Talk:Scramble for Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Africa (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject International relations (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject British Empire
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Countering systemic bias
WikiProject icon This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Old comments[edit]

Hey, can someone please add also the title "Race for Africa"? Many scholar lit. uses that phrase and may be useful for us to apprend this

This article should be moved to The Scramble for Africa. Martin 13:02, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ahh, that's better :) Martin 14:04, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the big "series" box is that this article should also be part of a History of Africa series... Martin 10:44, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I remember to have read a large part of this text elsewere in Wikipedia in January. Ericd 05:07, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Borderer's edits (reverted)[edit]

  1. Liberia was an independent country, albeit one with close tied to the US
  2. Italian occupation of Ethiopia came considerably later historically, so it's irrelevant here. Guettarda 22:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. Liberia was founded by the US and considered by many citizens to be an imperialist land grab, as it smuggled slaves away from plantation properties on the Underground Railroad to deposit.
  2. Italian annexation of Ethiopia was to supplement their existing empire in Africa, which was merely finishing the work they started earlier, so it is entirely in context to the discussion.

Article title[edit]

Could this article please be renamed "Colonial Africa"? I was trying to do some background research for a class I am teaching on colonialism, and it is only by lucky accident that I was able to find this page. No one would ever think to run a search on "Scramble for Africa." Or maybe there could be a "see scramble for africa" on the colonization of africa article.

Don't want to contradict you, but I found this article while searching for "the scramble for Africa" which is what my textbooks called it. Still, we could have pointer pages Johncmullen1960 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable enough to judge what title suits this article better, but I did set up a Colonial Africa redirect. Now, whenever one searches for "Colonial Africa", they should be automatically redirected here.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 20:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
In all of the history textbooks that I've seen, they always call this the Scramble for Africa, or something along those lines. It's probably not official or anything, but the term is widely used. Peaceman 8 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
I think the proper title should be "Partition of Africa" or there should be another article on that particular event. It is a much more proper term than "Scramble for Africa" (though this I agree is an accepted term, it should probably be a redirect, not the article title). For now I'll set up a "Partition of Africa" redirect but it should be changed eventually.Billy P 15:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Scramble for Africa is a term used in numerous text books. It is also the most widely used term for this period and people will search for it because that is how I found this page. Race for Africa is also used. Partitioning is not correct because it was not partition, they attempted to partition it in the Berlin Conference, but failed miserably. Colonization of Africa or European Imperialism of Africa would probably be the most accurate and proper substitutes for Scramble for Africa.

Another vote for changing the title to COLONIAL AFRICA. Indeed, the scramble did occur very soon after the dawn of the Industrial Revolution--the steam age was very important to the completion of the Suez Canal and dramatically increased sea trade. These "machine age" aspects do not appear to be included, at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebuilding (talkcontribs) 19:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty pat, amazingly one-sided piece.[edit]

"...defining 'effective occupation' as the criterion for international recognition of colonial claims and codifying the imposition of direct rule, accomplished usually through armed force."

And what of this? What were the costs to the African peoples of this ruthless usurpation of their lands and natural resources at gunpoint? What were the costs to the occupying powers? How many Africans perished? How many others? What have been the consequences of artibrarily assigned political borders resulting from the European powers carving up the continent? What has been the legacy (e.g., chronic instability, inter-ethnic conflict/"tribalism", civil war, underdevelopment, poverty, etc.) of this rape of the African continent? What? Not a single comment in this regard? This piece needs major improvement. deeceevoice 16:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article does have a very narrow focus. If this is to be the umbrella article on colonial Africa (and I'm not sure it should be), it needs a lot more info about what happened within Africa itself instead just on the European side. The sections on the Herero and Congo are ok but nothing else seems to be covered. If anyone's looking for more to include there's bits at History of Africa and at History of West Africa; not much but it may give you a start. (Actually, those articles could use some expansion in this regard, too).
Another possibility might be to leave this article largely the way it is--that is, focused on the inter-European struggle, as the title suggests--while creating a new article for something like Colonialism in Africa that talks about how colonialism played out across the continent, and then links here for these details on the partitioning. I'm not sure which approach I like better, actually... --Dvyost 04:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Dvyost. The name "Scamble" seems to suggest the European powers "scrambling" for land in Africa. We could set up a series that talks about colonization in general- articles on governments in colonies, the things this post is talking about, and other things. Or it might work better in a single article. Hard to tell. --Mr. RX99 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The European powers did scramble for land in Africa. I think this article works well for covering that. PhilipPage 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


There should be a map of colonial Africa, showing how it was divided.

And perhaps that particular map shouldn't look like it's been drawn as a project in kindergarten? Dahn 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the map. Wizzy 07:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new, and to my mind better, map of colonial Africa circa 1914. Declangraham 19:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Explorers?[edit]

I've had a brief fruitless search for one. Anyone know if wiki has one? I think it might be a handy reference. PhilipPage 20:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How about category:Explorers of Africa and category:Explorers or even category:Exploration. --Richard Clegg 22:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Richard. PhilipPage 22:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

article in serious need of editing[edit]

this article is in grammatical disrepair- counted three errors in just the first sentence of the de beers sidebar. the writing style makes it very difficult to follow the progression of events and their connection to the larger issues as discussed. additionally, not sure the term 'colored' is appropriate in this context. 06:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

totally agree. where to begin? so i tried the beginning.

Quoting Lapaz: re: Scramble for Africa

"My English may not be perfect, however, I do believe that it is fundamental speaking of the Fashoda Incident & others crisis in the intro. Brevity mustn't means simplification, and it is quite impossible to understand how in hell could the Scramble for Africa be related to World War I if you don't pass by these historical crisis"

well, sure, but isn't naming specific incidents a bit much for the introduction? do we prefer global context or high-resolution detail here? i thought it simpler to cut rather than modify for that reason.

also, that sentence, like many, was a run-on. and it weirdly talked about an 1898 event as if it had been caused by a 1902 event. it's not grammar, just logic.

"I just want to add that the intro must be as concise as possible but, more importantly, should provide the global context need for the understanding of the article. In other words, it shouldn't repeat what the article says itself, but link it to worldwide event. This means linking it to the First World War, and thus speaking of these important international crisis. I leave the issue of the Russo-Japanese War up to you, although it could be included as, although I may have awkardly put it, it is the first war won against Europeans, and thus lead to a radical shift in mentalities (the Yellow Peril, etc.): White Man could be beaten."

right, well, what you just said makes the case for exclusion of the Russo-Japanese War from this intro better than i could make it. do we have a source for the idea that the Japanese are non-white? check out Yellow Peril and tell me about its relation to the Russo-Japanese war, or the Japanese at all.

apart from questions of fact, isn't there a POV question here? the construction of a universal "White Man" is as non-neutral as the construction of a universal "Colored," or even a "Yellow," wouldn't you say?

and "the first war won against Europeans" is contestable -- imperial Japan versus imperial Russia does not sound like the kind of conflict one would include in a survey of "Righteous Colored Rebellion"...

which brings everybody back to the topic, What is this Article About? shifting allegiances and incipient crises _between European powers_, or something else?

and an addiction to brevity more generally wouldn't hurt in other sections -- see Causes of the Scramble -- do we need to know, in this article, that Hobson influenced Lenin and Arendt?

humbly submittedDavidstaniunas 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

POV, syntax -- it's a nightmare in hereDavidstaniunas 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Should there be something on Ethiopia, as it managed to resist Italian advances during this period I think, and I think it expanded during this period too. After the Scramble for Africa it was the only African ruled state other than Liberia (though Liberia was dominated by slave descendents to the exclusion of the other peoples of the area)

direct connection between entente's and WW I ?[edit]

The first paragraph states:

"Ongoing disputes necessitated the formation of alliances -- the Entente Cordiale, the Triple Entente, the Triple Alliance -- and led to the First World War.

Isn't this a too direct relation between these ententes and the outbreak of the war? The treaties may explain why the whole of Europe was in war in a matter of days, but are they the cause of it?

Response to the above

I agree with the above: the sentence in question is misleading and has no place here. Only the Entente Cordiale-whibvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

ch was not an alliance-can be said to have touched upon Africa in any direct sense, and that was to settle outstanding disputes between Britain and France. Neither the Triple Alliance nor the Triple Entente had any bearing on the question of Africa. White Guard 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Congo Free State[edit]

This article, and the accompanying map, suggests that the Free State of Congo/Congo Free State was under Belgium control. This how ever is not true, the Free State of Congo was, from 1885 to 1908, private property of King Leopold II of Belgium, in accordance with the Berlin Conference. After 1908 the Free State of Congo became Belgium territory and the name was changed in Belgium Congo. Mach10 08:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not if you read slowly: "Léopold II, who personally owned the colony starting in 1885 and exploited it for ivory and rubber, would impose such a terror regime on the colonized people that Belgium decided to annex it in 1908." That's fairly accurate, isn't it? Lapaz 15:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Important, the main reason the Belgian government took Congo over from Leopold II was not for the terror regime. It is because Leopold II was facing bankrupty. (Lawrence Sergeant)

A lot of 19th century superstition is included in this article[edit]

POVs are reeking in this article. Quoting Lenin on the working of market economies is like quoting Hitler on zionism.

We also have a large segment dedicated to the speculation that the colonialism was based primarily on economical causes without even once stating the actual revenues accruing from these policies. It is my opinion of course, but the contemporary hysteria based on Social Darwinism was far more important than the very marginal purchasing power of the colonized markets. There was also a decided tendency of what may be called "mission creep", whereby the opportunism of local decision makers pulled the respective governments after them.

Furthermore the rivalry over African territories is stated as one of the main - if not the principal - causes of World War I. In reality the most important rivalry over African territories was the one between Britain and France who were allied during the war.

We are also "informed" that copper and tin was unavailable in Europe.

We also get treated to speculation that Abraham Lincoln was involved in the ACS. The basis for this speculation is openly admitted to be rumours which means that not even the writer thinks this to be a fact.

Definite article "the"[edit]

It is known as "The Scramble for Africa", including the definite article "the". That is the way it was called when the term was coined in 1884. Correct me if I'm wrong. I've renamed it once before, but since this is on the verge of a low-scale revert war, I'll rename it again only if there is no strong opposition. --Ezeu 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming it. --Ezeu 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Reverting rename. Yes, it's always known with "the", but that's a matter of grammatical convention, not part of an official title. Compare this article to Middle East, it's always, 100% of the time called "The Middle East", but that doesn't make it appropriate to insert that as part of the title, because it is Wikipedia convention to remove "The" unless it's an official part of a title of a movie, book, song, etc. -Silence 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The heading "A succession of international crises leading to World War I"[edit]

The heading "A succession of international crises leading to World War I" seemed to me to imply a direct causal link between the crises listed and WWI, whereas I would think that only the Moroccan crisis is mentioned in the article on causes of WWI. So I revised the heading to "A succession of crises in the period to World War I"; perhaps someone else can think of a better wording. "International" seemed superfluous since the whole article is international. Rexparry sydney 05:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed section on cash crops[edit]

I've removed this section.

Capitalism, an economic system in which capital, or wealth, is put to work to produce more capital, revolutionized traditional economies, inducing social changes and political consequences that revolutionized African and Asian societies. Maximizing production and minimizing cost did not necessarily coincide with traditional, seasonal patterns of agricultural production. The ethic of wage productivity was thus, in many respects, a new concept to supposedly 'idle natives' merely accustomed to older patterns of production. Balanced, subsistence-based economies shifted to specialization and accumulation of surpluses. Tribal states or empires organized along precarious, unwritten cultural traditions also shifted to a division of labor based on legal protection of land and labor — once inalienable, but now commodities to be bought, sold, or traded.

It belongs in a section on colonialism in Africa, but not the 'Scramble'. These economic changes occurred both before and after the formation of colonial states, and the article doesn't even attempt to link cash cropping with the partition of Africa. The summary is also unreferenced and inaccurate: it implies that African economies were subsistence-based, egalitarian (I presume, since 'accumulation' was apparently a novelty), and static (inalienable rights to land and labour). None of these things are true.

The article needs a lot of work - it is currently based on limited, dated sources with a clear ideological bias. Sunjata 23:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The section has been restored once. To reiterate: it doesn't belong here. The cash crop revolution would be an excellent separate article - but it begins before, and ends after the scope of this article, c.1880s-1914. For a summary see J. Tosh, 'The Cash-crop Revolution in Tropical Africa', African Affairs (1980).

The impact of the cash crop revolution is also misrepresented in the section - if anyone wants to restore then it, then it needs to be referenced and verifiable.
Sunjata 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

William Gladstone (Liberal)[edit]

Why does it keep saying it like this? It's almost like "Liberal" is a title or his last name, which I know it's not. Is there some reason I shouldn't take out that link and just leave the link to the man? CumbiaDude 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No reason at all, you're right that it shouldn't be there, I've done it and also edited around it. Rexparry sydney 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Pink Map[edit]

Proposed additions:

  1. In the Berlin Conference, The Principle of Effectivity (or of Effective Occupation), that stated that powers could only hold colonies if they actually possessed them (etc.), also was approved by the newer colonialists in the stead of the principle of historical rights proposed by Portugal.
  2. The Portuguese Pink Map collided with Sir Cecil Rhodes "Cape to Cairo" Red Line. The dispute with England over these territories led to the British Ultimatum, to which Portugal gave in and the small obstacle that the Portuguese Empire was, was removed from the race.

Xyzt1234 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant sections[edit]

This article is still pretty incoherent and POV. It really needs to be pared down to its basics, and link to other topics as required - there is just too much wrong ATM for any one person to deal with.

Two points: 1. Why is Liberia in this article at all? How can America ahve participated in the Scramble for Africa 'marginally' if the colonization of Liberia took place and had petered out before the scope of this article even begins? 2. This article is about the scramble but also has extraneous material on colonial ideology that developed after this period - is this the best place to discuss Tintin books from the 1930s?!? I propose getting rid of both of these sections. Sunjata (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The information about Liberia seems excessive for what amounts to an anomalous counterexample. The text also seems to be straining to draw ironic connections between Liberia and Monroe. Liberia should be discussed here, but not in such depth.
The "Colonial encounter" section is definitely loaded with the author's opinions (I can tell from the writing style that the section came primarily from a single author). Stuff such as "Anthropology, the daughter of colonisation, participated in this so-called scientific racism..." is blatant editorializing. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"purchase" of kingdoms[edit]

Researching to add a smattering of African perspective on the Monarch article, I ran across this intriguingly anachronistic and quite offensive article in the New York Times that seems to fit quite nicely to this page. Thankfully, they have recently opened up their archives, so this article from 1882 documents a Colonial perspective of "purchasing" kingdoms in Africa.

I don't have time at the moment to properly make edits, so I am dropping it on the talk page for other's consideration... the article begins:


November 27, 1882, Wednesday Page 4, 1097 words

Now is evidently the time to buy African kingdoms, and the French are busily improving the opportunity. Good kingdoms can be bought in the Congo region for two gallons of rum each, and navigable rivers can be had, when bought by the quantity, at the rate of an ounce of gunpowder per mile.

It provides an interesting view of how Europeans justified the rush for control in Africa.--Marcinjeske (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TintinCongo.jpg[edit]

The image Image:TintinCongo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Tanganyika should be mentioned as a British colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ideas of Charles Darwin[edit]

In the summary there is an implication that the work of Charles Darwin was somehow instrumental in the colonization of Africa. Later on it becomes clear that this is claimed to be through the emergence of Social Darwinism. You will excuse me but Social Darwinism was not by any stretch of the imagination a direct consequence of the Theory of Evolution but rather an aberration of it used as a justification for racism.

I also object to the use of the term "Darwinism" with respect to the racist display of a pygmy in the Bronx Zoo. The term "Social Darwinism" would be more accurate. The Theory of Evolution and Social Darwinism are two totally different animals. The first is the prevailing scientific foundation of modern biology while the second is a distortion of science in order to justify the exploitation of native peoples. Valicroix (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I tried to change the summary so that it better reflects the situation, but my edit was reverted by Kintetsubuffalo. I thought it was reasonable enough, what gives? --Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the only instance of our dear friend's name is that sentence, and incidences of "social Darwinism". "Evolution" appears only once in the article. I'm sure anyone can see no source is cited for the claim either. I don't mean to start an edit war, but I'll at least add a citation needed to it. --Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This has reappeared in the lede:
The ideas of Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution, the eugenics movement and racism, all helped to foster European expansionist policy
In what way did Darwin's ideas, or evolution, foster European expansionist policy? No citation is given.
Granted, there may have been widespread assumptions that white people were generally superior to black people; but:
A. That assumption is neither darwinian nor evolutionary;
B. That assumption was scarcely less prevalent before Darwin appeared on the scene;
C. European powers were, in the same era, often waging war against - and taking territory from - other white people.
Why is this in the lede?
I believe the first part of the sentence originally had a citation-needed tag, but through recent changes the tag drifted to the end of the sentence (a less controversial claim, perhaps, though I think it should still be linked to a reliable source). I'll move the tag back to the middle of the sentence.
bobrayner (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Bob. Most appreciated! (What a shame you are in the minority.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. That could be ambiguous. Try again: What a shame you are in the minority with regards to explaining yourself. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I was kinda hoping for some kind of source for the content, or a discussion about the content, rather than meta-debate about whether or not people post explanatory text when changing content. Oh well. I'll remove the uncited material, in line with WP:VERIFY. Hopefully that explanation is satisfactory to you; feel free to reinsert this text if you can provide some kind of reliable source.
bobrayner (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just checked Norman Davies' "Europe: A History" and the part covering Africa/colonialism makes no mention of darwin or evolution, just simple power (much the same as the scramble for the Americas which happened some time before Darwin's ideas were spread). Conversely, where "Europe: A History" mentions Darwin, it doesn't touch on Africa at all apart from his cousin's travels. However, that's just one book. Someday I'll get around to checking my copy of Pakenham.
bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
A much-belated followup; I dusted off a copy of Pakenham's comprehensive "The Scramble For Africa", and there's no mention of Darwin (or Huxley) or evolution in the index, nor in the bibliography. Not a jot.
bobrayner (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


It has been mentioned before, why is this here? It is before the time period. It contains factual errors (reading related articles it appears Bushrod Washington was the first president of the ACS). It contains POV (linking Liberia and the Monroe doctrine). It is under causes; how did Liberia cause the scramble for Africa any more than Sierra Leone or any other earlier colony did? It is also uncited. I intend to remove this in the next couple of days if no one can supply a good reason (and citations) as to why this should be here, at best it should be in a background section and modified to eliminate POV. (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt it was indeed appropriate to delete that whole section on Liberia which is out of place since this page is about the Scramble for Africa (roughly 1870-1914) --Lubiesque (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


The lack of focus on African resistance to European aggression makes this article structurally weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talkcontribs) 13:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Some of the facts in the lede seem a little dubious at best. Did the European powers really form a "continental united front", for instance? Surely war in Europe was not particularly abated during the 1800s, and wouldn't the 'scramble' itself serve as evidence that the European powers were not all in agreement with each other? In fact, the second sentence implies exactly the same thing: the many conferences and delegations were convened precisely to prevent the imperial lust from spilling over into intra-European war. Terrasweet (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Map[edit]

Which one is actually better for this article? Which one is less ambiguous to color-blind people? The PNG file has bee used on heare, and the page was put on . Either the PNG is better than the SVG, and the category tag needs to be removed, or vice versa. Thoughts?


Travürsa (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The former (PNG) is ugly, but at least there is good contrast between relatively saturated colours (maybe it would be possible to change a colour for the benefit of conventionally colour-blind viewers). I think that the latter (SVG) is both detailed and attractive (beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course Face-smile.svg but the pastel hues might not have enough contrast for some readers. Is it possible take the latter one back to the workshop for a slight tweak? It could also be helpful to find a different colour for either French or German colonies - two different blues are not ideal. However, all that is just my opinion and I'm no visual expert. bobrayner (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


This article does not say enough about economics. The African colonies had economies based on a single commodity, generally, which made their economies very unstable and at the mercy of world commodity markets. If the price of the commodity went down, it meant a significant contraction in the colony's economy. This outlasted the era of colonization, as many independent countries did not diversify their economies after de-colonization. This was a direct cause of the Rwandan Genocide, for example.--Wikigold96 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Single-commodity orientation a direct cause of the Rwandan Genocide?? You gotta be kiddin!? Have you read that article? Besides, this is stuff for a "legacy of colonialisation" article, not one about the "Scramble for Africa". Speaking about the Great Lakes region: when the Europeans started to get involved, many people there were still living in economic conditions close to those experienced by Europeans in the prehistoric period. Whether they would have been better off (in economic terms) remaining isolated could be a subject for debate. They were obviously interested in importing manufactured goods, so they needed something to pay for those except ivory and slaves. Drow69 (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Role Reversal[edit]

The partitioning of Europe may be seen as a way for the Africans to eliminate the threat of a Africa-wide war over Europe.

Utter nonsense, isn't it? Yet on this very important article, we see this kind of sentence in the first paragraph. It might be a nice palliative for the Europeans, this sentence, but I don't think it is doing anyone any favors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Shouldn't the map include the Dervish State in what is now Somalia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Boer War[edit]

I am by no means an expert, but it seems to me that the Second Boer War should be listed under the section listing crises preceding World War I. That and the Agadir crisis/Panther incident. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a good idea to me. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Strategic rivalry[edit]

This sentence seems unrelated to the topic of this section and should be deleted:

According to von Tirpitz, this aggressive naval policy was supported by the National Liberal Party rather than by the conservatives, implying that imperialism was supported by the rising middle classes.[6]

Perhaps it belongs elsewhere is this or another article.

Zulu Kane (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Germany's Weltpolitik[edit]

I do not understand the use of the word "relayed", twice, in the second paragraph. Is this some word that didn't translate correctly from German??

Zulu Kane (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Clash of rival imperial powers[edit]

This is the paragraph I deleted, because it makes no reference whatsoever to Africa:

On the other hand, the British abandoned their "splendid isolation" in 1902 with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which gave the Empire of Japan the opportunity to pursue war with Russia without the risk of Russia's allies taking arms against Japan. Japan was victorious during the war against Russia (1904–1905). In 1904 the British signed the Entente cordiale with France, and in 1907 this became the Triple Entente with the addition of Russia — effectively a system of alliances pitted against the Triple Alliance, which Bismarck had patiently assembled.

Furthermore, it has no citation.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the following is redundant with the more detailed information in the larger "Colonization of the Congo" section, so I deleted it from this section. I've pasted it here, just in case anyone sees a need to add any of it to the main section about the Congo.

While pretending to advocate humanitarianism and denounce slavery, Leopold II used the most inhumane tactics to exploit his newly acquired lands. His crimes were revealed by 1905, but he remained in control until 1908, when he was forced to turn over control to the Belgian government.[1]

- Zulu Kane (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

After moving or deleting the paragraphs that didn't belong in this sub-section, all that remained was the text about Italian expansion. So I changed this sub-section title to match this subject matter:

Italy's expansion

- Zulu Kane (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Colonization of the Congo[edit]

This parenthetical quotation was in the middle of an already long sentence about Cecil Rhodes:

(who once declared, "all of these stars... these vast worlds that remain out of reach. If I could, I would annex other planets"[2])

While it is quite colorful, it's barely relevant in this context. Readers interested in Cecil Rhodes can already find it on his Wikipedia page. In short, it seems unnecessary and distracting here. So I deleted it.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Good work. bobrayner (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


I don't see any attribution for the title of this article. "Scramble" is not neutral language and it is not a common word in lexical corpus about history. It is a pet phrase, but not a very good one for the neutral description of an historical process. Can anyone provide a citation, if the title is not going to be changed? (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an established term - see Pakenham's book - but maybe there's room for improvement. Can you suggest a better title? bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)