Colonialism had similar consequences in Africa, although
with some changes in emphasis. As we have seen,
European economic interests were more limited in Africa
than elsewhere. Having seized the continent in what
could almost be described as a fit of hysteria, the European
powers had to decide what to do with it. With economic
concerns relatively limited except for isolated
areas, such as gold mines in the Transvaal and copper deposits
in the Belgian Congo, interest in Africa declined,
and most European governments settled down to govern
their new territories with the least effort and expense possible.
In many cases, this meant a form of indirect rule
reminiscent of the British approach to the princely states
in the Indian peninsula. The British, with their tradition
of decentralized government at home, were especially
prone to adopt this approach.
In the minds of British administrators, the stated goal
of indirect rule was to preserve African political traditions.
The desire to limit cost and inconvenience was one
reason for this approach, but it may also have been based
on the conviction that Africans were inherently inferior
to the white race and thus incapable of adopting European
customs and institutions. In any event, indirect rule
entailed relying to the greatest extent possible on existing
political elites and institutions. Initially, in some areas,
the British simply asked a local ruler to formally accept
British authority and to fly the Union Jack over official
buildings. Sometimes it was the Africans who did the asking,
as in the case of the African leaders in Cameroons
who wrote to Queen Victoria:
We wish to have your laws in our towns. We want to have
every fashion altered, also we will do according to your Consul’s
word. Plenty wars here in our country. Plenty murder
and plenty idol worshippers. Perhaps these lines of our writing
will look to you as an idle tale.
We have spoken to the English consul plenty times about
having an English government here. We never have answer
from you, so we wish to write you ourselves.4
Nigeria offers a typical example of British indirect rule.
British officials operated at the central level, but local authority
was assigned to native chiefs, with British district
officers serving as intermediaries with the central administration.
Where a local aristocracy did not exist, the British
assigned administrative responsibility to clan heads
from communities in the vicinity. The local authorities
were expected to maintain law and order and to collect
taxes from the native population. As a general rule, indigenous
customs were left undisturbed; a dual legal system
was instituted that applied African laws to Africans
and European laws to foreigners.
One advantage of such an administrative system was
that it did not severely disrupt local customs and institutions.
In fact, however, it had several undesirable consequences.
In the first place, it was essentially a fraud
because all major decisions were made by the British administrators
while the native authorities served primarily
as the means of enforcing decisions. Moreover, indirect
rule served to perpetuate the autocratic system that often
existed prior to colonial takeover. It was official policy to
inculcate respect for authority in areas under British rule,
and there was a natural tendency to view the local aristocracy
as the African equivalent of the traditional British
ruling class. Such a policy provided few opportunities
for ambitious and talented young Africans from outside
the traditional elite and thus sowed the seeds for class
tensions after the restoration of independence in the
twentieth century.
The situation was somewhat different in East Africa,
especially in Kenya, which had a relatively large European
population attracted by the temperate climate in
the central highlands. The local government had encouraged
Europeans to migrate to the area as a means of
promoting economic development and encouraging financial
self-sufficiency. To attract them, fertile farmlands
in the central highlands were reserved for European settlement
while, as in South Africa, specified reserve lands
were set aside for Africans. The presence of a substantial
European minority (although, in fact, they represented
only about 1 percent of the entire population) had an impact
on Kenya’s political development. The European
settlers actively sought self-government and dominion
status similar to that granted to such former British possessions
as Canada and Australia. The British government,
however, was not willing to run the risk of provoking
racial tensions with the African majority and agreed
only to establish separate government organs for the European
and African populations.
The situation in South Africa, of course, was unique,
not only because of the high percentage of European settlers
but also because of the division between Englishspeaking
and Afrikaner elements within the European
population. In 1910, the British agreed to the creation of
the independent Union of South Africa, which combined
the old Cape Colony and Natal with the two Boer
republics. The new union adopted a representative government,
but only for the European population, while the
African reserves of Basutoland (now Lesotho), Bechuanaland
(now Botswana), and Swaziland were subordinated
directly to the crown. The union was now free to
manage its own domestic affairs and possessed considerable
autonomy in foreign relations. Remaining areas
south of the Zambezi River, eventually divided into the
territories of Northern and Southern Rhodesia, were
also placed under British rule. British immigration into
Southern Rhodesia was extensive, and in 1922, after a
popular referendum, it became a crown colony.
Most other European nations governed their African
possessions through a form of direct rule. The prototype
was the French system, which reflected the centralized
administrative system introduced in France by Napoleon.
As in the British colonies, at the top of the pyramid was
a French official, usually known as a governor-general,
who was appointed from Paris and governed with the aid
of a bureaucracy in the capital city. At the provincial
level, French commissioners were assigned to deal with
local administrators, but the latter were required to be
conversant in French and could be transferred to a new
position at the needs of the central government.
The French ideal was to assimilate their African subjects
into French culture rather than preserving their native
traditions. Africans were eligible to run for office and
to serve in the French National Assembly, and a few were
appointed to high positions in the colonial administration.
Such policies reflected the relative absence of racist
attitudes in French society, as well as the French conviction
of the superiority of Gallic culture and their revolutionary
belief in the universality of human nature.
After World War I, European colonial policy in Africa
entered a new and more formal phase. The colonial administrative
network extended into outlying areas, where
it was represented by a district official and defended by a
small native army under European command. Colonial
governments paid more attention to improving social services,
including education, medicine, sanitation, and
communications. The colonial system was now viewed
more formally as a moral and social responsibility, a
“sacred trust” to be maintained by the civilized countries
until the Africans became capable of self-government.
Governments placed more emphasis on economic development
and the exploitation of natural resources to
provide the colonies with the means of achieving selfsufficiency.
More Africans were now serving in colonial
administrations, though relatively few were in positions
of responsibility. At the same time, race consciousness
probably increased during this period. Segregated clubs,
schools, and churches were established as more European
officials brought their wives and began to raise families in
the colonies.
At the same time, the establishment of European colonial
rule often had the effect of reducing the rights and
the status of women in Africa. African women had traditionally
benefited from the prestige of matrilineal systems
and were empowered by their traditional role as the primary
agricultural producer in their community. Under
colonialism, not only did European settlers take the best
land for themselves, but in introducing new agricultural
techniques, they tended to deal exclusively with males,
encouraging the latter to develop lucrative cash crops,
while women were restricted to traditional farming methods.
While African men applied chemical fertilizer to the
fields, women used manure. While men began to use bicycles
and eventually trucks to transport goods, women
still carried goods on their heads, a practice that continues
today.
World History
