Imperialism why africa

Cultures need to be developed that transform the destructive legacies of militarism currently permeating African societies at so many levels. This is impossible while U. The Guardian Australia. Court cases show Colombian government role in paramilitary killings, U. New book gives civil rights leader Alphaeus Hunton long overdue recognition. Trial of far-right poster boy, Kyle Rittenhouse, begins. The Discarded Soldier. Wealthy capitalist countries owe climate reparations, developing nations tell COP What U.

Tags: Africa colonialism imperialism. Eileen Whitehead. Comments comments. Second, they were bureaucratic because they were administered by military officers and civil servants who were appointees of the colonial power. While they were all authoritarian, bureaucratic state systems, their forms of administration varied, partly due to the different national administrative traditions and specific imperialist ideologies of the colonizers and partly because of the political conditions in the various territories that they conquered.

There was usually a governor or governor-general in the colonial capital who governed along with an appointed executive council and a legislative council of appointed and selected local and foreign members.

The governor was responsible to the colonial office and the colonial secretary in London, from whom laws, policies, and programs were received. He made some local laws and policies, however. Colonial policies and directives were implemented through a central administrative organization or a colonial secretariat, with officers responsible for different departments such as Revenue, Agriculture, Trade, Transport, Health, Education, Police, Prison, and so on.

The British colonies were often subdivided into provinces headed by provincial commissioners or residents, and then into districts headed by district officers or district commissioners. Laws and policies on taxation, public works, forced labor, mining, agricultural production, and other matters were made in London or in the colonial capital and then passed down to the lower administrative levels for enforcement. At the provincial and district levels the British established the system of local administration popularly known as indirect rule.

This system operated in alliance with preexisting political leaderships and institutions. The theory and practice of indirect rule is commonly associated with Lord Lugard, who was first the British high commissioner for northern Nigeria and later governor-general of Nigeria. Lugard simply and wisely adapted it to his ends. It was cheap and convenient. Despite attempts to portray the use of indirect rule as an expression of British administrative genius, it was nothing of the sort.

It was a pragmatic and parsimonious choice based partly on using existing functional institutions. The choice was also partly based on Britain's unwillingness to provide the resources required to administer its vast empire. Instead, it developed the perverse view that the colonized should pay for their colonial domination.

Hence, the choice of indirect rule. The system had three major institutions: the "native authority" made up of the local ruler, the colonial official, and the administrative staff; the "native treasury," which collected revenues to pay for the local administrative staff and services; and the "native courts," which purportedly administered "native law and custom," the supposedly traditional legal system of the colonized that was used by the courts to adjudicate cases.

In general, indirect rule worked fairly well in areas that had long-established centralized state systems such as chiefdoms, city-states, kingdoms, and empires, with their functional administrative and judicial systems of government. But even here the fact that the ultimate authority was the British officials meant that the African leaders had been vassalized and exercised "authority" at the mercy of European colonial officials.

Thus the political and social umbilical cords that tied them to their people in the old system had been broken. Some astute African leaders maneuvered and ruled as best they could, while others used the new colonial setting to become tyrants and oppressors, as they were responsible to British officials ultimately. In the decentralized societies, the system of indirect rule worked less well, as they did not have single rulers. The British colonizers, unfamiliar with these novel and unique political systems and insisting that African "natives" must have chiefs, often appointed licensed leaders called warrant chiefs, as in Igboland, for example.

The French, for their part, established a highly centralized administrative system that was influenced by their ideology of colonialism and their national tradition of extreme administrative centralism. Their colonial ideology explicitly claimed that they were on a "civilizing mission" to lift the benighted "natives" out of backwardness to the new status of civilized French Africans.

To achieve this, the French used the policy of assimilation, whereby through acculturation and education and the fulfillment of some formal conditions, some "natives" would become evolved and civilized French Africans. In practice, the stringent conditions set for citizenship made it virtually impossible for most colonial subjects to become French citizens. For example, potential citizens were supposed to speak French fluently, to have served the French meritoriously, to have won an award, and so on.

However, since France would not provide the educational system to train all its colonized subjects to speak French and would not establish administrative and social systems to employ all its subjects, assimilation was more an imperialist political and ideological posture than a serious political objective.

They also created federations in West Africa and Central Africa. In the colonial capitals the governors were responsible to the minister of colonies in Paris. Most laws and policies were sent from Paris, and the governors who ruled with general councils were expected to enforce them in line with France's centralist traditions. The colonies were also subdivided into smaller administrative units as follows: cercles under commandant du Cercles, subdivisions under chef de subdivisions, and at the next level, cantons were administered by African chiefs who were in effect like the British warrant chiefs.

While France tried to maintain this highly centralized system, in some parts of its colonies where it encountered strongly established centralized state systems, the French were compelled to adopt the policy of association, a system of rule operating in alliance with preexisting African ruling institutions and leaders. Thus it was somewhat like British indirect rule, although the French still remained committed to the doctrine of assimilation.

In the association system, local governments were run with African rulers whom the French organized at three levels and grades: chef de province provincial chief ; chef de canton district chiefs , and chef de village village chief.

In practice, the French system combined elements of direct administration and indirect rule. In general, the French administrative system was more centralized, bureaucratic, and interventionist than the British system of colonial rule. The other colonial powers— Germany, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and Italy—used varied administrative systems to facilitate control and economic exploitation. However, no matter the system, they were all alien, authoritarian, and bureaucratic, and distorted African political and social organizations and undermined their moral authority and political legitimacy as governing structures.

Ekechi, Felix. Toyin Falola. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, Iweriebor, Ehiedu E. Oyebade, Adebayo. Stilwell, Sean. Miriam and Ira D. Fourteen countries were present. European interest in the economic wealth of Africa increased in the s and "explorers" were dispatched throughout the continent.

The stated purpose of the Berlin conference was to guarantee free navigation on the Congo and Niger Rivers and free trade to all nations. European countries delimited the territories they had carved out for themselves and set out to "pacify" them. African resistance was fierce, and Europeans had to fight their way through the continent.

But the impact of the slave trade, among other factors, weakened the communities and the states. Africans put a strong resistance against the European colonizers.

In this illustration, an African army destroys a German expedition. The king of Dahomey had allowed the French to settle in the city of Cotonou against payment of a tribute, but he was determined to stop their encroachment on his lands.

West African forces commonly fought European armies with cavalries like this Djerma cavalry from Niger. African armies often fought with outdated weaponry, but Menelik II imported new armament from France. In the famous battle of Adowa in , the Ethiopians confronted the Italians with , troops. They inflicted a decisive defeat on Italy and Ethiopia was able to maintain its independence for much of the colonial period.

Marpon et E. Flammarion, The power of the African kings — here the Mogho Naba in Upper Volta Burkina Faso — was extremely weakened by colonization and later by a republican political system. Today some traditional dynasties still exist in a limited capacity within republics. Kings settle local disputes based on traditional laws that do not conflict with national laws.

African rulers organized militarily to resist the seizure of their lands and the imposition of colonial domination; but European powers enrolled sometimes by force Africans—often formerly enslaved men—to fight against them.

Here is one of their camps in Saint Louis, northern Senegal. Chiefs were only allowed to rule in accordance with customary laws. However, in some cases the British government introduced new laws and forced chiefs to pass them as customary laws. For example, they introduced a Hut Tax to increase revenues to colonial governments. This tax was charged on every one who owned a hut, poor or rich. The tax was not a customary law, but it was portrayed as a customary practice by the British colonial governments.

French and Portuguese colonies were ruled differently. Unlike the British system, the French and Portuguese gave a role to local African leaders preferring to adopt a system of direct rule. Colonies were treated as if they were extensions of the two European states. For example, French colonies were treated as French departments. The French government did not include any African rulers. They were stripped of all their powers and the people were ruled directly by French colonial officers often with a military background.

These colonial officers replaced African rulers because most areas were divided into districts and departments. The division of French colonies into districts and departments did not take into consideration existing boundaries of different ethnic groups. Whereas the British policy was based on the separation of races and preserving the culture or identities of African societies, the French policy was based on inclusion. Their policy was to encourage Africans to become French in every sense of the word.

This policy was part of expanding French civilization to African people. However, this policy did not mean that African people in French colonies were treated with equality. Their inclusion into French societies was based on inequality between the French people and colonised Africans. The Portuguese introduced the prazo system. The prazo is a Portuguese system of land grants that was introduced in the colonies.

It was a mixture of local political structures and a Portuguese political system. It was not an indirect rule system because land was taken from African rulers and given to Portuguese settlers. The control of land gave Portuguese the power to control African people. Because Portuguese rule was very weak, Portuguese holders of these land grants prazo legitimised their control of land by marrying into African royal families.

These Portuguese rulers called themselves chiefs like African chiefs and ruled like African chiefs. The prazo system was adopted largely because the Portuguese government was a weak colonial power as compared to other colonial powers. The Portuguese did not have the wealth required to administer their colonies. As a result, Portuguese colonies were the least developed colonies in Africa.

They had to adapt their colonial rule to the African context. In Rwanda, the Belgians used an indirect rule system. Instead of accommodating all traditional authorities within their colonial system, they favoured one group, the Tutsis. They used the Tutsis to control other groups in Rwanda. Belgian colonial rule was characterised by the most cruel and exploitative treatment of the local people.

People were forced to work and those who refused to carry out their duties had their hands chopped off. German colonial rule was also based on direct rule. However, there was no attempt to turn Africans into Germans. German colonial rule lasted for a brief period as Germany lost her colonial possessions after the First World War. Her colonies were mandated to British and French colonies.

Italy was the latecomer in the colonisation of Africa, becoming involved only after the Italian unification of By this time other European countries had already claimed most parts of Africa. The Italian government developed a centralised administration with the aim of sending Italians to live in the colonies. The other reason for Italian colonialism was to show old European countries that Italy was also a strong nation. In an attempt to prove this, Italy attempted to colonise Ethiopia.

The Ethiopians defeated and humiliated the Italians in the Battle of Adowa. These colonies were underdeveloped as compared to those of the European powers. This section is quite long so we have broken it into two pages: Defining Imperialism In the late 18th century, life in Europe and America changed dramatically.

The Prime Minister of France, Jules Ferry in his justification of this policy told his parliament that: "I repeat that the superior races [European] have a right because they have a duty. Lord Lugard of Britain said that: "It is sufficient to reiterate here that, as long as our policy is one of free trade, we are compelled to seek new markets; for old ones are being closed to us by hostile tariffs, and our great dependencies, which formerly were the consumers of our goods, are now becoming our commercial rivals.

Colonial Rule Colonial rule was the result of competition among European countries for control of African resources. Countries that had colonies in Africa were: Britain France Portugal Germany Belgium Italy Spain In terms of governing their colonies, these countries developed different systems of rule.