Colonialism in Africa
Contents
ABSTRACT
The
effects of colonialism all through have been a topic for debate for many
scholars. Some are of the opinion that colonialism brought about good and bad
while some are of the opinion that it brought about either of the two only.
The
writer of this essay therefore stands out to give a hermeneutical approach to
this topic and narrowing down to African and its effects on the African man and
its continual effect on him.
COLONIALISM
Colonialism is a term that is not new to the modern
world. Its meaning and definition has been continually been confused with
imperialism. However the difference still stands. The term colonialism being
almost a normal term for many came as a result of the past. Many including the
children of this generation are at home with that. They also know of the
colonial masters. This paper is therefore aimed at having a critical insight
and hermeneutical approach into the meaning of colonialism and all that has to
with it.
WHAT IS COLONIALISM?
Colonialism is a term that can be dated back to the
ancient Greeks and Romans which is due to the extended territories they had.
This territories where made up of conquered people which formed their colonies.
Such colonies include the Moors, the Ottomans and the rest of them.
The meaning however changed around the sixteenth
century because of the advancement of technology in sea navigation. It became
easier for the Europeans to get to remote parts of the world. This brought about
the emergence of Modern colonial project when it became possible for people to
be moved in numbers across the ocean to maintain political sovereignty in spite
of geographical dispersion. The term colonialism is frequently used to describe
the settlement of North America, Australia, New Zealand, Algeria, and Brazil,
places that were controlled by a large population of permanent European
residents.[1]
This is in opposition to the term imperialism which is a case whereby foreign
government administer a territory without significant settlement. Imperialism
also had to do with a system of military domination and sovereignty over
territories.
Etymologically, colonialism has root word in the Latin
word “colonus” meaning farmer. Also, “colere” which means to inhabit. This root
reminds us that the practice if colonialism usually involved the transfer of population
to a new territory, where the arrivals lived as permanent settlers while
maintaining political allegiance to their country of origin.[2]If
the two are to be joined we can then say that it involves a movement to inhabit
and to farm or make life out of the new inhabitant. However, in an attempt to
define colonialism Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy amidst the difficulty
in its definition defined it as “a practice of domination, which involves the
subjugation of one people by another.[3]
This subjugation is majorly for economic reasons and exploitation. It was
further defined as the policy if a nation seeking to extend or retain its
authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of
developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country and
helping the colonies modernize in terms defined by the colonizers, especially
in economics, religion and health.[4]Colonialism
is a direct and overall domination of one country by another in the basis of
state power being in the hands of a foreign power.[5]
In colonialism something is very evident therein; that
there is a domination of one state (colonized) by another state (colonisers). There
is also presence of exploitation and subjugation which is an inhuman treatment
in colonialism. The colonised and the colonisers are often not of the same
culture, tradition and believe. So the colonisers being the master are there to
force their own belief on their subjects. In essence one can then infer that if
imperialism is mostly a rule of and with command and colonialism is a rule of
domination and subjugation then it means that colonialism is a more severe form
of imperialism. This is so because in imperialism the masters might not be there
or camped with the ruled.In colonialism, the masters there to bend all to their
will with the use of command and force. The colonisers followed the principle
of mercantilism too enrich their own economy at the expense of the colonised.
Colonialism all depended on economic exploitation and
political oppression that usually took one of these two forms
1.
Informal
colonialism: The coloniser builds commercial and political relationship with
the people of the place they visit. This relationship takes place with the help
of the elites of the place and this does not involve military conquest or land
occupation
2.
Formal
colonialism: this type is the type that took place in Africa. The Europeans
came by force of arms and by the occupying presence of settlers, conquered
territories bringing land and people under their rule. A colony as this is
exploited with impunity. The colonisers takes raw material from them at a low
price to their country, they are processed in their country thereby creating
job opportunities for their people. The finished products are then sold to the
colonies at a very high price all for the purpose of profit. These colonisers
also set up their factories denying the indigenous people the right to do the
same
However, colonialism is broadly categorised into two.
They are:
·
Colonies of
settlement
·
Colonies of
exploitation
Colonies of settlement
These were large scale settlement. The colonies in
this category are seen as part of the mother country. This is because their
climate closely resembles that of the Europeans of the mother country. Examples
of such country are Canada and the US. This dates back to 1600s-1763. The
native people in this category were forcibly moved or killed and the foreign
culture was transplanted to the new areas[6]
(colonies).
Colonies of exploitation
The colonies established here lacked or was not
characterized by large scale foreign settlement. Control was established through
force or an alliance with the local ruling elite. It is the national economic
policy of conquering a country to exploit its population as labour and its
natural resources as raw material.[7]
Examples of such places include Africa, the Caribbean and south and Central
America. The Europeans took full charge of the industries there. They
established it and gave none of the indigenes the right to owe one. The local
people were force to hard labour and made to export raw materials to the mother
country.
For a better comprehension of the topic in discussion
there is need for the explanation of the terms used in this essay
Colony
This is the territory secured by the colonisers.
Essentially, a colony is a collectivity of people.[8]A
country that is under the political control of a more powerful country, usually
one that is far away.[9]The
establishment of colonies involves the transfer of a substantial or entire
population. It can also be established by a population that is less numerous
than the local population. These migrants most of the time come from countries
with strong political centres. Immigration in strong numbers usually results in
the assimilation, marginalisation or extinction of the original population
(North America, Australia, some parts of Latin America, Greek colonies in the
Iron Age).[10]Smaller
immigration can entail enslavement of disenfranchisement of local population.
For analytical purposes colonies can divided into four
1.
Pure imperial
colonies (provinces): these are colonies established through conquest for the
purpose of tributary exploitation.
2.
Imperial
settlement coloniesare established by massive settlement colonisation flanked
by military power with the purpose of exploiting local labour and exporting
excess population. Here you can have extinction or marginalisation (New
England, Canada, Australia) or disenfranchisement (southern Rhodesia, south and
south West Africa, French Algeria).
3.
Pure settlement
colonies, established through massive settlement colonisation, characterised by
violence, with the purpose of land seizure. This results in local population
being marginalised as in the cases of Russian East, the American West, Greek
Sicily, Magna Graecia, partly Phoenician colonies in North Africa, Sardinia and
Spain.
4.
Outpost
colonies, established through conquest or peaceful agreement, usually
characterised by a mild flux of the colonial immigrants. It is for the purpose
of gaining access to hinterland: Hong Kong, Batavia, Malacca, Singapore, Aden,
Shanghai, Pithekoussai, Phoenician trading posts in Spain, Sicily and North
Africa.
A historian of the modern world would define colony as
political entity created, by means invasion, on the base of pre-colonial
conditions, whose foreign authorities are permanently dependent on a spatially
distant ‘motherland’ or imperial centre, which lays exclusive claim to the
colony.[11]
Meanwhile, a colony would be cemented into a position of economic dependency by
which the metro pole sucked surplus value from its claimed possessions in the
form of its claimed possessions in the form of plundered raw materials (mineral
wealth, flora and fauna, and plantation cash crops), while selling manufactured
goods back to them.[12]
Some of the known colonial outpost of French, Spanish,
Dutch and Russia on the American continent include; New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. These
colonies later made up the known fifty states of the U.S.A. Such colonies were
equally divided and named after the benefit they providedfor the Europeans.
They include the following: English Colonial Expansion(this was majorly for the
purpose of profit making), The tobacco colonies(was a better option since the
Jamestown could not provide more gold and profit than tobacco, New England
colonies, The middle colonies and the Southern colonies
Colonisation
Colonization is a process by which a central system of
power dominates the surrounding land and its components.[13]
Colonisation can be used as a method if absorbing and assimilating foreign
people into the culture of the imperial country, and thus destroying any
remnant of the cultures that might threaten the imperial territory over the
long term by inspiring reform.[14]
A better word for it could be ‘invasion’ or ‘seizure of land’. The bigger
country or imperial goes to the farthest distant place to gain control of it
both economically and political. They try to create networks of outpost or
pushing forward their boundaries. It then could be seem as expansion. There colonisation
without colonies (frontier colonisation like in the Russian East and the
American west or “internal” colonisation claiming so far unsettled area from
nature) and there are colonies without colonisation (the case of pure imperial
colonies above).[15]
Colonisation is synonymous with “invasion and seizure of land, a process of
using force on the other people”.
Hegemony
Hegemony is the political, economic or military
predominance or control of one state over others.[16]It
would be the complete military domination of a region. Cambridge dictionary
gave a quitedifferent definition. It defined it as the position of being the
strongest and most powerful and therefore able to control others. It is said to
have originated in the 6th century BC. The founders of Hegemony are
Philip II of Macedon. Its origin is traced to Greece. Initially in the 19th
century, hegemony was used to represent “social or cultural predominance or
ascendancy” until later it can now be used to mean “a group or regime which
exerts undue influence within a society”.
Metropole
Metropole is the homeland or central territory of a
colonial empire. It is a French word that came from the Latin word metropolis.
Metropolis then means the chief or capital of a country, state, or region.
Another has it as the city or state of origin of a colony (Merriam Webster
dictionary)
ORIGIN OF COLONIALISM
Colonisation is one that stretches around the globe
and across time. Although colonisation is a term that came with the European
overseas empire where there were other contiguous land-based empires. Such
empires include the Mongol Empire, the Empire of Alexander the Great, the
Umayyad caliphate, the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire.
The European colonialism was conventionally regarded as imperialism.
The European colonialism is more or less regarded as
the Modern colonialism. The Morden colonialism started with the journey, tour
and conquest of Ceuta by the Portuguese along the west coast of Africa, which
in 1948 brought Vasco de Gama to India. Colonialism was led by Portuguese and
Spanish exploration of the Americas, and the coasts of Africa, the Middle East,
India, and East Asia[17].
They established their colonies overseas and clung to them even after the
imperialism ceased. The Europeans were the masters of America, Dutch and
Britishbegan to stake out their claims in India and the Indies. After several
trials England, France and the Netherlandsestablished their own overseas empire
around the 17th century in competition with each other and Spanish
and Portuguese.
In the eighteenth and early nineteenth century the
first of decolonisation start with America gaining their independence from
their different European Metropole. Spain and Portugal were irreversibly
weakened after the loss of their New World colonies. However Britain united
with England and Scotland as one entity and together with France and the
Netherlands turned their attention to the Old world, particularly South Africa,
India and South East Asia where coastal enclaves had already been established. Germany
in union under Prussia sought colonies in Deutsch Ostafrika. Britain’s command
of the seas, and its industrial head start gave it a virtual monopoly of access
to the world overseas making unnecessary the kind of exclusive control that
colonialism offered.[18]The
Britain’s abandoned mercantilism and this made thecoloniesless attractivethan
they had been.
China was opened to the penetration of the west but was
not subject to colonial rule. Only in India did the British more or less consistently
expand their colonial sway, and France took over Algeria and made its first
encroachments in Indochina. In Britain it was even seriously proposed, not long
before the start of the scramble for Africa, that there should be a withdrawal
from African holding
In the quarters on the nineteenth century, Africa was
almost totally divided among the Europeans as colonies. In other areas as well
new colonies were carved out or old ones consolidated and extended, as in Southeast
Asia, where the Dutch, French, and British greatly expanded the scope and
intensity of their rule in the Indies, Indochina, Malaya and Burma.[19]During
the twentieth century, the overseas colonies of the losers of the World War I
were distributed amongst the victors as mandates.
Some important dates in colonialism include
1492: The year Columbus “discovered” the America
1550: The start of the Valladolid debate
1660: Start of the English restoration
1754: the eve of the Seven Years’ War, known as the
French and Indian Warin America. One of the first wars fought around the world
1822: Brazil declares independence from Portugal
1885: Berlin Conference formalizing the scramble for
Africa
1914: the eve of World War I
1938: The year before World War 2 breaks out in
Europe, although World War 2 in Asia had already begun.
1959: The year before France grants independence to
its remaining French colonies in Africa
1974: The year before Portugal recognises the
independence of Mozambique and Angola
2008: The year the map was originally made.[20]
What then could have been the cause the colonial powers
to practice and to colonise other people without their consent. What could be the
reason why they choose to dehumanise other people by imposition of their self.
Their reasons for such practices are:
·
Economic benefit
to the colonising power, which may or may not benefit the colony
·
To expand their
power
·
To escape persecution
in the colonizer
·
Obtaining
military advantage such as the creation of a buffer state or the removal of a threat
·
To convert the
indigenous population to the colonist religion
Some of these colonist thought they were of serious
help to the colonised by the provision of religion and civilization. That notwithstanding,
whatever help they had to offer is not far away from maltreatment, dehumanization,
subjugation, displacement or death. Colonisation is majorly characterised by
the following features
·
Political and
legal domination over an alien society
·
Relations of
economics and political dependence
·
Exploitation
between imperial powers and the colony
·
Racial and
cultural inequality
COLONIALISM IN AFRICA
Colonialism in Africa took of around the 1800s and 1970s
formerly after slave trade must have ended. Slave trade in Africa started as
far back as 1400s. The European imperialist and the military trope found their way
into Africa and amidst several effort by to resist the Europeans by the then
Africans they were conquered and colonised. The Europeans forced their selves
on the African societies and communities.
They dominated and dictated every move that was made and is to be made
in a land that virtually does not belong to them. The European traders raided
African towns and captured people. Europeans instigated a kind of slavery that
ransacked African life and society. From 1520 to 1860, about ten to twelve
million Africans were enforced into the slavery.[21]
They were sent to colonies in North and South America and many of them died of
disease and starvation on and before arriving. By the early twentieth century
most of the African communities had already been colonised with the exception
of Ethiopia and Liberia. Liberia was founded by the Americas for the
emancipated slaves and their descendants. The British on the other hand
established Sierra Leone for the emancipated slaves also and that was thirty
years before America created theirs
Their zeal for the colonisation of Africa was
seriously affected by economic, political, military and social factor as we
have earlier discoursed. This developed as a result of the collapse in the
profitability of slave trade, its abolition and suppression, as well as the
expansion of the European capitalist industrialisation. They wanted a sure
means of sourcing raw materials, a good market and profitable investment
outlets. All these selfish interest made them scramble and partition and
finally conquer Africa. Some authors however are of the opinion that the reasons
for the colonisation of Africa were purely for economic purposes and others are
of the opinion that it is because the take the Africans as “sub-humans” or
“less than humans”. Either way, they are not wrong but whatever reason they
have is purely not for the interest of the blacks on the long run.
THE SCRAMBLE FOR AFRICA: 1886-1912
Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Portugal,
and Spain were in serious competition for power within European power politics.
One of the ways to express this was through the acquisition of territories
around the world, including Africa. Europe then had a social problem of
industrialization which lead to the increase of unemployment, poverty,
homelessness, social displacementfrom rural areas, and so on. These social
problems developed partly because not all peoplecould be absorbed by the new
capitalist industries. To resolve the issue they had to acquire colonies and
send down some of these populations to those places. This led to the
establishment of colonies of settlement in Algeria, Central African areas like
Zimbabwe and Zambia, Tunisia, South Africa, Nambia, Angola and Mozambique.
In a bit to satisfy the economic, political and social
need this led the colonial powers to
scramble for Africa. This equally led to the establishment of stakes in
different parts of the continent. It equally causedcommercial competition that
became so intense that there were exclusive claims to particular territories
for trade and the imposition of tariffs against other European traders. They
went as far as claiming control of the waterway which their forefathers neither
owned nor had any knowledge of at the expense of the indigenous people.
This became so serious that there were fears that it
could lead to inter-imperialist conflict and possibly war. To avoid future
menace, a diplomatic summit of European powers was convened by the German
chancellor Otto Von Bismarck in the late nineteenth century. This was the
famous BerlinWest African conference (more generally known as the Berlin
conference), held from November 1884 to February 1885.[22]As
a result a treaty known as Berlin act was produced. This was a guide to the
conduct of the European inter-imperialist competition in Africa. Therein you
can find some articles like
1.
The principle of
Notification (Notifying) other powers of a territorial annexation (to
incorporate a country or a territory
2.
The principle of
effective Occupation to validate the annexation
3.
Freedom of trade
in the Congo Basin
4.
Freedom of
Navigation on the Niger and Congo Rivers
5.
Freedom of trade
to all nations
6.
Suppression of
the slave Trade by land and sea
This is like the famous biblical saying “they sat down
and divided my cloth among them and cast lots for my garment” (psalms 22:18)
what a tragedy for the black man. Not even a single African was involved in
this. With this treaty it became easier for them to partition and colonise
Africa by different European power. After about fifteen years after the
conference the Africa continent is almost entirely shared out. Only about few
territories bordering the Sahara was remaining and by 1912 they too were shared
(Mauritania, the Central African Republic, Chad and Morocco) by France and
Libya by Italy.
The Great Britain acquired a huge colonial empire in
Africa. They used diplomacy and military force as a weapon that guided them. In
West Africa the British colonies include Nigeria, the Gold coast (Ghana),
Sierra Leone, Gambia and Cameroon. In east Africa they had Uganda, Kenya,
Zanzibar, British Somaliland, and Tanganyika, a former German colony known as German
East Africa. In central Africa they had Zimbabwe, Zambia (Northern Rhodesia),
Malawi, Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland. In North Africa they colonised Egypt
and Sudan
France also had a good number of colonies. In the
North they had Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. In the west and Central Africa it
was Senegal, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Togo, Benin, Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Gabon, and Congo. In the southern Sahara they also had Mauritania,
Mali, Upper Volta, Niger, and Chad. In the east wereMadagascar,Djibouti, and
Comoro Islands.
Germany’s defeat in the world was what resulted tothe
loss of all its colonies. Before then, they had Togo and Cameroon in the west
and the south west they had Namibia, in the east they had Tanzania, Rwanda and
Burundi.
Italy was equally defeated in the World War II. They however before then took over some
territories for the Ottoman Turks and Ethiopia
Portugal was one of the earliest African explorers of
the sub-Saharan Africa. Their colony was first Cape Verde, Sao Tome Principe
and Mozambique.
Below is a comprehensive list of African States with
the year of their independence and their colonial masters.
Country Independence Day Colonial Name Colonial Country
Algeria July
5th, 1962 France
Angola November
11th; 1975 Portugal
Benin August
1st; 1960 France
Botswana September
30th, 1966
Bechuanaland Britain
Burkina
Faso August
5; 1960 France
Burundi July
1st; 1962 Belgium
Cameroon January
1st; 1960 French-UN
Trusteeship
Cape
Verde July
5th; 1975 Portugal
C.A.R August
13th; 1960 France
Chad August
11th, 1960 France
Comoros July
6th; 1975 France
Congo August
15th; 1960 France
Congo
DRC June
30th; 1960 Belgium
Cote
d’Ivoire August
7th; 1960 France
Djibouti June
27th; 1977 France
Egypt February
28th, 1922 Britain
Eq
Guinea October
12; 1968 Spain
Eritrea May
24th; 1993 Ethiopia
Ethiopia over
2000 years,Neve r (formerly) Never
Colonized Kingdom
of Aksum
Gabon August
17th; 1960 France
Gambia February
18th; 1965 Britain
Ghana 6
March 1957 Gold
Coast Britain
Guinea October
2nd; 1958 France
Guinea
Bissau 10
September 1974
24 September 1973 Portugal
Kenya December
12th, 1963 Britain
Lesotho October
4th; 1966 Britain
Liberia July
26th; 1847 American
colonization
Society
Libya December
24; 1951 Italy
Madagascar June
26th; 1960 France
Malawi July
6th; 1964 Britain
Mali September
22nd; 1960 France
Mauritania November
28th; 1960 France
Mauritius March
12th, 1968 Britain
Morocco March
2nd; 1956 France
Mozambique June
25th; 1975 Portugal
Namibia March
21st; 1990 South
African mandate
Nager August
3rd; 1960 France
Nigeria October
1st, 1960 Britain
Rwanda July
1st; 1962 Belgium-UN
Trusteeship
Sao
Tome Principe July 12th; 1975 Portugal
Senegal April
4th; 1960 France
Seychelles June
29th; 1976 Britain
Sierra
Leone April
27th; 1961 Britain
Somalia July
1st; 1960 British
Somaliland
Italian
Somaliland BritainItaly
South
Africa 11
December 1931,
April 1994(end of apatheid) Union of South Africa Britain
Sudan January
1st; 1956 Egypt,
Britain
Swaziland September
6th; 1968 Britain
Tanzania April
26th, 1964 Britain
Togo April
27th; 1960 French-UN
Trusteeship
Tunisia March
20th; 1956 France
Uganda October
9th; 1962 Britain
Zambia October
24th; 1964 Britain
Zimbabwe April
18th; 1980 Britain
EFFECT OF COLONIALISM IN AFRICA
It becomes a pure act of wickedness when a human sees
another as a sub-human. For him, nothing good can ever come out of such a
person even if such a person should offer the best of what he can. Such was case
of the African man. The European man saw the Africans as just a tool and their
land as a treasure that is meant to be owed and exploited and not developed. The
colonialist used Africans as means to an end. Such end was to enrich their
country and better their own place while the Africans lavish in perjury.
Whatever that the Africa continent suffers today to a large extent is all
credence to the colonialist. The good of the blacks was not in their plan at
all. All human are selfish one may tend to say but to be selfishly selfish and
inconsiderate is a devilish act which is the act of the Europeans. To achieve
their aim they took to made strategies just to accomplish such.
At first they took hold of the African economy and
crumbled it. The African man as then timid and unintelligent suffered this and
could offer little or no resistance to the Europeans. Their political
administration soon came into the hands of the whites and then the black man
was left with nothing. If politics according to ...Jeffrey ... is extremely broad and comprises any
kind of independent leadership in action[23]
it then follows that the colonialist saw the blacks as incapable of ruling
themselves and therefore must make them dependable on him. It could also follow
that it is a case of man being wolf to man for cases of hidden agenda that may
not come through if the black man continues to be in power.This is evident as
Nwankwo C. Writes “the colonialist needed raw material for their industries and
the African economies were organised at the time, they were not sure of steady
supply of the required raw material”.[24]They
made use of what Jeffrey of called “economic elite” to dismantle the African
economic and political stand since the two are “a can’t do without.” They took direct
control of African economy and political administration. An example could be
seen as that the Europeans, who needed palm oil for their soap making industry,
had to compel Africans to concentrate on the production of palm oil in
commercial quantities to ensure steady and adequate production and availability
of this commodity. They in other word feared that if Africans should be left to
control their economy, they might decide to produce only plantains.
The whole purpose of this aggressive takeover of the
African economy and political administration was because of the need for food
and the need to have a good world market and international economy. There was
in the past before the arrival of the colonialist an increase in poverty and
requirement for food in the western world. They could not produce enough food.
Africa now became sort of a garden of the Europeans where theygrow the food
they eat. The annoying part is that the black had to do this for them and they
send it home forcefully. They also had to satisfy their need of international
market and economy. Africa served the role of production of raw materials for
the European household and industries. It is a pity that up till now the
Africans are yet to live above that level of being a land of raw materials for
the European countries.
The wickedness and selfishness of the colonial Lords
knew no bounds, no fear of God and humanity. You are from Africa then you are
just an implement as that used for farming. In their greed they went on to make
Africa a consumer state since they now wielded the sword. Africa became a state
that consumed a finished product of which they are the producers of its raw
material. The colonialist also did this to ensure that their industries had a
ready market where they could dispose their already produced goods. They did not
end at that they had to protect their ground and industries by making sure that
the Africans do not owe any industries that could be a threat to theirs, a pure
act of inhumanity.
The colonialist wanting a total submission and control
of the African states conquered her and all her territories. Africa was
conquered political, economically, culturally, socially and by enslaving the
native people of Africa. They had the necessary arsenals that they needed to
carry out all these. Their guns, warships, astrolabes and nautical compasses
which they acquired with the help of some of their colonies were of serious
help to them. For nearly six centuries now, Western Europe and its Diasporas have
been disturbing the peace of the world.[25]
With that their conquest was so fast, with their power of fire arms Africa was
no match at all.
One thing leads to another, this conquest of theirs
using fire arms also displaced the Africans from their homes. This displacement
gave them a three way benefit viz: subjected people under them, displaced
people thereby giving them enough land for farming and providing them with
displaced individuals who will have to work on their farm. They used the living
place of the individuals for farming, used them for the work and took away the
benefit from them, chai!! Man’s inhumanity to man. The European went on to help
one faction of the people to dispose a ruler and install another, and to bestow
honours, title and recognition upon those whose rule they found it in their
interest to support.
A squadron of four ships with a total of ninety-eight
guns were sent to West African coast to enforce the British law of 1807 that
kicked against slave trade and to protect legitimate traders who do not deal on
slaves. These squadrons I must acknowledge
helped to bring to an end the issue of slave trade. However, it was converted
to another side which now ensured the total domination of the African man’s
country and home. With this squadron Africa was defeated politically and the
weakness of their military exposed. The rulers of Africa who for centuries ago
protested their domains and guaranteed the peace of the coastal market had
little or no power to do that again. They equally forced the African rulers to
open the markets of their hinterland to British participation. They also forced
unequal trade upon the Africans. Africa could offer little or no resistance to
them.
The system of forced labour was not introduced into
Africa. They acquired people by conquest and many other strategies. They were force to work mines, sugar
plantations and industries. They worked for gold, copper, diamond, asbestos,
tin, iron and zinc. They also worked in the farm to produce wool, sisal,
palm-oil and kernels, cotton, cocoa, rubber and groundnut. Apart from the use
of physical force, they applied many other plans to ensure that the Africans
were there to work for them. They made sure that the Africans totally depended
on them to survive. They either applied to you or forced you to abandon your
land for them to be used in achieving the success of the industrial period and
improving their own economy.
Chinweizu is of the opinion that one of the methods
used by the colonialist to compel labour from Africans was the used of legal
“coercion”. In Sierra Leone they
introduced a high and burdensome “hut-tax” which they enforced to the later.
This means was indeed a clever one. Since the Africans never traded before with
currency notes yet they had to pay the hut-tax in legal tender. For this they
also had to work for the whites to make sure that they obtain that legal tender
in order to pay for the tax. Not paying
is still not an option because certainly you will find yourself in the fields
working for the Europeans. Taxation was a major tool. The problem with it is
that the tax has to be paid in colonial currency. Before then the African man
paid tax to the rulers in cash or in kind. The imposition of these taxeson
Africans were majorly for the reasons of sourcing labours for their industries
and plantation and for the colonies to bear the cost of the personnel and the
administration. They equally made compulsory labour ordinances obligatory for
anyone who is of the labouring class.
Not minding the amount of human labour harnessed by
the colonist they still had to pay the labourers low wages for their labour.
What the Africans received as wages for their hard labour was barely enough to
contain and feed the family. The reason behind it as earlier noted was simply
to maintain effective control, domination and administration of the African
territories. The peasants andworkers of Europe (and eventually the inhabitants
of the whole world) paid a huge price so that the capitalist (Europeans) could
make their profit from the human labour that always lies behind the machines.[26]
IMPACT OF COLONIALISM IN AFRICA
So many are of the view that the Europeans brought
about so many good the people of the third world(Africa). They brought benefits
like education and civilization. They brought education and technological
development in Africa. They also brought about medical upliftment to the
African community. They are also of the view that the white man helped to
increase food production in Africa and helped to boost our economy and market
(which is aimed at selling their own products an export import experience).
What of health? The Blackman could have died off without the aid of the Whiteman
such people say.
To a philosopher, this may be true. It however depends on what you know to be
true, by what means do you judge the truism of the truthfulness of what you
claim to be true. What aim is the truth aimed at? And finally, how objective is
the truthfulness of this truth that is been claimed to be true? I strongly
believe that intentionality is of a major role in the judgement of whatever we
tend to judge. What is the means to that end to which we can see? Or does the
end justify the means of the means justify the end? I believe if we have a look
into this then we can place our judgment on an objective plain.
First, what is the aim of colonisation? As treated
above, the aim is simply to exploit. There was no good had in mind as at the
time of colonisation. It was all rounded up in selfish desire and patriotism of
one’s land at the expense of a weaker man. It was a state of nature were
whatever you lay your hands on becomes yours in as much as you can conquer who
ever claims to be the owner. They came to subdue the African man, subjugate him
and place him right underfoot and treat him like puppies.
The effect on this subjugation and defeat was not just
a physical and territorial conquest, it was also psychological. Africans were
left with the ideas that they are inferior to the whites. They placed the white
man almost on the same level with the gods. A people who made fire with
sticks(match sticks), man who could kill with thunder(gun), the eye of the gods
and many other things as such. In short, the third world finds itself and
speaks to itself through his voice.[27]
The black man now became a replica of the white man in his life style and
behaviour.
The African man started to see his culture as barbaric
and satanic. This was all hail to the missionaries who came to preach to us in
the name of bringing God to the blacks succeeded mostly in taking him away.
They forgot how Paul handled his own situation in the bible (Antioch). They
told the black man that he should do away with his gods as they had nothing
good to offer. Since that was part of the black man the result of what they
brought to the black man is today a two way type of worship where the blacks
neither left their ancestral gods nor held the white man God tenaciously. When
the going gets tough the black man still sought the face of his gods. There are
today more people in the church but fewer believers. Why? This is simply not
what the black man is. A thoroughly new mode of religion was brought to him.
The worst is still yet to come as the children of the twenty-first century that
are blacks neither followtheir ancestral gods nor follow the white man’s God.
The white man took away our eating pattern and food.
They brought in preserved foods which are less healthy than that which we used
to have in the past. No more tales by moon light which was a major mode or
means of education for the black man. No more eating together from one plate
which thought people the importance of brotherhood, communion and table
manners. No more patience as to wait for the brothers to come together. We now
see the Whiteman’s pattern as the best instead of ours.
What of our dressing code, marketing system, security,
naming and checking on the brothers. Today they all are blown to the winds. We
feel more comfortable in theirs. It only becomes a problem when one denies his
own self to put on another’s which can never be him. This does not in any way
compels people to follow a pattern that is not suitable to him because of
culture or certain believe. They succeeded in making most Africannon African and
non Europeans. They took away most of ourcultural practices and if culture is
the people’s way of live the Europeans left the Africans lifeless. Taking
Nigeria and the Igbo in particular as an example you discover that our lives is
neither core Igbo nor core western (not minding the development which some may
call cultural development). All these are summed up in the Igbo saying that
“bekeebuagbara” meaning the whites are gods or superior.
The famous British policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ is made
very prominent in the way it manipulated the geographical division of the
country which would ensure that one section is perpetually dominant in politics
over those it perceived as potentially strong in international relations.[28]
By so doing it now becomes evident that the Europeans came with war, worked
with war and left war for us while returning. Little wonder why every now and
then the African states are in constant power tussle. They were fully aware of
their actions when Mary Kingsley said that “whatever we do in Africa today, a
thousand years hence there will be Africans to thrive or suffer for it”.[29]
As in the case of Nigeria which might be the case in other colonies of theirs,
they divided the country and placed power more on a particular people who they
believe are loyal to them and can be easily manipulated. For a federation to
work, no one group will have the advantage of relying on its unaided
strength... if there be such a one, and only one, it will insist on being the
master of the joint deliberation.[30]
This has always been the Nigerian case.
The case of this unholy amalgation with one group given
much power by the Europeans in full understanding the there might be difference
in culture and believe have been a major setback and a problem brought about by
colonialism. History has it that Africans used to live in empires according to
their different nations and beliefs and thing actually worked out. The bringing
of these people together by the Europeans still has its hidden agenda. A case
is the case of the Nigerian Biafran war. A source as cited by Achebe
“cabinent papers for [1967],
just released, show how the decision to continue arming Nigeria was not based
on argument for or against secession, or on the interest of its people ...the
sole immediate British interest is to
bring the [Nigeria] economy back to a condition in which our substantial trade
and investment can be further developed”[31]
They have an agenda that is solely selfish and that
has its own self at the fore front.
The arrival of the Europeans brought to an increase
the rate of moral, social and political evil that today the Africans are still
held in its shackles. Morally speaking, they case if maltreatment. I believe that
in the African society that was never as severe as it is now. True we had
slaves which were sold out. These slaves we had before the actual slave trading
by the whites had to opportunity of working out their freedom based on
agreement. It should be noted also that such slaves as account has it are victims
or war or the stubborn and troublesome of the society that were sold out to
ensure the peaceful coexistence in the community. The white man thought the
blacks that it was right for you to maltreat someone who is under you and who
you have power over just as we can deduce form the government they used on us.
Africa is a continent that believes in brotherhood as some of their adage and
proverbs rightly points out, such as “I am because you are and you are because
I am” and so many others. The arrival of the whites brought individuality,
selfishness, greed and all worth not at its highest
level. Socially speaking the increase of theft and social stratifications,
the system of “man pass man” are all thanks to the colonial masters. Not
minding how awful it sounds Christianity has today thought the African man that
you can do anything and go away with it because we have a forgiving God that
forgives us our sins. Never was such a thing heard in African, commit a sin and
bear the consequences. That a least had a check on the social vices being
committed in the community. The arrival of the European also brought into
existence the unholy act of rape. This has never been African until the arrival
of these monsters in the African soil.
Politically many African countries are what can be
said to be dead on arrival. Killed by the colonial master who they thought have
ceremonially left, but has refused to let go. They are the back bone to some if
not most of the African problems. Attack them and face the consequences. A
typical example can be seen the case of Nigeria, Sir James Robertson remained
behind to course havoc in the Nigerian system just as Chinua Achebe reports
“...a English junior civil servant named Harold Smith had been selected by no
other than Sir James Robertson to Oversee the rigging of Nigeria’s first
election...”[32]. This
will then tell you that rigging didn’t just happen among the blacks, they
introduced and thought us that. They taught favouritism and made some people
think that they are born to rule and in the case of Nigeria Fulani case. Of course
when a people think they are better off than others the result is violence.
The reason why the educational system of the blacks is
in a bit of shambles is partly credited to the colonial lords. They gave the
Africans half-baked educational system. A system that was majorly theoretical
and not practical. An educational system that is not rooted in our culture. One
may argue why the Africans left their own educational system for the white man
to handle. My simple answer is that the black being under the sword was left
with no other option but to accept that knowing full well that it is the only
means of survival for you. The educational system that was practiced trained
mostly clerks, interpreters, produce inspectors, artisans and the rest of them
who are a tool that aided them in their capitalist enterprise. Africans were
not trained to make use of the laboratories. Most things were done literarily and
that could account for the reason why the field of humanities excelled more in
Africa than the science and technological aspect. Think of the likes of Chinua
Achebe, Wole Soyinka, Chimamanda Adichie and the rest of them. These people
reached the height because that is where the African man was trained. What
height do you think the African man would have been if he was trained
technologically with the availability of raw materials at his disposal? That notwithstanding,
the field of humanities in the African educational system have been carefully
manipulated. The manipulation is such that the history being taught is nothing
but a carefully selected few. A history that is filled with lies and aimed at
conditioning of the student to believe what is not. If that is not the case
then why would the history taught to the Nigerian student be devoid of the
history of the Biafran war?
Technologically, Africa was rendered unproductive
right from the very first start. Educationally, the African man lacked
laboratory experience and the practical aspect of studies. Historically, the
colonial masters blocked any possible way that the Africans could have had or
built industries. The industries that they allowed were those that could
benefit them. Economically, the African man was made to believe that they do
not need industries to make their money. They only had to sell their produce or
barter it for a finished product. The little industries that were erected in
Africa were those which were built with inferior materials. An industry that
lacked professional expertise and maintenance. An industry that caused more
harm than good. An industry that if created will have to pay excessive tax. Industry
became a thing of contempt when it is not created by the born to rule. Every
possible attempt will be made to shut it down.
Be it that as it may, Africans had their own form of
technology that prospered. Theirs took a direction that is very different from
ours. We had good sculptors, carvers, cloth weavers, miners, blacksmiths, etc.
they were able to satisfy the technological need of the various African
societies. They provided services that were ad
rem to the African society and they improved technological according to the
period of time they found their selves in. It was at the conception of
education that caused these skills to die untimely. Just as we earlier
discussed the colonial masters gave no room for their growth.
Economically, Africa was totally dealt with as it was
one of the ways in which the Europeans had to enrich themselves. There was
disarticulation in the production of goods, markets, traders, transport,
provision of social amenities and pattern of urbanization etc. the colonialists
introduced a pattern of international division of labour which was to the
disadvantage of Africans.[33]They
only made sure that whatever that the African man grows or makes is surely for
the benefit of the motherland. Africans had the function of production of raw
materials for their industries. The African raw materials were bought at very
low prices and sold back to them as a very high price. African only produced
food that were meant for export then and import goods that were for their own
consumption. Thus, the reason for the African states being majorly consumers is
now evident. A typical example can be
seen the textile industries of Yoruba and Benin which the Europeans used the
last of what they could to crumble. They killed the industry and made the
Africans buy what they (Europeans) produced with their (Africans) raw
materials. They African man practised this for not less than four centuries and
it now became part of them. It also affirms the word of Mary Kingsley as
earlier noted. They created new market and routes which aided in the
acquisition and transportation of their raw material which in effect caused the
death of the African market. African market was made a prey for the European
capitalist who each of them looked forward to.
Nothing can be compared with life in its strict sense.
The troubles that the Europeans caused the Africans as a result of the lives that
were stolen and rendered useless requires an open apology from the colonialist
to the black man. Around the 15th century, Africa was recorded to
experience a stagnation in population. It’s around this same period that colonisation
was still taking its place. The life that was calculated to have been lost in
Africa roughly estimates into more than a hundred million people. You can
imagine when a people are denied of such population. The people a meant to
experience stagnation in many aspects of life; economically, political,
structure wise and what have you. These populations that were estimated ranges
from people who were killed during the time of scramble for Africa, people who
were kidnapped and sold into slavery, people who died in the process of
transport etc. the ratio was two men to one woman. The people trafficked was between
the age of 15-35 and at the best possible health. You can imagine that, you can
imagine people who were stolen and messed up in Africa. You can also imagine
the development such people could have brought to mother Africa. This same act
caused some wicked African to begin to engage in wicked act just to ensure that
they made available slave for the whiteman. There was constant war among the
Africans just to make sure the availability of slaves for trade. The impact of
war on a people can never be over emphasised.
Another plight that was suffered by the black man was
the centralisation of development. People had to leave their villages and rural
area for the urban and developing areas. By this very act, it promoted and
encouraged the people to leave the farming system and go into trading which was
majorly for the profit of the Europeans. The rural environment which was the place
for the production of raw materials was deserted and left for the white men to
move around and exploit the resources their as much as they could. Development
in its real sense skipped these rural areas which is the major reason for
poverty. All the resources made in the country were spent in these areas. Quite
as bad as it was then, the cities that were developed were the cities that
aided and provided the necessary route for the colonialist to transport their
exploits. The roads that were built served their purpose only. The rural areas
were not developed and there were no basic amenities in therein. You can also
imagine if Europe had to suffer the same fate as the African countries.
To add to the already existing problem of the African
man is that the colonialist has refused to let go of the African man. They are
today in their country controlling the affairs of other countries. My question
have always been, “do Africans really need the Europeans to survive?”. They had
continued with the system of indirect rule on the blacks. Their loyal servants
are the African petty bourgeoisies who are better off hanged than exist among
men. They decide who rules the African states and who does not. They decide
what to take place and what should not. The African man has a share of blame in
this, a man who does not learn from experiencehardly moves forward. That is the
case with the African man.
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
The truth behind colonialism is better not discussed
with the emotional man. The good that we see in the
coming of the Europeans is a good that they could not have avoided because if
they could they could have done that. Just as Frantz Fanon believes, the white
man believes he is superior to the blacks and sees him as less human. So for
them to really help the African man to become human is to share the same
essence with a nonhuman. The present condition of the African states is all to
their credit. Any man who ever stands in their way will sooner or later be
eliminated. Without neglecting the wrongs of the likes of Mugabe, Idiamin, Gadaffi
and some other African tyrants something stands very clear. These people were
over thrown with the help of the white men and a thorough research into the
lives of such individuals indicated that such people fought against the whites
and stopped them from gaining control over their territory. These people gave
them the full passage they needed. As awful as it may sound the Europeans are
ungodly gold diggers especially the likes of Britain. I am still left to wonder
why most African leaders after being elected first travel to places like
Britain. Could there have been a contract that is reached? Why can’t these people
live the blacks alone? No wonder Frantz had to propagate the use of violence.
In conclusion, colonialism had a devastating effect or
impact on the African colonies.[34]
It would have been better off if it had never happened. The African man would
have in his brotherly love and spirit of accommodation been just friends with
him. Colonialism therefore had no good for the African man in its strictest
sense.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
STEPHEN
OCHENI[A]; BASIL C. NWANKWO[B], Analysis of colonialism
and its impact in Africa
MICHAEL SOMMER Colonies-
colonisation – Colonialism: A typological Reappraisal
WALTER
RODNEY, How Europe under developed Africa, London: Bogle-L ‘Ouverture
Publication, 1973
FRANTZ FANON, The Wretched Of The Earth, New York: Grove Press, 1961
EMEFIENA
EZEANI, In Biafra Africa Died, London: Veritas Lumen Publishers, 2016
CHINUA
ACHEBE, There was a country: A personal History of Biafra, London: England,
Penguin Book Ltd, 2012
JEFFREY
C. ALEXANDER, Power, politics and the civil sphere In Handbook Of Politics State and Society in Global Perspective,
London: Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg
Maia Ramnath, Lexican series
created by the institute for Anarchist studies Anarchiststudies.org
“Colonialism
Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English
INTERNET SOURCES
Colonialism, Stanford
Encyclopaedia of philosophy
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/colonisation“Gender Equality” 11/04/2018
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/colonialism,
Colonialism
http://foreignpolicynews.org/2016/05/22, Colonialism in Africa: Bondage, Exploitation and
Development 09/04/2018
http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca, “Colonialism and the origin of the cold
[1]Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,
“Colonialism”
[2]ibid
[3]Ibid
[4]wikipedia
[5]Stephen Ocheni[a]; Basil C. Nwankwo[b],
Analysis of colonialism and its impact in
Africa
[8]MICHAEL SOMMER, Colonies- colonisation – Colonialism: A typological Reappraisal, 185
[9]Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
[10]MICHAEL SOMMER, Colonies- colonisation – Colonialism: A typical Reappraisal, 186
[11]Ibid (osterhammel 1997
[12]MAIA RAMNATH, Lexican series created by the
institute for Anarchist studies Anarchiststudies.org “Colonialism”
[13]Wikipedia, Gender
Equality, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/colonisation accessed in 11th April, 2018
[14]ibid
[15]MICHAEL SOMMER, colonies – colonisation – Colonialism: A Typological, 188
[16]wikipedia
[17]Colonialism, “http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/colonialism”
[19]ibid
[21]Colonialism in Africa: Bondage, Exploitation
and Development http://foreignpolicynews.org/2016/05/22
[23]JEFFREY C. ALEXANDER, POWER, politics and the
civil sphere In handbook of politics State and Society in Global Perspective
[24]Stephen Ocheni[a]; Basil C. Nwankwo[b],
Analysis of colonialism and its impact in
Africa, 47
[25]Ibid
[26]WALTER RODNEY, How Europe under developed Africa, 18
[27]FRANTZ FANON, The Wretched Of The Earth, 10
[28]EMEFIENA EZEANI, In Biafra Africa Died, 149
[29]Ibid, 150
[30]ibid
[31]CHINUA ACHEBE, There was a country, 99
[32]CHINUA ACHEBE, There Was A Country, 50
[33]Stephen Ocheni[a]; Basil C. Nwankwo[b],
Analysis of colonialism and its impact in
Africa, 51
[34]ibid
Comments
Post a Comment