Final answer:
British imperialism in Nigeria involved economic exploitation and a mixture of direct and indirect rule, differing from the more direct and brutal methods used by King Leopold II in the Congo and a more bureaucratic system in India. All regions faced similar underlying exploitation for European benefit, leading to resistance and eventually to national independence movements like in Ghana.
Step-by-step explanation:
British imperialism in Nigeria was marked by economic exploitation and the imposition of British control over the local population and resources. Unlike King Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo, who infamously brutalized locals for resources such as copper and rubber, British control in Nigeria evolved through a combination of military prowess and strategic alliances with indigenous rulers. This allowed for a mix of direct and indirect rule, relying on existing political structures to facilitate the administration and extraction of wealth.
Comparatively, in India, Britain established a more robust bureaucratic system to ensure the steady flow of raw materials and the sale of British goods, consolidating their rule into an imperial model centered around economic benefits for the British economy. The practice of economic imperialism led to resistance not just in Africa, but in India and China as well. While the strategies of imperialism differed, the underlying motive of exploiting the colonies for European gain remained consistent.
After the First World War, British imperial powers further pressured their African colonies for resources, paying inequitable prices, which eventually fueled nationalist movements. It took a combination of nonviolent resistance and political pressure for nations like Ghana to achieve independence. British imperialism, wherever it occurred, ultimately left a legacy of economic restructuring and political change.