Pre-colonial Africa consisted of states and empires that had extensive intra-continential engagement as well as interaction with other continents, including warefare and expansions of empires. Yet colonization is painted out as something abruptly different and new in history.
For example, Omani control of east African coast (swahili), Ethiopian annexation of Ogaden in the 19th century; or take the Nguni invasion into southern Mozambique in the early 19th century as an example; emperor Gungunyana is now the depicted as the last resistor to Portuguese colonization of Mozambique, but the Nguni themselves had invaded southern Mozambique. These are not labeled colonial, yet the Portuguese who had been in Africa for centuries are thought of as colonial. So why was the Portuguese takeover of the Nguni considered colonization, but the Nguni extending their empire into Mozambique 70 years earlier was not?
Was there something actually fundamentally different with the colonial occupations than the previous historical invasions and occupations? Or was it the emergence of the concept of nation states that created the concept of colonialism (the way we view invasions and occupations changed rather than the acts themselves changing)?
Amateur historian here very interested to hear any answers 🙂
For example, Omani control of east African coast (swahili), Ethiopian annexation of Ogaden in the 19th century; or take the Nguni invasion into southern Mozambique in the early 19th century as an example; emperor Gungunyana is now the depicted as the last resistor to Portuguese colonization of Mozambique, but the Nguni themselves had invaded southern Mozambique. **These are not labeled colonial**, yet the Portuguese who had been in Africa for centuries are thought of as colonial.
I’m not sure that your premise is correct. To use your first example, a search for “Omani colonialism” or “Omani colonization” would give you a multitude of references in recent literature. Here are half a dozen examples:
[1](https://books.google.com/books?id=7VF1ts7UM0QC&pg=PA68&dq=%22omani+colonialism+and+clove+plantations%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidtPX0y6DYAhWFYyYKHWakCRcQ6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=%22omani%20colonialism%20and%20clove%20plantations%22&f=false) [2](https://books.google.com/books?id=ZyYsBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA349&dq=%22portuguese+and+omani+colonialism%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO08CGzKDYAhUB7yYKHXQiBuAQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22portuguese%20and%20omani%20colonialism%22&f=false) [3](https://books.google.com/books?id=PAYfBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=%22omani+colonialism+of+the+nineteenth-century%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1k4iD1aDYAhVH3SYKHbmWD1UQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22omani%20colonialism%20of%20the%20nineteenth-century%22&f=false) [4](https://books.google.com/books?id=qp5go8Xve4wC&pg=PA290&dq=%22omani+colonialism+and+the+primacy+of+African+power%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-3_-rzKDYAhWDNiYKHbpwBY4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22omani%20colonialism%20and%20the%20primacy%20of%20African%20power%22&f=false) [5](https://books.google.com/books?id=WTP47KlX4hUC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=%22omani+colonization%22&source=bl&ots=TIAdpD2Au6&sig=PQDrd20KjAh46O0Nlck8J-knf0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipqfzozKDYAhVHKiYKHcFVCDYQ6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=%22omani%20colonization%22&f=false) [6](https://books.google.com/books?id=4QGV7Eiy3PsC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=%22omani+colonization%22&source=bl&ots=IrdhcpM1Yj&sig=5agmIIgsx5tnKHMa9ZeLnJkAliU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipqfzozKDYAhVHKiYKHcFVCDYQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=%22omani%20colonization%22&f=false)
The term “colonialism” was coined in the late 19th century to refer to the system of colonial rule imposed by European powers on much of the world, but there is no essential reason why this term can’t also be used to describe earlier, non-European empires (and indeed, it has).
In general, one of the characteristic features of “colonialism” (as opposed to “expansionism” as a whole) is that it involves a group of people imposing their control over a territory to which they are essentially alien, and establishing a core-periphery relationship (i.e. where the colony is made peripheral and subservient to the core territory or metropole). This is what distinguishes Tokugawa’s conquest and unification of Japan from, for example, the much later Japanese colonization of Taiwan or Korea. Likewise, in Africa, it may not be appropriate to label every single case of pre-modern expansionism as “colonization,” but there are many instances which may fit this label, as with the case of Omani colonization of the East African coast. Whether or not a specific case of expansionism can be labelled “colonialism” is ultimately dependent on the definition of the term that the author in question is using, and the particular circumstances of that case.
Whaddaya Say?