44
How was Europe allowed to carve up and exploit Africa at the Berlin Conference in a post-slavery era?
(lemmy.world)
Was the media/church/merchants/scientific community that promoted The Scramble for Africa as a noble cause unaware of the true motives of the European colonizers, or were they all complicit?
The true motives are indeed obvious: subjugation, slavery, genocide, exploitation. The portrayal of the Scramble for Africa was that of benevolence. My question is two-fold.
How did Europeans allowed this?
Were the churches, merchants, media outlets, and science organizations that promoted it cognizant of the true purpose?
I don't see how any of those can be seen as "obvious motives" in themselves. The only obvious motives I see are the economic and strategical ones. Slavery and exploitation are direct consequences of the economic motives, while subjugation and genocide are a further consequence of forcing slavery and exploitation on a population.
I'm not defending colonialism in any way here. I'm saying that I think it's reductionist and counterproductive to understanding colonialists (i.e. answering your question) to think that a primary motivation behind colonialism was "we want to subjugate and genocide populations for the hell of it".
You’re right. As PugJesus explained, the various motives were complex but not a plan for atrocities.
The horrific results are obvious only in retrospect.