In the last quarter of the 19th century, Africans were subjected to European colonial rule and different methods were used to bring African societies under colonial rule depending on the prevailing circumstances in a given society, for example the nature of exisiting political institutions (Non centralised or centralised societies) relationship between the neighbouring states, availability or lack of funds, the nature of African response, good or bad reports from the men on the spot (imperialists), the exisiting rivalring imperial powers, the nature of African economies among others.

As regards such cicumstances, the colonialists could decide to use either peaceful or violent means. Nevertheless quite often they liked the peaceful means as they were not expensive and destructive for fear of African resistance. But at the last resort, they could apply the militaristic violent methods as willingly or unwillingly the Africans had to be colonised. The peaceful means included;-

Treaty Signing: - The nature of exisiting political system influenced the Europeans to use methods like treaty signing. This was most conducive among centralised societies which had recognised kings that would decide to sell the independence of their kingdom by signing a treaty with the Europeans without consulting the entire population under his control. This method was not fit for non centralised societies where the authority of a big society were in control of many clan heads in collaboration with elders.

By use of these treaties, European colonisers managed to conquer African territories by claiming mastery over their territories. This method was recommended by the Berlin conference of 1884-85 where the European powers recognised treaties that they signed with respective African societies as an evidence of possessing a given African territory under their control.

Some of the outstanding treaties signed in Africa included the Rudd concession of 1888 between chief Lobengula of the Ndebele and Charles Rudd a British representative in Central Africa. The 1900 Buganda agreement, the 1900 Toro agreement, the 1901 Ankole agreement with Lord Lugard, the Sir George Golddie's agreements with over 37 chiefs in West Africa, Karl Peters' treaties in Tanganyika and Henry Mortem Stanley treaties with Congolese chiefs on behalf of king Leopold II.

The negative part of these treaties was that African chiefs signed treaties out of ignorance because they didn't know the languages used and the after effects like the loss of African independence after the signing of agreements with Europeans. These left African chiefs in a very weak position to oppose the colonial rule.

Divide and rule policy: This was mainly applied in areas where African societies or population had poor relations as a result of differences between their leaders or divisions created by Christian religious sects to easily defeat Africans in case of impending resistance against colonial rule. The colonisers decided to use divide and rule method so as to completely disunite the Africans. This was done along tribal, religious, or philosophical lines. In most cases, European colonisers could ally with one African society to defeat the other and in turn they would ally with the defeated to overcome the former for example Britain used Buganda to defeat Bunyoro in East Africa, Britain used the Masai to defeat the Nandi, the British used Shona to defeat the Ndebele in 1893-94 British-Ndebele war. In West Africa Samoure Toure of

Mandika's long standing resistance against the French was defeated by assistance from the Tukolor Empire which was unfriendly to the Mandika Empire with the military assistance from the French.

Use of missionaries: This was one of the first methods used in the acquisition of the African colonies. It was a conducive method employed in slave trade affected areas. Missionaries first came to spread Christianity, Western civilisation and to cure ignorance of the people. In the process of doing this, they were softening the hearts of potential African resisters which resulted into future colonisation of Africa. African resistance was rendered impotent by Christian teachings as for example; "don't kill", "love your neighbour as you love your self, "love your enemies", "blessed are those who suffer on earth for theirs is in heaven", "all power comes from God" and even that of the colonizer," among others.

More still, many of the converts were even involved in the treaty signing e-g the regents of Buganda kingdom namely; Sir Apollo Kagwa, Stanislas Mugwanya and Zakaria Kisingiri were very influential in the signing of the 1900 Buganda agreement which placed Buganda under the control of the British rule. Besides the above missionaries disunited Africans along religious sects as seen earlier.

Men on the spot (imperialists): Their role was quite vital in the imposition of colonial rule in Africa and such men included explorers and imperialists like Samuel Baker who gave the information about Bunyoro, George Golddie in West Africa, Cecil Rhodes in South Africa while Du Chaillu De Brazza, Leopold II, Dr David Livingstone and Stanley were in centrral Africa.

In their records when in Africa, they wrote about population on African societies on issues like their military strength, nature of their economies among others. This was important information to Europeans at home since it assisted them to decide -on which method to use in the imposition of colonial rule in a particular African society for example Lord Lugard who had been operating in Africa for quite a long time, the British parliament honoured him with a title "Lord" for the advice he gave to the British on how to occupy Uganda and Nigeria.

Sir Samuel Baker's information on Bunyoro following a humiliating defeat of his forces at the hands of Kabalega in the Battle ofMasindi in 1872 made the British to use violent means in bringing Bunyoro under their control. Dr. David Livinstone's report and other missionaries in Central and South Africa influenced the decision to use the British South African Company under Cecil Rhodes in imposing colonial rule in the area.

Use of chartered companies: These were mainly used in cases where the home governments were bankrupt. They were always licenced by their home governments to develop African territories hence fulfilling the Berlin Theory of effective occupation which would have been otherwise expensive for their home governments. They secured a number of treaties, stopped slave trade and administered specific African territories on behalf of their home governments. Such companies included the Imperial British East African Company, Royal Niger Company, Germany East African Company and British South Africa^ Company.

Deceit and Trickery: European colonialism in Africa was established with a lot of courage using all kinds of words to many Africans who collaborated with colonialists fell victims of European dirty tricks. The people who were vulnerable to those tricks were mainly the opportunists for example Semei Kakungulu, who helped the British colonialists to extend the white man's rule in Eastern Uganda and when he failed to get what he was promised. He was demoralised but nevertheless the Europeans had achieved their goal. Such Africans took time to discover that the Europeans were unwilling to share their achievements with anybody especially the Africans.

Use of high commissioners: These were representatives of diplomatic relations that had developed between Africans and Europeans in their representations. However these commissioners served to weaken the strength of Africans against the foreigners. They interfered with African politics, commerce and their general ways of life. Good examples of these include Gerald Portal a British high commissioner to Zanzibar who confirmed the need for the British protectorate over Uganda which he achieved in 1894 on behalf of the British government. Another example was Sir Harry Johnstone, a special commissioner to Uganda who acted as an architecture in the signing of the 1900 Buganda agreement which eroded the independence of Buganda Kingdom and later acted as nucleus for extension of colonialism to the rest of Ugandan provinces. It was also Earnest Berkely, a British commissioner who extended British rule to Bunyoro, northern parts of Uganda and later Busoga. Therefore, Africa was taken over by colonialism partly through the worics of high commissioners.

The following were the violent methods used by the imperalists to take over Africa:

Use of gunboat diplomacy: This method involved the heaping up of military weapons in challenging African territories. It was important for intimidation to those African chiefs who attempted to resist colonialism. In Africa this method was applied by the British against the Madi tribe in northern Uganda and against the Kyabazinga of Busoga in Eastern Uganda. Such an action made the potential African resisters realise any attempts to resist the colonial rule could easily be silenced.

Deployment method: This involved the distribution or deploying soldiers in a challenging African society. It involved the building up of forts/garrisons before establishing themselves in a given area. It was important as a provision for security against African resisters or European colonial powers. In Uganda Lord Lugard established a fort at Old Kampala in order to challenge the expected danger of Carl Peters from Tanganyika who was about to encroach on Buganda. George Golddie applied a similar method in Nigeria to challenge African chiefs and the French. From such garrisons and forts, soldiers would be dispatched to various corners df African territories where dangers would emerge to challenge interests of colonisers.

Outright military conquests:' This was a last resort method applied to African societies that had completely refused to be colonised. This was usually expensive and destructive and therefore fit to be used as a last alternative since using it would undermine the colonial economic motive of maximum exploitation of colonies by meeting minimum costs in colonial acquisition. In Africa, this - method was applied against the Ndebele society in 1893 - 94 British-Ndebele war against Samoure Toure of Mandika by the French forces, against Kabalega of Bunyoro by the British, Germany used it against Mkwawa of the Hehe in Tanganyika while Britain applied it against the Nandi of Kenya. This kind of approach to colonialism was inevitable because these Europeans had come to colonise Africans whether Africans were willing or not.

AFRICAN RESPONSE TO THE IMPOSITION OF COLONIAL RULE

Different African societies responded to colonial rule differently depending on circumstances on ground. Such kinds of response include: collaboration, Opportunistic response, passive or indifferent response and active resistance.

Collaboration: This can also be termed as cooperation. These were communities or individual leaders who decided to cooperate with impositors of colonial rule. Some historians have wished to call such a reaction as an adaptation to colonial rule for example the Baganda, Basuto, Lozi, Fame, Masai and Shona.

Opportunists: These were the Africans who allied with colonialists because ofselfcentredness or selfish reasons. These assisted Europeans with ideas in fighting their fellow African resisters for example Semei K.akungulu, Kabaka Muteesa I ofBuganda, Al-haji Umar ofTukoIor empire who assisted the French on how to defeat Samoure Toure, chief Lewanika of the Lozi among others.

Passive/indifferent response: These are communities which treated the imposition of colonial rule in Africa with the attitude of "don't care". They felt they had nothing to gain by either resisting or collaborating with colonialists.

Active resistance: Some societies or individual leaders picked up arms to fight the imposition of colonial rule. This was also known as outright or primary resistance. Such societies include the Nandi led by Koitaleh, Bunyoro led by Kabalega, Mandika led by Samoure Toure, Hehe led by Mkwawa while Ethiopians led by Emperor Menelik II who was one of the few African chiefs that defeated the Europeans (Italians) in 1886 at the battle ot'Adowa.

It was argued that resistors were backward reactionary leaders while collaborators were progressive enlightened leaders. On the other hand, resisters have been praised as heroes and determined nationalists while collaborators were seen as shortsighted and traitors of their home independence.

None of the above views is true for the collaborators or resisters. This is because to both groups they behaved or responded in such a way (resistance/collaboration) of trying to maintain their independence. They both used different means because they both experienced different circumstances towards the coming of Europeans. Therefore African reaction to colonial rule was determined by circumstances that were on the ground in a particular society at a particular time or at the coming of the Europeans.

FACTORS FOR THE COLLABORATION.

Some communities collaborated because they were too weak to put up armed resistance. It was therefore regarded useless to wage wars that they couldn't win. This was particularly true with those African leaders who knew much about European military might for example chief Gellele of Dahomey believed that;

"He who makes the gun powder must win the war." This forced him to collaborate with Europeans, Buganda under Muteesa I, Masai under Laibon Lcnana, the Lozi under Lewanika plus the Fante of West Africa.

The need for some African leaders to defend themselves against their hostile neighbours made them to collaborate.  This was true with Buganda and Omukama of Tore who feared the threat ofKabalega. The Fantc also collaborated with the British because of the hostilities they had with the Asantc Kingdom.

Others collaborated because they wanted to benefit from European trade. These included Nabongo Mumia ofWanga in Kenya, Muteesa I of Buganda and chief of Pante. Muteesa I was particularly interested in acquiring firearms to use against his enemies in west and east of his kingdom. Items like mirrors, beads, needles, used clothes etc also attracted the Africans.

Some collaborated in order to acquire some peace. Such societies had suffered from slave Trade, constant warfare among others. This was a period when Africa was robbed of its energetic youths and therefore collaboration was sought of as a solution. This is why when Europeans attempted to use a claim of stopping slave trade in Africa they were warmly welcomed. They felt that it was fortune to accept the white man's rule to work against their human torture for example in Yorubaland, Nyasaland and in some parts of central Tanganyika.

Others collaborated because it could provide them unlimited opportunities in business and government for example the Creoles of Sierra Leone in West Africa worked in the extension of colonial rule because they believed that European protectorates would open up large fields for trade. This would also help the spread of Christianity and provide them with wide opportunities to govern the new protectorates.

A number of African states had been torn apart by succession disputes. Some African leaders welcomed Europeans as allies against their rivals for the throne. This was true with chief Lenana ofMasai who welcomed the British as allies against his brother Sendeyo who was righting to overthrow him. In Ankole, there was a power struggle between princess Rwakatogoro and Igumira, following the death of Omugabe Ntare. Therefore, it became easy for British to take over Ankole through collaboration response as a result of their power struggle.

Some collaborated because they were opportunists who jumped on to the European bandwagon for wealth and prestige. This was true with Semei Kakungulu and chief Mbaguta of Ankole whose major reason for collaboration was to get promised political power.

It is also true that some African leaders collaborated because they were ignorant of European plans and designs. They were innocently made to believe that the white man was a humanitarian and genuine friend whose alliance they needed. This group included Laibon Lenana of Masai, chief Lewanika of Lozi and Muteesa I of Buganda. However, war mongers like Mwanga, Moshesheo of Gaza empire, chief Lobengula of Ndebele, Jaja of Opobo and Samoure Toure realised the European hypocrisy and had to resist immediately.

The impact of missionary activity; Some Africans had no choice but to collaborate because of the influence of missionaries who had come to Africa. Europeans had represented some progress and enlightenment whose resistance meant backwardness. In addition, by the time of colonialism, Christianity had very many converts who despised African ways and praised European civilisation. It was this class of converts who helped Europeans to sign treaties in which Africans gave away their independence. Good examples include Sir Apollo Kagwa, Zakariya Kisingiri and Stanilas Mugwanya who helped in signing of Buganda agreement on behalf of the kingdom.

Desire to acquire modern ideas. Missionaries had already instilled a sense of lack of modern ideas among the Africans and it was the white man who was more knowledgeable than others. Africans thought of whites as being commanders in their development struggles. They wished to benefit in terms of technology and culture from the whites. The most important of which was perhaps knowledge on how to make the guns. They also admired whites on how they established schools, roads, hospitals and railway lines in their territories. They thought that through collaboration, they would achieve these modern ideas without necessarily losing their independence but incidentally, the white man could only offer this to Africans at the cost of losing their independence.

The difference between the neighbours' opinion; Samoure Toure resisted because the head ofTukolor Empire had collaborated with the French. In the Central Africa king Lobengula resisted because the Shona, his enemies had collaborated with British. Buganda collaborated because Bunyoro had resisted.

Weakness of slave trade:- Some societies collaborated because they had been weakened by the Slave trade of the 1911 century. This was an era when Africans were tired of being used as commodities and therefore decided to collaborate with the Europeans especially the 'British as a solution.

Weakened by natural commodities: Some communities collaborated because they had been weakened by natural disasters. Such disasters included the Masai and the Kikuyu \\ho were too weak to fight due to the famine brought by drought and epidemic. It is also soiled that by the coming of the British to Ankolc the people had been weakened by jigger epidemic which weakened their battle movements.

It is therefore clear that collaboration didn't necessary mean backwardness and neither did it imply progress. What is clear is that Africans who collaborated found themselves in circumstances where resistance could not benefit them. They therefore became partners in spreading colonisation by collaborating with Europeans and in most cases, Africans who gave in amicably stood to gain a lot unlike those who attempted to resist.

Moreover some collaborating societies had several advantages over those which resisted for example they acquired some social and economic infra structural developments plus other material benefits while resisters equally acquired the opposite. It is for this matter that some scholars regard collaborators as forward looking while the chauvinistic nationalists term them as traitors.