Compare and contrast European imperialism in French North Africa and the Belgian Congo, in light of each the home country's political, economic, and cultural life.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers will vary. There was a vast difference between the two colonies. The French occupation in Tunisia, Algeria, North Africa, and along the Mediterranean coast was established as settler colonies, and the territories were considered not only an economic resource for France but also a vital part of France itself. The population was about 40 percent European descent. However, one critical difference was found in the Berber, or Muslim, population of North Africa, which was never really given political rights. Europeans also dominated the economy, but it was a very mixed physical and cultural community. By contrast, the Congo was essentially purchased by King Leopold of Belgium on a private basis, rather than in the interests of nationalism or promoting the economy of Belgium itself. Leopold established the Association Internationale du Congo ostensibly for humanitarian purposes, but in reality, he financed private expeditions for his personal financial gain. He ruled with Force Publique, a brutal and corrupt mercenary army to keep the peace. He exploited the natural resources to harvest palm oil, rubber, and ivory as cheaply as possible to gain the most economic advantage for himself and private investors. Failure to meet production quotas resulted in harsh punishments for the African workers. In 1908, the stories of cruelty and brutality inspired the Belgian population to force Leopold to surrender the Congo to the hands of the Belgian state, which managed the imperial holding as the Belgian Congo until 1960. The crucial difference is integration and exploitation. While France's occupation of North Africa was certainly not altruistic, it lacked the sheer greed and exploitation characterized by Leopold's seizure of the Congo for personal gain.