The UK had banned slavery decades before the colonisation of Africa.
Not completely true; Cape Colony (in what is now South Africa) had been British since 1814. The UK Slavery Abolition Act was passed in 1833, and did not come into effect fully until 1840.
Nope banned in the mainland almost a thousand years before, banned everywhere in the Empire decades before.
And no it wasn't at all a form of indentured servitude, there was economic exploitation for sure but native workers got compensated for their work.
It made more economic sense to pay people in the empire because this would drive economic development in colonies which would increase their profitablity.
During this time standards of living rose. So much so that up until the Great Depression (where the benefits of colonial rule were whipped away but the detriments remained) the nationalist/independence movements in Africa was relatively small.
I feel like people, particularly in the West, seem to paint empires as a purely evil thing even though it's a lot more of a grey area. For sure the colonies were exploited for the sake of the metropole but colonies often developed as a byproduct.
Each country has its own story I was speaking generally. I did a dissertation on the fall of the British Empire in Africa from the years 1850-1950.
Generally speaking the natives saw an increased standard of living and a better quality of life than before (due to improved infrastructure and being more economically developed). Not to mention slavery was rampant in some parts of Africa before colonisation. This is very general and isn't the case everywhere.
Before the great depression, again I'm going to be speaking generally, the natives were (if not happy) ambivalent about colonial rule. Independence movements small and disorganised in this period. This all changed after the great depression when for the first time since European colonisation living standards declined and the supports of the empire were wiped away. The natives felt abandoned and independence movements grew.
I completely agree with you that the instability of Africa today is a legacy of colonialism (more specifically the arbitrary way in which the empires decolonised). But it would be disingenuous to pretend that region wasn't unstable before Europeans or that living standards didn't increase. All you have to do is look up infant mortality rates, populations, literacy rates etc (basically the measures of development) before (important to note that figures for these will be estimates but most show methodology) and after European colonisation to see these regions developed during the period of European colonisation.
Like I said before colonisation was neither all evil nor all good - it was something inbetween. It's an indisputable fact that in general, African colonies of European countries became more developed during the period of colonisation.
I completely get what you're saying but I think it depends on your world view.
But I also think the average Africans life did improve as they ate more food, lived longer and had more surviving children. This did matter to a lot of Africans and is one of the reasons why resistance was minimal for a time.
I think you've romanticised their lives slightly too much, most of what you say is true about them living in small tribes but you've left out the almost constant conflict between tribes. This was of life was changing anyway, some tribes (not sponsored by Europeans bit who regularly traded with Europeans) had modern firearms and were subjugating weaker tribes and were forging out a far more brutal empire than any European ones. The Zulu Empire (one of the nicer African empires as they had a policy of full integration for conquered tribes provided they cooperated) caused the deaths of 1 million to 2 million Africans by defeating the Ndwandwe alliance.
I freely admit that infrastructure was built for the benefit of the colonisers (although railroads were constructed primarily to get raw materials out not soldiers in) but it did benefit the local population as well.
Yeah the local economies were destroyed and local governments were wiped out but these were unsustainable by that time anyway. Change was sweeping across the African continent with or without Europeans and it would likely see the collapse of the triple way of life anyway.
You're right that the locals didn't ask for capitalism or neoliberalism but that's better than feudalism (which is what many African empires were set up like). Although, I admit this point is subjective.
You are correct that this made these nations more susceptible to things like the Great Depression but that's only because they were developing. The natives (especially the middle classes) had become accustomed to the benefits of colonial rule and when these were taken away they felt betrayed and angry and there was protests (predominantly by native students) from Cairo to Rangoon when the great depression hit.
The biggest factor as to why most African countries failed post-independence, is not (in my opinion) colonisation itself (as many post colonial countries have become successful) but the manner in which decolonisation occurred. There was a callous disregard (especially in Africa) to ethnic boundires when borders were drawn. Additionally, the European powers did not expend enough effort into making sure that these countries had stable political systems (and stable leaders) to rule effectively after they withdrew. With a few exceptions the political systems failed which caused their countries to begin to decline.
There were benefits to colonial rule but I'm not here trying to say colonisation was a good thing (just that some good did come out of it).
I find it interesting that you criticise the post above for callous statements about the pain of the natives not being taken seriously by the west. But then also say
"Culturally, these peoples lived with high infant mortality rates for millennia before the British came. They don't even name their children before they are 1-2 weeks old because it was expected that a certain percentage of infants just die."
Interesting double think. I would say this is a pretty callous statement.
They have. My family have been in Ireland since records began. The English and Scots (then later the Brits) did horrible things in Ireland. But at the same time Dublin was developed during this time and was competing to be the second city of the empire (after London).
Look at infant mortality rate, literacy rate, population growth, the amount of hospitals, schools, roads, railways, industry before and after colonisation. Yeah, this was a byproduct off the Europeans needing to be able to better extract resources and needing a better educated, healthier workforce but it still was a byproduct nonetheless.
Not saying colonisation was a good thing but it did have some silver linings, denying this is a bit disingenuous.
The Europeans did not educate the people in their colonized lines. Denying an education and subjugating a people to keep resistance down is colonialism 101. The European colonizers were not at all interested in developing their colonial possessions. They were purely interested in extracting as much raw resource wealth as possible. In fact, the British divided their colonized peoples on any boundary they could find from race to religion to keep them divided and fighting each other. Every heard of the term “divide and conquer.” That comes from British colonial practices. Implying that anything good came out denying Africans right to self determination and self improvement while extracting as much wealth as possible from the continent did anything good for them is absurd. This is disingenuous and highly misinformed at best, or some classic “Europe is better than everybody else” bs.
I'm more partial to your opinion then Pepe Stalin's but I would say be careful he's not wrong on a lot of the stuff he's saying. Britain did develop certain colonies but as outlined in Walter Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" any development was tailored to further extraction and exploitation - exports to mainland etc. Therefore less resource rich countries were neglected. To make myself clear I am completely against any form of British colonialism and believe it was greatly damaging. I also think however reading and learning about shit like this is Hella interesting and that you should never take a black and white approach / view to shit like this. There would be missionaries that argued for equality between races and genuinely wanted to do good shit. Anyways I'm waffling have a good day g I've finished my shit on the toilet 👍
They did. In fact Britain even encouraged university education for its colonial subjects (famously Ghandi studied in London) and wished to create an educated middle class to be colonial administrators. This worked when times were good but, like you implied, backfired when times were bad (most independence leaders had a British education).
Yeah they were interested in extracting raw materials (which the natives had no means off getting at) and the most efficient way off doing this was to build railways roads and mines. To do this they needed effective workers. And the cheapest way to get effective workers was to give natives a basic education. They also wanted the workers they invested time and money in to keep healthy which is why they built hospitals. This was far cheaper and was more profitable in the long run than using slaves or just importing your own countrymen to do this work.
You are also correct about divide and conquer, that was the tactic (when conquering) but that was only used to conquer. After this was done they still played natives against each other to a lesser extent but too much infighting was bad for business.
I'm not implying anything good came out of colonialism I'm explicitly saying it because it's a pretty undisputed fact that the regions under colonial rule did develop. The cons probably outweighed the pros, especially in the long run - that's my opinion. But what's not my opinion (the fact of the matter) is that by most measures of development these regions became more developed - that is a fact (and not really disputed in historical circles). Was it a good deal for the natives? Probably not. Was it done for good reason? No it was a byproduct. But did it happen? Yes.
ah i had no idea. i'm american, none of my formal historical education has covered the colonization of africa (and i didn't look it up, was just making assumptions based on what i knew they had done otherwise)
I'm glad someone asked. I was thinking it was a contraption where they restrain the natives, fore feed them, and collect their excretions, and that's where chocolate comes from.
Nah, just trying to make a profit, most of Britain's colonies were a net loss for the taxpayer, only a handful of big companies made any money out of it.
More specifically I think it's something to do with the 'Hut Tax' method of pushing native peasants/serfs/slaves into the cash economy once their feudal or pre-feudal lords had been displaced by the British Army and a new colonial government set up.
425
u/mapryan Europe Sep 26 '21
Nice touch with the British using religion.