This line challenges the common argument that restitution of cultural objects will lead to a loss of heritage for Western countries, and instead frames it as an issue of social and ethical responsibility. The author argues that failing to address the legacy of colonialism and return stolen objects is ultimately more costly than the financial price of restitution, as it perpetuates systems of inequality and exploitation.

This line underscores the author's argument that the UK's response to restitution requests reflects a broader lack of awareness about the politics of colonial collections and the role of museums in contemporary society. The implication is that a deeper understanding of these issues is needed in order to move towards a more just and equitable approach to cultural heritage.

This line emphasizes the important role played by local people in preserving the manuscripts, often at great personal risk. The survival of the manuscripts is a testament not only to their cultural value but also to the resilience of the communities that have safeguarded them for centuries.

This line underscores the multiple challenges that the historic manuscripts from Mali have faced, from civil wars and invasions to the current threat of the climate crisis. The survival of these manuscripts is a testament to their enduring value as cultural artifacts and sources of knowledge.

It's also intriguing because despite the fact that Rwabugiri's reforms concentrated authority, it wasn't close to the absolute control employed during the colonial era. Although the King of Rwanda was supposedly an absolute monarch, the nation was really governed by a three-tiered hierarchy that ran from the "province to the district to the hill."

It's notable that none of the people of Rwanda or Burundi identified socially as Hutus despite the fact that Hutu and Tutsi coexisted there, not just as neighbors but also personally and via intermarriage. There were no mixed races; everyone was either Hutu or Tutsi.

I found it interesting that even though the rwandan genocide started on April 6, 1994, when the Hutu president of Rwanda, Juvenal Habyarimana, was on an aircraft when it was shot down. Extremist Hutu groups started their preparations to exterminate all civilian Tutsi populations while the world was at war. Yet, the judgement wouldn't have came towards the end of 2008.

It's horrible that due to both their gender and race, Tutsi women were the main targets of rape and other types of abuse. The sexuality of Tutsi women was especially mentioned in the extreme propaganda that encouraged Hutu to carry out the genocide as a manner by which the Tutsi community intended to penetrate and rule the Hutu community. This propaganda encouraged the sexual assaults committed on Tutsi women in an effort to dehumanize and oppress all Tutsi.

Again there is great sense of pan-africanism. Mandela saw Pan-Africanism as a means of challenging colonialism, imperialism, and racism in Africa and promoting African self-determination and self-reliance. He believed that Africa needed to take control of its own destiny and that African countries should work together to address common challenges and pursue common goals.

It's interesting that many African leaders like Nkrumah and Nyerere believed in the importance of Pan-Africanism, the idea that the peoples of Africa should work together to achieve unity, freedom, and development. They argued that African countries needed to work together to resist neocolonialism and challenge the power of the West.

It's interesting that in order for the "urban bourgeoisie... to destroy African nationalism and to stay in power by appeasing the whites", white government passed the Law and Order Maintenance Act. Upon further research, these laws essentially prevented Africans from doing essentially anything. Black people were barred from moving into metropolitan areas without first securing employment by pass laws and apartheid regulations. A Black person's failure to carry a passbook was prohibited. White and black people could not be married. In white regions, they were not permitted to open companies.

I never knew that within South Africa there were supporters of Hitler and for his "Aryan supremacy". I knew that Africa was heavily important in World War II, but considering South Africa was so distanced from the rest of the countries involved in World War II such as Germany, Poland, and Great Britain, I wouldn't think that "Hitlerism" would be brought back on "African soil".

It's interesting that many supporters of the apartheid strategy thought that the complete racial and ethnic segregation would assure stability, control, and Indians and Africans' acceptance of the circumstances would be easy. Essentially segregation all over again, the apartheid supporters thought that "all races should ive in their own geographically defined areas.

It's pretty sad to learn that although the African National Congress, the organization that was established to advocate for the rights of black South Africans were using reasonable tactics, so many members of this group were shot down, specifically African workers. What makes it even worse was that the children of the workers became orphans with no help.

I found this part of the passage specifically interesting and somewhat shocking: Unpleasant, offensive, and degrading statements are made to an Algerian girl who is walking along the street in public while covered up. These remarks are frequently made by young males who act like young men elsewhere. The algerian girl has to walk away though.

The Algerian men are in a situation where no matter what they do it seem as if there is a negative outcome. If they brought their wife, they would have to concede defeat and give up their strategy of resistance. Doing it alone, though, would entail refusing to satisfy the employer and even risk losing your job.

Samia and Zobra were forced to be secretive about their support for the Algerian "secret organization" fighters. I found it interesting that they wanted to be a part of the "the organization" even though they still had to attend school and courses. Although it does make sense that they would be perfect considering that they already spoke french fluently.

It's interesting to see that Zobra Drif, the main narrator of the novel, she was aware from an early age that she was an Algerian living in her own country and that the occupation and seizure of her territory for the sole purpose of rape and robbery by the "foreigners from the north". It's dismaying considering the fact that whenever Drif and her mother went to visit the tomb, local women said that the lands in truth belonged to tribes, but were "dispossessed in favor of colonists."

It's horrible see that the Europeans firstly killed a preacher and then had removed a preacher's turban to reveal his dreadlocks and was trying to persuade the public that the preacher was a terrorist. Although this document isn't about Mandela, I wonder how Mandela and Ghandi were able to bring about change without acting in violence considering the things that Europeans have done.

I found it interesting how Nelson Mandela's initial approach to taking on Apartheid was through non violence similar to Ghandi's. Mandela's ideas was for African parents should choose the type of education their children get, teach them that they are equal to Europeans, and create their own communities where the right to an education would be provided.

Its interesting European Christianity not only gave rise to secular African rebels against the Euro-Christian system, but also to religious African rebels. One of them was Simon Kimbangu, who made the intriguing claim that God would not have sent a white messenger to the black people if he had wished to convey a message to them.

It makes sense that the Christianity missionary trips within Africa actually aided to promote "not just Christian spiritual ideas but also Western secular ideologies." The faiths traditionally connected to the Western Hemisphere are known as Western Religions such as Christianity. However, African radical nationalists like Kwame Nkruhmah emerging from these schools didn't make as much sense, since shouldn't they have rejected this religion?

Its interesting that the Africans initial reactions to international coercion was non-alignment which is when States that believe themselves to be officially unaligned with or opposed to any major power bloc. However, it makes sense that they developed strong relations with the Arabs, Asians and Latin Americans, and people of the Caribbean, others who have been taken over by European colonialism.

Not only did the South African gold boom allowed the country to change the affects of the global Great Depression but it also allowed certain people and businesses have amassed extraordinary riches, the government has received substantial tax money from businesses and employees, and South Africa has acquired recognition abroad as a result of its import and export activities.

Once again, it seemed as if there was racism against African soldiers during times of war. Itote says there were no racial insults and that "the white heat of battle... only our common humanity and our common fate, either death or survival remained". During times of war, both Europeans and African soldiers had to come together in order to survive and had to befriend each other as shown by Itote.

It's interesting that in the times of war, when Africans and Europeans were fighting with each other, there was rarely any violence or harm against each other. Here, Waruhui Itote is talking to a British soldier as if they were friends and talked to each other regularly. The British soldier even asks Waruhui questions why Africans should be even fighting in this war, saying instead he should be fighting for his independence.

I found it fascinating to learn that "African's rights and lives as prisoners of wars were taken very lightly" and in order to portray the surrender of a settlement for movie cameras, a regiment of black French soldiers were dragged out of the prison camps. These african POWs were treated as if they were actors even though they were prisoners who "were treated morem harshly than french prisoners".

It's interesting that Jacobins, who were fervent revolutionary plotters who wanted to overthrow the monarch and establish the French Republic and are frequently linked to "the Reign of terror" a violent era during the French Revolution, and their ideologies were not present and therefore caused many african soldiers to depend on "traditional perceptions" based on the region's social relations before colonialism.

This statement was made in the public by the German Colonial Society, which implied that anybody who was aware of the existence of Africans and other civilized non-white peoples would understand that Europeans can only establish themselves by preserving the superiority of their race at all costs. This is very similar to the Nazi ideals of the "perfect aryan race".

It's interesting to understand that, although while Nazi policies in Eastern Europe were not solely inspired by Wilhelmine authority in German South West Africa, it did offer ideas and tactics that Nazi officials appropriated and exploited. Nazi-like elements were present in the language, literature, media, institutional memory, and personal experiences.

There were constants act of violence carried out such as when "the hand of Eliba was also cut off and taken away in triumph" and when "Mokwolo pursued and knocked the babysitters down with the butt of his rifle", but despite this, Europeans claimed that the atrocities were rare cases and rarely happened.

The children in a mission school in Lingala is being taught that without the Europeans, the Congo would not be as prosperous as it was in 1944. The teacher in this mission school says that the "State created some roads, big paths everywhere for vehicles... beautiful houses", which although may be true, the teacher doesn't disclose the horrific things that occured to Africans in order to accomplish things such as the death of many workers whose job was to obtain rubber.

Was Germany heavily involved in Africa during World War I? I know that the German occupation in Africa resulted in the acquisition of forced laborers for the coastal plantations as they subjugated rebellious Africans, but did fighting of world war I take place within Africa as well.

Although slavery was abolished at this time, it's intriguing to learn that there were still "undisguised forms of forced labour" and "slavery" in Africa. This reminds me of sharecropping in the US, which was essentially slavery (even though it was abolished) where people compelled to return shares, or a percentage of the agricultural produce, to the landowner in lieu of paying rent in cash.

It's interesting to learn about Italy's colonization of African countries since most of what I learned about colonization of Africa regarded mainly Britain and France, but Italian East Africa, in the Horn of Africa, was a colony of Italy. Italian Somalia, Italian Eritrea, and the recently annexed Ethiopian Empire were combined to establish it in 1936.

Impact of Christian missionaries in Liberia is shown once again, with an expansion of "literacy, modernization, and assimilation". With these missionaries, Liberians were recognized as "civilized".

European influence was prominent throughout these colonized African countries, as shown by french administrative unit replacing chefferies, called le secteur, which was "introduced for purposes of consolidation". To continue, in Nigeria, the authority already existing there also was replaced by a way of ruling with a "warrant chief" which made it seem as if Africans kept their local rule.

It's interesting that no colonial power intended to entirely destroy the existing sociopolitical systems right away. These colonial powers did, however, damage the fundamental African institutions that were already in place, for instance, the "business of chieftaincy".

These treaties, Form No. 1, and Form No. 10 makes it seem as if the British were peacefully taking these african lands and that the people living in these territories willingly accepted to cede their territories to the British. It paints the British in goodlight.

Its interesting to see how powerful and notorious the English military strength was. Without firing a "single shot", the British were still able to reach the palace in Coomasie where the King of the Ashanti lived. It also seemed as if the British military commonly did these actions as their confidence seemed "so strong", and its as if the British regularly and calmly overotook Coomassie.

I feel like this directly correlates to what I learned in AP World. Reminds me of concept of White Man's burden and how white people oversee non-White people's affairs because they thought they were less developed. How it was their "burden" to "save" those who weren't white.