The Scramble for Africa was the only way to 'deal' with the African continent and the African people
First of all, it is important to try and understand the above statement. The reading from the CNN article reports that the Europeans brought civilization to the Africans. So they introduced Christianity, trade, education and justice as a means to civilize the Africans whom they considered as āsavage peopleā. From this, I think that the word ādealā refers to the process of civilizing the Africans. However, this process of civilization resulted in slavery of the Africans. For this reason, I think that the scramble for Africa was not the only way to ādealā with the African continent and the African people. This is because everybody has the right to their own life and so, in the case of Africa, the slavery took away that right to live. Again, the scramble for Africa as the CNN article points out brought about a lot of looting. What this probably means is that the Europeans siphoned a lot of the minerals like gold and diamond and agricultural wealth like cocoa from the African continent. Hence, it is possible this affected the economic power of the African continent. These two reasons point to the negative effect the scramble for Africa had on the African continent. In relation to the statement I think that as part of the solution, the Europeans could have built a relationship with the Africans and through that begin the process of civilization. As the CNN article discloses the Europeans justified the division of Africa by saying they wanted to liberate the Africans from Arab slave traders at that time. If this were so, then the most likely solution should have been for the Europeans to form an alliance with the Africans to drive away the Arab slave traders.
















