The Berlin Conference: Avoiding War in Africa

In the late 1800s, various European nations were eager to explore Africa. To prevent these expeditions from getting out of control, a major international gathering was held in Berlin.

Many different countries sent representatives to this meeting. They made agreements so that the competition between the European nations remained moderate.

This ended the fear that rivalry between different groups of European settlers could turn into war. (Four centuries earlier, in 1494, an agreement between Spain and Portugal prevented war in South America, where both of those nations had settlers.)

Beyond preventing war, the Berlin Conference help establish some other regulations for Africa. The treaty which contained these agreements was called the “General Act” of the Berlin Conference. As historian Andrew Zimmerman writes,

The General Act guaranteed a free flow of commerce along the African coast and in the Congo and Niger Rivers and their tributaries. The signatories also vowed to fight slavery in Africa; “watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being”; guarantee “freedom of conscience and religious toleration” for foreigners and Africans alike; and protect “Christian missionaries, scientists and explorers.”

While the treaty avoided a war between the European nations, and ensured the welfare of the Africans, it created tensions with the Ottoman Empire. Egypt and the Sudan, along with other regions of northern and eastern Africa, were still part of the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottomans operated a thriving slave trade in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Although slavery had been eliminated in Europe and North America, it still existed in many areas in the Middle East.

The slave traders from the Ottoman Empire were concerned that the Europeans in Africa would prevent them from capturing Africans and sending them to be sold in the slave markets of Istanbul or Arabia. This led to frictions between Ottoman representatives and European governments.

The Berlin Conference: Fighting Slavery

What was the net effect of European colonization in Africa? Was this activity merely the expression of greed for power and greed for materials? That is the story often presented. Is there another side to this narrative?

The documentation of the Berlin Conference, at which the various European powers organized territory in Africa, offers a glimpse into a different set of motives.

The agreements made in Berlin committed the Europeans to reducing and eventually eliminating slavery and the slave trade in Africa. Although slavery had ended in the United States in 1863, it continued in Brazil until 1888, and in the Ottoman Empire, slaves were publicly bought and sold until 1908.

At the time of the Berlin Conference, then, slavery was still a very real problem in the world. As historian Andrew Zimmerman writes,

The European partition of Africa, given formal sanction at the Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-1885, is often treated as an expression of exuberant nationalism in which each nation, vying for what Germans would come to call a “place in the sun,” sought to outdo the others in sticking their flags in far-flung territories. In fact, it was an expression of exuberant humanitarianism, guaranteed by such state power as the signatories of the General Act of the Berlin Conference were willing to provide.

Not only did the Berlin Conference seek to end slavery and the slave trade in Africa, it worked also to promote religious freedom, and to preserve the native cultures of the tribes in its territories.

This led to increased tension and conflict with Muslim lands, because Saudi Arabia and Qatar were still importing African slaves well into the twentieth century. Saudi Arabia, along with Yemen, didn’t formally make slavery illegal until 1962. In Qatar, slavery is still legal, as recently as 2017.

After the Berlin Conference, in the early 1890s, caravans of slaves were still transported through Ethiopia on their way to the Ottoman Empire. Eventually, the signatories to the Berlin Conference were able to largely reduce, but not entirely eliminate, slavery and the slave trade in Africa.

Britain’s Bronze Age: Massive Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change

Traditional textbooks explain that the Neolithic Age was followed by the Bronze Age, which in turn was succeeded by the Iron Age. Because, however, these phases of technological development emerged at substantially different times in various places, it was possible that Neolithic societies, Bronze Age societies, and Iron Age societies lived simultaneously, albeit in separate locations.

This situation prevents simple definitions of these three ages as beginning, even approximately, at some stated time, or ending at some stated time. In some locations, the Bronze Age was ending at the same time that it was beginning in other places. As historian Jason Urbanus writes,

Some 3,000 years ago, throughout Britain, broad changes in settlement patterns, society, and technology were slowly bringing an end to what archeologists call the British Bronze Age (2500 - 800 B.C.). In the coming centuries, the Iron Age would emerge.

Greece and China, among others, had already ended their Bronze Ages at the time when Britain was beginning its Bronze Age. But other types of change were happening in England contemporaneously with that region’s Bronze Age: climate change.

Paleontologists, archeologists, and historians document several massive non-anthropogenic climate swings throughout history. A “Roman Warm Period” (250 B.C. to 400 A.D.) and a “Medieval Warm Period” (950 A.D. to 1250 A.D.) represent temperature outliers much warmer than those observed at the end of the twentieth century or the beginning of the twenty-first century.

Likewise, a “Dark Ages Cold Period” (450 A.D. to 950 A.D.) and a “Little Ice Age” (1300 A.D. to 1870 A.D.) were the greatest global coolings recorded during historical times (as opposed to the even colder Ice Ages of prehistoric times). As its Bronze Age was ending, Britain experienced another climate change.

The key feature of these historic climate trends was that they were both massive and non-anthropogenic.

But in the wetlands of East Anglia, referred to as the Fenland, a transformation of another sort, both more conspicuous and tangible, was taking place. Climate change was gradually causing water levels to rise, and, as marshland increased, vital dry land became scarcer. The solution for one small settlement was to build its homes on pylons directly above the water.

The hypothesis that these “stilt houses” were built to maximize arable land is questionable. Many early societies built houses on pylons over water, swamps, or other types of land.

In most cases, the purpose for the stilts was not to preserve agricultural land. Often, it was to escape flooding, or to protect the houses from rodent infestation.

The Zhou Dynasty Emerges

Chinese history usually begins with the Xia dynasty as the first royal family. This dynasty ruled approximately from 2070 B.C. to 1600 B.C., but texts and archeology are scant, giving little concrete information.

The sixteenth emperor in the Xia lineage seems to have married a queen who treated the people cruelly. Zi Lu, who was known as ‘Tang’ and who founded the Shang dynasty, overthrew this sixteenth and last Xia emperor.

The Shang era lasted from around 1500 B.C. to 1045 B.C. and ended when the Shang were overthrown. One possible hypotheses concerning this dethroning was that the Shang had grown complacent, depending upon the services of smaller allied kingdoms in matters of defense.

If this hypothesis is true, a reasonable comparison could be made to the way in which the Carolingians supplanted the Merovingians. As one history book explains:

Outside the Shang domains were the domains of allied and rival polities. To the west were the fierce Qiang, who probably spoke an early form of Tibetan. Between the Shang capital and the Qiang was a frontier state called Zhou, which shared most of the material culture of the Shang.

The date of 1045 B.C. or 1046 B.C. for the establishment of the Zhou as successors to the Shang is relatively precise, unlike the somewhat more generalized dates for earlier events among China’s imperial dynasties.

Once established, the earlier phase of Zhou history is referred to as the ‘Western Zhou’ due to the location of the imperial capital:

This state rose against the Shang and defeated it. The first part of the Zhou Dynasty is called the Western Zhou period.

The ‘Western Zhou’ phase lasted from 1045 B.C. to 771 B.C., when the capital was relocated. A new capital was established in the East after a Zhou king was assassinated.

Its capital was in the west near modern Xi’an in Shaanxi province (to distinguish it from the Eastern Zhou, after the capital was moved to near modern Luoyang in Henan province.)

While the ‘Eastern Zhou’ manifested increased literacy and cultural advancements, it never attained the military and political strength which the Western Zhou had.

What gave the Western Zhou empire its brawn? One hypothesis is its internal political structure; a competing hypothesis points to its being closer in time to its founding as a tenacious frontier monarchy.

At the center of the Western Zhou political structure was the Zhou king, who was simultaneously ritual head of the royal lineage and supreme lord of the nobility. Rather than attempt to rule all of their territories directly, the early Zhou rulers sent out relatives and trusted subordinates to establish walled garrisons in the conquered territories, creating a decentralized, quasi-feudal system. The king’s authority was maintained by rituals of ancestor worship and court visits.

Perhaps as the decades and centuries went by, the Zhou monarchs forgot their rough origins and the doggedness which came from them. One incident, around 806 B.C., illustrates how political systems worked:

A younger son of King You was made a duke and sent east to establish the state of Zheng in a swampy area that needed to be drained. This duke and his successors nevertheless spent much of their time at the Zhou court, serving as high ministers.

This would have been a mere thirty or forty years prior to the assassination which ended the Western Zhou period. The duke’s presence at court, instead of out supervising work, may be a telling example of the dynasty’s softening. Again, comparisons to the Merovingian-Carolingian succession are invited.

It is not always clear whether to refer to Zhou monarchs are kings or emperors. In either case, a system of delegating oversight of provinces can be compared to Rome’s imperial system.

The texts above are quoted from Pre-Modern East Asia: to 1800 (A Cultural, Social, and Political History), written by Patricia Ebrey, Anne Walthall, and James Palais.

Canada Fails to Confront

In July 2012, Brian Lilley, reporting for the Toronto Sun, brought to Canada’s attention the fact that an internal document, produced for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), failed to take seriously Islam’s threats to peace, safety, and security.

The early months of 2011 were filled with news of the ‘Arab Spring,’ a brief and ill-fated movement toward the establishment of constitutional republics in several Muslim majority states in the mid-East and in northern Africa.

Although idealistic, the movement failed, and in the end, succeeded in merely replacing cruel secular dictators with cruel Islamic governments. Egypt and Libya now organized their states around words like Qur’an, Jihad, Hadith, and Shari’a.

The political leaders within the RCMP, hoping to appease or mollify activist Muslims in Canada, issued instructions in booklet for RCMP officers dealing with the public. In addition, as Brian Lilley writes, the booklet attempted to affirm the oppressive governments taking root in the Near East:

The document also makes a defense of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group that now controls much of Egypt. During his campaign for the Egyptian presidency, Mohammed Morsi, a man closely tied to the Brotherhood, told a crowd, “The Qur’an is our constitution. The Prophet Mohammed is our leader. Jihad is our path and death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.”

Islamic terror attacks, both in North America and around the world, during the years following the internal publication of this RCMP text reveal that it is somewhat naive.

Soviet Aggression Against Poland

Toward the end of WW2, the brutality of the Soviet Army became more and more visible to the world. Beyond what was militarily necessary to win battles, the Soviet Socialist forces committed war crimes of horrifying cruelty.

Early in the war, prior to mid-1941, the USSR had made at least a few attempts to hide its savagery. When a million Poles were taken to work camps inside the Soviet Union, where they were enslaved, and when an estimated 15,000 to 22,000 Polish officers were murdered in a mass execution in Katyn Forest, Soviet authorities made an effort to prevent the news media from reporting about these events.

Also in 1941, the USSR rounded up and executed Polish labor leaders: an ironic crime, because the Soviet Union presented itself as a worker’s paradise.

By August 1944, the Soviets took little effort to hide their actions. The advancing Soviet Army paused its attack on Warsaw in order to give the Nazis time to finish butchering thousands of Jews in the Warsaw uprising. The Soviet Socialists were entirely complicit in the murdering of these Holocaust victims.

The USSR continued this pattern up to the very end of the war, as historians Stan Evans and Herbert Romerstein write:

A fourth atrocity occurred in the spring of 1945. With the war winding down and the defeat of Hitler certain, sixteen Polish leaders were summoned to Moscow to negotiate postwar arrangements for their country. A promise of safe passage was given, but in the familiar Soviet manner broken, as all sixteen were arrested and imprisoned. Again, the common feature, beyond the usual treachery and deception, was the meaning of such episodes for postwar Poland. By these actions, the Soviets were systematically liquidating Polish leaders who could have resisted the Red takeover of their country.

Joseph Stalin seemed more intent on killing people than on winning the war. Soviet troops spent time and energy murdering and raping civilian populations - efforts which could have been used to defeat the enemy on the battlefield.

By war’s end, millions of Poles were dead at the hands of the USSR. Weakened, Poland was in no position to resist the postwar occupational dictatorship.

Bulgaria: a Nation Seeks Freedom

What was going on in southeastern Europe in the 14th century? Why is the year 1389 so deeply ingrained in the history of Yugoslavia?

In that year, Islamic armies defeated the combined defenses of Serbs, Albanians, and Hungarians, and began an extended military occupation of the Balkans and of southeastern Europe in general.

In the 14th century, the various ethnic groups of southeastern Europe fell under the oppression of the Muslims. For almost five hundred years, they were geographically and politically isolated from the scientific and cultural advancements of Europe.

With the help of numerous rebellions and their own intellectual advancements, first the Serbs, and then the Greeks, returned to the larger cultural community of Europe. The British poet Lord Byron died helping in Greece’s successful effort to throw off the tyranny of the Islamic occupational armies in 1824.

In 1876, the Bulgarians also began to assert their desire for freedom. The first major step in this liberation was the in April of that year: although many of them died in this rebellion, the Bulgarians began to believe more and more in the possibility that they could stop the Muslim aggression and be free.

Many Europeans cheered the Bulgarian desire for liberty: Victor Hugo, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Otto von Bismarck, William Gladstone, Charles Darwin, Konstantin Jirecek, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Ivan Turgenev, Dmitri Mendeleev, and others.

A glance over that list of names will see that Christians and atheists, scientists and poets, Englishmen, Russians, and Germans all united in their desire to see Bulgaria liberated from Islamic oppression.

Six months after this April uprising, the nations of the region gathered at a conference in Constantinople and saw that the Bulgarian question was one of the central matters in the diplomacy of the era.

One of the many heroic Bulgarians who died in the quest for freedom was Hristo Botev (also spelled Khristo Botev), who demonstrated that his poetry was backed up by his selfless actions as he sought liberty for his fellow countrymen.