what are  three ways in which Africans responded to European imperialism?
124755
Western imperialism produced various reactions in Africa and Asia. The first response was simply to try to drive the foreigners away. The general failure of this traditionalist response then led large masses to accept European rule, which did bring some improvements. A third response was the modernist response of Western-educated natives, who were repelled by Western racism and attracted by Western ideals of national independence and economic progress. Thus, imperialism and reactions to it spread Western civilization to non-Western lands." hope this helps
140719
zafrumi666 I would be most happy to return to the tropical paradise from which I originate if your western countries returned the wealth they stole from it and also stopped exploiting non-western countries for cheap primary resources (crops, minerals, oil, etc).\n\nBlond dyslexic I fully agree with you. Whether or not you believe in Karma most people would agree that at some time what you put around finally comes around. As those white oppressive colonialist farmers sowed, so they are now reaping!
539272
I will only help if I can be cited in the essay.  \n\nThere was a triangle of trade.  Manufactured goods would be sent to Africa.  From Africa, slaves were sent to the Caribbean or North America.  Then from the Caribbean or North America goods such as Rice, Sugar, Tobacco, Rum, and Cotton were shipped back to England.\nThat is what I learned in history but for a detailed explanation check out the site below:
468856
Africans DON'T NEED SH!T, from ANYBODY.. trust me. ALL THEY NEED is YOU to stop supporting THEIR CORRUPTED LEADERS IN FAVOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES, such as oil, diamonds, useful soil for glass, and other minerals. They use that money to buy MORE ARMS AND SUBDUE THEIR RIVALS AND STARVE THE POPULATION AND KEEPING THEM IN THE DARK.\n\nALL AFRICA NEEDS IS, to YOU to stop SUPPORTING their bloody leaders.\n\nBy the way Mr. Ahmednajad, since they got PLENTY of uranium help them get the ISLAMIC BOMB too. Will you?,, please.
330584
Ask somebody in the east. May be an ugandan will be able to answer you algerians.
176906
Way to play the undeserving victim.  Maybe if Africa could pull its head out of its ass long enough to form some sort of stable government and quit raping and pillaging their entire populations, then maybe you would actually have a reason to be proud to be an African.
506596
My sources are listed below if you are questioning my answers.\n\nThere is no question without a doubt that the introduction of the money economy was a result of European imperialism in Africa. \n\nFirst of all, European colonialism was anything but a peaceful exchange of ideas between Europe and Africa. Europe was there to colonize- they were there to invest and profit by direct/ indirect control and the African people were given whatever they recieved (usually less than what they needed or nothing at all).\n\nSecond of all, Islam spread in Africa in the 7th century, shortly after the death of Muhammad (PBUH). European Colonialism began in Africa. The European colonialism of Africa began between the 15th and 16th century.\n\nAlso, there was not a single chance that african culture could infiltrate or spread into Europe. To the Europeans, the Africans were inferior- consequently, there culture was inferior. This was exactly what helped them justify their killings! It was the European culture that spread into Africa and still has it's effects on African countries until this day. Does the word hegemony ring a bell?\n\nThe only thing the Africans learned from the Europeans was the money economy- in which a person sells a commodity (good or service) for money and money would be accepted as a means to buy commodities or sell them. Before this, the African's used the barter economy in which items and services were traded for other items and services.
418275
That's a very complex question.  African countries we see on world maps were not drawn up by Africans. Europeans went into the African continent and carved the continent up according to European exploitation of resources without any regard for the people already living there. Specific European countries took control over certain lands and raped the land and people for Euro profit and power. Divide and conquer was a strategy used  to pit neighboring ethnic groups against each another so the African groups would not unify and rise up against the colonial powers.The weak infastructure set up by the colonial powers were Euro centered and were set up to drain the wealth from the continent. With the African liberation movements starting in the late 1950's, things started to fall apart for the colonial powers. With their physical semi-withdrawl from the countries, came a new form of colonialism called neo-colonialism, which is turn was economic colonialism in the form debt and high interest "aid" programs,  which never benefitted the African countries in the first place. Euopean countries expected the African governments to repay the "aid" at extremely high interest rates, even after the Euro countries got rich from African colonization. The African continent is not a poor continent, it is very rich in natural resources. Another thing to keep in mind is that African liberation from colonial powers is a new concept, whereas most African countries gained independence in the 1960's, and some countries as late as the 1980's. AFRICA UNITE!
77005
Since im black , Im going with AFRICA
566397
Sigh.  It is frustrating to see though the West might have the best intentions, they still have no idea what is going on in Africa. How will redrawing borders solve any problems at all? It is certainly not borders that are causing the immense amount of poverty and disease that plagues Africa.  Redrawing borders will only cause confusion, especially considering that there are thousands of tribes in Africa: 73 in Zambia alone.  Most African tribes get along swell, and they got along even better before colonialism.  \n     What Africa needs is not United Nations intervention (Oh God that would be a nightmare), or religion, or democracy (almost, if not all the countries in Africa, are "democracies", at least assert that they are), or birth control, or whatever other easy solutions Westerners come up with.They need justice: an equal share of the worlds resources so that they can have money to feed their families, educate their children, and fight the diseases that plague their continent.\nBut, as Bono says, Westerners are good at charity, they are terrible at justice.  So, we'll see what happens.
28356
I don't know, but here is something that might help or not. In 2001 prior to 9-11 there was a conference in Africa. During this conference the African nations asked for reparations from slavery. The European delegations said no because they would not know where to begin in who  or how to pay and that they would go broke. But they did offer an apology and said that their ancestors were wrong. Bush had the Americans leave the conference at that moment refusing to apologize. Citing that America would not be forced into a corner etc.
399650
Blacks started coming later on. They were brought here by the white people to be used as slaves to harvest their land and clean their houses, ect. It is very cruel, but true. Africans were torn from their homes, and kidnapped to the U.S. where they were forced to serve white people.
211798
correction:\n1-people didn't even brought them .... they forced thier selves on people.\n2-not only african leaders but leaders allover the world\n\nwhy?\nbecause they thought that they r the new prophets and all they says shall be right and to be done\nand because they know that if they give people the right to negotiate they will lose thier power and illegal benefits
434657
The far East Asian cultures were severely xenophobic due to repeated invasions by cultures with less rigid social institutions.\nThese invaders were thought to be less civilised. In an attempt to mobilise popular opposition, the social institutions of the Asian Empires waged an organised campaign to dehumanize the invaders.\n\nThe African tribal cultures were significantly less monolithic in scope than the Empires of Asia, and had not dealt with the problems of mass invasion as both Asian and Eurpean cultures did. The end result was a far less antagonistic reaction to outsiders. Please note that this does not include the Coptic or Ethiopian Empires.\n\nFor what was probably the most benign reception of outsiders, the polynesian reception of the initial European contact is the likely winner. These cultures wre so isolated by thier geography that most of them treated outsiders as distant tribal cousins at first.
32652
When the British came to America, Australia, India, and many other countries and set up there own governments. That was Imperialism.
298886
All the african nations recently have made an impact on the world stage - Nigeria, Cameroon and Senegal especially. To be honest I think Togo and Angola might not create too many shocks, they are in tough groups with seasoned campaigners but I would be very wary of the Ivory Coast
524509
The British colonies sent rice, tobacco, indigo, and furs to Britain. Britain sent cloth and manufactured goods to the West Indies.  The West Indies sent goods to the British colonies.\n\nThe West Indies sent sugar, molasses, and fruit to Britain.  Britain sent iron, cloth, and weapons to Africa.  Africa sent enslaved persons to West Indies. \n\nThe West Indies sent molasses to the British colonies.  The British colonies sent rum, iron, and tools to Africa.  Africa sent enslaved persons, gold, and pepper to the West Indies.