1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Delvig [45]
3 years ago
13

What was a negative impact of Europeans occupying the African continent?

History
2 answers:
podryga [215]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

There were many negative impacts due to European colonization of Africa.  Since the other user stated disease & slavery, I will only briefly talk about those (abuse is very much in the realms of slavery).

During the Colonial Era as well as the Age of Imperialism (which followed after), Europeans (specifically France, Spain, Britain, and later on Germany, Austrio-Hungary, etc.) were keen on exploring, creating colonies, and exploiting the resources offered by these 3rd world countries (of the time).

Africa, on one hand, took the brunt force of most of these colonies, as they suffered the longest colonization period. Towards the beginning of the colonization era, Africa was explored as Europeans had to go around the Cape Horn in an effort to find a oceanic route to China, where they hoped to open trade with. This led to European countries laying claim on African lands where they land, and building up colonies there. However, the Europeans soon had a falling apart with the tribes, which led to wars between the colonizers and the colonised. Usually, the Europeans were victorious (except for cases such as Ethiopia & Italy, but even then, they fail later on), and imprisoned many of the natives, leading to a large supply of slaves within the Middle East. As the states in the US soon expanded and grew into a country, many southern states soon had a growing market for these said states, which led to the enslavement of many fit Africans. (negative impact #1: enslavement of Africans).

On top of enslavement, the European countries soon introduced "cash crops" to the nations, which were crops (tobacco, cotton, and the like) that generated "cash", but not food, which the colonies dutifully grew, which delayed their economic growth, as they were not able to self-sustain, and their economy relied heavily on one or two crops (which can have a changing market demand; Remember the supply v. demand, in which prices vary depending on demand. If the demand is low, the price would generally be low). These crops were perfect for certain time periods, but soon fell out of favor, resulting in loss profits. These countries, with their only high-source of income being these cash-crops, soon lost profit, which resulted in a smaller economy than before.

Another negative impact that the Europeans had have in occupying the African Continent, was the amount of funding they gave to the nation. Excluding stronger economic nations in Africa (Egypt really), and the Middle East, most of the nations were not properly funded, and lacked development. This is extremely true, as most 3rd world countries are located in Africa and the Middle East. The way most power was given back to the people during the decolonization era also led to wars and coup d'tat across the continent, leading to an unstable economy and life for those who lived in it. Without proper decolonization methods, the countries soon fell into turmoil.

Finally, the African culture was heavily damaged due to European colonization. As most Europeans during that time were either Roman-Catholic or Protestant, the colonizers also brought their religions with them, and usually forced natives into believing in their same religion. While this is not a bad thing in itself, it led to a destruction of their native religion as well as their culture, and the way they lived.

All of these are different kinds of ways Europeans have a negative impact on their former African countries.

~

olga55 [171]3 years ago
4 0

Disease, slavery and abuse of the African people

You might be interested in
How does the Declaration of the Rights of Man define liberty?
antoniya [11.8K]

Answer: The Declaration defines freedom as a fundamental human right.

Explanation:

The Declaration is a product of the French Revolution; it is a bloody struggle for civil rights. The Declaration was made in 1789, and behind the signed document was the National Constituent Assembly of France. He views the Declaration of Freedom as a natural right of every individual. Human law in this context is a universal norm valid for every man in every place. This concept after France will begin to be adopted throughout Europe and other parts of the world.

4 0
3 years ago
What did the indus valley people relied on and used the indus to help create their civilization?
Aleksandr-060686 [28]
<span> standardized weights and measures, seal carving, and metallurgy with copper, bronze, lead, and tin.the Indus script, and as a result. Indus River Valley Civilization’s institutions and systems of governance.</span>
7 0
3 years ago
Why did iran take the americans as hostages for 444 days?
GarryVolchara [31]
The immediate cause was because President Carter decided to allow Iran's desposed Shah into America so he could receive cancer treatment.
8 0
3 years ago
Rome gained great amounts of wealth as a result of military conquests throughout the mediterranean. while wealth was welcome in
Anni [7]
<span>A sudden influx of wealth from military action would throw off the balance of wealth in that, while other non-military people may have previously been wealthy, they would now no longer be wealthier than the soldiers who served them. With too much wealth, the value of money would also go down, causing the economy to actually decline. Also, with such an influx of wealth to the already wealthy, a larger rift would be created between the wealthy and the poor. That this wealth was accrued through military action would encourage more military action and more violence.</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did World War II change life for women and minorities in the United States?
marusya05 [52]

Answer:

while the men were at war, women and people of color took over the "manly" jobs. the government saw that the women were capable of doing hard work and not just being teachers/stay at home moms. the women and minorities started getting a bit of recognition. definitely not as much recognition they deserved, and they still weren't treated well, but they were still able to be nurses, pilots, etc and work in factories/the labor field.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What former slave brought attention of slavery through writings and speeches?
    7·2 answers
  • In the late 18th century, the king of England sent representatives to C
    12·1 answer
  • The effects of world war ii are best judged as
    10·1 answer
  • Match each term with its correct definition
    15·1 answer
  • Which are characteristics of trade in ancient Egypt?
    12·1 answer
  • What decisions did caesar make?
    7·1 answer
  • Why type of person would refuse to use force or fight in wars?
    8·1 answer
  • What was the response to FDR's Executive Order 8802?
    7·2 answers
  • What role did American colonists play in the Seven Years War?
    9·1 answer
  • In the New World, education in the settlements was emphasized. Check all the facts which apply:
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!