WRITTEN BY MAFE
It has not been uncommon to hear from European scholars that colonialism was an ideal set towards the purpose of illuminating the dark continent of its barbarous practices. In their analysis of colonialism, they often refer to human sacrifice prevalent in Africa before the start of their "economic evangelism". As a matter of fact, a good number of Eurocentric scholars have been too parochial in their analysis of Africa being a barbaric, underdeveloped and backward circle that needed to be liberated to the extent that they flawed reality and humanity. Joseph Conrad in his short novel, 'Heart of Dark', describes Africa as a metaphysical battlefield devoid of all recognizable humanity, into which the wandering European enters at his peril. He could have said "a place of darkness" as the title of his book denotes. But to Conrad, Africa was a place even more unrecognizable than darkness itself - metaphysical battlefield devoid of all recognizable humanity.
Marlow however helped Conrad out in his description of the peoples around the Congo area:
They were all dying slowly - it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now- black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the coast in all the legality of time contracts, lost in uncongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar foods, they sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest.
Even that extraordinary missionary, Albert Schweitzer, who sacrificed brilliant careers in music and theology in Europe for a life of service to Africans wrote ambivalently. In a comment which has often been quoted, Schweitzer says: "the Afican is indeed my brother but a junior brother". Interestingly, this kind of position and belief espoused by Conrad and Marlow touched all the best minds of the peoples in England, Europe and America. Little wonder, Chamberlain, that British colonial secretary, saw colonialism as the " best thing to have happened to Africa- uncivilized and grossly underdeveloped peoples".
However, these different submissions are so ludicrous, mirthful and very far from sacred reality. As a matter of fact, Conrad and Marlow position is not scholarly amenable. Actually, in the case of Conrad, stylistic felicity had stolen his mentality and humanity. Achebe saw him as a scholar beclouded by deep sense of messy Europeanism. For how could Africa be an underdeveloped and barbarous circle? What really makes a people underdeveloped; what makes them barbarous?
Walter Rodney in his description of underdevelopment commented that Africa even before the coming of the Europeans had attained a level of development. According to Rodney, development in Africa was even truncated by the coming of the Europeans. Apparently, a people could not be backward: in any society, there is always a measure of development, only the sophistication and intensity of such development varies from one society to another. Indigenous industries were progressing in fast speed before European goods circulated African markets. Although it is hypothetical, one would not be so wrong to affirm that African societies would have become industrialized and developed absent European interference. Benin for example had a sophisticated society that compared favourably with Portugal in the fifteenth century.
It should not be forgotten in earnest that the Trans- Atlantic slave trade had done untold damages to African development before colonialism came. Even, before the effective acquition of Africa as a colonial territory, the explorers, the missionaries and traders had done a meticulous and timely work of studying the geography; capturing the souls and penetrating the hinterland. Indeed, colonialism rested on effective activities of explorers, missionaries and traders. Thus, it was a plannned work towards conquering the entirety of Africa and not a "rescue mission".
Moreover, developments in Europe necessitated that Africa be subjugated and brought under the direct rule of the European governments. Particularly, the industrial revolution which began in Britain meant that little human labour would be required since machines could efficiently and easily do what slaves were hitherto imported to do. Purpose therefore had to be set towards acquiring industrial materials needed in Europe. And in doing this, Africa must be forced to produce exactly what the European industries needed. To the "foreign agents of change", there was no better way to do this than to have political, economic and even religious control over the people. Hence, the idea of colonialism was not to liberate the "backward" Africa , but to establish an exploitative grip on Africa and all its resources.
In some quarters, humanitarian concern has been touted to be a fundamental reason for European control of West African high seas and coastal cities in the 19th century. Since the slave trade continued unmitigated even after its abolition, the surest way of killing the slave trade was to attack it at its roots. Hence, European world, in this case the British, had a sanctimonious duty of monitoring trade on the high sea and enlightening West African rulers about the savagery and inhumanity in that trade in humans. Thomas Buxton urged missionaries, agriculturists and traders to go into the interior to teach the people new agricultural technology and bring to them the benefits of christianity and western civilization.
Notwithstanding, this notion of humanitarian concern is also spurious and laughable. Colonialism was not borne out of human feeling but economic feeling. Moreso, the stiff competition among European countries like Germany, France, and Britain towards the control of the interior of the Niger Delta for example hastened the thought of establishing an overall British authority in the area. It has not been uncommon for people to tend to be altruistic when they are actually aggrandizing their own interests. Obviously, there was no humanity in "neo enslavement" of Africa.
Even the religious mechanism put in place was not a deliberate implementation to illuminate that backward race. Insofar that it represented an apparatus of spiritual enlightenment, it was simply an instrument of exploitation, geared towards conquering the souls of the blacks. In fact, even if Africa was "backward", colonialism was never an attempt at liberating it.
In addition, colonialism was necessary not due to the backward nature of the black world, but necessary to establish European effective authority over Africa. The activities of various European entities were converged towards safeguarding the economic interests of Europe and founding a structure for the official aquisition of Africa, in this case. For instance, the missionary were even funded by government in some cases and put to task of anchoring Africans to docility and obsequiousness. The religion had gained ground in Europe as far back as the 13th century or even farther. Why then did Europe trade humans and not Christianity during this period? Why did the religion come exactly when European needed to assuage the aggression and possible violent communal resistance of Africans? What an accidental necessity of purpose!
Finally, development is often interpreted in different forms. Walter Rodney described how well Africa had developed and advanced before the coming of the Europeans. According to him, the Europeans neutralized the essence of social development in Africa and institutionalized a planned economy. Africa, in no way, was a barbarous continent. Even if it was, colonialism was in no way an attempt at healing it of its barbarous practices. Although some mechanisms of colonialism could have healed Africa, inadvertently, of some "evil practices", the salient aim of colonialism was to ensure a well structured flow of raw materials needed in Europe. In other words, the economic interests of European countries necessitated colonialism, not the liberation of a "quiet tribe", unreasonably dubbed barbarous.
0 Comments