and to emulate European culture. This group was often entrusted with administrative work and with the oversight of less respected ethnic groups. When the colonizers left, it was often this group that came into power, despite the fact that they were frequently a non-representative minority. This caused deep resentment, many civil wars, and tens of millions of deaths. The notorious recent conflicts of Sierra Leone and Rwanda are both rooted in such favoritism. Where else did this happen? How might it be possible to heal these ethnic tensions? Sometimes colonizers simply preferred to work with people of their own religion, which only deepened divisions between Christians and Muslims or city dwellers and subsistence farmers, sparking further violence and warfare.

The earlier example of Gambia and Senegal raises another two aspects of colonialism's legacy: language and level of development assistance. With regards to the first, African countries were generally forced to adopt the mother tongue of their colonizing European nation; in most cases some form of this language still remains the official language of the former colonies. In most cases local languages are still more common and there are often many people, especially in rural areas, who have little grasp of the European tongues; but the colonizing language influences how people are educated, how their politics are inclined, who their friends are, and where they are likely to travel if they leave Africa. How does your knowledge of languages influence your travel plans and decisions? Under what conditions would you consider languages to be of serious importance to the direction of your life?

With regard to the level of development assistance, you can discover shocking and obvious differences in the behavior of European nations. After African countries began to claim and receive their independence in the mid 1900s, the evicted Europeans had to decide what level of involvement to have with the countries that they had created and set into motion. Obviously, they were able to choose anything between ignoring the countries entirely and taking an active role in their further development. What do you think would motivate a departing colonizer to take an active role in the future development of its prior colony? What would make the colonizer ignore it completely? Which attitude is best? If you look at the major colonizers, Britain, France, Portugal, Belgium, and Germany, you will find that they each have a fairly consistent method of dealing with their former colonies. In some cases, they foster a very close relationship and dedicate considerable sums of money for aid and development. In other cases, they continue to exploit former colonies with new and less obvious methods. In still others, they have almost nothing whatsoever to do with their former colony. The former colonies of which nation seem to be the most prosperous now? Whose colonies are always in the news as total screw-ups? Why might that be?

Finally, during colonialism a great number of white entrepreneurs relocated to Africa and obtained land and resources of great value. In many cases, this wealth has been passed down through their families and, if anything, it has increased over time. Now there are many black Africans who feel that land holding whites do not deserve the land that they believe was essentially stolen from their black ancestors. They are demanding it back. Some people think that this raises very complicated ethical questions. What are two of the countries where these issues are most famously debated? Do you think that the private property of descendents of white colonists should be redistributed under any circumstances? If the class is divided on this issue, see what it would take to bring about consensus. Can either side create an imaginary narrative that helps the whole class to see the situation from their point of view?



Classroom Page