Alex Khoper
African Politics
Adibe, Clement
Apr. 25, 2004
Question 1
The “Scramble for
Africa” could not have been better timed than during the industrialization of
Europe. Under such slogans as ending
slavery and civilizing the barbarians, the Europeans marched into Africa to
divide the wealth of a continent. It was
a dual mandate for “protecting and civilizing” Africa, while at the same time
exploiting
it. Through chartered
companies, the governments at home were able to profit, while those companies
exercised political, as well as military control of the Africans. The support for such profits and manipulation
of Africa was driven by nothing other than public patriotism and nationalism. This patriotism during a time of
technological development and accumulation of wealth by rivaling European
countries was leading to war.
Fortunately, Africa was seen as fair game where great powers of Europe
could play without stepping on each others toes. Laying aside their ambitions in Europe;
France, Germany, Italy, along with Britain emerged as major claimants of
African “colonies.” Through the use of
treaties, which were completely misinterpreted by local chiefs, these countries
were able to amass huge quantities of land.
In return, they claimed to modernize the Africans by introducing laws
and policies, which were influenced by racism and greed. And while encouraging the natives to educate
themselves, to cultivate and eventually become European citizens, they were not
given the same rights as white Europeans.
Colonization of Africa was driven by self-indulgence and the need to
make money, while disguising it by claims of being “protectorates and trustees
of backward races” and the barbarians, who would only be treated as such
through racist policies and practices.
The relationship
between Britain and Africa was that of trade partners in the early 19th
century. Great Britain possessed a few
lands in Africa, mostly supplying oils and other food sources. The land was typically used by explorers,
merchants, and missionaries and no major conflicts with the natives had arisen. With the industrialization of Europe, other
nations began to militarize and imperialize.
Britain was more concerned with its trade with East Indies and Asia and
had not yet realized the potential of Africa.
Its motives were strategic and defensive. While other motives did exist, such as to
colonize, to search for new markets and materials, to attain world prestige, to
convert natives to Christianity, and to spread their style of government, the
main motives still remained to protect existing land holdings. They would not have to wait long to change
their objective as other European nations were beginning to be interested in
Africa as well. They decided that Africa
was too rich a land to leave untapped.
In response, Britain began to turn trade agreements into stronger and
more formal protectorates and even colonies.
Britain’s imperialist involvement in the partition and scramble for
Africa was a response to the actions of French and German, among others.
Britain struck
first and most fiercest, easily gaining control of numerous rich lands by
overpowering the natives with military technology and organization. By 1910, Britain was in full control of
Egypt, Nigeria, the Gold Coast, East Africa, Sierra Leone, and most of the
Sub-Saharan Africa. British holdings
were strategically planned to include the lands with the most amounts of
natural resources and positioning that could possibly allow for the invasion of
others’ holdings in the future. They
were also very strategic in its ruling of its colonies. They racistly and oppressively controlled
each colony, implementing 2 main political structures; the Direct and Indirect
systems of government. These included
chartered companies, as well as the appointments of local chiefs or the
Lieutenant-Governors, who were all under orders of the British government.
Lord Lugard
described such colonial ambitions toward Africa as “dual mandate.” The first being the mandate to the indigenous
population, which was the idea of promoting the welfare and advancement of
colonial people. The next was the
mandate to the rest of the world, which involved the development of Africa and
its participation in the world market.
According to Lugard, there were 9 reasons for colonization. Under such motives, the British entered
colonial Africa.
The first of these
bases was geo-strategy. It was the need
for Britain to protect its routes to the Indian Empire and at the same time to
counter the aggression and imperial motives of France and Germany. Emigration was another reason for colonizing
Africa, as more and more Europeans were buying land in Africa. They needed protection from their home
governments. The reason, under which
most European countries entered Africa, was to end slavery. As Britain outlawed slavery in 1830’s, Africa
was still troubled by slave-trading wars.
This was seen as humanitarian and not exploitation goals and nobody
questioned it twice. Another motivation
for their involvement was to protect the British missionaries already stationed
in Africa. It was another way to make
sure Christianity would dominate the region, which led to the next goal of the
British, under which it gave them ideological justification. That was “mission civilisatrice,” translated
to civilizing mission. Britain claimed
to colonize Africa to rid it of barbarism and “to promote their moral and
educational progress.”
Conceivably the
real grounds for infiltrating the African continent lay in the last 4
ideas. Britain had been the most
dominant power in Europe for centuries before the industrial revolution. As other European nations began to catch up
to the dominance of Britain, there was nothing left but pride or vanity. It was a race to see who could gain more in the
least amount of time. At the same time,
the British had to worry about protecting the chiefs in the already acquired
lands. Had they allowed the radicals to
gain control, it may have led to an internal revolt resulting in bloodshed and
loss of land and profits. Finally, the
British wanted to promote and extend their style of government and capitalism,
as well as introduce a system of taxation, which would result in more
profit.
There were many
dimensions to the British colonization of Africa. Only those intentions that promised modernity
in Africa were heard by the people in Europe.
The real reasons were not. Under
such circumstances, the British, along with other European nations were able to
penetrate and exploit Africa for what it was.
Unlike Britain,
other European countries did not always hide their true intentions for
Africa. France and Germany wanted to
acquire tropical possessions just because they were seen as “colonisable.” Yet, the European nations struggled with the
idea of exercising their dominance over the natives. Their “sphere of influence” was limited to
certain areas, which they found to be not enough. With the Act of Berlin, it was agreed that only
by retaining real occupation would they be able to maintain order, protect
foreigners, and control the natives (p.13).”
This way the Europeans could do more “good” than “bad.” The interest in Africa would soon pay off as
the continent was rich in natural and raw materials, as well as agricultural
superiority.
The British rule of
Africa, for the most part, was characterized as indirect rule, unlike the one
of France and Germany. This way a
colonial official was more of an advisor than direct ruler. Those still in charge, or at least under
orders from Britain, yet familiar to the natives would still be the traditional
chiefs. In areas where there weren’t any
chiefs, they were created, which led to many conflicts and
non-development. People would see these
chiefs as puppets, refusing to cooperate and not eager for change. These, among other approaches led to bigger
racial divisions and racist policies.
There were 3 main
policies implemented in British colonies.
The first was the policy of differentiation. It had to do with a “separate legal and
political system for whites and Africans (http://husky1.stmarys.ca).” The Africans were exempted from European law,
making them second-class citizens in their own land. Although, there were procedures by which they
could upgrade to European status, such measures were too difficult for
most. Under such policy, laws were
passed which benefited the whites over the natives.
The next policy was
the policy of assimilation and no differentiation, which was a new liberal
struggle “to eliminate differences in legal status based on colour (http://husky1.stmarys.ca).” As more and more territories and their large populations were
annexed, the problem had to be addressed on a larger scale. This included rapid assimilation through
Christianity, schools, and hospitals.
There was also the policy of indirect rule and no assimilation, which
dealt with the idea of white advisors in legal matters without any direct
control or participation. It was a way
to civilize the natives without any direct involvement.
Throughout colonial
Africa, policies were introduced, which were racist in nature and which led to
racist practices. The idea of
“civilizing” in itself is racist. When
we add in King Leopold to the picture, it becomes even worse. With his brutal methods of murder,
starvation, decapitation and kidnapping for ransom he was able to control the
population of Congo which he used for his own personal profit. He gave the natives no rights and they were
treated as animals, instead of as human beings.
Such policies and
practices impacted Africa on many levels.
By forcing Africa into the world economy and later withdrawing its
support, Britain, along with many others, forced the destruction of traditional
social, economic, political, and cultural structures of African nations. The sense of community and family spirit was
replaced by competition and individualism and further increased ethnic
conflicts due to uneven development strategies.
Colonization divided Africa into regional and territorial boundaries and
decimated African populations. It
created economic dependency on the industrialized nations along with general
underdevelopment and poverty. Most
importantly, it institutionalized national and international racism against
Africans and peoples of African descent.
There were not only
negative effects due to colonization.
Some of the positive effects were modernization and development of
industry, particularly transportation.
The improvement of education and health systems was another. The rise of nationalism gave Africans a sense
of one culture which had to be represented through art and political and
economic involvement in today’s globalization.
Question 2
During colonization
of Africa, European nations acted in a very unilateral, self-concerning
environment. There were not many checks
and balances between nations and that’s why many atrocities took place in
African colonies. One of them was
Congo. Before E.D.Morel opened the eyes
of the world to the events taking place in Congo, many believed that the sole
purpose of white Europe even being in Africa was to stop slave trade and to
civilize the barbarians. What they
didn’t know was that Africa contained massive quantities of natural resources,
in addition to many exotic foods.
The advantage in technology of
the Europeans was no match for the Africans, who were seen as cheap or in some
cases free labor. This was exploited by
King Leopold, who had no mercy for the natives.
He thought his crimes would go unpunished and he invested lots of money
to make sure of just that. He, along
with many others refused to understand the culture and traditions of the
natives. They were not used to the
political and social structure of tribes and families. They were interested in enforcing democracy,
which was their own promotion of capitalism.
The treatment of Africans and their cultures during colonialism has
played a big role on their ongoing struggle to find a place within today’s
global environment.
Today’s’ Africa is
no different than the one during colonialism.
The rulers of African nations today, while not white, follow the same
pattern as those during colonialism.
Many of them run their countries as their own personal playgrounds. The same atrocities that went on during
colonialism are still going on today.
It’s also not clear whether the African nations are trying to find their
own place in world politics and economics or just trying to satisfy the needs
of the West.
There needs to be
more pressure applied on Africa to democratize.
The problem lays in the absolute rule and military rule of many African
countries. Unless the West gets
involved, many more people will die for no good cause. We cannot turn Africa into the old colonized
Congo. Everyone ignored King Leopold
during his totalitarian rule over Congo where the population reduced by half
during his rule. No one wanted to know
what was really going on in Congo and those that suffered were the people. The same is going on in all of Africa today
and the world cannot stand by and learn of the mistreatment and neglect some
time in the future.
The international
community needs to come together to address such issues as AIDS, malnutrition,
starvation and many other problems concerning Africa. Real democracy needs to find a way so that
Africa can join the rest of the world in searching for better way of life for
its people.
Before colonialism,
the African society was organized and based on traditional values. It had not been introduced to mass religion,
nor was there a need for nationalism or one culture. Basically, there was no need to
modernize. It was a very rich
civilization due to many diversities and social structures. Friendship and brotherhood were the main
elements of this society, where work was considered as a value and where mutual
help was a responsibility. People lived
according to traditional values. The
elders were seen as the detainers of such values and much respect and honor was
given to them. They were in charge of
the traditional and moral education of children. The family structure consisted of the father
representing the head of the household, being able to choose a husband for his
daughter, responsible for hunting and supplying the family with food. Everyone felt as part of a big community
where any child could be disciplined by anyone else.
This
traditionalistic way of life began to change with the colonization of Africa. New ideas and ways began to penetrate the continent;
some forcefully and some not. Africa was
pushed into the world economy and had to fight to modernize. New technology, and the new way of thinking
began to dominate the way of life. They
method of living, speaking, and behaving was beginning to change as well. These new concepts were seen as threats to
traditional values. People were being
exposed to other cultures through newly introduced education and the
advancement in technology and communication.
People were forced to work many hours to support the family. In Congo, during colonialism, families were
taken as ransom in order to force men to leave for work for months at a
time. The sense of one family was on the
decline as parents were not part of their kids’ everyday lives.
Art became more and
more important. It was a way to save and
represent the history of the people. It
served and still serves as a representation of national identity. Yet, Diawara argues that there is no other
choice but to modernize and to do that means to put art and religion on the
back burner. He believes that Africa
needs to democratize and let go of the old traditional ways. At least put them in museums and galleries
for admiration but concentrate on giving people freedom from oppressive
traditions and religions. He stresses
the need to advance in technology and democracy, in order to help the African
nations in their struggle.
Cultural
globalization has reached the shores of African and its people are no longer
interested in preserving old traditions or a sense of family. It’s all about
making money and looking out for themselves.
The tales and stories once told by the elderly are replaced by movies
and TV shows. Parents and kids work to
support the family and find no time to sit together and talk. Those are the consequences of globalization
and individualism.
The political
change in Africa has taken on a similar path.
The need for wealth and dominance over others is what drives many
African countries today. There is a wide
division between rich and poor, as well as those who welcome change and those
that despise it. Diawara talks about how
people welcomed him once he came back.
They saw him as an outsider, who was no longer one of them. He described the kids going to the bathroom
right in front of his hotel, as well as their unwillingness to blame their own
government for their misfortunes. He
portrays people who are proud of their cultures and traditions, not willing to
satisfy the West. Most consider art as
the only true African possession, not yet taken by the West. And while they make it for cultural value and
representation, the same pieces are sold in the West for millions of
dollars. That is why most of them refuse
to sell it for profit. Diawara
illustrates those in Africa blaming everything on Europe and the United States;
for the decline in traditional value to all other misfortunes of
colonialism. He depicts them as people
not wanting to change.
Those that come
back to Africa, such as Diawara, see it in a different light. The so-called Afro-pessimism forces them to
blame the African governments for not moving forward. The other blame is with religion, which takes
traditional values and turns them into fanatic and radical ideas.
No matter who is to
blame, one thing is clear. Africa can’t
turn back the clock. They don’t have a
choice other than to modernize and democratize.
It has to start with the people and the leaders who need to realize that
they are all in it together. Only then,
will they be able to set aside all differences and move forward.
Bibliography
- Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York. 1998.
- Lugard. The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa.
- Africana. http://www.africana.com
- British Colonial Policies. http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~wmills/course317/3brit_policies.html
No comments:
Post a Comment