In the history of European colonisation of Africa, which description best explains how the continent was divided into countries and colonies by European powers?

Introduction / Context:
Modern African borders are largely a legacy of European colonial rule. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, European powers partitioned Africa among themselves, often with little regard for local realities. This question examines whether students understand that colonisers imposed artificial political boundaries rather than organising the continent along existing ethnic or cultural lines.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- The question asks how Africa was divided into countries during European colonisation.
- Options range from carefully respecting ethnic groups to giving nomadic peoples control over borders.
- We assume basic knowledge of the Scramble for Africa and the role of conferences and treaties in dividing territories.
- The aim is to choose the description that best matches historical reality.

Concept / Approach:
European colonial powers were motivated by economic interests, strategic concerns and rivalry with one another. When they drew borders, they often used lines of longitude, latitude or convenient geographic markers rather than local social structures. This created colonies that grouped together many different ethnic groups or split single groups across borders. As a result, many of today's African countries contain a mixture of peoples with diverse languages and cultures. The correct description must reflect this artificial and externally imposed nature of the boundaries.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall the role of the Berlin Conference and later treaties in dividing Africa among European powers.Step 2: Understand that these decisions were made by Europeans and usually did not involve consultation with African communities.Step 3: Compare the options and look for the one that explicitly states that artificial boundaries were drawn, ignoring ethnic and cultural groups.Step 4: Reject options that suggest each ethnic group received its own independent country, which contradicts the reality of mixed populations.Step 5: Reject the claim that boundaries were based strictly on language, since many multilingual regions were cut by colonial borders.Step 6: Reject the idea that nomadic peoples controlled border decisions, as colonisers rarely gave them such authority.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, picture the map of Africa and consider examples where a single ethnic group is split across several countries or where numerous groups live within one state. Historians often explain this pattern by pointing to colonial boundary making. Many countries contain long straight lines drawn on maps in European capitals. This evidence supports the description of artificial political boundaries rather than careful respect for local groups or language.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B is wrong because colonial powers did not undertake the very detailed and respectful task of granting each ethnic group its own state. Option C is incorrect because language similarities were not the primary basis for boundary drawing; many colonial borders divide language communities. Option D is also wrong because nomadic peoples had little political power in colonial negotiations and were usually constrained by boundaries they did not choose.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes idealise border formation, imagining a fair and carefully planned process. In Africa, however, colonial border drawing was often rushed and self interested. Another pitfall is to forget that ethnic and linguistic diversity within modern African states is partly a legacy of this process. Remembering that many African borders were drawn in European capitals rather than African communities helps keep the correct answer in mind.

Final Answer:
Africa was divided into countries when European powers drew artificial political boundaries that often ignored existing ethnic and cultural groups.