At a literary event last weekend discussing African "histories” as one of its themes, a participant stood up and addressed the panel with this question:

Was colonialism all bad? Did it not bring us some good – writing, for instance?

The two panellists and the session moderator – all them authors – were evidently shocked. Their reaction seemed unsure whether the query was merely uninformed or an insult to Africans.

The reaction was unexpected, but not surprising. The mention of colonialism provokes anger in many of us, recalling the abuse that riddled the continent and dehumanised our relatives. This is not to mention tragedies we are still living with.

Colonial edicts and happenstances still project through history dramatically affecting future generations, which brings to mind Rwanda and why it stands out in that history. The 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi is rooted in the country’s colonial history. It remains impossible for us to come to terms with the tragedy.

With such an example close to home, how would one answer the participant’s question on whether colonialism was not all bad?

The panel did not offer an answer. Instead they lectured the participant to go back to history and re-examine his colonialism.

And, yet, the panellists in their retort were disappointing. As authors whose books are informed by that very history, one would have expected they should have attempted a more illuminating response.

We now know this: The European powers that divvied up the continent among themselves could only have done it in the 19th Century – late 1880s – and not earlier during the Scramble for Africa.

Following this, the first European to enter Rwanda, for example, was the German Count von Götzen in 1894, and there was a good reason for this late entry.

Walter Rodney, the influential Guyanese historian, political activist and academic who taught at Dar es Salaam University in the 1970s, writes about some of the reasons in his 1967 book, West Africa and the Atlantic Slave-Trade.

He explains how it was common knowledge that Europeans could only trade with the permission of the powerful local leaders along the coast of Africa from Angola in East Africa to the Senegal River.

Rodney writes, "After being surprised on a few occasions (during slave raids), the Africans on the coast naturally kept watch for their European attackers and defended themselves vigorously.”

However, this was before they were broken and leaders played against one another to raid their neighbours to keep slavery going.

In the meantime, in the hinterland, Rwanda was the only kingdom in the region not to be raided for slaves. The fierceness of its warriors ensured this.

There was another reason that kept the Europeans away. Many of them died or deserted their posts at incredibly high rates due to disease and the harshness of the environment. Statistics and other documented evidence suggest that European mortality rates were as high as 50 per cent within any given year.

As science and technology advanced, however, the colonisers were able to overcome these challenges and occupy the continent.

The story of the Conquest of Africa, however, is part of a larger global one of how Europe conquered the world. Between 1492 and 1914 Europeans had dominated 84 per cent of the world.

Why were they able to dominate the world when the Chinese, Japanese, Ottomans, and South Asians had for centuries been far more advanced? (See, Why did Europe conquer the world? by Phillip T. Hoffman)  

The short answer is military prowess that was honed in wars between the European powers, which led to advancement in weapon technology paid for through taxes. Another factor was the establishment of standing armies.

During this period in China, for example, different political circumstance forced the emperors to keep taxes low and look after commoners’ livelihoods instead of pursuing the kind of military glory that obsessed European kings.

This meant they remained weak militarily and though the Chinese plied the East African coast as recently as 600 years ago, they left it at that.

Africa was, however, a walkover for Europeans. They had also honed an aggressive economic enterprise by the barrel of the gun that Africa and elsewhere like India could not escape.

The European entrepreneurs such as the Imperial British East Africa Company (IBEAC) had free reign to use gun technology to mount expeditions of conquest, colonisation, and militarized trade.

This paved the way for the colonial administrators. And, as colonisation took hold, the natives had to learn to read and write and manipulate technology to better serve their masters growing economy.

Colonialism was eventually dethroned. Today, many of us are technologically literate and fit for purpose bona fide global citizens if we don’t consider Trump and his ilk.

The views expressed in this article are of the author.