The Scramble For Africa

WHAT WAS THE SCRAMBLE FOR AFRICA?

In just a handful of decades, European colonizers carved up almost the entire African continent. Europeans had been involved in and with Africa for a very long time prior to the late 19th century. The specific moment we refer to as the Scramble for Africa really relates to an acceleration and intensification of European activity in and with Africa.” Every present-day country except Ethiopia and Liberia was affected. These territories were then governed—and exploited—by foreigners. Why? A lot of reasons. Nineteenth-century exploration of Africa had made Europeans more aware of the continent. African economies—and their vast resources—caught the eye of European parties. And then there was the Suez Canal. Stephen: “The Suez Canal was only about 10 years old when the Scramble started.

PLAY THE GAME

ZULU!

Imagine that a powerful foreign country announces that it will enter your country, take control of your government, and change your political system. What reasons might your country have for resisting?

Is defending your country the same as attacking another country?
Does a powerful nation have the right to control a smaller nation?

How might the powerful nation justify its actions?

During the late 1800s, European nations increasingly competed to control territory in Africa. This period became known as the Scramble for Africa.

The Zulu Kingdom, led by King Cetshwayo, was a powerful African state that maintained its independence and resisted British expansion.

Britain wanted greater control over southern Africa for political, strategic, and economic reasons. British officials also sought to consolidate neighboring territories into a larger political system under British influence.

In 1879, British forces invaded the Zulu Kingdom.

HOLLYWOOD VS. HISTORY

The Zulu were not simply attacking Britain. They were defending their kingdom against a British invasion.

Voting Rights Around the World

Imagine You Live in a Country Where…

• Only wealthy citizens are allowed to vote.
• Women cannot vote.
• Members of one ethnic group cannot vote.
• Citizens can vote, but only for candidates approved by the government.
• Everyone can vote, but the government ignores the results.

Which of these societies would be most unfair? Explain your reasoning.

Does a country become democratic simply because it allows people to vote?

We have all suffered through this election.  But are we willing to give up our 'suffrage?'

How democratic are Russian elections?

Happy Halloween!

In the second half of the nineteenth century, America was flooded with new immigrants. These new immigrants, especially the millions of Irish fleeing Ireland's potato famine of 1846, helped to popularize the celebration of Halloween nationally. Taking from Irish and English traditions, Americans began to dress up in costumes and go house to house asking for food or money, a practice that eventually became today's "trick-or-treat" tradition. Click here to learn more.

What is XENOPHOBIA? 

Should we be afraid of immigrants?

Real Oxford Ghost Stories

Listen to the 'Ghosts of Miami' as told by former Miami President Dr. Phillip Shriver.

Is Helen Peabody Ghosting us?

What is the difference between 'lore' and history?'

Karl Marx: The Communist Manifesto

WHO WON?

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

— Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848

Marx and Engels argued that societies have often been divided between groups with different levels of wealth and power. In industrial society, they focused on two important classes:

• The bourgeoisie: The owners of factories, machinery, and other resources used to produce goods.

• The proletariat: Workers who earn wages by selling their ability to work.

The authors argued that industrial capitalism created new forms of conflict between these classes. Factory owners wanted businesses to earn profits and compete successfully. Workers wanted wages, security, and better conditions. Although both groups depended on the economy, their interests could conflict.

Marx and Engels also argued that workers could recognize their shared interests and organize together. Rather than facing employers individually, workers could act collectively to challenge existing economic relationships.

Their argument was not simply that some factory owners were cruel. They believed that conflict grew out of the way the economic system was organized, especially the difference between owning productive resources and working for wages.

 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848)

Excerpt 1 — Class conflict

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

“The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class

antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old

ones.”

Excerpt 2 — Workers and wages

“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern

working class, developed; a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as

their labour increases capital.”

Source note: From Chapter I, “Bourgeois and Proletarians,” in the 1888 English translation edited by Friedrich Engels. Spelling and punctuation

follow that edition. Marx and Engels were writing an argument about society, not a neutral report; evaluate their claims using evidence.

Document Analysis

1. In your own words, what does Marx mean by “class struggles”?

2. Who are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat? How are their economic positions different?

3. According to the excerpt, why does Marx believe industrial capitalism creates new forms of conflict?

4. Connect to Adam Smith: How can markets coordinate production without guaranteeing equal bargaining power or fair

working conditions?

5. Connect to the Wobblies: Why might workers organize together instead of negotiating with employers one at a time?

The Wobblies

During the Industrial Revolution, factories used machines, investment, and specialized labor to produce goods on a scale that had previously been difficult to achieve. Adam Smith's economic ideas help explain how specialization, trade, competition, and self-interest can coordinate production. However, economic growth did not automatically guarantee good working conditions or equal bargaining power. Workers and employers could disagree over wages, working hours, safety, and who should benefit from increased production.

In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto. They argued that modern industrial society was divided into classes with conflicting economic interests. More than half a century later, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), founded in 1905, sought to unite workers across industries to challenge employers' power and improve workers' lives. The IWW shared some ideas with Marxist labor movements, although it had its own traditions and goals.

How did Karl Marx explain the conflict between factory owners and workers, and how does his argument help us understand the Wobblies?

I Pencil

Imagine you are holding an ordinary pencil. How many people do you think helped make it, from obtaining raw materials to delivering it to a store?

A simple pencil connects thousands of people, natural resources, specialized jobs, and businesses. Nobody needs to control the entire process for all those people to contribute to making the finished product. This helps illustrate the economic idea known as the invisible hand, associated with Enlightenment thinker Adam Smith.

How can people working in their own self-interest cooperate to produce something that none of them could make alone?

The invisible hand is a metaphor for how people pursuing their own interests in a market can sometimes produce benefits for others, even when helping society was not their primary goal.

For example, a pencil manufacturer wants to earn a profit. To do so, the company must attract customers by offering a pencil people are willing to buy. The manufacturer consequently helps supply a product that other people want.

Smith did not claim that self-interest always produces good results. Markets can also produce unfair outcomes, pollution, exploitation, and other problems. His idea gives us a way to investigate how markets work—not a guarantee that they always work well.

1. In your own words, define Adam Smith's invisible hand.
2. Explain how I, Pencil demonstrates specialization and cooperation.
3. Give one example of how a person's pursuit of self-interest can benefit other people.
4. Explain one reason markets might fail to produce a good outcome for everyone.
5. Final challenge: If you had to explain the invisible hand to a sixth grader using an example other than a pencil, what example would you choose and why? (a smartphone, a pair of sneakers, a slice of pizza, or a school backpack) Identify at least five different people, jobs, or industries involved in producing and delivering it, explain what motivates two of those participants, and describe how the participants depend on one another.