2009 AP World History DBQ
2009 AP World History DBQ
An Annotated Sample Essay
by
Tracy Rosselle, M.A.T.
Newsome High School
Using the following documents, analyze African actions and reactions in response to the
European Scramble for Africa. Identify an additional type of document and explain
how it would help in assessing African actions and reactions.
In response to the European Scramble for Africa, some Africans resisted initially with diplomatic responses aimed at maintaining peace with the European powers. When diplomacy failed, Africans resisted with violence, while others drew upon their religious traditions for strength in remaining independent. Yet another reaction among Africans was to encourage other Africans to fight back. Some Africans, meanwhile, complied with – and even willfully participated in – the continent’s colonization by Europeans.[1]
Documents 2 and 3 reveal[2] the effort among Africans to react with diplomacy. Prempeh’s (D2)[3] rejection of protectorate status under British rule goes to great lengths not to offend “Her Majesty” and insists that the Ashanti kingdom must remain on good diplomatic terms with all “White men,” even as he flatly rejects the British offer. The cordial wording of his response can be read as an effort not to provoke the British into seizing the kingdom by force.[4] Menelik II’s letter (D3) to European powers, meanwhile, clearly indicates his unwillingness to go along with plans to “divide Ethiopia among the distant Powers,” meaning the very countries to whom he’s writing. But his firm tone nevertheless draws heavily on the common religion that Ethiopia shares with those powers, and the constant references to Christianity are no doubt intended to reinforce the idea among Europeans that Ethiopia should be seen more favorably than other African nations, and thus be exempt from the Scramble for Africa.[5] He even goes so far as to suggest that Europeans, as they carve up the continent, might help his country regain the seacoast land on the Indian Ocean that has fallen under Muslim control.
Documents 4, 5 and 8 show the African reaction to European colonization turning more violent. Kumalo (D4) provides a firsthand account of the deadly Ndebele Rebellion, in which his old gun was no match for the machine guns of the British.[6] He explains the uprising as a spontaneous eruption against the ill-treatment of the British. He describes them as “overbearing” and says they “harmed our wives and daughters.” His reluctance to be more graphic reflects a conservative 19th-century sensibility to respect female virtue, to keep from adding any more shame onto the Ndebele women than they’ve already withstood.[7] The painting (D5) depicts a well-armed Ethiopian force successfully defending its sovereignty against Italian aggression, while the German officer’s account (D8) of the Maji Maji Rebellion references “attackers” and “enemy bullets.”[8] Menelik II’s letter five years earlier clearly failed to keep Ethiopia off the radar of the Italians, but the painting does accurately reflect that it was the Ethiopians’ modern arms that enabled them to fend off the Italians.[9]
Documents 3 and 8 illustrate African attempts to draw from their religious traditions in reacting to European colonization efforts. Menelik (D3) reminds the Europeans that his country has been a Christian island “in a sea of Pagans” for fourteen centuries and holds out that Jesus will advise those distant powers to not only refrain from colonizing Ethiopia but help it gain lost land.[10] The account of the Maji Maji Rebellion against Germans in East Africa (D8) shows that a central element to the uprising was the animistic belief[11] that a “magic medicine” passed from a spirit living in the form of a snake would help natives overcome their oppressors. The source of this information is a German military officer, but the amount of detail provided and the matter-of-fact tone lend credibility to its accuracy. There’s nothing disparaging or belittling about the officer’s words, which were published in a German military weekly newspaper. The account therefore comes across as a straight-forward effort to explain to fellow German officers exactly what it is they’re up against in colonizing East Africa.[12]
Documents 6 and 7 provide evidence of Africans encouraging other Africans to stand up and fight back against European imperialism. The Ashanti queen mother’s speech to West African chiefs (D6) in 1900 came nine years after the Ashanti’s diplomatic rejection of the British offer to make it a protectorate,[13] so here again the African attempt at diplomacy to resist the Scramble for Africa failed. The British have inserted themselves by force, and the queen mother’s words to the chiefs – that she and the Ashanti women will fight if the men won’t – are meant to shame them into action. That Yaa Asantewa had the temerity to issue such a challenge to men also reflects the relatively privileged status of women in matrilineal West Africa.[14] Maherero (D7) too issues a call to action in a letter to another African leader, imploring him to pass the message along to other chiefs “to rise and do battle.”[15]
Documents 1 and 9 reveal that some Africans chose to participate themselves in the Scramble for Africa, whether in resignation or out of a desire for personal gain.[16] The African rulers who signed the Royal Niger Company’s standard form (D1) received monetary compensation for turning over their land. They may have recognized the futility of trying to resist the British government and decided to make the most of it by complying with the terms of the contract. Or they may not have truly understood what they were signing, given language barriers.[17] When the company pledged not to disrupt the laws and customs of the country, the wording it then inserted – “consistently with the maintenance of order and good government” – can be read as a caveat that effectively gives the company the latitude to do whatever it wants.[18] Almost anything could be defined as interfering with “the maintenance of order …” and so the British were bound to trample all over the native customs of the Niger River delta.[19] Finally, Mojimba’s description of a battle he witnessed (D9) indicates that it pitted Africans against not only the British but also African mercenaries, so there were some Africans who chose to help Europeans suppress African resistance, getting paid as soldiers for hire. Mojimba’s words are filled with hatred, for good reason. But they’re being told 30 years after the battle, and so they may not be precisely accurate because the passage of time – coupled with the horrors he saw when he was younger – could very well distort his memories.[20] Accounts of others present at the battle – perhaps from the African mercenaries – could be used to verify the accuracy of his recollection, if not provide the rationale for why those African mercenaries chose to side with the Europeans.[21]
Other documents are needed to further assess African reactions to European imperialism. Documents from the African rulers who signed over their land to the Royal Niger Company are needed to understand their thinking – whether they were duped or signed because they saw the writing on the wall. Kumalo (D4) says that he doesn’t know how the Ndebele Rebellion started, and that it lacked organization. To gain a better understanding of why it began, documents from others involved in it – either Africans rebelling or the British witnessing it and trying to fight it off – could provide crucial details. Documents from the chiefs listening to Asantewa’s rant to fight (D6) are needed to assess how effective her words proved to be, and whether they led to a more violent Ashanti reaction to the British after 1900. Likewise, a document from the African leader to whom Maherero wrote in D7 is needed to assess whether he followed Maherero’s advice and helped organize a violent uprising against the Germans. Documents from those Africans participating in the Maji Maji Rebellion are needed to confirm the veracity of the German military officer’s claim that they thought a “magic medicine” would protect them from German bullets. Finally, because violent resistance appears to have been widespread in the Scramble for Africa, European military records might indicate estimates of African and European casualties that piled up in the late 1800s and early 1900s, which would provide a big picture perspective of the extent of the African response. [22]
[1] OK, so I have here a five-prong thesis. I could have made it six with “surrender,” or even seven with “flee,” but I’ve got it more than covered with five African reactions. And notice that they’re all clearly actions taken by Africans. I haven’t inverted the question and written something about what the Europeans were doing. ATFQ! I’ve answered the question, and I’ve adopted a lot of the question’s wording in my thesis statement. Remember what I said about “actions” and “reactions”: There’s no difference when they’re both “in response” to something, and this was acknowledged at the Reading in Colorado in June 2009.
[2] Remember to begin each body paragraph with a grouping of documents that “show … or reveal … or illustrate” the appropriate prong of the thesis. Since this is the first body paragraph, it should provide details that elaborate the first thesis prong. And notice I’ve begun each subsequent body paragraph in exactly the same manner. Put them together and I get the point for Grouping. What’s my score so far? I think I’ve already racked up 2 points!
[3] Note how I’ve shifted to referring to the source rather than the document, but I’ve included parenthetically the document in shorthand form. Do this throughout the essay once you’ve grouped documents in the first sentence of each paragraph. If you don’t refer to the source by name, you aren’t likely to ever assess point of view.
[4] Here I’ve assessed point of view (POV) by picking up on tone and giving a plausible explanation as to why Prempeh was taking that tone. In assessing POV, you MUST explain why a source is saying what he’s saying … not just interpret what he’s saying.
[5] Another assessment of POV. I’ve noticed the constant references to Christianity, and come up with a common-sense explanation as to why Menelik chose to make those references. Score so far: 3 (thesis, grouping, POV).
[6] Here and in the subsequent two sentences I’m simply showing that I understand this document. You get a point for using and showing that you understand all the documents, so remember to analyze each one of the documents that you group in the first sentence of each body paragraph ...
[7] … and here I’m again assessing POV. Goody for me – I’m trying to earn all 9 points on this essay, and one of the ways you can earn both of the bonus points on the Expanded Core of the rubric is to assess a lot of POV and explain the need for multiple additional documents.
[8] I’m addressing each of these documents individually to show I understand them, but I’m moving on quickly because I know I’m under time pressure … and for D8 I’m going to assess POV when I group it again in the next paragraph for a different reason.
[9] Even if I couldn’t discern this from analyzing the painting, I remember this is why Ethiopia was able to fight off the Italians in the 19th century … so I’m showing a little outside knowledge of this topic, which could work to my favor once I’ve earned all 7 of the points in the Basic Core and my Reader is deciding whether to award me bonus points on the Expanded Core.
[10] I’ve already used this document for a different reason, so I’m focusing briefly on a different portion of the letter to demonstrate why I’ve grouped it in multiple ways.
[11] Once again showing some outside knowledge … in this case, about African religious traditions … BONUS POINTS, BONUS POINTS, BONUS POINTS …
[12] I’ve just spent three sentences assessing POV. I’m really trying to sell it. Notice I’ve not done what so many students did back in 2009 – argue that his account can’t be trusted because he’s German and therefore biased. You need to explain your assessment in more detail than just saying someone is “biased.” In fact, try not to even use that word, because Readers tire of seeing it so much.
[13] Always take note of the dates in the documents’ source lines – they’re there for a reason. Incorporate this into your analysis.
[14] In the last two sentences I’ve assessed the queen mother’s POV in not one but two different ways, the second of which includes more background knowledge. I know it, I’m showing off …
[15] I’ve decided there’s really no need to assess this source’s POV. I’m headed for a high-scoring essay and I want to finish as quickly as I can so I can move on to the other two essays.
[16] I’ve been keeping track of all the documents I’ve used so that I don’t overlook using one, and now I’ve earned the point for using and showing I understand them. In 2009 it was decided that if a student grouped a document in an acceptable way, that student had demonstrated his or her basic understanding of the document. But I’m still going to analyze each document individually in the next sentences.
[17] Notice I’ve analyzed this document rather than simply summarized it. Analysis, analysis, analysis …
[18] Another assessment of POV. I’ve given a plausible explanation for why part of this document was worded the way it was worded.
[19] I re-read my last sentence and decided to make sure my Reader understands what I mean by “caveat.” In other words, I’m trying not to leave anything to chance. I’m selling my POV … trying to show my Reader I really deserve that point, plus bonus points!
[20] One common way to assess POV is to look for any document about something that is being recalled by someone many years after the fact. Use the stock assessment that “memories can fade, so the account may not be precisely accurate,” or something to that effect.
[21] I’ve decided at this point to go ahead and explain the need for an additional document, knowing that I can smoothly transition to the last paragraph and call for a whole bunch of others. I notice that this is one of the common instances where I can call for another first-hand account of something so that I can compare it to the document in front of me and better assess its veracity … or truthfulness … or accuracy.
[22] Read back over this last paragraph multiple times to understand how to explain the need for additional documents. You can’t simply identify documents and say something like “it would be helpful.” You’ve got to explain why they’d be helpful. What’s my score, what’s my score? A slam-dunk 9, baby!