http://www.ita.jeeran.com/Year4/y_AfCiv.

html

African Civilisation - 4th year programme:

The first west african kingdom
Programme:
The introduction to African history. The existence of groups of kingdoms. Arabs established a trade with the Africans. Ghana the famous kingdom and land of gold.

Introduction
Historians used to depict Africans tribes that they were underdeveloped, and backward, and to get powerful, they depicted the colonizers as more developed. But in reality, and as mentioned in the handout, the writer mentioned that Africans were not backward, and primitive, but they were developed. Colonization was not far the purpose of civilization, but they were motivated for economic purposes (market). The European colonizers considered Africans as inferior and backward because African man could have 15 kids, 10 wives. Also because Africans are agnostics, so they did not correspond to their behaviour, i.e. to European norms. They behave differently, their traditions and economical and political style...etc, all that are inferior. The Europeans believe that they are better than Africans, so they are going to civilize them. At that time, mainly historians were Europeans not Africans, and in order to justify the purposes, colonizers needed support from Historians who depict Africans as Inferior.

Notes starting from the first paragraph:

writing. Sudan. Ghana at that time as a power territory was important, according to their power king, The Arab land referred to Africans according to their skin, and was called Bilad al Ghana was the land of gold. African came into the light of History in 8 th century, they discovered Africa through

and because of gold and natural sources. Ghanaian people had a nomadic way of life (fixed), they used to move and they didnt

build houses for settlements. What attracted the merchants?

Merchants came from North Africa to Sudan for gold, there was an exchange. The Arabs could not speak to the Sudanese because of different languages. Trans-Sahara: to transport across Sahara. The writer described the values of trade By the 8th century, Europeans realised Africans kingdoms by writing. The existence of the value of the exchange was very high. Africans were organised and

they were practiced trade (40000 dinars = 100000 or $250000).

traditional west african state

The first aim of Arabs in West Africa was practicing trade. The king (the absolute monarchy) became king through material line and also his subjects. Certain believe in ancient centuries which characterized those people. The wealth of the king originated form trade by establishing taxes on the merchants, who could whenever raise taxes on traders. The king believes in supreme authority (supra human being). He was represented as a symbol of divinity, whereas the king of Kawkaw was different because he was Muslim[1], and he was attracted by Islamic rules. The Negroes imported salt from North Africa, especially from lacks in Sudan area. There were many kingdoms which had relations with historians and traders form Arabian countries. The contact between Arabs with Africans triggered some changes in African society. e.g. the way of building houses. The author mentioned also the sources of development in the African societies; there was an organization, and also there was a taxing system and a suitable civilization. The African developed themselves by themselves. The author started with this explanation because it was advanced by colonial period and also it was done by Africans themselves. The development of Africans is backed up to colonial period. Thanks to outside influence that came form colonial period. They came to rule them because they needed the outside influence in order to acquire the light of civilization, but they didnt develop themselves by themselves, and this according to European authors who considered and still consider Africans as inferior. Those people were Hamitic because they merged with people came from North of and North East of Africa to bring civilization to these countries. The Africans needed outside influence in order to be developed. According to the European authors, each white people could carry civilisation to help this Africans who were always backward. The Hamitic hypothesis announces that there is a Hamitic influence on the West African kingdoms.

According to anthropologist C.G.Seligma, there was an interaction between Africans and Hamites mixing, the influence of Hamites who, because of their civilisation, imposed themselves on Africans. The West Africans were agriculturalists but the Hamites were pastoralists. The writer wanted to show that the pastoralists were not always intelligent in comparison with agriculturalists. The language of Hausa is Hamitic. According to pastoralists, the agriculturalists and the language of Hausa showed that the white advanced before is completely false, because the agriculturalists of Hausa spoke Hamitic language before the coming of pastoralists, so the theory of agriculturalists was stupid. The idea that the Africans were stupid which was advanced by the archaeologists is totally false, these people were Hamites who spoke Hamitic language, which was closest to Arabic language, and they were living in nomadic way. According to C.G.Seligma, they were more intelligent than Africans, but according to author the idea is false, because the Hamitic language was spoken by Hausa. The first contact with West Africa was thanks to the Portuguese navigator Henry. When the European countries were living in darkness, there were strong states in African, e.g. the kingdom of Ghana. There were caravans of transport for the traders, who came from Middle East, after that, the Europeans come in the 18 th century where they found plantation (cotton, coffee, tobacco). Europeans went to the interior states to draw the maps and for trades. They sold alcohol, arms, and tobacco... and they bought paper, salt, spices, and also arms... It was the main reason for the collapse of the states, but the major aim for the European countries: Germany, Spain, GB... was the trade. The Portuguese took 2 to 3 black people to Portugal as evidence that these people who were different form Portuguese and lived far away than them, could work in their lands and properties. West Africa was the 1st kingdom known by the Arabs, under the name of Ghana in the 8 th century, was called by Arabs: Belad el Sudan, which mean: the land of black men. El Yakubi said that there were in 8th century others kingdoms under this kingdom, as Kawkaw, Mallel (Mali), and the Sanghana kingdom. The Arabs became familiar with Ghanaian by trade. The trade was silent: when the merchants reach the frontier, they place wares on their cloths, and then depart, so the Negroes come after, bearing gold, and they leave the merchandise and then they depart. The owners of the merchandise then returns, and if they are satisfied with what they find, they take it. If not, they go away again, that the Negroes return and add to the price until the bargain (business, exchange) is concluded. Ibn Hawkal said that Berbers had also a trade with the Arabs. Whereas El Bakri described the capital of Ghana which was a city, saying that the houses were built by mud and the palace of the king was surrounded by grows, and where dead kings are put, they practiced the animistic religious. There were two towns: one of the kings palaces which was made of mud, and the second of the Arabs Muslims which was of stones.

There was a respect form the Arabs to the Africans territories, perhaps because they dont have common purposes. Sanhaja came from Tafilelt in southern Morocco, to Awdaghost, which was a big centre of collecting and distributing products.

Factors led to development of kingdoms:

There were sparked off by political influences coming to the western and central Sudan

form the outside, specifically form non-negro lands to the north and northeast (Algeria Egyapt). Hamitic influence: they said that those Africans were very late so they needed someone

(white man) to lead them to civilization, those non-negro people coming from north and northeast Africa (the Berbers, and the Ancient Egyptians) called Hamitic people, they spoke the Hamitic language, they were not white, but they were considered as whites, and for that, they were considered as superior human type by the Europeans. Hamitic influence had a great impact on Negroes, they leaded the African civilization.

They were pastoralists whereas Africans were Agriculturalists, which gave to Hamitic people the impact on the way of using agriculture and living of Africans, especially the Ancient Egyptians who had an advance in that domain. There was a competition between Tuareg and Negroes; Tuareg had an inner close

relationship, so they would defeat Negroes. Neolithic revolution: far from influence of other domains, Africans themselves began to

establish their lives, instead of relying on hunting and eating wild foods, they reactivated lands and plants, and they construct domesticate animals buildings, and permanent villages. They adopted new ways of life; this change is known by Neolithic revolution. Where did the Neolithic revolution started from? It started from the Northwest of the

edge of the Sahara, in a suitable environment. The important centres were Senegal valley, upper Niger and its coasts, and Chad basin. The Neolithic revolution consequence: the growth of population, organized governments

and administrations, the fall of the ideas that considered the king as a God. Generally, they moved form hinting to cultivation. Trans-Saharan trade: trade across the Sahara was a contact between Hamitic trades and

Negroes via practicing moving southern in the winter, and northern in summer. Portuguese exploration in West Africa: in the 8 th century Muslims settled in Iberia by the middle of 13th Century, Christian defeated Muslims, who?s confined to Granada; they established a number of kingdoms (Aragon, Castile...). Portugal had the chance to practice trade with Africa, Henry the navigator focused his work on the exploration of the west coast of Africa, by Portuguese ships till his death, than gradually this expedition (brought from Italian ones) their aim was to control trade and defeat Muslims and avoid middle Arabs, they explored the cape balance ? cape Verde.

Its exploration was slow but with great value, when they reached the green, land of Negroes, it was the beginning of slavery trade under games? contract. They discovered the county of gold (mina). Their aim was to establish the sea route around Africa trade. They built the castle of Saint George Da Mina as a work house. Portugal engaged in conflict ended by treaty of Alcaakas in 1479, than the treaty of Tordescilas in 1499 (after the discovery of America). This treaty made France and England reacted, but Portugal stood the major monopolist of trade in Africa. The West Africa was divided according to its commodities; Portuguese traders wanted to create a new society in Africa, the Gold coast was the main area of Portuguese commercial activities, thus they settled and developed first class sugar plantation, but by the end of 16th century, the Portuguese were no more monopolist of trade in West Africa. The hypotheses were set in order to give explanation to the origins of West African development.

The Neolithic revolution in West Africa:

There was no arrangement after the Muslims invasion, so the presence of Arabs gave

some changes to the Africans. The Stone Age was known by the Neolithic revolution which characterized the African

society. This revolution brought them a better organisation to their life because they learnt how to cultivate themselves. Africans needed external help; they couldnt develop themselves by themselves. Thus, according to historian who said: they couldnt. The second hypothesis is according to Hamitic people who said that they could develop

themselves by themselves. The author described the changes in the south, around 2000 B.C. the chances in these

societies began to occur. The idea of cultivation the land: more probable that they borrowed it from the Nile

civilization. The idea of cultivation is the probably form Egypt because of the contact between the Africans and Egyptians; they borrowed the way of cultivation and not the way of crops. Logically, they couldnt cultivate themselves because of the lack of water supplies;

therefore, they concentrated on the northern rivers and human beings. There is an analogy between the considerable growths in West Africa and what occurred

in Egyptian society. It described the similarities between the Negroes and the concepts concerning the Egyptians. There was a borrowing from Ancient Egyptians the concept of divinity of the king to African societies. The exaggeration concerning the development in West African society, it might be

influenced by outside influence (as Egyptian). There were a relation between subjectivity and the way of thinking of the king and its divinity; the ancient Egyptian civilization is further before the African development, so that it might have a dual influence and an interaction between them.

Whats the relation between the king and subjects in Egyptian civilization, and how can influence in the development in the South African society? The Egyptians had contacts with other peoples through trade and other fields. Those peoples were impressed by the Egyptians tradition, and tried to imitate them. So, that they were influenced by Egyptians and their belief. The pastoralists had some qualities as militaries, they were organized. Tuareg had gone to these countries with organization and civilization. The Negroes gained profits from the presence of pastoralists and used those profits to develop their societies. These two aspects support the idea that the Hamites contributed to the development of the West African society, so that the outside influence is present on this society. The author moved next to the kings, He said that kings themselves had origins of white and red men, because their fourth grand fathers were not Negroes, but they were red skin form Yemen. These kingdoms had links with Arabs ancestor, which led also to the influence of Islam on the West African society.

Trans-Saharan and its influence

In the same time when it was the ice age in Europe, Sahara was a wet place for

grassland. Therefore, that people used to live there, but when it dried, those people used to move towards their main centres of population in the North and in the Nile Valley.

The Pastoralists were well known of using means of transport through the desert like camels and horses. The Hamites were developed in mobility through using camels and horses. There were some tribes who practiced trade through the North Africa to Atlantic Ocean.

The trade was important for these societies, especially the exchange of gold. There was a failure in adapting the sailing environment, and establishing a regular trade

over sea with Africans. The causes were: deserts, northerly winds, and currents. The evidence and the existence of chariots in West Africa: there were two majors routes

towards West Africa, so routes afford traders and colonizers easiness to reach gold resources deposits which attracted them. Because Ghana offered their needs and routes were available, traders and colonizers

were obliged to setup states in order to practise and provide security for themselves. Ghana was more than a centre of trade.

[2]

To

barter:

exchange

goods.

Dumb barter: the silent trade, i.e. exchange merchandise without speaking because of different languages.

[3] The route: an open way for travel or transportation.

[4] Nomadic: person who traveled looking for a job.

The first west african kingdom Beginnings

The first West African kingdoms

West Africa first comes unequivocally into the light of history in the eighth century of the Christian era. Writing in A.D. 733-4, shortly after the first Muslim conquest of North Africa, the Arabic author Al-Fazari mentioned that across the Sahara from Morocco lay a county called Ghana, the land of gold. From this time onwards, references to that part of West Africa just south of the Sahara, which the Arabs called Bilad al Sudan, the land of the black men, became increasingly more detailed and frequent in a growing stream of Arabic geographical and historical writings. In the ninth century, al-Yaqubi knew not only of Ghana, which had a powerful king under whom were other kings, and in all of whose territories gold was found, but also of the kingdoms of Kawkaw, Kanem and Mallel. It is difficult to be certain what al-Yaqubi meant by Mallel, though this certainly a variant name for the Mande kingdom on the upper Niger usually known as Mali, which later supplanted Ghana as the major power of the western Sudan. However, Kawkaw is usually accepted as a name for the capital of the Songhai kingdom whose seat was first as Kukyia, on an island in the middle Niger, about 120 miles upstream from the modern Tilabery, and later at Gao, on the Niger bend. AlYaqubi thought that Kawkaw was the greatest kingdom of the Sudan, with a large number of tributary states. Kanem, to the

north and north-east of Lake Chad, was a kingdom inhabited by people called the Zaghawa, who seem to have been essentially nomadic, since al-Yaqubi said the have no use for towns and that they constructed their dwellings from reeds. By al-Yaqubis time, Muslims from North Africa were operating well-established caravan routes of trade across the Sahara, and they were becoming increasingly familiar with the Sudanese kingdoms, especially with Ghana, a magnet for traders because of its exports of gold. In the tenth century, al-Masudi described how the merchants of Ghana obtained hold from communities living beyond the southern boundary of their state by the silent trade or dumb barter, a process quite commonly met with in history where professional \traders had to deal with less sophisticated peoples: When the merchants reach the frontier, they place their wares and cloth on it and then depart, and so the Negroes come, bearing gold, which they leave beside the merchandise, and then themselves depart. The owners of the merchandise then return, and if they are satisfied with what they have found, they take it. If not, they go away again, and the Negroes return and add to the price until the bargain is concluded. Ibn Howqua, himself a merchant, tells us a fair amount about the trans-Saharan trade, and shows that it was of very considerable value, especially by the standards of the times in which he was writing (late tenth century). The caravans were conducted by the Sanhaja, desert nomads, Berbers akin to the inhabitants of Morocco, their main route running from Sijilmasa, in the oasis of Tafilelt in southern Morocco, to Awdaghost, just north of Ghana. These were both Sanhaja towns which served as collecting and distributing centres for the trans-Saharan trade, and both were rich and prosperous through this trade. On one occasion, Ibn Hawqal tells us, he saw a bill of exchange made out by a merchant of Awdaghost to corresponding merchant in Sijilmasa for the sum of 40000 dinars. This would be a large sum by any standards. The dinar was a small gold coin equivalent to the English half-sovereign; thus 40000 dinars would be would be worth about 100000 or $250000 at the price of gold ruling in 1968, because of its gold, Ghana was a very rich kingdom indeed. Rather more than half a century after Ibn Hawqal, in 1067-8, the Spanish Muslim geographer, al-Bakri, put together a great deal of information concerning Ghana, this providing us with our earliest detailed description of a West African state. From al-Bakri, and form the later Tarikhs, Arabic chronicles written by Sudanic Negroes themselves, it becomes apparent that Ghana was not the proper name either for the state or for its capital. Al-Bakri himself thought that Ghana was a title given to the king, This is doubtful, but what is certain is that the kingdom was situated in the area variously called Awkar, Baghena, or Hodh. This is a region, now desert, but, until the eleventh century at least, capable of providing pasture for cattle, whose southernmost limits are about 200 miles north-east of Segou on the upper Niger. According to a local six-teenthcentury source, the capital was called Kumbi, and the dominant people in the sate were the Soninke or Sarakole, northern members of the great block of Mande-speaking Negro peoples who inhabit so much of the western half of West Africa. Al-Bakris description of the capital city has to a considerable extent been confirmed by the work of modern archaeologists at the site now known as Kumbi Saleh. The city comprised two towns. One of these, apparently built of mud, contained the royal palace surrounded by its own wall, and was encircled by sacred groves in which the kings were buried and in which the Soninke priests practised their traditional animistic religious observances. Linked to this by a continuous built-up area was what al-Bakri called the Muslim town, with twelve mosques, inhabited it would seem largely by Berber merchants from North Africa and the desert who had been attracted to settle on Ghana because of its trade; here the buildings were stone and in he North African style. All around were wells, providing a supply of water adequate to permit of cultivation.

The king inherited his throne in the maternal line (the king of al-Bakris time, Tankamanin, was the son of his predecessors sister), and seems to have been an absolute monarch somewhat remote from his people. He and, to a lesser extent, his retainers, were very richly dressed, with many gold ornaments. He held court with great splendour, communication with his subjects, who had to approach him on their knees, sprinkling their heads with dust, only through his ministers, some of whom were Muslims. When he dies, he was buried in great state, together with food and drink and retainers for the after life, in a great earthen mound. Human sacrifices were made to dead kings on the great national festivals. The wealth of the kingdom came from its trade, more especially from its export of gold dust (the possession of gold nuggets being a monopoly of the king), and from regular taxes on the imports which were exchanged for this gold. Al-Bakri tells us of fixed duties paid on each donkey-load of copper and of general merchandise, both of which we may presume to have originated in North Africa, and of salt. The latter, which came from salt deposits controlled by the Sanhaja and other tribes in the Sahara, was one of the Sudans most valuable imports, because it is a necessity of life which is exceedingly scarce in the Sudan. Consequently, among the Sudanic Negroes it was as much valued as gold, often being used as currency, and sometimes, indeed, exchangeable for gold weight for weight. With the wealth from the gold trade, and from the taxes on imports, the king was enabled not only to maintain his large court but also to raise a large army (200000 strong according to al-Bakri), with he was able to gain yet more wealth by conquering and making tributary some of the surrounding peoples and states, including (about A.D. 990), the Sanhaja trading centre of Awdaghost. The Arabic authors according of other monarchies of the western and central Sudan in the tenth and eleventh centuries are less clear and detailed, presumably because, unlike Ghana, they had little or no gold, and so fewer North African merchants visited them. Nevertheless we are told of there, presumably small, kingdoms in the Senegal valley west of Ghana: Snaghana, Takrur and Silla. Sanghana was near the sea. Takrur achieved fame as the first West African Negro kingdom to convert to Islam, by the mid-eleventh century according to al-Bakri. Consequently it became and important centre for the diffusion of Islam elsewhere in West Africa. Silla was the western neighbour of Ghana, in the upper Niger valley; we are told o the existence of the kingdoms of Mallel (Mali) and Daw. To the east was Kawkaw, whose king was said by now to be a Muslim, but whose people had dances and drumming which sound very pagan. Further east still, in the central Sudan, there was Kanem, which by the end of the tenth century may have been a more settled and stable state than it had been in alYaqubis time a century earlier when, as we have seen, its Zaghawa people seem to have been essentially nomadic. At any rate it now had towns, and it possessed monarchy which Muslim authors thought sufficiently strange to merit considerable comment. Thus 985, al-Muhallabi wrote that the Zghawa exalted and worshipped their king as though he were God: They imagine that he does not eat, for his food is taken into his house secretly, and should one of his subjects happen to meet the camel carrying it, he is immediately killed, he has absolute power over his subjects... who spend their time cultivation and looking after their cattle. Their religion is the worship of their kings, for they believe that it is they who bring life and death, sickness and health. Eventually it is to be hoped that archaeology will fill out and confirm the somewhat slender picture given by Arabic authors of the West African Sudan in this earliest phase of its history, from the eighth to the eleventh century. Certainly only archaeologists can give us any idea of what was happening further south, beyond the Sudan grasslands, in the better-watered and more fertile woodlands and forest of the more southerly parts of West Africa beyond the ken of merchants and other visitors form North Africa, a region which collectively may most conveniently be called Guinea
[1]

. But the Arabic writers

provide enough information for us to be certain, by the tenth and eleventh centuries, some Africans of the western Sudan had acquired a considerable degree of civilisation, in that they possessed cities, organised monarchies and administrations, and sophisticated systems of trade and taxation. This complexity of political and economic organisation beyond the self sufficient village of what might be called tribal society-even it, as we may suppose, this still moulded the lives of the bulk of the people- is likely to have been the result of centuries of development. In the case of ancient Ghana, at least, the literary evidence suggests that this development must stretch back to the eighth century and beyond.

In the light of present knowledge, we cannot be sure what sparked off this development. All we can do is to consider a number of possibilities. These are not mutually exclusive, and it seems likely that these may all have contributed, though doubtless in varying degrees, to the emergence of ancient Ghana, Kanem and the other early kingdoms which have been mentioned. There would seem essentially to be three possible major explanations of the origins of these kingdoms and their associated economies: 1) They were sparked off by political influences coming to the western and central Sudan from the outside,

specifically from non-Negro lands to the north-east and north. 2) They were the more or less natural consequence of the western and central Sudanic peoples own Neolithic

Revolution.

3)

They were due the fertilising influence of the growth of trans-Saharan trade.

Political influences originating from outside the Sudan, and the Hamitic hypotheses. Of the three major possible explanations for the advance of the western and central Sudan towards civilisation, that of political influences form the outside is unlikely to have been the earliest in point of time. It is considered first here for two main reasons. It was an explanation which gained considerable currency as a result of the writings of the first investigators of the problem in modern times, namely the historians of the colonial period. Secondly, it is the explanation which would seem to be advanced by the earliest traditions of many of the peoples of the western and central Sudan themselves. Most of these who, during the colonial period, sought to reconstruct the earliest history of Africa, were themselves outsiders, members of the colonising nations of western Europe. They came from a society which technologically and materially was vastly more powerful than was late nineteenth-century Africa, and which was therefore able to conquer, rule, dominate, and change Negro African societies in a most dramatic fashion. When these men began to discover the evidence for the earliest West African civilisations, they were therefore predisposed to think that these could not have been created by the Negro peoples they themselves had so easily conquered and come to rule. They believed, therefore, that they must have resulted from earlier invasions by alien conquerors comparable to themselves. The wished-for conquerors could be found near at hand in the non-Negro inhabitants of north-east and north Africa, who had in deep long been impinging on the Negroes of the Sudan. There is no really satisfactory collective name for the non-Negro peoples of north and north-east Africa such as the Berbers and the ancient Egyptians. They are commonly called Hamites, by the terms Hamite and Hamitic can properly be applied not to the peoples, but to the languages they speak (or which they spoke before the Arab and Muslim conquest), and in fact the modern view is that there is very little in these languages as a whole to distinguish them from the Semitic languages of the peoples across the Red Sea (e.g. Arabic). The Hamitic-speaking peoples, who ma well have also inhabited a large area of eastern Africa before it was occupied by its present population of Negroes speaking Bantu languages, are often quite dark-skinned. But in features and in physical type they are fairly easily distinguishable from the Negroes, and the European historians and anthropologists of the colonial period came to think of them as whites like themselves. In fact, of course, many Europeans might be better described as pinks rather than whites, and it is clear that considerable prejudice is attached to the classification of peoples by the colouring of their skins. By and large, nineteenth-century Europeans had convinced themselves that white-skinned peoples represented a superior human type. There thus developed an overall scheme for the interpretation of African history which may be termed the Hamitic hypothesis. This assumed that the African Hamites were whites akin to the Europeans, and that they and their culture were inherently superior to the Negroes and their culture, so that wherever an apparently Negro people had made a striking advance, the explanation must be sought in Hamitic influence or infiltration. The civilisations of Africa, the anthropologist C.G. Seligman wrote in 1930, are the civilisations of the Hamities; its history the record of these peoples and of their interactions with... other African stocks [such as] the Negro... Seligman in fact leaves a general impression of wave after wave of incoming Hamitic pastoralists, better armed as well as quicker witted than the dark agricultural Negroes, imposing themselves on the Negroes, mixing with them, and galvanising them into political and economic advancement.

It is true that many of the African peoples who speak Hamitic languages were pastoralists, and that the Negroes, especially in West Africa, were predominantly agriculturalists. But it is absurd to generalise that cattle-keepers are inherently quicker witted, superior to cultivators of the soil, the more so since agricultural cultures are usually accepted as being the more developed. In West Africa, as was most cogently pointed out by the American linguist, Joseph H. Greenberg, the stereotype of the all-conquering Hamitic pastoralist is peculiarly inaccurate. The only markedly pastoral West African people are the Fulani, who in the early nineteenth century did conquer the agricultural (and urban, commercial and industrial) Hausa. But it is the language of the Hausa which is Hamitic, while that of the Fulani is a West African Negro language. Nevertheless, in at least two aspects, the Hamitic hypothesis was not altogether as a absurd an interpretation of the African past as we may now be inclined to think. Agriculture was first developed in Africa in the lower Nile valley, and its people, the ancient Egyptians, spoke a Hamitic language. On the basis of their agriculture, they went on, by about 3000 B.C., to develop one of the first great civilisations in world history. Among the major features of this civilisation was the concept of their king as supra-human, a god who could only marry his equally godly sister, and who was the absolute arbiter over the land and all human activities on it, especially perhaps of the times of sowing and harvesting. In these and in many other details, many Negro African kingdoms seem to have had so similar a type of kingship-usually referred to as divine kingship- that it is tempting to conclude, as many good historians still do, that it must have spread throughout Africa form this Egyptian and Hamitic source. Secondly, it could be observed that where, in the savannas of the Sudan with between about 5 and 20 inches average rainfall per year, pastoralists coming out of the Sahara, such as the Tuareg tribes of the Hamitic -speaking Berber peoples, competed for land and water with the Negro agriculturalists, the northerners did have certain qualities which permitted them to infiltrate and defeat the Negros. These qualities were essentially military, for example the mobility afforded by their horses and camels, or the closely knit kinship discipline needed to enable their tribes to survive the hardships of desert life, and they do not permit of any assumption of inherent superiority, either racial or cultural, on the part of the conquerors. In fact the evidence usually suggests that culturally it was the Negroes who were the stronger, and that within a few generations the incomers had been absorbed by the Negroes and adopted their languages and culture in preference to their own. The local West African traditions which attempt to explain the origins of the earliest kingdoms of the western and central Sudan, commonly do so in terms of the arrival of strangers from the north or north-east. In English or in French translation, the invaders are often referred to as white men, though the words which are translated as white might often be better rendered as red. This is perhaps less and indication of skin colour than of a concept of ethnic purity: the founding ancestors are viewed as red men because they are thought of as the purest, truest ancestors of the present-day people. We are thus told that the first kings of Ghana, who were replaced by Negro Soninke kings only after a considerable number of generations, were not Negroes, but white men, who may have been Sanhaja Berbers. One Songhai explanation for the origin of the first of the first dynasty of their kingdom is that it was founded by two brothers said to have come from the Yemen (south-west Arabia). Similarly the kings of Kanem, the Sefawa, thought of themselves as being descended from a family of Yemeni origin, and believed that they did not become wholly Negro until about A.D. 1200. These are not the only examples. The kings of the Hausa states, between Kanem and the Songhai kingdom, which may have come into being about the tenth century, were thought to be the descendants of immigrants from North Africa or the Near East, while the legend of

the foundation of the Mossi and Dagomba kingdoms of the Upper Volta basin south of the Songhai also begins with the coming of a red ancestor form the direction of Mecca. Some commentators would dismiss stories of this kind as being simply inventions by West African Negro royal families and their supporters after their conversion to Islam (at various periods from the eleventh to the fourteenth century or later). When it was obviously advantageous for them to link their ancestry with the great historic centres of Muslim be too simple. The terms in which the legends are expressed are obviously influenced by the spread and later dominance of Islam and its literate culture in the western and central Sudan, but it does seem that, although they must not be taken too literally, they do represent attempts to express essential historical truths. For one thing, stories of this kind are not limited to Muslim dynasties, there is, for example, the remarkable Kisra legend, widely spread, if not today very well remembered, among essentially pagan peoples along the Benue valley and up the Niger to and beyond. The story is of a Persian king, Kisra, who invaded Egypt. Then, with some Nubian (and possibly Christian) followers, he is said to have gone westwards to what is now Nigeria, where he and his followers established the states from which the kingdoms of the Jukun (Keararafa), Nupe, Idah, Borgu and Bussa, and also of some of the Haussa, and far to the south-west- the Yoruba kingdoms were descended. It seems not improbable, too, that the legends of the foundation of the Songhai and the Mossi and Dagomba kingdoms should be linked up with the same basic story. The early stages of the Kisra story do match with known historical events. An army of the Sassanid Persian king, Khusraw (Chosroes) II, did occupy Egypt in A.D. 616. When it was expelled by the Byzantines in A.D. 629, some of its soldiers may well have sheltered and been cut off in the Christian kingdoms which then existed in Nubia on the foundations of an earlier civilisation derived from ancient Egyptian colonisation among Sudanic peoples. These kingdoms, incidentally, had relations with the Yemen, in which Persian armies had also been active. It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that this situation, together with the even more momentous contemporary emergence in Arabia (A.D. 622-32) of the great new world religion of Islam, which quickly expanded into Egypt (A.D. 63941) and then along the North African coastlands, could have set in motion a train of events which could bring important influences form the Nile valley (and, indirectly, from Arabia and even further afield) across the Sudan towards the Chad basin and West Africa. But if so, it would be unrealistic to think in terms of Egyptians, or Nubians, le alone Arabians or Persiand, coming directly to West Africa. The connection with West Africa would be an indirect one, through the agency of the Hamitic and other pastoral nomads of the Sahara, such as the Sanhaja in the west and the Zaghawa in the east, and the ancestors of the present day Tuareg in the centre. Ideas and influences from the great events in the Nile valley, in Arabia and in North Africa , would have been impressed on these people and, as they pressed south-wards into agricultural lands in their search for grazing, would have been passed on to the Negro farmers .
[2]

The Neolithic Revolution in West Africa

But it would be unreasonable to suppose that the corpus of great ideas stemming from ancient Egyptian civilisation and from the Near Eastern lands which gave birth to the great world religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam could have been brought to the West African Negroes in any very purposive from with the desert pastoralists as intermediaries. Culturally, the Negro farmers must have been more advanced and the infiltrating nomads, and capable, as has been suggested, of absorbing them and their ideas into their own society. Before the great events of the period round about the seventh century and afterwards, which may well have brought to West Africa new dynasties of kings and also have formed new political

groupings, the West African Negroes had themselves embarked on the great adventures in human development which are usually termed the Neolithic Revolution. By the Neolithic Revolution is meant the great change by which men, instead of being dependent on the hunting of wild animals and the collection of wild fruits and roots for their sustenance, learnt to domesticate animals and to cultivate plants which they had specially selected as the most suitable sources of food, clothing and other necessities. Hitherto, men could only exist in small bands, roaming over, and competing with other animals for the resources of, large tracts of land. Now, as a result of the Neolithic Revolution, they could be assured regular, better and larger supplies of food from smaller areas. The human population could therefore greatly increase, and it could live in permanent villages on the best land and close by the best water supplies. Basketware and pottery were developed for food storage and transport, and weaving. Building and thatching to provide clothing and houses; stone and bone tools for killing and skinning animals, for catching fish, for sewing, for carpentry, were improved , and, ultimately, were gradually replaced by even better tools of metal, first of copper and bronze, and then of iron and steel. Archaeologists have traced the earliest development of these momentous advances in the history of mankind in lands of the Near and Middle East from about 8000 B.C. or earlier. By about 5000 B.C., the same process was well under way in Egypt. It is not known for certain when the Negroes of West Africa also began to experience the Neolithic Revolution, but the evidence available suggests that cultivation had been established in what is now the southern Sahara (then wetter than now) and the northern Sudan by about 2000 B.C. There is some argument as to whether the idea of cultivation occurred independently to the Negroes, or whether it was borrowed by them form the Nile valley. The latter is more probable, though it must be noted that the favoured cereal crops of Egypt and the Middle East, such as barley and wheat, not suited to the conditions of the Sudan, and the Negro cultivators had to select local wild seed-bearing plants for cultivation and improvement, thus developing the African varieties of sorghum and millet (throughout the Sudan) and of rice (in the upper Niger valley). Not much is yet known with certainty about the progress of the Neolithic Revolution through West Africa. It clearly began in the north, close to the edge of the Sahara desert, because the best environment for the cereal crops was the open savannas, especially when these had permanent supplies of water (which could also be used, through fishing, to supplement the food supply). Thus the Senegal and upper and middle Miger balleys, and the Lake Chad basin were probably important early centres. In and around the Bauchi plateau in what is now Northern Nigeria, archaeologists have demonstrated the existence of a completely developed Neolithic culture, the Nok culture, beginning to turn to the use of iron and also producing fine sculptures, from about 800 B.C. to about A.D. 200. There is much ground for supposing that this culture and its peoples were directly ancestral to the kingdoms and peoples that we can discern in the Nigerian region from about the eleventh century onwards. In its earlier stages, the Neolithic revolution cannot have been effective in the woodlands and the forestlands south of the savannas, for its cereal crops were not well adapted to the woodlands, and could hardly be cultivated at all in the forest. Thus the spread of the Revolution and dense populations that it made possible- south beyond the savannas must have been a slow and gradual process, for the most part along river valleys and gaps in the forest (such as that to the east of the lower Volta, from modern Ghana to Western Nigeria). In course of time, men learnt to cultivate rootcrops which were suitable for cultivation in the forest margins. But the number of African roots suited to development in this way seems to have been
[1]

limited, and few were promising, other than the African varieties of yam (probably first cultivated in the region from modern Ghana to Western Nigeria). The agricultural exploitation on any scale of the forests and their margins had to await the introduction of new tropical crops from south-east Asia and America. The south-east Asian rice and yams, are likely to have arrived, via East Africa, much before about A.D. 1000, and the American foodcrops, including maize and cassava, cannot have appeared until after 1500. The upper Niger and the Senegal valleys and the Chad basin provided conditions for the Neolithic Revolution analogous to the lower Nile valley in Egypt. It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that it may have led to not dissimilar consequences: a considerable growth of population, the beginnings of urbanisation and of organised government and administration, and, even perhaps, the flourishing of the idea of a king as a god-like being supreme over all his subjects, communication on their behalf and for their well-being with the gods and their ancestors, and interpreting to them their will with regard to the possession and use of the land its water supplies, and the sowing and harvesting of the crops. The concept of divine kingship may well have been as implicit in the Negro Neolithic Revolution as it was in that of ancient Egypt. The basic idea need not have been borrowed form Egypt through Nubia, the meeting-place for ancient Egyptian and Negro peoples and ideas. However, if some of the characteristic traits and practices of divine kings among the Negroes do so strongly resemble those of ancient Egypt that some connection is thought essential, it may well lie, in the activities of the Saharan pastoralists form about the seventh century onwards. In touch both with Nubian and with Negro West African cultures, they could well have provided the agency by which traits and rituals of kingship as originally practised in ancient Egypt could have been grafted on to basically indigenous Negro concepts. Something that very probably did pass into Negro Africa from Nubia was the knowledge and practice of making tools and weapons of iron. Iron ore is a far less obvious and easy material from which to make metal than many other ores, for example, copper ore, though it is much more plentiful, and the implements which can be made form it are more efficient and durable, and also cheaper, than those made form copper and bronze, which were normally the metals first used for toolmaking. Negro Africa is exceptional in this respect, since here men passed form the Stone Age into the Iron Age without a transition period of copper and bronze tool-making. Knowledge of iron-making first entered Africa from the Near East, where it had been discovered in the second millennium B.C., with the Assyrian conquest of Egypt in the seventh century. Egypt, however, possessed neither good supplies of iron ore nor of the timber needed to fire the furnaces to smelt it, and the first considerable iron-making industry in Africa was in ancient Nubia, which had both. It is doubtful, however, where Nubia was the only dispersal point form which iron-making spread further into Africa. It seems more reasonable to suppose that, for the westernmost Sudan, knowledge of iron-working may have come in over the trans-Saharan trade routes form North Africa, where the Carthaginians were quickly aware of the value of the metal. The developments associated with the Neolithic Revolution suggest that we should look for the earliest West African kingdoms of consequence in well-watered lands like the valleys of the Senegal and upper Niger, or the basin of Lake Chad. In fact the earliest kingdoms that are known to history, ancient Ghana and Kanem, for example, were situated not in the most favourable agricultural lands, but just to the north of them, in the zone where agriculture was giving way to desert pastoralism. It could well be, of course, that there were other, perhaps less extensive but as significant kingdoms to the south of Ghana and Kanem which we do not know about, because our main source of information for the early kingdoms comes form the Arabic writings of men who approached Negroland form the north and who did not penetrate far into it. Perhaps al-

Yaqubis mysteriously early Mallel was one of these. Nevertheless, the fact that, of the early kingdoms, Ghana and Kanem were so far to the north does suggest the importance in early West African history of the third potentially state-forming influence that has been mentioned, namely trans-Saharan trade.

Trans-Saharan trade and its influence

Exactly when men began to travel to and fro, and to trade across the Sahara is not known, and may well never be known, because it probably derives form the period, corresponding to the last Ice Age in Europe, when the climate was appreciably wetter, and the Sahara was not desert but grassland on which both Hamites and Negroes hunted game and, later, pastured their herds. As the Sahara began to dry up, noticeably by about 3000 B.C., the Hamites seem to have withdrawn towards their main centres of population in the north and in the lower Nile valley, and the Negroes similarly towards the south. But contact would still be maintained through the practice, especially by the Hamitic pastoralists, of transhumance. This (from the point of view of the northern edge of the Sahara) was the moving of their herds southwards with the winter rains, and northwards in the summer. The Hamitic northerners in fact became the dominant pastoralists of the desert since they had direct across to supplies of, first, horses, and then camels both, in their modern forms, introductions into Africa from Asia (the sores about 1700 B.C., and the camel around the beginning of the Christian era). Neither animal, the horse especially, does well in West Africa, and stocks have to be renewed by periodical importations form across the desert. Thus the Hamites had both increased mobility for themselves, and the ability to deny it to the Negroes.

Herodotus, writing about 450 B.C., speaks of the Garamantes, that is the people of the oasis of Djerma in the Fezzan (who in modern terms would be accounted Tuareg), raiding the Ethiopians, i.e. black-skinned peoples, across the Sahara in two-wheeled chariots each drawn by four horses. About 400 years later, another great early geographer, Strabo, says much the same of the Pharusii of the western Sahara, who may perhaps be equated with ancestors of the Sanhaja. There are other accounts form Herodotus and other ancient Greek and Roman sources of other journeys into or across the Sahara from North Africa, and there can be little doubt that its cities did receive, through the hands of the desert tribes like the Garamantes, exports from West Africa, including the mysterious precious stones called carbuncles, and almost certainly gold-dust and slaves. The Carthaginians, the great maritime trading people of Syrian origin who dominated the coastlands of North Africa for seven or more centuries until their conquest by Rome in 146 B.C., certainly seem to have traded for gold, through dumb barter, on the Atlantic coast south of Morocco, and this gold could only have come form West Africa. In the story of Hannos great expedition about 420 B.C., we seem to have a record of a deliberate attempt to open up regular sea trade with West Africa, and to establish Carthaginian trading colonies as far south as possible. How far Hannos ships actually went is a matter of considerable though it is perhaps unlikely that he was able to prospect as far as the Cameroons or even, indeed, as far as Sierra Leone (as some scholars would suppose). But however far he explored, it seems certain that his expedition could and did not succeed in opening up a regular sea trade with Negroland. The arid and waterless Sahara coastline, and the combination along it of northerly winds and currents would have made it impossible for Carthaginian galleys, propelled mainly by the oars of their crew, who were accustomed to spending each night on land, to have established regular voyages to West Africa and back again. Certainly there is no evidence for Carthaginian trading colonies further south than southern Morocco. The chariots of the Garamantes and Pharusii Pharusii were very light fighting vehicles, unsuitable for carrying trade goods, but it is a point of considerable interest that Herodotuss and Strabos accounts of their activities have been confirmed and given added point by the discovery on rocks in the Sahara of some hundreds of crude drawings or engravings of twowheeled vehicles each drawn by four horses. The most significant aspect of these drawings is that they are almost all distributed along only two routes across the Sahara, a western one running form southern Morocco towards the upper Niger, and a central one running form the Fezzan to the eastern side of the Niger bend. The explanation of this must be twofold. In the first place, these are routes which offer good hard-going to wheeled vehicles (later, of course, to horses alone
[2]

and to

donkeys and camels- and, in modern times, to motor cars). Secondly, they either lead more or less directly towards the alluvial gold deposits of the upper Niger and Senegal valleys, a region which the Arabs came to call Wangara, or to the nearest point to North Africa on the River Niger, which affords a natural line of communication to these same gold resources. The emergence of the important state of Ghana, astride the frontiers between Negroland and the desert just north of the agricultural and gold-bearing lands of the upper Niger and Senegal rivers. Can thus be explained, at least in part, in terms of economic interest. North Africans and the desert pastoralists who conducted their trade for them wanted gold and agricultural products which the Negroes could offer, and in return they could provide metals and merchandise, and the all important salt, which the Negroes needed. If a particular group (or some mixture of both) could establish a strong political unit across the line of communication to the Negro miners and farmers and from selling the latters produce to the northern traders, and the taxes they could levy on the trade, would make them wealthier, and so their state could grow and prosper at their expense.

Equally, of course, the larger the states and the more effective their governments, the greater the security for traders, so that trade could further expand and prosper. Similarly, but less clearly perhaps, the emergence of Kanem, north of the agricultural lands around Lake Chad and seeking to expand northwards towards the caravan centres of the Fezzan, may have been another, albeit less spectacular, response to a comparable but weaker (because gold-less) commercial stimulus. Equally, the early importance of the Songhai kingdom on the eastern side of the Niger bend may be explained to some extent by the fact that this was where the trade route form the Fezzan towards the goldfields of Wangara first entered the Sudan of the Negroes.

Foreword
When in 1949 I was lucky enough to become one of the first teachers of history in what is today the University of Ghana, it quickly became apparent to me that the students then entering this African university were by and large apt to much better informed about the histories of Britain and of western Europe than they were about the history of Africa. I was eventually urged to try and do something to help redress this unnatural balance and the result was An Introduction to the History of West Africa, written for the most part in 1952-3, and first published in 1955. This little book must have served some purpose, since six reprints were called for in the next ten years. In some of these, it was possible to incorporate corrections, changes and additions. But a demand for yet another printing convinced me that it was no longer possible to continue redecorating the fabric of a book which was planned some sixteen years ago: redevelopment, demolition and reconstruction on a considerable scale, had become urgently necessary. In the early 1950s when, except for Liberia, all West Africa was under European control, and only a percipient few had realized how quickly its colonial territories would become completely independent, it seemed permissible, advisable even, to make the growth of European influence in West Africa one of the principal themes of the book. In fact there was little real alternative because so little serious research into indigenous West African History had been done or published. Dr Dikes Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta and Dr Biobakus The Egba and their Neighbours were still at best only on their publishers horizon; the young West African universities had not had time to fashion the schools of historical research which are among their most notable achievements; the teachers of history and the research students in the universities of Europe and America who were concerned with African history could be counted only in ones and tow instead of by the score, as they are today; no international conference on the history of Africa had yet been held, and there were no journals specifically devoted to its study and furtherance. The last fifteen or sixteen years, however, have seen what can only be described as a revolution in the scale and scope of serious research into the history of Africa. It is true that very much more still needs to be done than has been done, and that as many or more questions have been asked than answers have been agreed, but the questions are being asked, and there are now the scholars and the sense of purpose to enable them to be answered. Europe has already been accomplished to make it possible and necessary to treat the history of West Africa with the same broad sense of internal continuity that historians take for granted when they write the history of most other parts of the world. Moreover, there are now plenty of students studying West African history at all levels who demand that this should be done. It has therefore seemed essential that whole sections and chapters of the original introduction should be scrapped, and new material added in which an attempt has been made to place the African side of the story in a proper perspective. The first

three chapters of the present work are entirely new, replacing the first two of the original with an attempt to establish the main themes of West African historical development up to about the sixteenth century. The original chapter 5 has been replaced by two new chapters, 6 and 7, the first looking at the relationship between the Atlantic slave trade and economic change in West Africa, in part on the basis of new evidence, and the second examining contemporary political developments in lower Guinea. Chapter to, dealing with some West African states in the nineteenth century, is also new, and has no real counterpart in the original book. The remaining seven chapters bear the same or similar titles to chapters of he original book in its enlarged, 1962 edition. If these chapters have not been completely re-written, it is in part because of pressures of time, in part because in recent years the author has become less interested in the external and colonial history with which they are largely concerned, and so less confident that he can reshape them in the light of recent research. Nevertheless each has been looked at critically, all have had changes made in them, and in some cases the amount of re-writing or of new material is considerable -perhaps a quarter of each of chapters 4, 5 and 13, for example. The result is a somewhat longer book, which I hope will be thought to be better balanced and more useful that the Introduction, and of which substantially more than half is new. To avoid confusion with the original form which it has been developed, it seems best to present it under a different title. In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge my great debt to the many individuals with whom I have talked West African history over the years, and notably the new generation of African-born scholars I have been fortunate enough to meet with in universities in West Africa and elsewhere. Many of these people may recognise ideas of their own which I have taken up- I would hope without too much distortion. I owe especial debts of gratitude to Professor Philip D. Curtin, of the University of Wisconsin, for allowing me to make use of some of his work on the Atlantic slave trade before it has been published, and for personally guiding me through its statistical difficulties; to Dr Peter Mitchell and Mr John R. Willis, of my own University of Birmingham, who have done their best to correct the naivete of my approaches to some of the problems touched on in chapters 6 and 10 in which they are very much at home; and to Professor Roland Oliver, of the University of London, who was kind enough to spare time to read and comment on the proofs. Finally I would like to thank the University of Birmingham, which gave me a terms study leaves; Miss L.M.P. Scarborough, who did most of typing; and, by no means least, my wife, who has lived through the strains of composition. 1) 2) 3) J.D.F Centre of West African Studies University of Birmingham

A note concerning monetary values

From time to time in this school, monetary terms are used to express volumes of trade, government revenues, development programmes and the like. These are given in sterling. It is important to appreciate that the (real) value of these s is not that ruling at the time the book was written, but those ruling at the periods referred to (e.g., on p.59, the figure of 100000 for the annual value of the Portuguese gold trade on the Gold Coast in the early sixteenth century represents sixteenth century s, wquivalent values are also given in U.S $. The convcersins are made at retes appropriate to the periods

referred to, a nominal $4.0 for all times previous to the ewentieth century, and thereafter as follows: up to 1939, $4.8 to I; 1940-49, $4.0 to I; and 1950-68, $2.8 to I.

[1]

Neolithic age means New Stone Age, since from the point of view of tools, polished stone tools came to replace

stone tools made by chipping and flaking. The term Neolithic Revolution, with its very much wider implications, is due to the archaeologist Gordon Childe.
[2]

It should be appreciated that men learnt to harness horse to vehicles before they learnt how to ride them. The name Guinea comes form a Moroccan Berber word meaning black, the phrase Akal n-Iguinawen having

[1]

exactly the same significance as the Arabic Bilad al-Sudan, namely, the land of the black men. It is applied to the southern half of West Africa because it was the name used by the Portuguese who explored the coastline by sea. Earlier Portuguese contacts with Africa having been almost entirely with Morocco, they naturally took with them the Moroccan name for Negroland.
[2]

This could well explain why some modern observers have thought that they could detect residual traits of

Christianity, not only among the Tuareg, but even, for example, among the people of Nupe.

American Civilisation
The program
The First World War America in 1920 The walls street crash and the great depression Franklin Delano Roosevelt Harry Truman and the courage though policy

World War I
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand[1]:
There were competitions between empires over weapons, power, and colonies, so the cause was the race. The cause was not only the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, but also race to armaments. There was a fight between two families and the third one is the USA. This last was neutral, which mean that US army would not side any fighter.

The proclamation of neutrality

USA leaders said: we dont alter rules, to be neutral in speech, thought, and action (dont interfere or youre no longer neutral). For almost 3 years the president Woodrow Wilson kept America out of World War I, he said that USA is a neutral power.

it is not the first time that USA has been neutral, such proclaim was known in the period of Washington to avoid the dividing of USA into two countries, because they consider the war in USA as European War, and to avoid war in USA. In World War I there were two kinds of alliances: Triple entente: France, GB, Russia. Triple alliance: Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Italy

The president of the USA is the chief executive. Now, he hasnt the right to wage war or to issue a declaration of war, he is the commander chief of the USA Army, but he still has a less power. Why the president asked his people to be neutral? Because Americans are a mixture of population: Americans of British descent will side with entente, they would side the entente. American of Germany descent alliance, so they would side the alliance. Anti-British Irish Americans: will side the alliance.

Why Anti-British Irish Americans would side the alliance? Because they were trying to get separation from GB (Scotland, England, Ireland), (protestants and Catholics), all wanted the independent. They constituted a political branch. They wanted to have independent. They hated the GB too because their land in USA was controlled by the British Lord. They escaped in 1814 because of missionary of the Irish people. The Irish people in the streets became dogs & rates feeding, and this is the reality. French people asked Wilson to side and interfere by helping the entente. Why? They said: remember la Fayette which was their slogan, because they thought that he would help them. The president has announced to the proclamation of neutrality in order to that war in Europe will be brake out in USA, and because of the mixed population or the ethic ties. This proclamation of neutrality was collided with three realities (causes): Ethnic ties: USA is a mixture of population, it is a meeting pot.

Economic ties: USA had ties with Germany and GB, and by making neutral, businessmen will not sell to both sides. It is a restriction output. Administration: Wilson had administration of British descent, so he had not said that he is neutral, but he said if we keep neutral our business will have problems. Which economic problems? The US would suffer from: 1. The USA should suffer from restriction of output (will be restricted, so no production, restriction of output). 2. 3. 4. 5. Industrial depression (without production factories dont work and will be depressed and idle. The capital will be idle and lazy. Idle labour (unemployment) Numerous failures

6. 7. 8.

Financial demoralization General unrest Suffering among the labouring classes.

It is not easy to keep self-neutral, the president did his best to keep his county out of war, thanks to Wilson Americans didnt interfere in war which was not easy. He was for warning and not for war. He wanted an ideal world. His ideas are called Wilsonianism. His ideal world was to opening in every sense of the world: The world was to be open in every way.

No barriers to commerce, both import and export (the Globalisation now), without having duties. No secret diplomatic deals: dont have one country that deals with the second secretly in the eager of the third one. Empires were to be opened with the principle of self-determination (the colonized determine their freedom or not). Reducing the armaments.

The first who went to USA to fight sided to USA were the French in 17 th century and they were volunteers. It was La Fayette, they wanted to be independent, and now in France we find more than 40 towns under the name of La Fayette. After the WWI there were victims, deaths, destroyed companies. After all these damages we arrive to peace, and the sun rising. So why not have peace keeping body in order to avoid all that, whose job is to keep peace and solve problems between nations, so we will call it The League of Nations[2]. League of Nation was Wilsons ideas for peace keeping body. These ideas were 14. It is why Americans re-elected him as president for the second time; he kept them out of war.

The proalliance sympathies:

When Wilson issued proclamation of neutrality his advisors said to him: USA should not remain neutral; if you keep neutral, there will be problems, if not, so sell to Great Britain and Germany. Wilson until 1917 did not want to interfere, which was the big question, but why? Some historians said he didnt want to interfere because it was Wilsons policy. That when all countries get tired, the USA interferes for its benefits. The war didnt take place in USA; they succeeded to make their country safe in this insane world. USA became the world power because Europe was destroyed and USA succeeded to manufacture weapons... etc, and sell all its merchandise to Europe. So Europe suffered politically, economically and militarily, it needed money and time to be in the stand foot of USA. This is why USA became the world power.

USA interfered in First World War:

Two main causes pushed USA to interfere:

The question of Lusitania:

When fighting fakes place, there were two ships, the 1 st ship wanted to destroy the 2nd, so they warned the crowd, and passengers disembark before they sink them. This is international law in order to save people and armament. The British liner took passengers from New York to United Kingdom. German who succeeded to make weapon and hard submarines destroyed the ship, so there were 1198 passenger, among them 128 Americans. Wilson was angry and said: the sinking was a brutal attack on innocent people. Why Germans didnt warn the ship? They cut war, if the German did not warn them, they would radio, and another ship will destroy the submarine. The ship was carrying food stuff and weapons; it was carrying contraband and 4.2 million implements of war. These people are innocent, but they were carrying something illegal (supply and weapons). Zimmermann telegram: he foreign minister of Germany sent a message to his counterpart of Mexico, he asked to help him for recovering their territories which were taken by USA, but the British succeeded to intercept the message (!makanch menha!) and handed it to Wilson, he read it to congress to take a permission to declare war or to get green light from the USA congress which was hated from his bank to interfere. Why need the agreement of the congress? Because it should make peace or declare war, when the war broke down, there were antiwar feelings; the war will drain the county resources and it will violate the Christian morality. USA will lose its youth, and it will lose repressive spirit at home, so they said that the war is self-sewing of Europeans. The once who benefited from this war were Arms Manufactures. The They were 2 millions American people went to fight in Europe, they were soldiers very poorly educated in their 20 th age and homeless because they expected that ....

From settlement to powerful country

Wilson wanted to make the United Nations to be a league of nations. The best solution to avoid this war according to Wilson is that all these countries must live in peaceful manner, to have peace keeping body. As a result: Britain, Italy and France sent prime ministers to talk about problems and their solutions. With regard to USA instead of having prime minister, Wilson himself went to France attending the discussion; he submitted the treaty to his country to come to League of Nations, since America after the war succeeded to be a power economically. The senates refused to ratify this treaty because they said that Europeans sent prime ministers instead of secretaries of states. They took Democrats even the Democrats took with him. Democrats took one Republican who was retired. The congress is controlled by Democrats, so the president Wilson needed the approval of the senates which was controlled by Republicans. Who had shouldered the guilt? After the war, all the colonies accused Germany of being behind the WWI. They obliged it to pay for the war damages that had taken place. The state is nothing but a big family, Thomas Hopes said when a member family fought because of causing neutral they decided to sacrifice their children. They noticed that their children died in vain. Thus, they decided to stop fighting because they resumed the same situation of hatred, jealousy and horrible manner. This is why they decided to isolate themselves and to be selfdetermination. They wouldnt repeat the same mistake; it is better to remain isolated.

Were women equal to men?

From 1920s to 1930s is the period of change in which the American started to produce food and manufactured weapons. They invented new habits; there were changes in work and family responsibilities. There was an evolution in their way of thinking and living. In 1929, there were events of crashes, the girl Gertrude Ederle [3] became the first woman to swim across the English Channel (39 miles). Only 5 men just succeeded to cross the channel that time. She broke the dogma of inferiority and proved that women are equal to men. It was a battle for feminism. There were division of peoples, some who sided with her, they said yes women have always the same foot of men, but the other disagreed with her, they didnt push her to think that women are equal to men. Who marked the change? What were the causes of changes? One cause behind the change was the emergence of Republican Administration until the collapse in 1930, which was the period of isolation, a very striking period. There were three presidents or three republicans: Harding[4], Coolidge[5] and Hoover[6]. All of them were from the right; they would automatically side and support businessmen and wealthy individuals by reducing taxes and increasing tariffs. The primary aim of the government is to make money in order to protect the local economy, in other words, the business of the government was the government of the business. So, they interested about trade commission and commerce commission more, than they regulated them. All their interest became the money. They compared church to economic company; the American society became more materialistic and individualistic. What mattered at that time is money, whereas mankind was redeemed by business. So, this new ideology derived the corruption in the country because the republican administration became corrupted.

[1]ustrian declaration of war against Serbia which triggered World War I. [2] The League of Nations was an international organization founded after the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. The League's goals included disarmament,
preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation diplomacy and improving global welfare. The diplomatic philosophy behind the League represented a fundamental shift in thought from the preceding hundred years. The League lacked an armed force of its own and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, keep to economic sanctions which the League ordered, or provide an Army, when needed, for the League to use. However, it was often very reluctant to do so.

[3] Gertrude Caroline Ederle (October 23, 1906 November 30, 2003) was an American competitive swimmer. In 1926, she became the first woman to
swim across the English Channel. Gertrude was the daughter of a German immigrant who ran a delicatessen on Amsterdam Avenue in Manhattan. She was known as Trudy as a youth; her father gave her permission to bob her hair if she expressed an interest in swimming. She trained at the Men's Swimming Association which produced such competitors as Eleanor Holm and Esther Williams. She joined the club when she was only thirteen. From this time Gertrude began to break and establish more amateur records than any other woman in the world.

[4] Warren Gamaliel Harding (1865-1923), 29th president of the United States (1921-23).

[5] Calvin Coolidge (1923-29), 30th president of the United States (1923-29). [6] Herbert Hoover (1874-1964), 31st president of the United States (1929-33

Labour Union
Is a union which defends workers rights. Its aim is asking for higher salaries and wages (at the end of the week), the equality between men and women. As it is said, that the 1920s was a period of change. What led to change? The first cause is the coming of republican administration which used to help businessmen and wealthy people, even by judiciary branch which had declared laws against Labour Union when ever they made to stop demonstration and strike each time by which they asked for their demands like the equality between men and women. Nevertheless, they were still working with less salaries even if they had the same jobs with men so, the court which was supposed to defend the right of population without paying attention to who was who. Also, businessmen sided with government and imposed laws against the Labour Unions. On the other words, it made three decisions against workers: TAET: the chief of justice ruled in Coronado Company. The United Workers was a striking union, which prosecuted workers for illegal restrained of trade, i.e. they said to the Labour Union that what they were doing was illegal since they went on strike and stopped trade, and they would be sent to jail while court was with government.

A Baily vs Ettresel furniture company which voiced restriction on child labour, i.e. children were obliged to work to survive instead of going to school. In such a capitalism county for the benefits of the businessmen. There were different causes of changes which marked the 1920s. The second cause is the advance in science and technology, the labour were run with electricity which was the more helpful for the houses and companies to have more output with less expensive and more efficient which gave new aspects to the American society. Especially, the people started to identify themselves as heroes, social values had the tendency to vanish. They started spending their time in smoking, makeup short dresses, alcohol, giving more importance to expression, the line between inappropriate and acceptable was broken all these latter are relations of changes. The third cause was assembling line which was moving thanks to electricity. Instead of preparing a car in one month, they had made it by Ford in fast time (in 90 minutes). But the problem there was finding customers who buy cars or the society would collapse, and constructors would find themselves in axes. So, they brought it by the time payment, not by caches, i.e. customers paid by credit. So, the country became collapsed because of loss of value, the money was in hand of minority, it became too permissive, financial and economical collapse (crash and crisis). However, the country became materialistic and individualistic. Many people suffered from these changes but the money benefited from it.

The reaction of these changes:

Ku Klux Klan (KKK)[1]: i.e. United States Organisation and racism, there were two Klans. Both of them were organised. The first one was known as the invisible empire. It was fighting the black people. They refused the Blacks right to vote, they believed that only those of British descents have the right to vote. This Klan was disappeared. The second Klan: emerged in 1920s, negatively, attacked Afro-American and other categories as wife beaters, adulteress, ruiners girls promise of marriage (girl ruiners), those who brought drugs, Catholics, Jewish political candidates. This Klan was successful because if fought gamblers and the country had to be native for natives (for white skin, protestant). This was their slogan. The aim of this Klan was that the Blacks have the right to do whatever they want like whites.

They want to abolish the white supremacy. For them, there is no free conscience. Since, there is a middle man between them and God. Their conscience can be free. They can not think that the 2nd Klan was a group which was ready to kill in order to get its objects. This Klan brought positive things, where some negative things: 1. the case of fighting Blacks because of the colour of their skin (Racism). They were against gambling and at the same time, they were gambling. The 1st Klan appeared after the brothers war (war of secession 1865). It was in Africa in the 15thC. In 1445 a black man and a woman were taken to Portugal, which was the beginning of slaves trade. 3 million people had been taken form Africa to south USA to work in cotton and tobacco. Slaves were taken to the south because the northern were puritans. While the south considered the slaves as personal properties. 1st Klan worked to prevent the Afro-Americans to vote to the republicans. In 1808 there was the claim of stopping slavery, but they still brought slaves illegally. After, they voted for republicans party because it gives them their freedom. In the era of 1920s, the Americans could do whatever they wanted via legal and illegal ways, they became criminals, and there was a lost of values, prohibitionetc. with the advance of science and technology, the existence of God was put into question, since there was an advance which led to the emergence of a number of reaction: it was form 3 categories of people. The KKK The fundamentalists: it is a group of religious people who were for literal interpretation of the bible (no need to ask for the creation of Adam and Eve). Scientists proclaimed that 15 million years ago there were 2 gazes, when the temperature reached so billion degree, these 2 gazes exploded. This huge explosion called the Big Bang, and it gave birth to new gazes. Dust of metals which gave a birth to the universe. Besides, there was the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. He asserted that human beings evolved form apes to something more sophisticated (human beings). The fundamentalists reproached that Darwin theory is trying to murder God. They passed a lay which forbade public schools and instructors to teach this theory of evolution. Immigration Restriction: i.e. put a limit to immigration, the American didnt want immigrant people in their county; they saw them as thieves who came to the USA to take their land and their women and stole their rights. For those people, USA was as a land of dreams. The Americans gave to all who want to immigrate to their country an example to think twice before coming to USA. The two 2 Italian ( Necole Sacco and Balhalomew Vanzeth) people came to USA, police kept them and hung them after taking them to jail. Why? Because the Americans accused them of killing a guard and a pay master. In fact, their mistake was that they were Italians, and they brought with them Anarchists. The judge considered them as anarchists dastards; by this act the American government threatened all who wanted to immigrate to USA. The government established a system of quotas in 1921 (a member of people), allowing Italian people to go to America in order to have less reduced number of immigrants. So the Americans limited the immigration in order to prevent mixture cultures. The 1920s was an era of 2 cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot. But Americans moved from the era of prosperity to the era of poverty amidst plenty. I.e. Americans were poor, they hadnt too much food and stuffs, so they suffered, and they underwent poverty. Americans were tramps.
Share:

if you want to set a company, you have to buy shares in order to make profits. But to buy shares you should have a capital. Since all that was private,

and was not granted by the government, these shares became just sheets of paper.
Bond: Crash:

in the opposite of shares, bond are always benefits (J ) and are granted by the government, so the owner never bankrupt. in 1920s era, the government withdrew and business moved, i.e. a less control by government. It was 1 car in 2 seconds, so Americans needed who

buy these cars, or exports them. In other side, USA became that time isolated and Europeans didnt want buying, and they werent able to do. So USA had an excess. and companies released workers who are also consumers. Gradually and slowly these companies shut, and it was the chain reaction. Women succeeded to work because their jobs were teaching and nursing, while men became jobless. Most Americans felt shame, so they started criticizing government and proclaiming that women should strive as wives and good mothers at homes, and they said that God made males to win bread for their families.

This criticizing was not justified, because: Majority of women who are working were single, they even supporting themselves or their families. The jobs of women were considered as feminized jobs. They took steps against single women; they prevented women to marry, because they would be occupied with children. And women force pregnant at 3 months, she will be paid and they will pay other workers who replaced the pregnant women. M ARCUS GARVEY [2] made a separation between white and blacks: 1st taking Afro-Americans to Africa. 2nd staying in nation 3rd people are in one nation together. Poverty amidst plenty was an era in 1920s, the crash was the problem and depression was consequence in this era. The wealth of the nation was in the hand of the few. They found themselves with an excess. Instead of paying two teachers, the government paid one, so there was an increase in classes, because they release number of teachers. Also, they closed the Art and Music branches. Intellectually, they had been taught to rely on themselves, the raise of philosophy of self help and work hard. America has become only nation in the world in which you go poor horse in a car. Americans ask charity, they wore rugs because they had too much cotton wool, industries etc. they found themselves hungry, they felt themselves easily victims to disease of poor. In order to not starve, they had to find solutions like looking for bits of food which is found in garbage, what could be given to dogs was given to human. They also ate grass, and they committed suicides.

Economic Crash of 1929 in America

The crash of 1929 continued to be a fascinating example of panic in high finance and was still a staple of economics 101. The event involved all people, big and little, rich and poor, young and old, everyone. In 1929, even in 1928 the warnings of an economic disaster were heeded by some of the Wall Street denizens. It seemed clear that everyone involved in the speculative boom of the late twenties knew that eventually stocks would drop. There was at that moment a business of making money.

The Great Depression:

The Great Depression was an economic downturn which started in 1929 and lasted through most of the 1930s. It cantered in North America and Europe, but bad devastating the 1930 effects around the world, particularly in industrialised countries and producers of raw materials. As a consequence, there was unemployment and homelessness soared. Construction was virtually halted in many countries, farmers and rural areas suffered as prices for crops fell by 40-60%, the Great Depression ended at different times in different countries.

Causes of the Great Depression:

The question that was asked was: how to avoid a future depression? There are multiple issues. What set off the first downturn in 1929, what were the structural weaknesses and specific events that turned it into a major depression, and how did the downturn spread from country to country.

Some peoples believed that the Wall Street Crash of 1929 was an immediate cause triggering the Great Depression. Historians today see it as the first symptom of economy that had already collapsed. Moreover, the debts became heavier, because prices and incomes fell 20-50% but the debts remained at the same dollar amount. Banks became more conservative. In lending, they built up their capital reserves. Wall Street was a very busy place, as were markets of world wide.

Effects and impacts of the event:

Australia had dependence on agricultural and industrial exports that was one of the hardest-hit countries in the western world. Canada and Germany placed massive downward pressures on wages. Canada is sometimes considered to be the country hardest hit by the Great depression. There were a depression in East Asia, France, Latin America and South Africa.

Responses and reactions in United States:

Secretary of the treasury Andrew Mellon advised the president Hoover that a shock treatment would be the best response. Liquidate labour, liquidate stocks, and liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life, values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wretches from less competent people but Hoover rejected this advice.

New deal in the United States:

From 1933, the president Roosevelt argued restricting of the economy. A reform would be needed to prevent another depression or prolong the current. New Deal programs sought to stimulate demand and provide work and relief the impoverished through increased government spending by: Reforming the financial system, especially the banks, and Wall Street. The securities act of 1933 comprehensively regulated the securities industry. Encouraging unions that would raise wages, to increase the purchasing power of the working class. When you set up a small business, youve got two possibilities: either youve money or your people tend you if you dont have. People give money and expect something else for him to make profit and expend a company. Weve shares are limited (sheets of papers with signature, money, name of company, price), the leaders of the company needs money to expend their company. Schemers play an important role in business, and theyre even deliberate out of reality. Bond is a share in which we find the name of company. Here, instead of having a share of profit. Here, the company is obliged to give me back my capital + interest. Sometimes they need people to consume and here the interest will increase and encourage you to lose money instead of expending it.

Wall Street Crash:

Is an economic and financial crisis, where the value of shares decreased and they collapsed. The crash was of stocked exchange. The collapse of the marks and those bonds. What was the outcome? Since they couldnt sell they are going to shut their companies because they didnt receive salaries, they couldnt consume, and they had a depression. Men started criticizing women, at first, the criticism was not justified, they call it feminise jobs, gradually and slowly women started losing their jobs because of depression.

Instead of becoming active coordinators, businessmen became passive coordinators. In fact of the guarantee, they collapsed. Gut let the business way, whatever they want, it interferes and the economy becomes active. Businessmen in one side and socialists in other side. A state regulating in 1st one fails and there was a collapse, they do whatever they want. In the 2nd there was also a collapse. Government forgets its role as an active coordinator and it becomes passive coordinator. No salaries, no capacity to pay, they fall under illnesses, and people were ousted. They built slums, they were whole families in a degradation, crimes, diseases, and prostitution. They ate dogs and biscuits. So, they became hungry and cold. People who had plenty over night found themselves with nothing, not because they didnt have before yet, it was because they had a lot at a given moment. Shares changed hands on the New York, sock exchange a record. October 1928/1929 the volume was huge, over 9250000 shares treated. The losses were great as well.

The main reasons of Wall Street Crash

Self-seekers: every side wanted to have their own profits from the reinvestment of their money. Excess of production Lack of generosity: they didnt put money in its suitable place and put it in the hand of the few. The government played the role as being active coordinators instead of being passive coordinators.

Consequences:
The state had to fight for solutions, before the companies go bankrupt; they decreased the number of workers in companies and open the door for feminised work, so men became jobless. The Americans suffered diseases. Thus, they gathered in one flat, after that they built slums. The Americans understood the lesson because Gut was relied on businessmen; the control was in the hand of businessmen. There was an emergence of many movies which were the reflexion of their bitter reality that they lived, e.g. Dracula, King Kong, and Frankenstein. This was a reflexion of the capitalist system which absorbed the blood of the workers.

Categories which suffered from the crisis:

Afro-Americans: the first to be hired the last to be fired. The Indians also suffered because they were no much for the whites, they were bulled and tortured. They starved them for the pleasure of killing. After that, they put them in reservation. The farmers suffered also since there was an excess and the prices decreased. The margin of profits decreased because they produce a lot without selling.

The New Deal

The new deal was a sooner solution to escape from the problems and the bad situation.

In reality they had the first deal 1932/1935 to get rid from the depression, because they got fed up for a new administration which was democratic. This was the one of Roosevelt Franklin, who came from a rich family but he was for the poor, this he was criticized as being betrayed his class, he said the only thing we should not fear is fear itself.

The Principle of the Deal:

Relief: he tried to give relief to the poor people to fill the empty bowls with the soup and give them shelter. Recovery: they tried to recover everything and gave the rights to the workers to join the union. Reform: he was for unbridled capitalism (he was not against capitalism, but he was against the unbridled and also against the laissez-faire policy.

Features of the New Deal:

Sheers in numbers of laws. Hundred of laws had been made in order to get rid from the depression. Experimental spirit of law; the congress made laws and if it didnt work theyll change them by making an experiment.

The criticism which was behind the New Deal:

Why the right criticized Roosevelts New Deal? The right said that he betrayed his class though he came from the rich family, and he sided the poor. The left also criticized Roosevelt; they said that he didnt put the end of capitalist system. They were still making exploitation of man by man: your reform didnt go far. Roosevelts role is to execute laws but he went beyond the limits. The Supreme Court refused the laws because it was unconstitutional.

The Cold War

Russia (USSR) wanted to spread its ideology (communism), in other side, the USA wanted to spread its ideology too (capitalism), harry Truman get through policy in order to show that US is a powerful country and it came to stop babying of Soviet Union. Marshal plan: this plan was submitted to both: east and west, but USSR refused because it smelt capitalism. The NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) served as a shield against the aggression of reds (Russians) and of any foreign aggression.

[1]

Ku Klux Klan (KKK) Either of two racist terrorist organizations in the U.S. The first was organized by veterans of the Confederate army, first as a

social club and then as a secret means of resisting Reconstruction and restoring white domination over newly enfranchised blacks. Dressed in white robes and sheets, Klansmen whipped and killed freedmen and their white supporters in nighttimes raids. It had largely accomplished its goals by the 1870s before gradually fading away. The second KKK arose in 1915, partly out of nostalgia for the Old South and partly out of fear of the rise of communism in Russia and the changing ethnic character of U.S. society. It counted Catholics, Jews, foreigners, and labour unions among its enemies. Its membership peaked in the 1920s at more than four million, but during the Great Depression the organization gradually declined. It became active again during the

civil rights movement of the 1960s, attacking blacks and white civil rights workers with bombings, whippings, and shootings. By the end of the 20th century, growing racial tolerance had reduced its numbers to a few thousand. Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) United States black nationalist and leader, founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association

[2]

British Civilisation
A shortened history of England
Boer War to the War of 1914-18. The last Liberal Ministry
The close of the Nineteenth Century, the South African War, and the death of the Queen and of Lord Salisbury, coincided so nearly in time as to mark the end of an epoch. The Victorian age had been a long period of ever-increasing prosperity at home, of gradual uninterrupted, pacific transition from the old to the new society and of peace and security for Britain in her most important foreign relationships. But the first two decades of the new century involved the world in the greatest catastrophe of modern times, and even before that catastrophe had taken place, the relations of nations, races, and classes had taken on a hard and hostile aspect. Mans power over nature far outstripped his moral and mental development. In a single generation came the motor-car, wireless telegraphy, and the conquests of the air and the world under the sea. Such inventions, and the application on a colossal scale of older processes of stream and electricity, were perpetually transmuting the economic, social, and international fabric before it had time to solidify; speed and mechanism destroyed the older habits of life and thought in our island, and began the suburbanization of the rural landscape; throughout the world, nations and races were linked up too suddenly for their peace; and national ambitions found ready to their hands new weapons of conquest and self-aggrandizement which have proved the means of mutual destruction. The South African War, about which the Liberal party had been divided in opposition, left the Conservatives with a large majority after the Khaki election of 1900, to begin the business of the new century. The two leading Ministers were Arthur Balfour, Salisburys nephew and successor in the Premiership, and Joseph Chamberlain, who as Colonial Secretary had done so much to arouse the British Empire to a state of self-consciousness. Balfours Act of 1902, inspired by the wisdom of the great civil servant Sir Robert Morant, added another story to the edifice of National Education begun in 1870; it handed over the responsibility not only for elementary but for higher education to the County Councils and County Boroughs. In this way Secondary Education for the first time received proper financial support, and was coordinated with the rest of the national system. The new local authority- the Education Committee of each County Council- was able to devise broader schemes of policy than the old School Boards, which had often administered too small an area. The reform has resulted in a great enlargement of secondary schools, and the erection of a ladder by which able students of small means can ascend through them to the Universities. Improved Secondary Education has raised the average standard of work and intelligence at Oxford and Cambridge by opening them to many more able men of all classes; and it has been the making of he new Universities that sprang up space in the new century, at Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, and Bristol, in addition to London, Durham, and Manchester Universities founded in the previous century but come to full maturity in our own.

At this stage, the waning fortune of Unionist Conservatism was put to a hazard calculated wither to check or to precipitate its ruin. Joseph Chamberlain, with a vigour unmatched since Gladstones advocacy of Home Rule, preached the doctrine of Protection, renamed Tariff Reform. The motive that first impelled him to this audacity was the desire to link the Dominions to the Mother Country by a system of Imperial Preference. Without it, he believed, the bonds of Empire would ere long be relaxed. The difficulty was that Great Britain could not give effective preference to Canada and Australasia without placing a tax on foreign foodstuffs, to be remitted In the case of Dominion products. And in England popular tradition had a vague but hostile memory of the old Corn Laws; greybeards told tales of the hungry forties, when taxed bread was scarce on their parents tables. Imperial Preference, therefore, was a bad election cry. Moreover, after the South African War, the country had had enough Empire for a while; so Chamberlains Preferential Tariff, in the hands of his insular fellow countrymen, was soon moulded by the Conservatives into a scheme of which the prime object was the protection of British goods. This aroused the enthusiasm and opened the purse strings of many British manufacturers. But their zeal was suspect to the consumer, especially to the working man with his family budget to consider. Free Trade doctrine was very strong in all sections of the community; it had behind it fifty years of unchallenged authority and custom; caution and tradition, usual mainstays of the Conservative party, supported the Liberal economic thesis. Moreover the prosperity of British commerce under the Free Trade system was not yet shaken. The worlds markets were not yet closed to our goods by nationalist foreign governments to the extent that they have been closed since the Great War. Joseph Chamberlain in his lifetime was beaten by still obstinate prosperity of our staple industries. He could prophesy their ruin, but its coming was delayed. Indeed, the great interest that most required protection in the first years of the new century was agriculture. Ever since 1875 foodstuffs from America and the entire world had come flooding into Great Britain on a scale never foreseen in the day of Cobden and Peel, when prices had been steadied, not smashed, by free importation form Europe. But, with the prairies and the pampas developed as Britains food farm, it was becoming impossible to grow food at a profit in the island. English farm hands, badly paid and housed even in good times, were now deserting the land for the cities at an appalling rate. Great Britain was on the way to becoming urbanized altogether, unlike any other county in the world. A check ought to have been put to this catastrophe, which would be irremediable when once complete. Unfortunately the protection of British agriculture was the proposal that politicians were most afraid to advocate, though something might be done under cover of Colonial Preference. The Free Trade system under which Britain had so long flourished had little regard for agriculture. Food was the currency in which foreign nations and own Dominions paid for British manufactured goods. And cheap corn and meat was of great value to the wage-earning community. The absence of a democratic peasant-proprietorship like that of the European Continent made it difficult to advocate agricultural Protection. The field labourer, long ill-used by the farmer, scarcely knew whether he wished agriculture to be protected; he could slip off to the nearest town or mining district and get a better wage and eat his cheap food there. The most effective popular appeal of Chamberlains opponents was the unsavoury memory of the old Corn Laws. The fear of dear foodstuffs and the cry of the small loaf. So it is only after the Great War has shaken party traditions and old economic doctrines, and the German submarine has shown the use of the plough in Britain, that any attempt, and that quite insufficient, was made by subsidies and control of imports to maintain food production within the island and so save little of what is still left of country life, while securing by statute a minimum wage to the field labourer. That all life in Britain should become urban and suburban, while her fields fall back to jungle, would be a horrible disaster, for strategic, human, and social reasons more important than any purely economic consideration. The result of eh General Election of 1906 was like an earthquake. There had been nothing approaching it since the destruction of the old Tory party in the first election after the Great Reform Bill, and that had been the consequence of an entirely new electoral system. In 1906 the net Liberal gain was 273. The Liberals in the new Parliament numbered 397; the Irish Nationalists 83; the Unionists who had ruled the last Parliament were reduced to 157. And, most significant of all, a Labour party of 50 members had suddenly sprung into existence. The overturn, which took everyone by surprise, was significant of a greater tendency to mass emotion in the large modern electorate, bred in great cities, and less tied up by party traditions than the old. There have been other such elections since. Moreover the issues of 1906 had all been unfavourable to the late government the Education Act, Protection, Taff Vale, and the recent introduction of indentured Chinese Labour into the South African gold mines, which

seemed a sorry outcome of the great Imperialist War. But behind all these things was something more fundamental. A new generation had arisen, wanting new things, and caring more about social reform at home than about Imperialism in Ireland, South Africa, or anywhere else. Whatever party or doctrine would be the ultimate gainer, the old forms of Imperialism and Conservative Unionism were ever again to hold power. Protection, indeed, had a future. But the Conservatism that has held power since the war of 1914-18, as an alternative often preferred to Labour governments, has been liberal in its outlook on Irish, Egyptian, South African, and Indian questions, and semi-socialist in its outlook on the duties of the State to the working class. Meanwhile until 1914 the Liberal Party bore rule for the last time, in close though uneasy alliance with Labour, and left a deep impress on social legislation. Balfours last great reform leaving office in 1905 had been the establishment of the Committee of Imperial Defence. It was developed by Asquiths government as a means for laying plans for the possible event of war. Its functions are consultative only; it provides the Cabinet with information and advice, and its decision can only be carried into effect by Parliament or by Departments of State. As it is not an executive body, its composition is fluid. The Prime Minister summons whom he thinks fit-generally the Secretary for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Foreign Secretary, and the technical advisers required for the questions under discussion at each particular meeting. The Committee has, however, a Secretary of its own, whose permanence in a constantly changing body gives him great importance. Sir Maurice Hankey, now Lord Hankey, as Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence from 1912 and Secretary of the Cabinet form 1916, has left his impress on our growing institutions. For ten years, December 1905 to May 1915, Great Britain was ruled, for the last time, by a Liberal Government. Its leaders were men of unusual personality and power. There was Haldane, the soft-spoken lawyer-philosopher who won the confidence of the soldiers and reformed the Army; John Morley, the veteran of the Radical intellectualism of the last century, who was now on behalf of the British Government to cope with the new problem on national selfconsciousness in India; there was Edward Grey, remote, firm, and sadly serene at the Foreign Office; there was young Winston Burchill looking round for his kingdom; and there was Lloyd George, on whom time and great events should fix many diverse labels, mutually contradictory but all true. And coming on there were such able administrators and legislators as Herbert Samuel, Walter Runciman, and Reginald McKenna. The working classes were represented for the first time in a Cabinet, by John Burns, a personality hewn out of old English oak. For a decade all these men most astonishingly held together, for two successive Prime Ministers knew their business: Campbell-Bannerman, an easy-tempered but shrewd Scot, who say quite through the souls of men, started his team of colleagues in harmony; won the confidence of the raw and restive legion of Liberal recruits in the House; pacified South Africa by reversing the policy of Milner and granting responsible government before it was too late; then died in 1908, his tasks accomplished. He was succeeded by Asquith, a Yorkshireman of high integrity and unshakeable nerve, with a skill in advocacy learnt in the law and applied to politics, sound judgment to choose well between the opinions of others, and a rare skill in manipulating discordant colleagues. The great achievement of this last Liberal Ministry was the initiation of measures of social reform on a scale beyond all precedent. Old Age Pensions, on a non-contributory basis, helped to empty the workhouses, to give happiness to the old and relieve their loyal sons and daughters of part at least of the burden of their maintenance. Democratic Budgets shifted more taxation on to the wealthy. Workmens Compensation, Miners Eight Hours, Medical Inspection of Children, and the Childrens Bill, the Town Planning Act, the Sweated Industries Act, measures of Unemployment and Health Insurance, and the Small Holdings Act for rural districts formed part of a vast programme of laws placed on the Statute Book. Such measures, implemented by municipal bodies, and extended by the work of Care Committees, Play Centres, Boy Scouts, Adult Education, and other such activities outside the harsh discords of politics, together with constantly advancing medical science and practice, have in the present health and happiness, reduced the death-rate, and prolonged the average of human life by several years, and begun a more even distribution of the national income and opportunities for happiness. The function of Local Government had undergone immense extension under modern democracy. It is looked to now not merely to remove public nuisances, to supply sanitation, lighting, and roads, but to act for the personal benefit of the individual citizen. It is to Local Government, controlled and aided by the State Offices in Whitehall, that he poorer citizen is beginning to look to supply the house he lives in; the electric light and gas he uses; free education for his

children from infant schools to University scholarships; medical clinics and isolation hospitals; books form the free library; baths and swimming; cricket fields and green to take the family to work or school; and a hundred other benefits to make life kind.

What was behind the change? J.S.Mill doctrine which advocated freedom and stressed the idea to women to vote. Conservatives and hose of lords showed more resistance (they presented resistance and not violent). Benjamin convinced this party to accept, using arguments. Which arguments? Conviction of the transition of democratization by presenting the matter as a serious issue, all that in case that conservatives and lords accept the Bill. In 1867 workers were infertile, in 1868 there were elections: what was happened in this election? Liberals won the elections. It was the liberal party which had given workers the right to vote. Thats why workers voted for liberals. It was the first time that workers vote and give all their voices to the liberal party. So, they were supported by workers. Glad Stone wrote reforms which brought advantages to the population after election; among them elementary Education Act of 1870. Education of children was vested, it was left in the hands of the church in general or churchmen and government did not have a say in this field. Government did not assist financially speaking this church in terms of money and in terms of syllabus. Government did not intervene in the education of children, nor in any other issues than (economic, trade, is left to the private company). There were no programs or educational systems established nor a definite program. So these children were learning reading and writing only. Note: among the reforms is given by Glad Stone was this Elementary Education Act in 1870. The churchmen needed assistance; if the government was to intervene so there were conditions imposed by the government. The churchmen were afraid by these conditions. Denomination: there were many denominations because the churchmen (Christians) teach with their beliefs and ways. Thats why there were many denominations. So, each denomination has a specific religious aspect and education. Here, there is no consequence, each branch teach its specific way and belief, but it should be common (Standardisation of Education). The questions which should be asked: What made this government intervene? What made this government change its attitude? What did happened before Elementary Education Act in 1870? There was a kind of economic crises (collapse), it was an emergence of European powers as competitors (Germany, USA to British companies). What did happen to British? What happened to cause such an economic collapse? The British were the first to invent but they did not developed, they did not go further to technology and science. European countries took the British technology and science and developed it. With the development of other European countries, British appeared as a traditional; i.e. this resulted in the fact that what was new in first in technology, it became through time traditional and archaic. Arnaud Mathieu: Before 1870, the economic of the country started to decline, here the government decided to inquire the education field. So, they realize that to find the solution which was in education. So, Arnaud came with ideas and he raised deficiencies of educational field in Great Britain.

The

Liberal

Government

and

the Foundation of the Welfare State

The last liberal means that the liberal came to the 1st time to the government. In that period, the conservative party came back to lead the political field. But why this last liberal party? What is the link between the World War and the last Liberal Government? When the liberal party became to government? The main reasons that made liberal party failed are: The split or division within the party itself. The appearing of Conservatives in the late of the 1st century. The competition between Conservatives and Liberal Party. Race in order to attract voices. The leader of Conservative (1889-1902) controlled the government. With the rise of the social reformers, the liberal empires were determined to fight poverty. The intervention of Welfare State was a policy designed for security, prosperity, and development; it was for good living conditions of a society. There was a shift from the policy of Laisser-faire to Welfare. There were three categories of people which were founded and were the most affected by poverty: Children, workers and old people. There were rises in the reforms among the liberals. These social reforms devoted to help the lower classes, and to defend poverty. These reforms found that only 3 categories in the society suffered from poverty: Children, Workers, and Old peoples. Among these 3 categories there were the labour children. The children worked in the workhouses as servants and companies. Whereas workers, they worked very hard all the week to gain few wages. In other hand, the unemployed workers forced their children to go to find jobs. Finally, the old people could not work; the poor people were the most worst of the society. There were links between the 3 categories that were the most deprived in society. The liberal government made the three categories in the top of its priorities. T HE CHILDREN HEALTH A CT (1907): They produced milk depot for children, and children were examined in schools. T HE O LD AGE P ENSION : old people were given pension (money). They were given an amount of money to satisfy their needs, while unemployed people were given suitable pensions so that helped them to work and find jobs. The Liberals brought some changes to society by the issues of these acts. Were these acts accepted by the aristocratic class? Why the aristocratic class? Aristocrats had a link with the House of Lords who had the right to pass these rules, but before these bills became acts, there were measures represented to the House of Lords. The reaction of the House of Lords was the rejection; because they were against any things that bring benefits to the low classes.

L LOYD G EORGE [1] was the major figure who founded the Welfare State; he was not the prime minister. At that time, the prime ministers of the Liberal Party were Campbell Bannerman (1906-1908) and Henry Asquith (1908-1916). In 1909, George proposed 16 millions pounds under the proposition of the peoples Budget, that millions were being collected from other taxes that were imposed on the rich people in order to raise money, because Welfare state was a policy which aimed fighting poverty and saving money. The Liberal Party made a partition of the budget for the poor people. This budget was independent from the treasure of government. The budget was represented by Lloyd George. Where this money came from? The sources of money rose from the taxes imposed on aristocracy classes, especially for goods that were more used by the rich people. These events led to the rejection of the proposal of bills in the House of Common. In the early of 20th century, the Commons think that it was enough: time to reduce the power of the House of Lords came. Therefore, the result was the change of in the members of the House.

Social anarchy or Domestic Anarchy (1910-1944)

This period was marked by instability and the unrest over the British community. How the power of Lord has increased? Was this any consequence within the House itself? The Lord Balfour accepted the Bill which led to the diminishing of the power of the House. The raise of anti-Balfour movement which led to the crises within the House of Lords, witnessed a great impact on the population. The Lords crises were one of the aspects of the social anarchy. Thanks to the support of the labour class, this was a kind of common interest. In 1910, the Liberal began to loose the confidence of labour. What made the Liberal lost the confidence? The liberals did not respect their promises toward the labours.

The National Insurance [2]Act:

The liberal government claimed the national insurance in the beginning. Therefore, workers should pay for their security and oldness. What made the liberal issued this act? They wanted to collect money so that the workers had to contribute.

Some of the aspects of domestic anarchy:

The suffragette movements The rise of workers strikes

WELFARE STATE (from the net)

The Welfare State of the United Kingdom was prefigured in the William Beveridge Report in 1942, which identified five "Giant Evils" in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease. A series of changes were put in place by government to deal with these Evils after the Second World War. The changes meant that the government undertook measures in policy to provide for the people of the United Kingdom "from the cradle to the grave." This policy resulted in massive expenditure and a great widening of what was considered to be the state's responsibility. In addition to the central services of Education, Health, Unemployment and sickness allowances and so on, the welfare state included the idea of increasing redistributive taxation, increasing regulation of industry food and housing (better safety regulations, "weights and measures" controls etc.) The Welfare State was a commitment to health (in 1948 the National Health Service was created), education, employment and social security. However the initial foundation of the National Health Service did not involve building new hospitals but merely the nationalisation of existing municipal and charitable foundations. The aim was not to substantially increase provision but to standardise care across the country; indeed Beveridge believed that the overall cost of medical care would decrease, as people became healthier and so needed less treatment. Instead the cost increased dramatically, leading to severe financial problems, and charges (for dentures, spectacles and prescriptions) were introduced in 1951 - by the same Labour government that had founded the NHS just three years earlier. Despite this, the principle of health care "free at the point of use" became a central part of the dogma of the welfare state, which later governments critical of the welfare state were unable to reverse. The classic Welfare State period lasted from approximately 1945 to the 1970s, when policies under Thatcherism began to privatize public institutions, although many features of it remain today. This includes, but is not limited to, compulsory National Insurance contributions, and the provision of old age pensions. Some primary reasons for the establishment of a welfare state include the reports drawn up by men such as Rowntree, son of the famous confectionary manufacturer, and Booth, into the levels of poverty in Britain in the early twentieth century. These reports indicated that in the massive industrial cities of the north, a high percentage of people were living below the level of substinance, or the poverty line. The deeper reasons for the establishment of the welfare state are complex. Certainly governments who had seen the revolutionary wave of revolts after the First World War were keen to ensure that deep reforms reduced the risk of mass social unrest after the Second World War. In addition, modern, complex industry had more need for a healthy and educated workforce than older industries had. Crucially, the experience of almost total state control during the Second World War had inured the population to the idea that the state might deal with wide areas of national life. Finally it seems likely that the social mixing involved in mass evacuation of children, and of service in the armed forces, had increased support for welfare among the middle classes. But the most important change was not in the people but the government; civil servants had become used to control of many aspects of civilian life during the war, and were reluctant to see a reduction in either their numbers or position. A centralised welfare state was an attractive way to ensure the dominance of the self-confident bureaucratic class. Certainly, the Labour party, standing in 1945 on a programme of establishing a welfare state, won a very clear victory. However, since the 1980s the British government has begun to reduce some provisions in England: for example, free eye tests for all have now been stopped and prescription charges for drugs have constantly risen since they were first introduced in 1951. (Policy differs in different countries of the United Kingdom.) Providing a Welfare State is however still a basic principle of government policy in the United Kingdom today.

The Welfare State and Social Expenditure

Welfare provision in the contemporary world tends to be more advanced in countries with stronger developed economies. Poor countries tend to have limited resources for social services. There is very little correlation between economic performance and welfare expenditure.

There are individual exceptions on both sides, but as the table below suggests, the higher levels of social expenditure in the European Union are not associated with lower growth, lower productivity or higher unemployment, nor with higher growth, higher productivity or lower unemployment. Likewise, the pursuit of free market policies leads neither to guaranteed prosperity or social collapse. The table shows that countries with more limited expenditure, like Australia, Canada and Japan do no better or worse economically than countries with high social expenditure, like Belgium, Germany and Denmark. The table does not show the effect of expenditure on income inequalities, and does not encompass some other forms of welfare provision (such as occupational welfare). Overall, there is a slight positive correlation between increased spending on social services and higher GDP per capita as well as higher HDI rating.

[1]

David Lloyd George (1863-1945), British statesman, prime minister (1916-1922)

[2] national insurance government agency which compensates for work-related injuries and pays unemployment wages and pension funds (to the elderly, veterans, etc.); payment provided by a government insurance agency