During Iran-Iraq War, there are around 500,000 Iraqi and Iranian soldiers died over the course of the war, in addition to an estimated 100,000 civilians. In Persepolis, it mentions about the brainwashing of young low-income boys in schools during the Iran-Iraq war. The school told them it was a great honor to fight for their country. Furthermore, they would say that the world after death was like heaven, with countless gold, gems, wine and women. Each boy was given a small key and told that if they died with it, they would go to heaven. In this way, they tricked many untrained boys into the war. There is no doubt that these young students can only wait to be slaughtered when faced with well-trained soldiers.  

In fact, it’s common for the military to tend to recruit low-income young men to serve in the military or to fight in wars, not only in the Iran-Iraq war. The Seattle Times reported in 2005 that “nearly half” of new recruits came “from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on ZIP codes and census estimates of mean household income.” The same data showed that nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 “came from countries in which median household income is below the U.S. median.”  

The reason of this group of young people are targeted is that, in the absence of options, they can easily be pushed or lured to join the armed forces. The term “poverty draft” came about in the early 1980s to describe “the belief that the enlisted ranks of the military were made up of young people with limited economic opportunities,” They lack access to jobs, income, and educational alternatives in their communities, so they improve their life or get the chance to go to college by joining the army. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that in the context of war, those young men without power and background are more likely to join the army for various reasons, while others from better families may have more chances to avoid the draft. In the Iran-Iraq war, Iran was ruled by extreme religionism, which was very inhumane.  That causes many young men who are sent to war in such a deceitful way. 

Words Cites

Corcione, Adryan. “Why Poor Youth Are Targeted for Military Recruitment.” Teen Vogue, Adryan Corcione, 22 Jan. 2019, www.teenvogue.com/story/the-military-targets-youth-for-recruitment. 

 Martin, Nick. “The Military Views Poor Kids as Fodder for Its Forever Wars.” The New Republic, 7 Jan. 2020, newrepublic.com/article/156131/military-views-poor-kids-fodder-forever-wars. 

 Asoni, Andrea and Sanandaj, Tino. “Rich Man’s War, Poor Man’s Fight? Socioeconomic Representativeness in the Modern Military” Research Institute of Industrial Economics, 23 Dec. 2014, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2542143 

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a major shift in power within the Iranian government. The Revolution was an attempt to overthrow the Shah, as many people of Iran were unhappy with the Westernization of Iran and the economic shift to the oil market, which caused many other jobs to dwindle (CrashCourse, 07:20-08:52). As the Revolution came to an end and the Shah gave up his power, a shift to the Islamic Republic was pushed by Khomeini, who participated heavily within the Revolution and received much power in the absence of the Shah. His new Republic focused heavily on Islamic Law, which in turn changed the role of women within society (Rafique and Butt, 432).

After the Shah was removed from power, women planned to celebrate their achievements on National Women’s Day, but this soon turned into a demonstration to oppose the news that veiling would become compulsory (Higgins, 477). It is believed that the reintroduction of veiling or wearing a hijab, and “accepting gender segregation” is for the “security and comfort” of women (Shaditalab, 17). Veiling was only the beginning of the shift women would face after the Iranian Revolution. Before the Revolution, the Shah put into place policies that helped women gain more rights within society (Rafique and Butt, 433). It took a turn when Khomeini took power and changed many of the policies the Shah put in place. An example is the termination of the Family Protection Law which resulted in the following, “the legal minimum age at marriage for women was lowered to thirteen; divorce was again granted to men on demand and women only under a narrow range of circumstances, and polygyny was declared legal without a first wife’s consent” (Higgins, 480). These new changes put in place by the Islamic Republic restricted women’s rights and encouraged gender inequality (Rafique and Butt, 432).

Growing up during this shift of power can be extremely difficult for young women. Many freedoms that people take for granted throughout the world like uniqueness, choices within marriage, comfortableness within the presence of men, etc. are restricted by laws for young women in Iran. This absence of choice and presence of control in many aspects of life creates a longing to be recognized and heard. When watching the film, Persepolis, it is important to keep in mind these struggles as it is highlighted through a young woman growing up and speaking out against the constructs in the Iranian Republic.

Works Cited

CrashCourse. “Iran’s Revolutions: Crash Course World History 226.” YouTube, uploaded by CrashCourse, 26 Feb. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI.

Higgins, Patricia J. “Women in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Legal, Social, and Ideological Changes.” Signs, vol. 10, no. 3, 1985, pp. 477–494. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3174262. Accessed 27 Feb. 2021.

Jaleh Shaditalab. “Islamization and Gender in Iran: Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty?” Signs, vol. 32,no. 1, Sept. 2006, pp.14–21. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1086/505276.

Rafique, Sadia, and Khalid Manzoor Butt. “Position of Women in Iran: An Analysis of Pre and Post Islamic Revolution 1979.”  South Asian Studies (1026-678X), vol. 32, no. 2, July 2017, pp. 431–439. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=126924375&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Persepolis the book was published in 2000 and the film was released in 2007. In 1995, the United States enacted sanctions on Iran for groups such as Hezbollah Hamas which are considered terrorist groups in the U.S. (Iran Profile). This sanction has continued, in different variations, to the present. George Bush described Iran as “part of an ‘axis of evil’ that exports terror” in 2002 (Iran Profile). This was due to the potential development of long range missiles in multiple countries, including Iran. Soon after, Iran’s first nuclear reactor was constructed. This was met with opposition from the United States and in 2003, United Nations inspections of nuclear facilities were conducted, finding no evidence of nuclear weapons. 

Persepolis (the book) was released amidst these events, sharing a different perspective to readers in the United States who had only seen Iran through a negative political lens. 

In 2006, Iran failed to stop its work on nuclear fuel by a deadline set by the UN Security Council, and in 2007, Iran detained 15 British sailors, causing a standoff between the two countries (Iranian Navy). This incident occurred after British sailors entered disputed waters which Iran believes to be theirs. This conflict was soon followed by harsher sanctions on Iran from the U.S. for the failure to suspend uranium enrichment (A Brief History). These sanctions have made the value of currency in Iran fall drastically and have lowered economic growth (Six Charts). 

Persepolis (the movie) once again challenged this narrative by providing a glimpse into Iranian life that was less biased by western political turmoil. Due to conflicts between the U.S. and Iranian governments, a 2013 study found that only 5% of Americans viewed Iranians positively, which is the lowest of any country in the world (BBC World Service Poll). Media in the United States focuses on the negative relationship between the two countries, causing the American people to only know the negative side of the story. Persepolis was released in English for a reason, and both the book and movie versions, released during political conflict, have helped western audiences see Iran unobstructed by politics. 

Works Cited

“BBC World Service Poll.” BBC. 

“A Brief History of Sanctions on Iran.” Atlantic Council, 8 May 2018, www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/a-brief-history-of-sanctions-on-iran/. 

“Iran Profile – Timeline.” BBC News, BBC, 6 Jan. 2020, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14542438. 

“Iranian Navy Detains British Sailors in Persian Gulf.” NPR, NPR, 23 Mar. 2007, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9112105. 

“Six Charts That Show How Hard US Sanctions Have Hit Iran.” BBC News, BBC, 9 Dec. 2019, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48119109.

          In the early 1910s, two men single-handedly decided the border of all the middle eastern countries. These men were named Mark Sykes (British) and Francois Georges-Picot (French). They both negotiated and came up with the border of the modern-day middle eastern countries like Turkey and Syria. While they intended for their borders to mostly include only one group within them, their vision had not been correct and the borders they constructed ended up causing havoc in the region. To this day there is rampant brutality in the way these countries are ruled, and differences are not allowed (Osman). There are many views of what to do in the region now and they range on both extremes, leaders don’t want their country to lose any part of their land, and groups like ISIS want the borders gone altogether (Danforth).
          The brutality in the region is an unseen side effect of these men’s decisions. The biggest source of contention in the region arises from the Kurdish people. These people are one of the world’s largest non-state nations (Hiltermann). They have been fighting for their independence ever since the borders had been drawn, but things like Iran deploying forces to prevent them from leaving countries like Iraq has led this to become a major issue and the Kurds do not have much help. Instead, groups like ISIS are trying to get rid of all countries, tainting the image of what the Kurds are trying to do and leaders can use this to express how the Kurds’ mission is bad.
          This decision to change the borders has strongly influenced what Persepolis is about, the brutality of the Middle East Region. This can be directly linked to how those two men thought the region should be split and how their flawed views of the region allowed the whole history to become what it has today. The good news is that there will eventually be change but it won’t come from the world forcing the region to become what it wants. The region needs to go through its struggles so that when the tension is completed, the whole region will be less divided.
                                                                                                                                                                 Works Cited

Danforth, Nick. “The Middle East That Might Have Been.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 9 Dec. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/the-middle-east-that-might-have-been/385410/.

Hiltermann, Joost. “The Middle East in Chaos: Of Orders and Borders.” Crisis Group, International Crisis Group, 25 May 2018, www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/middle-east-chaos-orders-and-borders.

Osman, Tarek. “Why Border Lines Drawn with a Ruler in WW1 Still Rock the Middle East.” BBC News, BBC, 14 Dec. 2013, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553.

In 1980, Iran and Iraq became locked in a long and intense war after increased tension between the two nations resulting from the Islamic Revolution. Iran had begun a series of attacks along Iraq’s border, including a particularly strong attack on September 4, 1980 (Murauskaite 1). In response to Iran’s spike in aggression, Iraq began an invasion on September 22, 1980, that is internationally considered to be the start of open warfare (Murauskaite 1). The underlying causes and goals of each nation during this war, however, are more complex than they may appear.

Initially, Iraq was supportive of Iran’s new government following the revolution. This support would not last for long, as Iranian officials began to call for similar revolutions to take place in neighboring countries, including Iraq. This caused a sense of unease and anger within Iraq’s leadership, who wanted to prevent a revolution against Saddam Hussain (Donovan et. al 12). When Iraq invaded on September 22, Hussain publicly maintained that the purpose of the war was to regain 300 square kilometers of land that was surrendered to Iran as part of a 1975 treaty (Murauskaite 1), however, it is likely that Iraq was also focused on suppressing any possibility of a revolution.

Iraq quickly succeeded in capturing the land they had previously surrendered and repeatedly offered cease fire agreements to Iran, who denied them. Iran retaliated, reclaiming almost all of the lost land by 1982 (Murauskaite 1). Iran, however, was still not interested in ending the war and pushed further into Iraqi territory. The governmental situation in Iran at this time was complicated, with both the Iranian Army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in existence as a result of the Islamic Revolution. The Iranian government likely viewed the war as “not simply…an opportunity to export the revolution, but rather a chance to deflect the threat from the army, expand the IRGC, and undermine their internal rivals” (Tabaar 5).

It would not be until 1988 that Iran accepted a cease fire agreement created by the United Nations calling on both countries to return to their original borders (Tabaar 23). It is estimated that one million lives were lost during the conflict, however, both nations have refused to agree on an exact number (Murauskaite 1). As we will see in Persepolis, this war directly impacted the citizens of Iran during a time that was already filled with change.

Works Cited

Donovan, Jerome Denis, et al. “Strategic Interaction and the Iran-Iraq War: Lessons to Learn for Future Engagement?” DOMES: Digest of Middle East Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, Sept. 2015, pp. 327–346. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/dome.12070.

Murauskaite, Egle. “Saddam’s Use of Violence against Civilians during the Iran-Iraq War.” Middle East Journal, vol. 70, no. 1, 2016, pp. 47–68., www.jstor.org/stable/43698619.

Tabaar, Mohammad Ayatollahi. “Factional Politics in the Iran-Iraq War.” Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 42, no. 3/4, June 2019, pp. 480–506. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/01402390.2017.1347873.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, known as the Shah of Iran, ruled Iran from 1941 to 1979. As those who came before him, he continued a policy of westernization by moving away from traditional Islamic laws, and implementing policies which could be seen as going against Islam. Not all of Iran’s laws were based on religion. Women were discouraged from wearing a Hijab, and alcohol could be served (Hsu). Although Iran was still an Islamic country, there was definite secularism. The Shah’s regime believed they were rapidly moving towards a society full of human rights, rather than one focused on religion (Cottam 121). Not all Iranians were pleased to see the country become more similar to countries of the West such as the US.

The Shah’s rule was not an all that religious rule, but a one of power. Religion was not what life revolved around while he was in power. Come 1979, many opposed the way the Shah ruled and rioted. This became the Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Shah’s regime. The movement was led by Ruhollah Khomeini, the grand ayatollah who was the leader of the Shiite Muslims in Iran. With a new leader came a new revived sense of religion. Khomeini made Iran an Islamic Republic (Hsu). The vast majority of western progressive policies that the Shah had created were now seen as contradictory with the Islam religion. No more alcohol or western music, and women were once again required to wear a Hijab (Hsu). These changes, although they may seem social, were really ones of religion. After the revolution, religion was the centerpiece of the country. Iran is technically called the Islamic Republic of Iran. Even the preamble of Iran’s constitution after the revolution begins with “The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran sets forth the cultural, social, political, and economic institutions of Iranian society on the basis of Islamic principles and norms” (Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran). 

Clearly Iran’s main religion became more than just a part of society. Many laws are now based around Sharia, the Islamic law, and any new laws proposed must be compared to Sharia in order to see if it is in accordance (Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Islam, after the revolution, became the overarching element of life, which set the basis for life in Iran even up to this day.

Works cited 

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Preamble

Cottam, Richard W. “The Human Rights Movement In Iran In Historical Context.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 12, no. 1, 1980, pp. 121–136.

Hsu, Sabrina. “Life in Iran Before and After the Revolution: How Religion Redefined a Nation.” StMU History Media, 9 Dec. 2018, stmuhistorymedia.org/life-in-iran-before-and-after-the-revolution/.

Karimi, Nasser, and Jon Gambrell. “Torture Still Scars Iranians 40 Years after Revolution.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 6 Feb. 2019, apnews.com/article/072580b5f24b4f8ea2402221d530257e. 

Iran was never an official colony of the European powers, however, in 1908 a British company discovered Iran’s oil supply, and this sparked Iran’s communication with the industrialized world (“Iranian Revolution Facts, History, Chronology, Outcome.”). The Shah, who is Iran’s leader, agreed to give the British the ability to search and sell the oil. In 1921, there was a coup d’état that was done by the army general, Reza Shah (“Iranian Revolution Facts, History, Chronology, Outcome.”). He was unpopular with many members of Iran’s community because he began to westernize the country, which went against many religious and societal beliefs. In 1963 the new Shah, who was the son of Reza Shah, began the White Revolution (“Iran Profile – Timeline”). This plan was meant to be for “land reform and social and economic modernization” (“Iran Profile – Timeline”) but, was met with much criticism from clergy members and one in particular, Ayatollah Khomeini. He spoke out strongly against him and many people agreed with Ayatollah Khomeini, but he was exiled in 1964 for speaking out (Afary). The Shah used the SAVAK, his secret police, in the late 1960’s to continue his authoritarian rule and to keep opposition movements at bay (“Iran Profile – Timeline”). The oil boom in the 1070’s made the Shah very rich, but the regular people of Iran suffered from high inflation and were struggling to survive (Afary). In January of 1978, the spark for the revolution occurred when a Tehran-based newspaper, Ettela’at, published an article that criticized Khomeini (Afary). This caused many Iranian students and youth to begin protesting. The protests grew and the Shah decided he must take action, which was very brutal and left many injured or dead. Shi’a Islam has a tradition to hold memorials 40 days after someone has passed away, so after the 40 days the memorials were held, which then created a ripple effect of more protests and violence, which continued until the summer of 1978 (Afary). This was the beginning of the Islamic revolution, which later included events like the terrorist attack to a cinema and Black Friday, which will be discussed in Persepolis, along with many of the social effects of war and the regime.

Works Cited

“Iran Profile – Timeline.” BBC News, BBC, 6 Jan. 2020, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14542438.

“Iranian Revolution Facts, History, Chronology, Outcome.” School History, 4 Feb. 2021, schoolhistory.co.uk/notes/iranian-revolution/.

Afary, Janet. “Iranian Revolution.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 20 Jan. 2021, www.britannica.com/event/Iranian-Revolution.

In his book, Things Fall Apart, Chinua Achebe tells the story of a Nigerian man in the 1890’s, during the time of British imperialism in Nigeria. Imperialism in Africa was the source of much conflict and was responsible for significant damage to the cultures and economies there that are still seen today. Colonialism of Nigeria, specifically, began as a means to secure raw materials and goods needed by the British for industrialization (Ikponmwosa 20). British forces did not intend to stay in Nigeria and so did not establish any industry or means of production that would survive beyond their occupation. Instead, they took any materials they could acquire and immediately shipped them out of the country. This left heavy tolls on the economy of Nigeria, which had a wealth in handcrafting skills. These skills generated enormous potential for Nigeria’s own industrialization and growth, however when the British began stealing their resources, they lost the ability to produce their products and were left significantly disadvantaged (Ikponmwosa 21).
In addition to draining material resources, British imperialization also brought significant conflict, both with Nigerian communities and between them. An example of this can be seen in the story of the Aguleri and Umuleri communities. These two communities reside in the Anambra state of Nigeria, and had not been known to have any conflicts previous to colonial rule. However, when British soldiers imperialized a nearby city of Otu-Ocha, that city became an economic hub. It was a trade center for all nearby communities, including Aguleri and Umuleri. As the importance of Otu-Ocha grew, so too did the nearby land. With this came fierce competition, and so the two communities entered into conflict. After the British arrived in Otu-Ocha, Aguleri and Umuleri engaged in a number of strikes against one another, causing significant tension and open war. In 1993, one hundred years after the British arrived in Nigeria and over thirty years after they gained their independence in 1960, Aguleri and Umuleri had their first full-blown war on record (Ibenwa and Uroko, 3). This is just one example of many Nigerian and African conflicts that began through British influence and still remain today.
Although they have since gained their independence, the people of Nigeria are still living with devastating consequences initiated by colonial rule. Imperialism is a form of governance in which the colonized nations are given no choice or defense against the decisions made by the colonizing nation, and so suffer a range of injustices and violence. This type of governing without consent was woven into the fabric of some Nigerian communities. After independence was gained, new governments began popping up which operated under similar regimes (Yusuf 257). The people of Nigeria currently still live under a number of certain conflicts and difficulties, both in their economies and their government. The source of many of these conflicts can be traced directly back to the consequences and influence of British colonialism.

Works Cited

Ibenwa, Christopher N., and Favour Chukwuemeka Uroko. “Discourse Analysis of Religion and Inter-Communal Conflicts and Its Causes in Nigeria.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies, vol. 76, no. 4, 2020, pp. 1–7. EBSCOhost, doi:10.4102/hts.v76i4.5617.

Ikponmwosa, Frank. “Colonialism and Industrial Development in Benin Province, Nigeria.” Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, Sept. 2020, pp. 20–29. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.4cc7ebabf3e477e908bc62995da3e1a&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Yusuf, Hakeem O. “Colonialism and the Dilemmas of Transitional Justice in Nigeria.” International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol. 12, no. 2, July 2018, pp. 257–276. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1093/ijtj/ijy006.

There comes a time when trying to help someone, and hopefully, change their ways for the better, actually hurts more than helps. Achebe tells this story in the novel, Things Fall Apart. We meet an individual, Okonkwo, who is proud of his clan and their many rituals and traditions they have in the town of Umuofia. All of this is gone in an instant though when European colonizers pressure the people of Umuofia to adopt their ways. In doing so, their traditions have nearly vanished, and the love for rituals and celebration no longer drives the people of Umuofia. This story exemplifies the destructive effects of both colonization and reconstruction of an already well-functioning society to change into something they’re not, and in doing so, traditions, culture, and unique lifestyles are lost. 

The United States has recently decided to reduce aid in Africa. While this may seem like a bad thing, many in Africa actually think that it will be a time where their country can learn to flourish and grow on its own, and bring back some of the cultural values they once had (Kwemo, pg. 4).  When Americans go over to Africa and try to enact change by educating and creating new churches, they fail to recognize the already standing norms and cultures that Africa has. 

Another way that Americans have also delved too deep into another culture is through adoption. Adoption is amazing in itself because a child can be provided a loving and safe home, but when there’s adoption between two different cultures, the traditions, and heritage of that individual are swept away (Coolman pg. 1). 

While American Missionaries have a passionate goal to help struggling countries, very few missionaries go into the development of their churches and schools with an open mind, which in turn hurts the culture of that country. John Donnelly, suggests that there should be coordination and partnership between Americans and countries in Africa to see what help is most effective. Donnelly also states that “if you’re going to a foreign country, you have to learn from local people what is best.” (Donnelly). 

It’s essential to recognize that differences in cultures are good, and other cultures shouldn’t impose their values and norms on others unless they genuinely think it’s best for that society. If the change occurs, it should be done out of harmony and knowledge of a culture. 

Worked Cited

Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Anchor, 1994. Alcorn, Marshall.

Coolman, Holly T. “White parents adopting Black kids raises hard questions. We can learn from them.” America, The Jesuit Review, 8 July 2020,

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/07/08/white-parents-Black-kids-transracial-adoption

Kwemo, Angelle B. “Making Africa great again: reducing aid dependency.” Brookings, Brookings, 20 April 2017, www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2017/04/20/making-africa-great-again-reducing-aid-dependency/. 

Martin, Michel. “Missionaries in Africa doing more harm than good?” NPR, Faith Matters, 20 July 2012,

https://www.npr.org/2012/07/20/157105485/missionaries-in-africa-doing-more-harm-than-good

In Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s writing, “Can the Subaltern Speak,” she explained the backstory and the effects of Britain’s colonization of India. Around the same time in the 19th century, Africa was being taken over by European powers. The European countries, such as France, Britain, Germany, and Italy, invaded Africa and imposed their own policies on the villagers (The scramble…). The villagers could not oppose because they were significantly behind in development, and they lacked a strong military. So, the Europeans used the land to farm and mine resources, all while employing the locals to work for very little pay (Imperialism and…). However, there were some positives to come out of the colonization. Africa substantially improved their infrastructure as well as their medicine. The new medicine increased the lifespan of the African people, sequentially growing the population. The Europeans also enforced strict borders by introducing more order than before (Colonial rule). This will not allow Africans to have independence, or the ability to migrate to a new country, always relying on the European power. Nonetheless, the African people were victims of a European stronghold attempting to grow their sovereignty.

Spivak would eventually write about the post-colonization effects of India and the people, similar to the colonization of Africa. She would then ask the question, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” The subaltern, or someone who was oppressed, was separated and controlled by a higher power. They could not express free speech nor make their own decisions. These people were also forced to accept new tradition, values, and religion. Spivak also made it clear that it was wrong for a Western power to institute change on a “third world country” and make it “standardized.” Just like the Indian people, the Africans’ basic rights and traditions were seized, forcing new ideal thinking. All in all, the European countries were trying to manipulate these countries for their own benefit, and the victims suffered.

Does a more powerful country have the right to colonize a society?

Sources:

Colonial rule. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/place/western-Africa/Colonial-rule

Imperialism and socialism in the context of Africa. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2021, from https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/imperialism-and-socialism-context-africa

The scramble for AFRICA: Late 19th century. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2021, from https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/grade-8-term-3-scramble-africa-late-19th-century