History of Modern Africa Final

Card Set Information

History of Modern Africa Final
2015-10-09 10:59:04
History Modern Africa Final
History of Modern Africa Final
History of Modern Africa Final
Show Answers:

  1. The abandonment of free
    trade and the erection of tariff barriers for the protection of the young industries
    of Europe and America, a step taken by Russia in 1877, Germany in 1879, and
    France in 1881. This was the consequence of international trade becoming
    increasingly competitive, following the spread of England’s industrial
    capitalism to the other European countries as well as to the United States
    (Boahen 30).
  2. This phrase was dubbed
    onto African rulers who sought the path of alliance to incoming European
    colonialism. Often lauded to the skies as being long-sighted and progressive,
    this term is inaccurate, Eurocentric, as well as derogatory. Ever since World
    War II, this term has had very pejorative connotations, and should be avoided
    when possible. It is seen as someone who sacrifices the interests of his nation
    for his own selfish ends. However, it is really someone who sought to achieve
    the very sovereignty of their state, allying rather than collaborating with the
    incoming invaders to achieve this national end (Boahen 41).
  3. Signed in 1887 by the
    French and Ahmadu, under this treaty Ahmadu now changed his strategy of
    alliance to one of submission by agreeing to place his empire under the nominal
    protection of the French, while the French on their part pledged not to invade
    Ahmadu’s territories and to life the ban that they had placed on the purchase
    of arms by Ahamadu. Although this was humiliating on Ahmadu’s part, he agreed
    to it due to his urgent need of support as his brothers attempted to overpower
    him. The French did not stay true to the treaty for more than a year.
    Treaty of Gori
  4. This man was known to
    put up the most courageous and fascinating defense of his independence and
    sovereignty of any African previous or after against the forces of European
    colonialism. Creating a huge empire covering the northern parts of modern
    Sierra Leone, Guinea, and parts of Senegal, policed by a very powerful army
    divided into infantry and cavalry wings, Samori Toure
    created a well trained, well armed, homogenous empire. With multiple battles
    with the French and British, Toure eventually resorted from military
    confrontation to submission, later creating a second empire covering the
    northern parts of what is now the Ivory Coast and Ghana. After fighting both
    the British and the French again, Samori eventually was captured and died in
    1900, but his capture “has been described as ‘ the longest series of campaigns
    against a single enemy in the history of French Sudanes conquest’” (Boahen 54).
    It also significant that he used all three methods against his opponents
    – submission, alliance, diplomacy and military confrontation, proving the
    term “collaborator” to be false.
    Samori Ture
  5. was a man of
    energy and foresight who sought to excel in the gold rush occurring in Kimberly
    beginning in 1867. Rhodes had a goal of unification, “buying up digger rights
    and eventually forming one of four major concerns that came to control the
    Kimberly diamond production” (July 350). He overcame his rivals, and in 1890
    controlled all of South Africa’s diamond mining. With his goal of unification
    lied the goal of a monopoly for efficiency and profit, with dreams of extending
    past Kimberly where he believed was even greater profits, ultimately desiring
    imperial rule through a British empire in Africa.
    Cecil Rhodes
  6. This was designed to stamp out the independent African farmer, limiting
    privately owned holdings by Africans to some 13 percent of the land. This
    “insured for South Africa a supply of African labor for European use, forcing
    the bulk of the African population into a landless labor force for either
    white-controlled farming or industry” (July 361). Very similar to the creation
    of reserves.
    Natives Land Act
  7. An enfranchised Cape
    Xhosa who sought unsuccessfully to extend political rights through an alliance
    with white liberals, this man was deeply disappointed by the discrimination
    against Africans contained in the Union constitution, taking his case with
    others like Walter Rubusana in protest before the British people at the time of
    Parliamentary ramification in 1909. However, his program faced shortcomings due
    to misplaced reliance on black-white partnerships that led to somewhat more
    vigorous measures in 1912 in the formation of the South African Native
    Congress, later renamed the African National Congress (July 363).
    John Tengo Jabavu
  8. An African preacher, this man set in motion a futile rising against European taxation and forced
    labor in Blantyre in January 1915. He was encouraged and influenced by Joseph
    Booth, a British evangelist in Nsayaland, and John was also exposed to black
    American protest during residence in the United States. He came to
    harbor a deep resentment against British colonial practice, and when asked to
    fight in the British army during the First World War, they determined upon protest
    through violence. Their outbreak cost several European lives and many more
    African, but it was quickly crushed and was killed. His uprising
    pointed the way toward the independence movements of a later generation,
    John Chilembwe
  9. What reasons do historians offer to explain the Scramble for Africa? Which argument do you find most plausible, and why?
    • One of the reasons that historians offer to
    • explain the Scramble for Africa was “in the rise of the new imperialism in
    • Europe, due primarily to the economic forces operating there during the last
    • three decades of the nineteenth century and, more especially, to the need to
    • look for areas where the surplus capital being generated by these forces could
    • be invested” (Boahen 28). This theory was developed by some of the earliest
    • writers such as Hobson and Lenin. Another argument historians attribute to
    • explain the Scramble for Africa is “more or less an accidental by-product of
    • the diplomatic confrontations among the major European powers, particularly
    • France and Britain, and argue that the whole Scramble was touched off by the
    • British occupation of Egypt in 1882” (Boahen 28). Robinson and Gallagher
    • developed this theory, both of these writers placing the stress purely on
    • European powers than African, developed this theory. The third argument historians offer for the explanation of the Scramble for
    • Africa is made by some European historians such as Hopkins and Kargreaves, as
    • well as African historians, such as Asiwaju and Uzoigwe. This argument
    • attributes the Scramble “to a combination of internal African conditions and
    • external European factors” (Boahen 28). According to this theory, it varies
    • with each area which factor the Scramble can be attributed to – Africa or
    • European. In areas in which after the slave trade ended the economy continued
    • to thrive and peace was maintained, European powers were to blame as demand for
    • mercantile goods increased as well as rivalries between Anglo-French occurred.
    • In areas where the economy turned to predatory matters to get by and peace was
    • not kept, African internal problems were to blame. Although like Boahen, I do
    • not believe any of these arguments are exemplary, the one I do find most
    • plausible would have to be along the lines of the Robinson-Gallagher theory.
    • Based off of the studies I have made so far in this class, it appears to me
    • that the British occupation of Egypt set off an intensified competition among
    • European powers to occupy land in Africa. In previous lessons it was
    • established that it was after the British occupation that their rivalry with
    • the French peaked as it was previously intended for both countries to share
    • economic control over Egypt, which never occurred once the British occupied it.
    • This, in turn would naturally lead to increased competition to acquire a larger
    • amount of land than the other country, and as we learned, Germany, Portugal,
    • Belgium, and other European countries observed this as well stimulating their
    • increased desires and even greater competition. Therefore, the Scramble for
    • Africa began.
  10. Discuss the three stages of the Partition of Africa, and the African response to each stage.
    The first stage of the three stages of the Partition of Africa “was the conclusion of a treaty between an African ruler and a European imperial power under which the former was usually accorded protection and undertook not to enter into any treaty relation with another European power, while the latter was granted certain exclusive trading and other rights” (Boahen 33). Two separate people saw the African response to this stage in similar ways. The first group of people that will be discussed is the educated, religious elite of the Africans. The Christianized, educated Africans were made to believe by missionaries that “Africa could be civilized only through ‘introducing Christianity, education, capitalism, industrialization and the Protestant work ethic’” (Boahen 36). With this belief engrained deeply in their minds, the Christianized Africans enthusiastically welcomed and in certain examples even requested that the Europeans come to inhabit their lands. However, a small percentage of educated Muslims opposed colonial occupation because to submit to a European power would be to submit to an infidel, an act any good Muslim would never commit. The general population of the traditional, illiterate group of Africans, however, is also observed “on the whole very friendly and accommodating (Boahen 37). Questioned by educated people today, this reaction was due to the fact that initially, African rulers were seen as equals of their European counterparts and were treated respectfully. Another reason was many African rulers desperately needed protection and assistance from the Europeans in order to counteract more powerful African rivals, their own subjects, and other unwelcome European powers. Therefore, in some cases as the Christianized, educated Africans, African kings invited the Europeans in. The second stage of the Partition of Africa was “the signing of bilateral treaties between the imperial powers usually based on the earlier treaties of protection which defined their spheres of interest and delimited their boundaries” (Boahen 34). Since this stage of the Partition took place in Europe during the Berlin Conference, where no African representative was present, it is not possible for African reactions to have occurred. The third stage of the Partition of Africa was the European conquest and occupation of their spheres. This is the stage when African rulers began to realize the implications of the treaties they had previously enthusiastically signed in the first stage, and resorted to one or a combination of three different tactics: submission, alliance, or resistance. Rulers would readily submit to European powers “either because they became aware of the futility and cost of confronting the imperialists or, more commonly still, because they themselves urgently needed European protection” (Boahen 29). Similarly, other African rulers chose the tactic of alliance in order to gain power against other invading rulers. Although rulers who sought this route were often viewed as long-sighted and progressive, not realizing the extent of the journey it would take to reach the goal they had in mind, but often-African rulers sought this sought to keep the sovereignty of their state and nationalism. The third tactic, confrontation, was seen in two separate ways: through diplomacy or through militant based practices. A few rulers resorted to peaceful means of diplomacy, such as Pempeh, but the majority resorted to the military option, “either in isolation or in combination with diplomacy…partly because those areas were predominantly Muslim and partly because those areas fell mainly to the French, who used more militant than peaceful, diplomatic methods in their occupation of these areas” (Boahen 46). This concludes each of the three stages and the African response to each.
  11. in May 1910…. provided for a unitary government under the British crown, the
    • former colonies transferring their sovereignty to the central authority” (July
    • 356). After years of the British striving to achieve unity – through
    • treaties, wars, rehabilitation, assimilation, and nationalism – it was
    • finally completed.
  12. What was the effect of the Union of South Africa on nonwhites? In your answer, discuss the role of Cecil Rhodes; the Ndebele nation; the creation of reserves; and competition between missionaries, the Portuguese, the Germans, and King Leopold.
    Cecil Rhodes was a man of energy and foresight who sought to excel in the gold rush occurring in Kimberly beginning in 1867. Rhodes had a goal of unification, “buying up digger rights and eventually forming one of four major concerns that came to control the Kimberly diamond production” (July 350). He overcame his rivals, and in 1890 controlled all of South Africa’s diamond mining. With his goal of unification lied the goal of a monopoly for efficiency and profit, with dreams of extending past Kimberly where he believed was even greater profits, ultimately desiring imperial rule through a British empire in Africa. This led him to the Transvaal, which brought a large amount of uitlanders to the area, a term used to describe foreigners in pejorative terms by Africans. These people built up a dirty, noisy, busy city in the area of the Boers, creating mixed feelings, as the Boers desired the foreigner’s wealth that they were bringing in but not desiring political interference. After finally throwing off reigns by the British, this sudden surge of wealth gave the Boers the perfect opportunity to escape from the British to the south, but also increased the danger of imperial British interference, causing unsettlement and an eager desire to capitalize on the wealth they were achieving because of the uitlanders, form treaties with people such as the Ndebele, and ward off the British. Rhodes reappeared on the scene later as he became Cape’s colony prime minister in 1990, tightening control of British-controlled territories of the Transvaal, in which the Africans attempted to be freed from. This attempt of freedom only resulted in deeper entanglement, however, and “in effect was reduced to the position of a suzerain state, ringed on all sides by foreign territory and dominated by Britain” (July 354). The Transvaal faced further turmoil due to Rhodes persistence for unification when he attempted to create a conspiracy to overthrow the Transvaal government – an idea that backfired and led to the South African Boer War in 1899, leading to great loss for the Transvaal and Orange Free State due to bitter conflict. Another effect of the Union of South Africa on nonwhites was the creation of reserves, “where Africans dwelt under traditional law administered by their own chiefs, but under the surveillance of European magistrates” (July 359). A policy of indirect rule, this created a number of troublesome regulations and levies “which were poorly administered and inadequately financed” (July 360). The effect of reserves on Africans was poor terrain and land that was constantly being taken away to create white farms. Africans were not content with these setups, and “were in fact moving away from the reserves due to crowding, poor soil, and odious regulations”, with “more than half the Africans were squatters on private or crown lands” (July 360). Cecil Rhodes also developed Cape reserves which were equal to the Natal ones just described, “[insuring] a surplus landless population that could be attracted to white farms [for labor] or to the industrial centers” (July 360), leaving Africans with inadequate, unjust amounts and quality of land to “live” on. Another effect of the Union of South Africa on nonwhites is seen in the Ndebele nation, a nation that had abandoned troubled land in the Transvaal in a final successful flight to security beyond the Limpopo, where Rhodes imparted through the Moffat and Rudd agreements increased opposed British rule. With conflict tense between the British and Lobengula, the Ndebele king, “In 1893 Jameson used a border incident to make war on the Ndebele, the results of which was Lobengula’s defeat and subsequent death…Ndebele cattle confiscated, mining and land companies established and African labor recruited by company police action and through taxation” (July 366), essentially, imposed foreign rule leading to the destruction of the region and complete loss of African control to Europeans. Meanwhile, competition between missionaries, the Portuguese, the Germans, and King Leopold beginning in the 1870s produced conflict over land as people looked to extend their influence over Nsayaland in Lake Malawi. Rhodes had a part in these developments, with Harry Johnston securing a number of protection treaties assuring British supremacy, depleting all attempts of conquest by other Europeans and acquiescing Portugal in the face of a British ultimatum in 1890. Even with other European competition, British remained the dominant force in the union of Africa. Establishing rule over Nsayaland, conflicting claims of colonial powers from inside the British caused unrest within Nsayaland and North-Eastern Rhodesia, resulting in a small army of Sikh soldiers developed to counteract European opposition, once again leaving Africans with no power over their own land.
  13. The mutual objectives of the thischief and the British administrator were embodied in this agreement, where the these people undertook to collect and pay taxes to the colonial administration, therefore recognizing the sovereignty of the British crown. Due to this loyalty, the traditional ruling hierarchy was retained complete with kabaka, lukiko, or legislature, katikiro, and other chiefly offices, all with full government functions but always subject to the ultimate authority of Britain. In this agreement a revolutionary system of land tenure also began whereby all land was divided, half for the crown and half for some four thousand chiefs. While colonial administration still determined general policy, details of government were left to be determined by chiefs, making this Agreement viewed as something like a treaty between sovereign states and managed over the years to maintain a show of autonomy although conceding ultimate authority to their British protectors (July 377-78).
    Buganda Agreement of 1900
  14. This was the basis for the Kikuyu system of landholding. This was an assemblage of land, not necessarily contiguous, owned by a subclan or small lineage called mbari. Traditionally mbari members were entitled to portions of each clan’s githaka, thus providing all with both economic support and secure personal position within that section of the Kikuyu nation. Loss of githaka was more than an economic disaster; it involved the very identity of individual or group, therefore ultimately the coherence and cohesion of the Kikuyu people. It provided social and psychological security along with economic support, thus when the European settlers disrupted this system it led to deep resentment among the Kikuyu system.
  15. Coming together with Jesse Kariuki to form the East African Association, this man, literate and member of an influential Kikuyu family, held a clerkship in the Treasury, using his prestigious position to move into the front rank of those intent on challenging European authority. In 1921 he also founded the Young Kikuyu Association, with both organizations rejecting the premise of white rule, attacking labor policy, the head tax, land alienation, and opposed to the kipande, an identification card required by all Africans. After his programs based on political change gained a following, this man was arrested for some time, and after released created the progovernment Kikuyu Provincial Association in 1935 due to leadership conflict with KCA.
    Harry Thuku
  16. This began with initial manifestations of unrest in the Kilwa district due to forced labor, harsh methods employed by akidas, a program in which the African farmer was treated as inequitable, uneconomic, and damaging to food production. When this movement met with religious sanction in the form of a special water, or maji, given each fighter, supposedly rendering him immune to gunfire, there developed a unity among diverse people, a fanaticism in battle, and a sense of commitment which quickly spread the Rebellion. This led to a two-year period of battle with the Germans, and only through scorched-earth tactics which supplemented military action in subduing the insurgent forces with heavy casualties, at least seventy thousand Africans perished, did the movement end. This movement forced German administration to conduct fully twenty years of warfare to achieve peace through African submission to colonial rule.
    Maji Maji Rebellion
  17. The Senegalese delegate to
    the Chamber of Deputies in Paris, this man was the first African to fill this
    post. Pledging himself to regain the lost citizenship of his people, to
    represent the interest of blacks, this man set a memorable example as an
    aggressive African capable of standing up to the European. In 1916 he secured a
    complete and unequivocal grant of French citizenship for the people of the Four
    Communes, replacing a feeling of inferiority with a sense of dignity and
    self-respect. However, his plans became more talk than action, interested only
    in the needs of the small group of the Four Communes rather than Africa as a
    whole. A product of French assimilation, this man had become thoroughly committed
    to the belief in the superiority of French civilization and the ultimate
    necessity for African absorption into the French way of life, greatly changing
    his views as he ruled and producing little effect positive to the African
    Blaise Diagne
  18. This was a chronic dispute between the people of Lagos and the government over the king, or this, or Lagos. After being annexed in 1861 under a treaty with Docemo, the then-reigning person, where Domeco was given an annual stipend with no provision made for his heirs as traditional authority to the city. Focusing on this  issue, they urged Lugard to provide an adequate stipend, upon which the British imposed a new ruler, which led to a major source of embarrassment for the administration. With incessant editorial campaign over a number of years, the controversy was finally settled when the government agreed to the restoration of the popular claimant. This was a small victory and demonstrated the character of a determined and resourceful African leadership, as well as the virility of traditional customs facing the pressures of external change (July 410).
    The eleko dispute
  19. This was the program of J.E. Casely Hayford, led to urgency by the mood that
    characterized the pan-African congresses organized by the black American leader
    W.E.B. Du Bois. This prompted nationalist leaders in their demands for
    extension of political rights, improvement of educational and public health
    facilities, and equality of economic opportunity between whites and blacks.
    There was demand for constitutional reform in terms of municipal
    self-government, the end of courts presided over by British administrative
    officers, popular election of half the membership of the legislative council,
    and creation of special houses of assembly which would be responsible for
    colonial taxation and budget policy, also urging the end of economic
    discrimination against Africans in favor of European business interests. This
    was met with a cool reception from colonial administration and was never able
    to capture the united backing of all indigenous groups within West Africa,
    eventually expiring in 1930 when the leader, Casely Hayford, died.
    National Congress of British West Africa
  20. Due to
    the problem of economic development in Liberia and the need to liquidate
    expensive foreign loans combined with a search by American industry for sources
    of natural rubber, this agreement was made. Negotiated by Harvey S. Firestone,
    these were a series of concessions which enabled the Firestone interests to
    obtain ninety-nine year leasing rights to tracts totaling one million acres for
    development as rubber plantations. In return, Firestone paid rental fees and
    certain customs duties and agreed to construct harbor facilities at Monrvoia.
    This introduced American control over the collection of revenue in Liberia,
    with Liberia trading a loss of authority concerning national affairs for
    increased income from taxes and rentals, a measure of protection against
    potential intervention by neighboring colonial powers, and a general economic
    upturn based upon the introduction of American capital and organizational
    Firestone agreements of 1926-1927
  21. How did British paternalism differ in Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, and Zanzibar? In what ways were these areas governed similarly?
    British paternalism was approached in different ways to the respective areas of Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, and Zanzibar. In Uganda, British paternalism was embodied through the Buganda Agreement of 1900. In this agreement, the people of Uganda undertook to collect and pay taxes to the colonial administration, recognizing the sovereignty of the British crown. Due to this economic loyalty, “the traditional ruling hierarchy was retained complete with kabaka, lukiko, or legislature, katikiro, and other chiefly offices, all with full government functions but always subject to the ultimate authority of Britain” (July 377). There was also a revolutionary system of land tenure instituted by Special Commissioner Harry Johnston “whereby all land was divided, half for the crown and half for some four thousand chiefs” (July 377). Therefore a small number of British officials administered to this area headed by the governor and overlaid upon an African chiefly hierarchy. By doing this, colonial administration determined general policy, but the details of government were left to the chiefs, ensuing a perspective of something like a treaty between sovereign states and “managed over the years to maintain a show of autonomy although conceding ultimate authority to their British protectors” (July 378). Although there was tension at times, generally this was a profitable agreement for both ends. British paternalism differed greatly from Uganda in Kenya, where the focus of the Europeans was to develop the country of Kenya where a railroad had been placed, offsetting the cost of administration and public works. In the beginning, little land was given to the people, and with what land was given there was no way for the people to make an adequate living. As Europeans struggled to develop the country through farming, Europeans “were not expected to engage in competition with native Africans nor to perform manual labor. Custom dictated, therefore, that farmers employ black workers, even if few could afford to pay wages attractive enough o entice the peasant from a familiar way of life” (July 381). The European settlers’ main desire was to press the administration unceasingly for privileges they believed were theirs based on right of position and talent, leading to requests for more laborers and passing the Resident Natives Ordinance destroying any opportunities for laborers to thrive on their own. This act “helped set a pattern of two societies, segregated economically and socially, the one resting on the privilege of race and status supported by official fiat, the other locked in a position of inferiority and made to subserve the interests of the first” (July 382). This led to racial discrimination, with a small white minority privileging themselves over Africans (and Asians) through manipulation of the machinery of government. Clearly, this was not as equal of an agreement as Uganda. However, roles were eventually reversed in 1929 when the Labourites returned to power in Britain and protected African land rights, representation on legislative councils, and responsible government actions of the British. British paternalism in Tanganyika was more similar to Uganda. Previously colonized by Germany, “the new administration was at once characterized by a sense of commitment to protect colonial charges against exploitation while preparing them for eventual self-government” (July 391). In 1925, progress began to be completed with the arrival of Sir Donald Cameron who had a personal temperament, experience as chief secretary to the government in Nigeria, as well as a conviction that effective administration could only exist when based on indigenous institutions, leading to his system of indirect rule. This system was comprised of government through local authorities, “investing them initially with responsibility for maintenance of order and collection of taxes, later adding judicial functions, while encouraging local financing and direction of community development projects” (July 391). Although Cameron was criticized for compulsion, this rule encouraged the success and independence of the Africans, rather than placing British authority and superiority on the forefront. British rule in Zanzibar was also more along the lines of Uganda, “[supporting] the status quo which in this case meant government through the agency of the Arab oligarchy” (July 393). Furthermore, in the 1920s a legislative council was introduced on which Arabs, despite their small numbers, had representation equal to that of the Africans and Asians combined in the Zanzibar area. Giving increasing control to the Arabs, in 1956 the British led to popular election of half the unofficial legislative council members, but in 1961 when responsible, ministerial government was instituted and independence was drawing near, “the Arabs managed to form a coalition with sympathetic Africans” (July 394). Although there were differences as far as the extent of which British authority was engrained, they generally kept to the status quo, giving control to local government and allowing the people to learn for themselves in order to be efficient in the future.
  22. Compare and contrast British, French, and German colonial administration. What effect did the First World War have on colonial administrations and on the African population?
    • The effect of the First World War
    • had extensive and profound effects on colonial administration and the African
    • population. It led colonial powers greatly to intensify their demands for labor
    • and supplies, “often threatening or upsetting delicate ecological balances and
    • economic systems” (July 399). Although there is not as much content on German
    • colonial administration, its colonies were parceled out among the victors after
    • the First World War. What has been learned in this lesson was a distinct
    • difference between France and Britain – Germany intended its colonies to
    • pay for themselves. Their system or rule, however, was similar to France’s with
    • assimilation: German language, songs, poetry, etc., were taught in order to
    • enable children to “think like Germans”. The administrative system was based
    • primarily on grouping people of the same ethnic groups, and already existent
    • chiefs were confirmed as agents of German administration (notes). Where chiefs
    • did not exist, Germans created chiefs to govern areas comparable to those rule
    • by traditional chiefs, recruited from among village heads or loyal employees of
    • the administration. After Germany’s colonies were parceled out, plans were then
    • made for the recouping of Europe’s material and personnel losses at Africa’s
    • expense, tightening colonial administration into much greater efficiency. This
    • tightening “cast a deep shadow across African hopes for a liberalization of
    • colonial controls let alone for an ultimate independence” (July 399). The most
    • devastating effect on the African population came in the form of troop
    • requisitions. Because France and Britain were determined to carry the war to
    • Germany on African ground, African soldiers became the ideal instrument to do
    • so. This led to mistreatment of Africans, “Recruitment methods were harsh and
    • arbitrary, little more than forced labor levees bordering on slave raids that
    • left villages bereft of their young men” (July 399). This led to rebellions of
    • the Africans against the colonial administration, with demands for extension of
    • political rights and improvement in facilities and technology, only to be met
    • by more restrictive and suppressive colonial administration. Colonial
    • administration was not the same by every country. In definition, Britain and
    • France differed, but in practice, they remained very similar. In French
    • colonial administration, they relied on assimilation, “the view that French
    • civilization should be shared by all people living under French rule, that those
    • who dwelt in territories overseas were just as entitled to the exercise of full
    • political and civil rights as were citizens of France itself” (July 401).
    • However, after becoming dissatisfied with this, they switched their doctrine to
    • one of association, “which encouraged colonial people to retain their
    • traditional culture but which placed them in a clearly subservient position to
    • their European masters” (July 401). They relied more on efficiency, not
    • legitimacy, and it tended not only to be “autocratic but erosive of native
    • custom as well” (July 401). The British colonial administration had a
    • characteristic pragmatism, with “colonial possessions ruled arbitrarily by
    • appointed governors assisted by their administrative staffs, and in the process
    • no consistent or systematic attention were paid to the preservation or
    • utilization of traditional customs and institutions” (July 401). The British
    • altered their practice as well, instead changing to a form of indirect rule,
    • the antithesis of French administration. Indirect rule, “emphasized the maximum
    • use of traditional law and governmental machinery, encouraging the people to
    • continue in their indigenous patterns of government, substituting only the
    • ultimate appeal to the British crown for whatever had been the sovereign
    • authority in the land” (July 402). Despite the fact that this form of rule
    • sounds more optimal for the African people than the French, it was actually
    • very similar to rule of the French, putting the grip of power beyond Africans,
    • forcing labor to repair the infrastructure, and repressing educated Africans to
    • effectively translate colonial rule to their people. Although the French and
    • the British both attempted to abolish the slave trade, in doing so they
    • essentially created forced labor in their beliefs that it would stimulate the
    • economy. All together, both the French and British colonial administration,
    • though in theory separate, equally had a depressing effect on local West
    • Africans.
  23. Describe the origin of the pan-African movement, its ideologies, its leaders, and its effectiveness.
    The origin of the pan-African movement was slightly stimulated by the National Congress of British West Africa, particularly the journal of Casely Hayford which gave enthusiastic applause to evidence of black solidarity in various parts of the world and laid claims for Africa as natural leader of worldwide pan-Africanism. Hayford argued that under African leadership, “the black race could harness the discoveries of science, throw off the yoke of oppression, and eventually employ an elevated sense of right and wrong to assume moral leadership in a sick and materialist world” (July 416). Although Hayford’s views back the ideology of the pan-African movement, his journal was not the true origin. The true origin had to do with, “those burdened with slavery and the subsequent iniquities of segregation and discrimination, Africa [becoming] a continuing source of inspiration for racial accomplishment and solidarity as well as a destination for emigration schemes put forward occasionally with the black community of America” (July 417). This idea of racial solidarity transcending continental limitations was manifested in the first pan-African conference located in London in 1900 by the West Indian barrister Henry Sylvester Williams. The pan-Africanism movement reached full dimension in 1919 when the black American leader W.E.B. Du Bois organized a pan-African congress in Paris coincident with the Versailles peace conference. The objective at this conference was, “to seize the opportunity presented by the assembled delegates from the powers of Europe in order to demonstrate the solidarity of the black race, and to lay claim to the importance of Africa in the postwar world” (July 417). This was met with little effectiveness, however, as these hopes were out of touch with the realities of postwar colonial policy in Africa. Two years later, Du Bois brought together another conference which met in London, Brussels, and Paris, passing a resolution criticizing the Belgian colonial regime and therefore being met with legislation overriding the conference’s decisions, once again producing no effect. Blaise Diagne held a significant role in this lack of effectiveness, “[declaring] himself opposed to any implied criticism of France’s colonial policy” (July 418), blocking progressive moves with his belief that the evolution of the black race was dependent upon the assimilation of European culture and cooperation with colonial administration. Diagne thwarted pan-African movements again with Marcus Garvey, who attempted to acquire Diagne’s support for his strong criticism of European colonialism and creation of a black empire in Africa. This collapsed in 1925, due to Garvey’s conviction of fraud and deportation to the United States. After this, the pan-African movement slowed down, meeting intermittently but with no real change coming into effect.
  24. Discuss the role the Republic of Liberia played in the development of African nationalism. What problems did the country face in the pre-World War period, and how were they resolved?
    With the National Congress of British West Africa attempting to form a black African empire, the Republic of Liberia was inevitably to be turned to, as it was an independent region for three-quarters of a century. At first accepting Garvey’s request to obtain some land in order to capitalize on his nationalist movement, after insight from neighboring colonial powers and a suspicion that Garvey intended to upset the True Whig reigning party of the country, Liberia pulled out, fearing an organization that was working to overthrow European authority. Any attachment to European powers were deemed as a threat to their independence, and despite Liberia’s inefficient and often corrupt government, an impoverished economy, an uncertain national sovereignty, and a repressive “native policy”, they wanted nothing to do with foreign help. However, after realizing the problem of economic development and the need to liquid expensive foreign loans, the Firestone agreements were arranged and American control was introduced to Liberia. In agreement with a foreign country, as is repetitively observed; control from the outside country was implemented. Attempting to retain a system of government through local rulers keeping the interior divided and isolated along tribal lines, generally harsh and arbitrary policy was beginning to lead to violence in Liberia. However, with the inauguration of William V.S. Tubman, a new approach was introduced in the form of Tubman’s Unification Policy. The philosophy of this approach was directed toward “giving the traditional societies a sense of genuine participation in national life in place of their former exploitation (forced slave labor). Extended suffrage and parliamentary representation, introduction of programs for health, education, and public works into the hinterland, guarantees against alienation of tribal lands, improvement of the professional quality of the interior administration, and a campaign to promote appreciation of traditional culture all combined to attenuate the old animosities” (July 421). This was significant because Americo-Liberians were able to take the lead as patriots within their own country, with social, economic, and political improvements for the indigenous people of Liberia, and the settler minority remaining firmly in control of the sources of power and wealth.
  25. Both
    employed by colonial powers in Africa, ______ taxation is a tax that is paid
    directly by an individual or organization to the imposing entity. This could be
    for different purposes such as property tax, income tax, or tax based on
    possessions. _______ tax is a tax collected by an intermediary from the person
    who bears the ultimate economic burden of the tax (the taxpayer).
    Direct and indirect taxation
  26. When Europeans were
    pursuing their economic practices, colonial administrators ensured that land
    was made available to Europeans, doing so through confiscation and expulsion
    and resettlement of indigenous peoples. In all these areas, male workers would
    temporarily migrate to the site of production, often returning to their
    homelands for rest or agricultural work before migrating began again. Families
    would remain at home, shouldering most of the burden of land cultivation. This
    inhibited the growth of a full-fledged working class. Most workers lived in
    one-room houses, and prostitution emerged where men were along. As they
    returned home, they would often take venereal disease back to the hinterlands.
    The need for these laborers grew from contradictions within the capitalist
    economy and colonial policies like Kenya’s.
    Migrant labor
  27. These
    were leaders of refugee communities away from the reach of colonial administrators
    who were known to guard their independence as well as attack what they
    considered to be symbols of colonial oppression: plantations, warehouses, shops
    of rural merchants, tax collectors, labor recruiters, and so on. They were
    often successful because they enjoyed the support of the rural population, from
    whom they received such things as food, ammunition, and useful strategic
    information. Historians have categorized these leaders as social bandits due to
    their activities as social banditry, but because of the unpleasant connotations
    of these terms, they are called what they are called.
    Commando leaders and commando activities
  28. This was the Aboringes
    Rights Protection Society’s mouthpiece, their newspaper. Put in 1902, “We want
    educated Fantis not Europeanized natives. We simply
    want our education to enable us to develop and to improve our native ideas,
    customs, manners and institutions” (Boahen 69). For
    this purpose, the society established some elementary schools and one secondary
    school in Cape Coast in 1905, the Mfantsipim School,
    with the Akan motto “Dwen Hwe
    Kan” (“Think and Look Ahead”), rather than the usual
    Latin motto. The society was formed to serve as the watchdog and mouthpiece of
    the interests of the people and a critic of the colonial system.
    The Gold Coast Aborigines
  29. The only educated
    African who resorted to rebellion in the first period of anticolonial and
    nationalistic reaction, this man went to the United States for his education
    and returned three years to be an ordained minister. In his hometown of Chiradzulu, he established the Providence Industrial
    Mission, which ran schools and farms. After economic difficulties combining
    with famine and men being taken for the war, this man could not work within
    the colonial framework any longer and he began to attack colonialism as a
    mockery of Christianity in his sermons. He condemned African participation in
    the war, and in January 1915 raised the standard of the revolt, with his
    rebellion being suppressed and this man  being shot.
    Rev. John Chilembwe
  30. A
    form of anticolonial resistance and nationalistic reaction to colonial
    administration, this was a dance association that
    performed songs and dances that often ridiculed European officials and
    expressed deep-seated popular resentment against colonial rule. This was seen
    in many East African colonies, and is significant because the colonials could
    not understand the resistance that was being displayed right before them.