Introduction
Colonialism refers to the complete subjugation of a country, territory, or community by a foreign entity predicated on the possession of the power to control the former’s resources either politically and/or economically. Different writers portray colonialism as being intrinsically linked to imperialism as these two phenomena tend to co-occur. The works of Z. Jan and L. Piknerová denote that the advent of the industrial revolution in Europe necessitated the adoption of new production modalities during the early 19th century, thus leading to colonialism. Whereas this revolution is considered a huge breakthrough in the history of civilization, it was faced with different technical challenges.
By this time, slavery and the slave trade had served their primary purpose of supporting the agrarian economy with capital requirements. Therefore, there was a need to invest the amassed wealth and the demand for new raw materials from unexploited regions. This rationale is in line with that penned by Young Crawford, who argued that the preexisting slave-driven economy evolved and demanded changes to the methods of production and resources at that time. This transition would then spur colonialism in Africa between 1800 and 1960. A breakdown of the events after the Berlin conference, reasons for European’s interest in Africa, colonial administrative styles, the concept of imperialism, and how the rule benefitted Africans form the basis of this paper.
Aftermath of the Berlin Conference
In many historical books, authors rank Britain and France as the greatest imperialists, as they controlled more than two-thirds of the African continent both before and after World War I. During the Berlin Conference [1884–1885], all the European countries gathered and divided Africa, confirming each other’s share of the continent, colonial control, and territorial jurisdiction. The conference prevented potential future conflicts between European countries by establishing clear imperial limits. As a subjugated republic following World War I, Germany lost all of its imperial holdings, which were distributed as trust territories to the victors’ allies under the League of Nations.
Tanzania’s mainland area [formerly known as Tanganyika] was accorded to Britain. Togo [previously identified as Togoland] was converted into a French Trust Territory, although a portion of its western border was assigned to Britain, which ruled it alongside Ghana. Concurrently, Burundi and Rwanda, which along with Tanganyika comprised what was formerly known as German East Africa, was proportioned to Belgium. Y. S. Sahin further elaborates that a minor section of the southwest of Cameroon was given to Britain, and the remaining portion was given to France. As a kind of award for South Africa’s participation in the war alongside the Allies, Namibia, formerly identified as South West Africa, was given to South Africa. This partitioning of the African continent was motivated by three main factors highlighted in the section below.
Reasons for Europe’s Interest in Africa
The first rationale for colonialism relates to the need to explore the unknown and gain scientific information. Authors M. J. Yakubu and J. O. Adeyeri argue that European explorers who toured Africa, then known as the ‘Dark Continent,’ found many mysteries. This concept is in line with Odutola’s ideology which holds that the majority of the early explorers to Africa were geographers who were drawn to the exoticism of this ‘new continent.’ In the 19th century, scientific and educational missions headed by personalities like Joseph Thompson, Richard Burton, Samuel Baker, and John Speke drew Europeans to Africa.
They studied the African people, ‘discovered’ many physical features, and documented them. For instance, Prince Henry’s adventures, especially those in Africa, magnified the emphasis on the accumulation of geographical knowledge and compensated his captains, thus retaining them on the mission of discovery. The second factor was European supremacist ideologies, which had their roots in Western Christianity. The idea that believers in the faith should share the gospel with others, especially non-believers, is inherent in Christian doctrine.
Since a large portion of Africa adhered to its traditional religion, Europeans believed that proselytizing Africans to Christianity was necessary. While in Africa, missionaries like Dr. David Livingstone explored their ability to combine missionary work with in-depth scientific studies and geographic explorations before establishing different social amenities such as health facilities and schools. In such settings, they provided direct medical care and health-related information while helping Africans to translate the Bible into their native languages to facilitate the spread of Christian dogmas.
The third motivation stemmed from imperialism, which was pioneered by the desire of European nationalists to add to the splendor of their nation by staking claim to other nations in far-off territories. Author Whitfield Lindsay highlights that Karl Peters’ successes in imperial Germany helped his kaiser conquer Tanganyika. This argument corresponds with the work of M. Henning, who elaborates that the accomplishments of British Cecil John Rhodes brought his king a sizable portion of Central Africa. Similarly, King Leopold of Belgium was able to obtain the Congo courtesy of Henry Morton Stanley’s excursions to Africa. The three aforementioned factors are not exclusive of one another; rather, they are intricately related.
For instance, European federations frequently assessed scientific data gathered by geographers to decide whether a particular territory was worthy of being claimed. Plans were made for a government-funded expeditionary venture if the data gathered was favorable. Favorable data had to indicate that a certain region had a pleasant environment, friendly locals, signs of natural endowments, or promising possibilities for a profitable trade. The section that follows highlights the reasons for Europeans’ desire to impose colonial rule in Africa as gauged from an imperialistic perspective.
The Rationale for Europeans’ Desire to Acquire Colonies and Empires in Africa [Imperialism]
The three main reasons that pioneered the scramble and partition of Africa can be categorized as cultural, diplomatic, and economical. The political drive, as depicted by both Mann Gregory and Maddox Gregory, stems from the diplomatic competition of European nations for supremacy in the 18th-century international order. These nations considered colonial assets to be symbols of rank and grandeur. Beyond the psychological benefits of being a superpower, acquiring a colony further gave access to a significant pool of troops that could be used during times of conflict.
For instance, approximately two million African soldiers fought for the Allies during World War I. Additionally, nearly three million Africans and African American soldiers fought in World War II alongside totalitarian antagonists. The ability of imperialist powers to conduct effective military operations everywhere in the world offered strength that stretched their possibility of becoming affluent and larger. An additional geopolitical benefit is retaining specific regions in Africa during hostilities. For instance, to gain a strategic edge in its conflict with France in the early 19th century, Britain chose to annex the southern tip of South Africa.
Britain was able to successfully execute military missions against France in both the Indian and Atlantic Oceans by retaining dominance over the Cape of Good Hope.
Heavy naval operations were waged in World War II to secure the Strait of Gibraltar, a narrow passageway leading into the western Mediterranean Sea. This, as explained by Kumar Krishan, was because whoever dominated the straits enjoyed accessibility to certain regions, which could have an impact on how military interventions were deployed in such areas. The need for tactical security was one of the drivers of colonialism. However, once certain territories had been seized, it was imperative to defend them against both their legitimate owners and further hostile colonial forces.
From a cultural perspective, the ethnic pride and social haughtiness of the European people, who saw everyone as being culturally deficient, justified their colonization motives. The Europeans believed it was their responsibility to indoctrinate and enlighten Africans because they lacked superior technology, and their accomplishments were not recorded and hence unknown to the rest of the world. Thereafter, artists, authors, and theologians had to offer moral and philosophical justifications for imperialism once the choice to conquer colonies had been made. For example, the slogan ‘the white man’s burden,’ coined by Rudyard Kipling in one of his poems, perfectly encapsulates the notion of divine duty that would underpin Europe’s aggressive incursion into Africa. Finally, researchers and intellectuals have arguably paid the most attention to the economic drivers of colonization.
The wide variety of resources, availability of ready markets that Africa represented, and the economic advantages that would accrue to the European nations by exploring the African continent, are frequently mentioned in early colonialism literature. Due to the fundamental requirements of capitalist economies, European nations aspired to annex African governments. As a result, their industrial revolution would be fueled by the rich supply of natural raw materials and inexpensive labor. The section below elaborates on the three main administrative styles used by the colonialists to reinforce their command.
Indirect Rule
Lord Frederick Lugard, a renowned colonial administrator, developed his leadership style more methodically and applied this knowledge when he served as governor-general of Nigeria between 1912 and 1919. His idea, as further emphasized by Ipek Volkan, was dubbed the ‘indirect rule’ by Lugard and involved identifying the local structures of power. Once defined, the kings, chiefs, or headmen would then be summoned, forced, or bought into joining the colonial administrative structure while concurrently maintaining a significant amount of political control over their people. To justify this leadership style, the British claim that they traveled to Africa to teach the people about new governance, principles, and techniques. They would then expect Africans to administer their communities by leveraging the knowledge and resources they had gained from the British.
The British established tribal groups and tribal leaders in places where none previously existed. Author Daheur Jawad highlights that new leaders and tribes were appointed in Tanganyika upon the Germans’ arrival. This was reciprocated in the Ibos of Nigeria where warrant chiefs were appointed to serve the people. A chief was typically entitled to protection, a wage, a home, and various incentives in return for joining the colonial system. The chief would be answerable to the British district officer or commissioner and would be expected to uphold local laws, impose taxes, and supply affordable labor whenever needed. The British government had a governor to lead the territory and was accountable to the British Colonial Office run by the colonial secretary.
Indirect rule, according to the British, was created to safeguard and perpetuate African political structures, customs, and traditions. However, Daheur Jawad notes that colonial powers realized that the territories they had taken were rather vast to be ruled independently without the help of the natives. Undoubtedly, an African chief or king served as a vital conduit between both the colonial rulers and the African communities. He could be trusted to provide instructions because he was familiar with the language and culture of his people. He was informed that by working in this limited power arrangement, he might better safeguard the interests of his fellow Africans.
Additionally, some adjustments had to be done in a region like Nigeria [where formidable local leaders like the imams of the Northern Muslims existed] to avoid confrontations. By acknowledging and cooperating with local authorities, not only did the expense of maintaining the colonies reduce, but it further became feasible to generate income locally. However, some schoolers argue that indirect rule was merely a requirement that the British contrived to elevate a virtue.
Direct Rule
In the DRC, the Portuguese, Germans, French, and Belgians adopted direct rule typified by a centrally controlled form of government. This implied that irrespective of the political alliances that existed among the Africans, European control was forced on them. The governor was in charge of overseeing the French empire remotely from Paris. However, in contrast to the British empire, the French recruited chiefs, in most regions to endorse their rule. The French deployed African leaders from local families. However, after being appointed, they were not allowed back to their home territories.
Furthermore, they had little control over any federal division and very limited authority. With a few notable exceptions, the French made no effort to preserve the distinctiveness of the diverse political systems throughout Africa. As a result, unlike in the British colonies, African communities were not fragmented into tribal groups and chiefdoms. The French technically centralized their empire at the beginning of the 20th century. and Equatorial Africa and French West Africa were the two federal states, and a governor-general oversaw each of them.
Eight colonies—formally known as territories—constituted French West Africa, which was located in Dakar. These included Guinea, Dahomey [presently Benin], Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Upper Volta [later called Burkina Faso], Niger, Senegal, and French Soudan [presently Mali]. Each region had a jurisdictional panel and a governor who oversaw it. In some places, these regions were further divided into cercles [circles], each of which had a commandant de cercle as its governor. On the other hand, Oubangi Chari [presently the Central African Republic], Chad, Middle Congo [currently the DRC], and Gabon were the four nations that constituted Equatorial Africa.
Except for Equatorial Africa where the colonies were transformed into regions and the cercles into districts, all governing bodies had identical organizational frameworks. Literature penned by Birhane Abeba denotes that Cameroon and Togo had distinct identities following World War I as trust jurisdictions were led by French High Commissioners. These authorities were all selected by the French federation as civil employees. Additionally, the author emphasizes that most laws were drafted in Paris and the French parliament was charged with the role of ratifying any laws passed by the regional councils. Africans from the empire had the chance to collaborate across geographies and ethnic groupings as a result of French direct authority.
Company Rule
Many post-colonial authors denote the company rule as the cruelest form of authority used by the Belgians to govern the Congo Free State. This state, as explained by Ekeh Peter, was originally established as King Leopold II of Belgium’s hereditary vassal, not as a recognized territory. The Belgian businessmen were allowed to enter and take advantage of it thanks to the king’s lenience. They exercised full autonomy in managing the colonies and were only responsible to the king, whose sole concern was his punctual royalty payments. Africans who refused to be conscripted to work or who were not working hard enough were publicly tortured or had their hands and ears amputated, creating the illusion of slavery. The treatment was so inhumane that the colonial authorities themselves were compelled to ask King Leopold to act accordingly.
Indirect Company Rule
During his reign, British businessman Cecil John Rhodes established the indirect company rule. The most audacious of his many commercial objectives when he arrived in South Africa in the late 18th century was to stretch the British sovereign state from Cape Town to Cairo. In addition to amassing a fortune by controlling the majority of the world’s gold and diamonds, Rhodes amassed two nations bearing his identity: Southern Rhodesia [currently Zimbabwe] and Northern Rhodesia [presently Zambia].
He attempted to overthrow the Portuguese in Mozambique and the Belgian king in Shaba [a part of the DRC], granted British support to Botswana and Malawi, and preserved Lesotho’s independence. During his regime from 1885 to 1895, he further stopped Paul Kruger’s Afrikaner Transvaal from extending much beyond its geographical bounds. Later, Rhodes established the British South Africa Company as a for-profit business and petitioned for a royal charter. The charter granted him the authority to rule over the region that includes modern-day Malawi and Zimbabwe. However, whereas the colonial era was typified by atrocities and suppression by the ruling parties, the benefits accrued to Africans as a result of this regime cannot be completely overlooked.
How Colonial Rule Benefitted Africans
Extensive resource and worker exploitation, discriminatory tax systems, a ban on intra-African trade, and the establishment of weak, mono-crop economies were all hallmarks of colonial authority in Africa. However, some political figures believe that overall, the colonial system was beneficial for Africans. The former Liberian President and the late Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia both attempted to rationalize their nations’ socioeconomic squalor. They asserted that, unlike other African nations, they never profited from colonial rule. Other African rulers, including Felix Houphouet-Boigny, believe that Africans should be thankful for having been subjugated. Without colonization, they claimed, Africa would lag in nearly all spheres of civilization.
Many academics are likely to concur that colonization benefitted Africans in two main ways. The first one involves the spread of Western medicine, which has had a remarkable impact on African populations’ life expectancies. In actuality, it was during the colonial period when the population of Africa started to rise significantly. Secondly, the new education system deserves credit for contributing to the expansion of African perspectives and the discovery of the continent’s untapped possibilities. Nearly all of the figureheads who surfaced after World War II to steer African states toward liberation benefited from imperial schooling for their administrative abilities. By utilizing political and ethical principles strongly ingrained in Western education, young political activists were able to confront the established system and advocated for the reinstatement of African dignity.
Conclusion
Colonialism, as defined in the introductory paragraph, is the process whereby a powerful entity controls another nation to gain political and economic dominance over its resources. The advent of the industrial revolution in Europe necessitated the adoption of new production modalities during the early 19th century thus leading to colonialism in Africa. Although the era was typified by atrocities and suppression by the ruling parties which used different administrative rules, the benefits accrued to Africans as a result of this regime cannot be overlooked. The study of colonialism aspects in the African continent highlighted throughout this paper can help students pursuing historical courses to understand the major events that transpired before, during, and after the scramble and partition of Africa.
Bibliography
Athreya, Sheela, and Rebecca Rogers Ackermann. “Colonialism and Narratives of Human Origins in Asia and Africa.” In Interrogating Human Origins, pp. 72-95. Routledge, 2019. Web.
Bachmann, Klaus. Genocidal Empires: German Colonialism in Africa and the Third Reich. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 2018. Web.
Birhane, Abeba. “Algorithmic Colonization of Africa.”Scripted 17 (2020): 389. Web.
Boahen, A. Adu. African Perspectives on Colonialism. JHU Press, 2020. Web.
Daheur, Jawad. “‘They Handle Negroes Just Like Us’: German Colonialism in Cameroon in the Eyes of Poles (1885–1914).”European Review 26, no. 3 (2018): 492-502. Web.
Ekeh, Peter P. “Colonialism and the two publics in Africa: A theoretical statement.” In Africa, pp. 87-109. Routledge, 2018. Web.
Elbourne, Elizabeth. “Rights, Interpersonal Violence and Settler Colonialism in Early Nineteenth-Century South Africa: Thomas Pringle and Scottish Colonialism at the Cape, 1820-1834.”The Journal of Indian Ocean World Studies 5, no. 2 (2021): 185-214. Web.
Gegout, Catherine. Why Europe Intervenes in Africa: Security Prestige and the Legacy of Colonialism. Oxford University Press, 2018. Web.
Gueye, Mansour. “Colonialism in Africa: A Revisionist Perspective.” Journal of Pan African Studies 12, no. 1 (2018).
Hasan, Mariwan, Gullan Karim, Nigar Hassan, and Rezhin Ahmed. “Colonialism in Chinua Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart.” International Journal of Educational Theory and Practice (2020): 23-30.
Ipek, Volkan. North Africa, Colonialism and the EU. Springer International Publishing, 2020. Web.
Kumar, Krishan. “Colony and Empire, Colonialism and Imperialism: A Meaningful Distinction?”Comparative Studies in Society and History 63, no. 2 (2021): 280-309. Web.
Licata, Laurent, Sammyh S. Khan, Simona Lastrego, Rosa Cabecinhas, Joaquim Pires Valentim, and James H. Liu. “Social Representations of Colonialism in Africa and Europe: Structure and Relevance for Contemporary Intergroup Relations.”International Journal of Intercultural Relations 62 (2018): 68-79. Web.
Maddox, Gregory. Conquest and Resistance to Colonialism in Africa. Routledge, 2018. Web.
Mann, Gregory. “French Colonialism and The Making of the Modern Sahel.”The Oxford Handbook of the African Sahel (2021): 35. Web.
Melber, Henning. “Colonialism, Land, Ethnicity, and Class: Namibia after the Second National Land Conference.”Africa Spectrum 54, no. 1 (2019): 73-86. Web.
Moyo, Nathan, and Jairos Gonye. “Colonialism and the Destruction of Indigenous Knowledge Systems.” Decolonizing Colonial Development Models in Africa: A New Postcolonial Critique (2022): 91.
Müller-Crepon, Carl. “Continuity or Change? Indirect Rule in British and French Colonial Africa.”International Organization 74, no. 4 (2020): 707-741. Web.
Odukoya, Adelaja Odutola. “Settler and Non-Settler Colonialism in Africa.” In The Palgrave Handbook of African Politics, Governance and Development, pp. 173-186. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2018. Web.
Rönnbäck, Klas, and Oskar Broberg. Capital and Colonialism: The Return on British Investments in Africa 1869–1969. Springer, 2019. Web.
Whitfield, Lindsay. Economies after Colonialism: Ghana and the Struggle for Power. Cambridge University Press, 2018. Web.
Yakubu, Moses J., and James Olusegun Adeyeri. “Women, Resistance Movements, and Colonialism in Africa.” Decolonizing Colonial Development Models in Africa: A New Postcolonial Critique (2022): 193.
Yilmaz, Zennube Şahin. “Criticism of Colonialism; The Meeting of the European with Africa in the Novel” Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad.” Researcher 6, no. 1: 489-499.
Young, Crawford. “The Heritage of Colonialism.” In Africa in World Politics, pp. 9-26. Routledge, 2018. Web.
Záhořík, Jan, and Linda Piknerová. Colonialism on the Margins of Africa. Routledge, 2018. Web.