Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Did
colonial
rule
before
the
Second
World
War
modernise
Africa?
[I]t
cannot
be
too
strongly
emphasised
that
the
various
sides
of
Gikuyu
life
here
described
are
the
parts
of
an
integrated
culture.
No
single
part
is
detachable;
each
has
its
context
and
is
fully
understandable
only
in
relation
to
the
whole.1
When
Jomo
Kenyatta
wrote
Facing
Mount
Kenya,
he
attempted
to
show
that
his
native
Gikuyu
culture
was
not
inferior
to
that
which
the
colonial
settlers
championed,
only
different.2
His
monograph,
read
by
few
at
the
time,
did
not
have
a
large
impact
on
contemporary
thought,
but
has
been
seized
upon
by
modern
analysts
of
interwar
Africa.
The
need
for
holistic
understanding
can
be
applied
to
diverse
African
cultures,
and
possibly
even
tentatively
to
Africa
as
a
whole.
In
order
to
comprehend
what
processes
were
occurring
within
Africa
in
this
period
it
is
important
to
assess
various
different
elements
in
relation
to
one
another,
whether
industrial,
agricultural,
infrastructural,
social,
or
otherwise.
Only
by
doing
so
can
one
uncover
the
complex
effects
that
colonial
rule
had
on
Africa
between
1918
and
1939.
Whilst
it
introduced
some
trappings
of
European-style
modernity
to
the
continent,
it
did
so
in
a
very
inconsistent
way,
and
in
a
manner
that
invariably
addressed
colonial
interests
before
those
of
the
various
peoples
of
Africa.
There
are
a
number
of
issues
within
the
titular
question,
which
must
be
addressed
before
colonial
rule
in
the
interwar
period
can
be
examined.
Foremost
amongst
these
is
the
problematic
notion
of
modernisation.
There
can
be
little
doubt
that
this
is
a
normative
term;
it
assumes
a
standard
of
modernity
to
which
a
process
is
tending,
a
standard
that
must
be
defined
in
relation
to
a
particular
society
or
culture.
Mahmood
Mambani
has
written
about
the
dangers
of
a
structuralist
approach
to
modernity,
warning
that
without
consideration
the
term
can
come
to
assume
a
supra-historical
telos
that
is
unhelpful
in
examining
what
actually
occurred
in
the
past.3
His
account,
however,
does
not
seem
to
provide
a
viable
alternative,
at
least
not
for
the
period
in
question.
This
exploration
shall
be
focused
on
the
extent
to
which
colonial
powers
succeeded
in
bringing
their
own
versions
of
modernity
to
Africa.
It
shall
follow
the
trend
of
the
bulk
of
historiography
in
focusing
on
sub-Saharan
African
experiences.
In
doing
so
it
shall
of
course
be
necessary
to
examine
what
modernity
meant
to
the
native
African
population,
but
to
simply
state
that
Africa
was
already
modern
in
the
eyes
of
men
such
as
Kenyatta
does
little
to
inform
the
historical
discourse.
Importantly,
there
must
not
a
confusion
of
modernisation
and
betterment,
for
the
two
unfortunately
are
not
interchangeable
terms.
It
shall
be
seen
that
colonial
powers
succeeded
in
bringing
some
of
the
trappings
of
modernity
to
the
African
continent,
but
the
systems
they
created
could
hardly
be
considered
modern
by
their
own
standards.
They
introduced
a
very
particular
form
of
limited
African
modernity.
Certainly
there
are
many
accounts
of
the
interwar
period
that
stress
how
colonial
rule
resulted
in
the
modernisation
of
African
industry
by
technological
and
systematic
developments.
Gervase
Clarence-Smith
has
particularly
emphasised
this
in
her
account
of
Equatorial
and
Central
Africa.
She
points
to
the
fact
that
in
British
South
Rhodesia,
industry
did
1
Jomo
Kenyatta,
Facing
Mount
Kenya,
(Trowbridge
&
Esher:
Redwood
Burn
Ltd.,
1974
[1938]),
309.
2
The
terms
native
and
local
shall
henceforth
be
used
without
quotation
marks
in
this
essay
to
facilitate
ease
of
reading.
It
is
assumed that the reader will treat them with the skepticism that has become appropriate in the field. After first use, a similar policy shall be applied to modernity and its derivatives. 3 Mahmood Mambani, Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 9.
grow,
even
during
the
global
Great
Depression
of
the
1930s.4
A
similar
trend
can
be
identified
in
the
Belgian
Congo.
From
1933
to
1939
the
number
of
gold
smelters
in
the
Congo
rose
from
three
to
nine,
and
the
number
of
mechanised
factories
from
66
to
118.5
These
figures
suggest
that,
in
specific
regions,
the
infrastructure
necessary
for
a
European-style
industrial
economy
was
being
put
in
place.
New
innovations
were
being
introduced
to
these
areas
all
the
time.
The
Congolese
settler,
Dr
Chesterman,
remembered
the
first
airplane
that
the
Yakusu
natives
with
whom
he
lived
had
ever
seen.
Multitudes
crowded
down
to
the
beach
and
little
eyes
drank
in
the
details
of
observers
niche
and
Pilots
seat.6
Alongside
this,
improvements
were
constantly
being
made
to
transport
networks
throughout
Africa,
allowing
for
the
flow
of
goods
into
international
markets.7
All
of
this
would
seem
to
imply
that
colonial
rule
did
result
in
the
increased
industrialisation
of
at
least
parts
of
Africa.
This
industrialisation
brought
Africa
more
in
line
with
the
view
of
modernity
espoused
in
the
colonial
metropoles.
This
account,
however,
must
be
tempered
by
recognition
of
a
few
salient
details.
Primary
amongst
these,
and
true
for
nearly
all
aspects
of
African
history,
was
that
there
was
a
huge
variety
in
experience
across
the
continent.
Though
regions
such
as
the
Belgian
Congo,
Rhodesia,
and
South
Africa
saw
the
building
of
factories,
swathes
of
Africa
had
little
industry
at
all.
The
degree
of
industrialisation
depended
to
a
large
part
upon
the
presence
of
natural
resources,
and
of
a
government
willing
to
exploit
it.
Growth
in
the
Congo
can
thus
be
explained
as
a
result
of
the
abundance
of
copper
and
gold,
and
of
the
fact
that
Belgians
were
more
attuned
to
the
needs
of
industry
than
other
colonial
powers. 8
To
speak
of
colonial
rule
modernising
the
whole
of
Africa
by
this
process
of
industrialisation
would,
therefore,
be
wrong.
Even
in
the
regions
where
industrial
infrastructure
was
put
in
place,
it
is
difficult
to
claim
that
industrial
modernity
was
achieved.
The
industry
outlined
above
was
mostly
mineral
exploitation
and
raw
material
processing,
not
manufacturing.
Places
like
the
Ivory
Coast
grew
huge
amounts
of
cocoa,
but
did
not
have
the
capability
to
process
it
internally;
they
had
to
buy
tinned
cocoa
from
Europe
at
a
high
price.9
Walter
Rodney,
who
took
a
very
dim
view
of
colonial
rule,
argued
that
mineral
exploitation
could
hardly
be
considered
modernisation;
it
was
too
short-termist
and
centred
on
quick
profit.
British
colonists
were
mining
gold
in
Chunya,
Taganyika,
from
1933;
in
twenty
years
they
had
extracted
as
much
as
was
profitable
and
left
the
area.
Chunya
was
therefore
flung
into
poverty,
without
use
for
the
factories
and
facilities
that
now
stood
unused
or
dismantled.10
Crucially,
there
were
incredibly
few
examples
of
native
people
taking
control
of
industry
themselves.
They
existed
as
a
labour
force,
producing
not
for
a
domestic
market,
but
a
European
monopsony.
Colonial
rule
in
Africa
did
not
produce
an
industrial
system
that
was
modern
by
European
standards,
but
it
did
produce
one
that
was
useful
for
European
means.
Industry
was
modernised
to
the
extent
that
was
useful
for
those
who
owned
the
capital.
African
agriculture
underwent
a
similar
process,
with
a
similar
variety
of
experience.
In
some
ways
crop
production
was
brought
closer
to
the
European
view
of
modernity.
Especially
in
West
Africa,
increasing
numbers
of
producers
stopped
growing
food,
focusing
instead
on
cash
crops
such
as
ground-nuts
or
cotton.
This
made
these
farmers
increasingly
similar
to
the
European
producers,
who
grew
for
a
market,
not
solely
for
sustenance.
S.M.
Martin
has
4
Gervase
Clarence-Smith,
The
Effects
of
the
Great
Depression
on
Industrialisation
in
Equatorial
and
Central
Africa,
in
Ian
Brown
(ed.),
The
Economies
of
Africa
and
Asia
in
the
Inter-War
Depression,
(London:
Routledge,
1989),
175.
5
Clarence-Smith,
The
Effects
of
the
Great
Depression
on
Industrialisation
in
Equatorial
and
Central
Africa,
182-84.
6
Mary
Rose
Hunt,
A
Colonial
Lexicon:
of
Birth
Ritual,
Medicalisation,
and
Mobility
in
the
Congo,
(London:
Duke
University
Press,
1999),
85.
7
Robert
Shenton,
How
Europe
Underdeveloped
Africa
by
Walter
Rodney,
Canadian
Journal
of
African
Studies
9:1
(1975),
146-
50.
8 Clarence-Smith, The Effects of the Great Depression on Industrialization in Equatorial and Central Africa, 196. 9 Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, (London: Bogle-LOuverture, 1972), 237. 10 Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 238.
stressed
the
great
plurality
in
experience
that
existed
for
cash
crop
producers,
even
in
West
Africa
alone.
While
the
barter
terms
of
trade
for
Nigerian
cocoa
fell
in
the
early
1930s
to
just
25
per
cent
of
their
pre-war
levels,
ground-nut
farmers
found
themselves
in
a
much
more
secure
position. 11
As
such
it
can
be
very
hard
to
make
generalisations
about
how
colonial
rule
impacted
upon
the
agricultural
sector.
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
only
in
a
very
few
areas
was
capitalist
agriculture
introduced
i.e.
agriculture
operating
on
a
large
scale
and
only
for
profit.
Frederick
Cooper
has
stressed
that:
[o]nly
in
South
Africa
and
(to
a
lesser
extent)
Rhodesia
can
one
speak
of
a
capitalist
transformation
in
agriculture
before
World
War
II,
of
wage
labour
becoming
both
dominant
and
generalised
within
agriculture.12
In
the
few
areas
where
agriculture
was
commercialised,
the
capital
was
held
by
settlers,
not
native
people.
If
colonial
powers
took
modernity
to
be
the
system
implemented
in
and
around
their
metropoles,
then
they
failed
to
modernise
the
African
agricultural
system
in
all
but
a
very
few
places,
and
failed
to
remarkably
improve
it
for
the
producers
themselves
in
any.
The
capital
core
driving
the
development
of
agriculture
lay
without
the
African
continent
and
modernisation
had
therefore
not
been
achieved.
When
Rodney
wrote
that
what
was
called
the
development
of
Africa
by
colonialists
was
a
cynical
short-hand
expression
for
the
intensification
of
colonial
exploitation
in
Africa
to
develop
capitalist
Europe,
he
was
not
giving
enough
credence
to
the
development
of
factories
and
transport
networks
that
did
occur
in
certain
areas.13
Nonetheless,
he
was
correct
to
draw
attention
to
how
the
economic
system
that
colonial
rule
shaped
in
Africa
in
this
period
would
not
have
been
considered
modern
if
applied
to
Europe
herself.
This
is
corroborated
by
the
letters
of
Arnold
Paice,
a
British
settler
living
in
Kenya.
He
told
his
family
that:
[w]e
really
are
a
lot
of
humbugs
with
all
this
talk
about
the
nobility
of
labour
and
teaching
the
native
to
become
a
useful
member
of
the
community.
What
we
really
mean
is
we
are
out
here
to
make
a
living
(or
a
fortune
if
possible)
and
we
must
make
these
natives
work
for
us
somehow
or
well
all
go
bust!14
Trappings
of
modernity
were
introduced,
then,
but
ultimately
aimed
to
service
the
metropole,
not
the
African
continent
herself.
There
were
other
ways
in
which
colonial
rule
impacted
upon
Africa
that,
though
less
quantifiable
than
economic
considerations,
were
nonetheless
important.
The
extension
of
healthcare
was
significant
here.
Improvements
were
definitely
made,
but
they
came
at
a
cost
and
were
far
from
universal.
Mary
Rose
Hunts
study
of
a
clinic
in
the
Yakusu
region
of
the
Belgian
Congo
found
that
a
single
doctor
there
had
administered
10,000
injections
to
native
people.15
Missions
undertook
most
medical
work,
though
with
increased
state
support
from
the
1930s,
as
health
became
seen
as
important
to
the
productivity
of
the
native
as
a
worker.
Though
colonists
also
brought
disease
with
them,
expanding
the
frontier
of
the
sleeping- sickness-inducing
tsetse
fly,
on
balance
they
probably
did
more
good
than
bad
in
terms
of
healthcare.
With
this
said,
state
medical
facilities
were
most
often
provided
for
those
working
in
colonial
industry
or
agriculture;
i.e.
those
from
whom
the
state
could
reasonably
expect
to
gain
something.
As
a
result
many
rural
areas
did
not
have
sufficient
facilities.
In
Nigeria
in
the
1930s
there
were
12
hospitals
for
the
4,000
white
settlers,
and
52
for
the
40,000,000
native
11
S.M.
Martin,
The
Long
Depression:
West
African
Export
Producers
and
the
World
Economy,
1914-45,
in
Brown
(ed.),
The
Peasants, Labour and the Capitalist World System in Africa and Latin America, (London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), 123. 13 Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 244. 14 Dane Kennedy, Islands of White: Settler Society and Culture in Kenya and Southern Rhodesia, 1890-1939, (Durham: Duke University Press, 1987), 181. 15 Hunt, A Colonial Lexicon, 96.
inhabitants.16
Such
was
depressingly
typical.
Importantly,
healthcare
was
vastly
focused
on
men,
too.
At
the
aforementioned
Yakusu
clinic
in
1929,
86
per
cent
of
patients
were
male.17
Medical
care
was
extended
through
parts
of
Africa,
then,
but
not
in
a
way
that
was
consistent,
either
geographically
or
demographically.
The
crucial
way
in
which
colonial
rule
failed
to
modernise
medicine,
however,
was
that
though
it
acted
upon
the
native
people,
it
rarely
acted
with
them.
Certainly
assisstants
were
trained
from
within
the
ranks
of
natives
who
had
had
experience
of
the
clinics;
the
growth
of
the
Dawa
Boys
in
the
1930s
stands
as
evidence
for
this.18
Importantly,
though,
facilities
were
invariably
directed
by
European
mission
doctors.
Rodneys
claim
that
the
Portuguese
state
in
Mozambique
did
not
succeed
in
training
a
single
local
doctor
before
World
War
Two
seems
almost
too
incredible
to
believe,
but
it
is
certainly
true
that
few
native
African
people
gained
significant
medical
knowledge.
Some
people
believed
that
liquid
medicines
were
made
from
human
blood
and
that
hospitals
were
Sweeny-Todd-style
butcher
shops
supplying
meat
to
tinning
factories.
As
one
1920s
Yakusu
hospital
was
being
constructed:
women
passing
to
the
market
noticed
the
foundations
of
inner
rooms,
and
suspicions
were
aroused
that
it
was
to
be
in
there
that
the
doctors
would
take
their
victims,
cut
them
up
and
put
them
in
tins
for
sale.19
Fundamentally,
though
more
areas
of
Africa
were
exposed
to
medical
treatment
than
before,
this
trend
was
not
general
enough
for
it
to
be
considered
genuinely
modernising
on
a
continental
level,
and
it
did
not
extend
to
proper
education
or
a
sense
of
extra-European
sustainability.
Education
in
general
was
another
area
where,
despite
some
change,
full
modernisation
did
not
occur.
Education
remained
fairly
elitist,
aimed
at
either
the
children
of
colonialists,
or
local
influential
families.
British
schools
for
native
Africans
included
the
Nyasaland
Livingstonia
School
and
the
Sierra
Leone
Fourah
Bay
College.
Both
of
these
institutions
serviced
the
children
of
an
already-established
local
elite;
they
were
not
providing
meritocratic
education
for
all.20
In
the
Gold
Coast
in
1919
an
area
with
some
of
the
best
education
in
West
Africa
at
the
time
only
10
per
cent
of
children
were
in
government-assisted
schools;
there
were
only
four
schools
in
the
whole
of
the
vast
Northern
Territory.21
Where
education
was
available
it
was
aimed
at
teaching
Africans
to
become
useful
members
of
the
colonies,
not
at
giving
them
the
liberal
education
that
a
young
British
or
French
man
could
expect
at
home.
If
colonial
powers
desired
education
at
all,
they
wanted
it
to
shape
Christianised
colonial
subjects
who
would
either
serve
in
associationalist
governments
see
below
or
have
the
necessary
technical
skills
for
industry.
The
result
of
this
was
often
confused
and
not
that
helpful.
As
Kenyatta
wrote:
[t]he
new
civilisation
[the
African
man]
is
supposed
to
acquire
neither
prepares
him
for
the
proper
functions
of
a
European
mode
of
life,
nor
for
African
life;
he
is
left
floundering
between
the
two
social
forces.22
Once
again
the
double
stand
inherent
in
colonial
thinking
means
that
it
is
hard
to
see
the
change
that
occurred
in
the
sphere
of
education
as
genuinely
modernising.
It
was
mostly
aimed
at
servicing
a
distinctly
European
purpose.
16
Walter
Rodney,
How
Europe
Underdeveloped
Africa,
225.
17
Hunt,
A
Colonial
Lexicon,
41.
18
Megan
Vaughan,
Curing
their
Ills:
Colonial
Power
and
African
Illness,
(Stanford:
Stanford
University
Press,
1991),
64.
19
Hunt,
A
Colonial
Lexicon,
87.
20
Reid,
A
History
of
Modern
Africa:
1800
to
the
present,
(Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell,
2009),
202.
21
Richard
Gray,
Christianity,
in
J.D.
Faye
&
Roland
Oliver
(eds.),
The
Cambridge
History
of
Africa,
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
That
this
was
the
aim,
however,
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
it
was
the
result.
What
little
African
people
could
take
from
colonial
education
was,
in
some
instances,
put
to
good
use
in
creating
a
political
voice
that
was
their
own.
This,
far
more
than
the
indirect
rule
developed
in
the
1920s,
was
an
expression
of
a
modern
political
voice
it
was
also
far
from
what
colonial
powers
desired.
Indirect
rule
became
popular
among
the
colonial
powers
in
the
1920s,
broadly
as
a
result
of
a
change
in
thinking
born
during
the
Great
War.
The
basic
idea
was
to
create,
as
Mambani
has
put
it,
a
decentralised
despotism;
to
devolve
power
from
the
colonial
centre,
whilst
still
maintaining
ultimate
control. 23
Local
chiefs
retook
positions
of
power
in
the
recently-created
tribal
communities.
Richard
Reid
has
explained
the
increased
state
interest
in
education,
minimal
though
it
was,
as
necessary
for
maintaining
an
elite
to
perform
this
indirect
rule.24
This
seems
especially
true
for
French
and
Portuguese
rule,
but
can
also
be
applied
to
British.25
Such
indirect
or
associationalist
method
of
government
did
not
really
confer
any
substantial
new
power
on
the
native
populations;
it
changed
very
little.
As
Joost
van
Vollenhoven,
post-war
Governor
General
of
the
Dakar
region
for
the
French,
commented;
[t]he
native
chief
is
only
an
instrument,
an
auxiliary
the
native
chief
never
speaks
in
his
own
name. 26
In
this
indirect
or
associationalist
rule,
many
themes
that
have
affected
this
examination
of
modernisation
rise
again.
African
local
elites,
with
their
minimal
and
end- focused
educations,
became
involved
in
the
political
process
as
mouthpieces
for
colonial
powers.
The
concept
of
modernisation
does
not
sit
easily
here.
Those
who
were
affected
by
education,
however,
did
have
a
chance
to
exert
themselves
politically
in
a
way
that,
by
European
standards,
might
be
considered
modern.
That
is,
they
exercised
their
right
to
be
heard
by
the
governments
that
ruled
over
them.
This
was,
unsurprisingly,
not
a
trend
that
the
colonial
powers
felt
especially
warmly
towards.
It
occurred
in
some
areas
through
the
organisation
of
labour,
some
through
religious
movements,
some
through
political
activism,
and
some
not
at
all.
In
1919
the
Industrial
and
Commercial
Workers
Union
was
formed
in
South
Africa,
boasting
100,000
members
by
the
middle
of
the
1920s.27
South
Africa
was,
as
has
been
noted,
unusually
industrialised,
and
the
movement
failed
by
the
1930s.
It
was
indicative
of
a
general
trend
of
increased
organisation,
however.
Strikes
became
increasingly
common
during
the
late
1920s
and
into
the
Great
Depression
period.
Action
such
as
at
Shamva
mine,
South
Rhodesia,
in
1927
was
even
successful
for
the
strikers.28
Christianity
also
provided
a
conduit
for
political
activism.
Richard
Gray
has
convincingly
argued
that,
once
introduced
to
native
people
in
Africa,
Christianity
soon
came
to
be
imbued
with
and
interpreted
through
local
customs. 29
This
localisation
of
Christianity
can
be
seen
in
the
development
of
the
Ethiopian
Orthodox
Church
and
Watch
Tower
movements;
it
gave
native
people
in
Africa
an
avenue
for
expression
that,
whilst
rooted
in
colonial
religion,
was
also
quite
distinct
from
it
in
terms
of
power.30
In
1936
the
situation
was
such
that
Evelyn
Brodhurst-Hill
declared;
[r]eligious
sects
have
sprung
up
and
lead
to
religious
mania.31
Through
groups
such
as
these,
certain
groups
of
people
in
Africa
were
tentatively
solidifying
political
and
quasi- political
positions.
23
Mambani,
Citizen
and
Subject,
8.
24
Reid,
A
History
of
Modern
Africa,
208.
25
Reid,
A
History
of
Modern
Africa,
208.
26
Alice
L.
Conklin,
A
Mission
to
Civilise:
The
Republican
Idea
of
Empire
in
France
and
West
Africa,
1895-1930,
(Stanford:
Stanford
Certainly
none
of
this
was
occurring
to
quite
the
extent
that
the
colonial
settlers
feared;
Brodhurst-Hill
was
a
tad
hyperbolic
in
his
panicked
exclamation.
Similar
exaggeration
can
be
seen
in
the
South
African
Edgar
Brookes
in
the
early
1930s:
[the]
massing
of
Natives
in
centres
like
the
Witwatersrand
leads
gradually
to
the
growth
of
an
urban
population,
poor,
squalid,
propertyless
[sic],
easily
inflammable,
whom
the
Bolshevik
Third
International
has
already
designated
the
best
material
through
which
to
spread
communistic
doctrine
through
Africa.32
This
fear
was
greatly
overemphasised
by
men
such
as
Brookes,
though
it
should
be
noted
that
he
assumes
that
African
opposition
to
colonial
rule
would
be
incited
by
the
intervention
of
an
external
political
organisation
rather
than
grass-roots
activism.
This
trend
of
politicisation
is
one
that
can
assume
more
significance
on
paper
than
it
perhaps
merits
in
reality.
Any
grass- roots
political
voice
in
this
period
was
quiet,
and
very
fragmented.
Nonetheless,
the
colonial
system
had
inadvertently
created
conditions
in
which
political
activism
could
take
root.
This
potential
to
challenge
colonialism
was
one
of
the
most
significant
modernisations
that
took
place
in
the
interwar
period,
if
it
only
came
to
fruition
post-1945.
It
would
seem,
therefore,
that
this
period
was
one
where
much
change
occurred,
even
if
the
use
of
the
term
modernisation
can
still
be
questioned.
This
social
change
was
at
once
very
significant,
and
so
varied
that
to
comment
upon
it
monolithically
is
impossible.
For
many
little
to
no
change
occurred;
Africa
was
vast
and
the
number
of
settlers
very
small.
Certainly
one
might
draw
attention
to
the
testimony
of
Ray
Philips,
who
wrote
in
the
1930s:
A
native
heathen
father
is
sitting
in
his
grass
hut
in
the
country
To-day
[his]
son
is
in
Johannesberg
working
as
a
motor-driver,
piloting
a
high
powered
motor-car
through
the
thick
of
city
traffic.33
In
areas
where
industrialisation
or
the
commercialisation
of
agriculture
did
occur
the
effects
on
society
were
profound.
Extreme
juxtapositions
between
rural
and
urban
life
could
arise
within
single
families.
One
of
the
key
effects
of
this
was
the
liberation
of
many
young
men
from
patriarchal
rule.
Most
African
societies
were
very
conscious
of
age;
seniority
was
very
important.
Kenyatta
described
a
typical
Gikuyu
curse:
Orokanyarawo
ne
ciana
ciaku
otogwo
onyarareete
May
your
children
treat
you
with
disrespect
as
you
have
treated
me.34
As
job
markets
opened
up
in
some
regions,
more
and
more
young
men
were
able
to
leave
home
and
amass
personal
wealth.
Writers
such
as
Richard
Reid
have
stressed
that
this
changed
the
social
balance
in
many
African
communities.35
This
trend
can
in
some
ways
be
assessed
as
one
of
modernisation.
This
decline
in
patriarchy
occasionally
manifested
itself
in
the
loosening
of
restrictions
on
women,
too.
Apolo
Kagwa,
Prime-Minister
of
Buganda,
certainly
felt
such
when
he
claimed
that
an
outbreak
of
syphilis
was
as
a
result
of
the
emancipation
of
Baganda
women
from
the
surveillance
to
which
they
have
been
hitherto
subjected.36
One
might,
of
course,
suggest
that
the
immediate
placing
of
blame
on
the
female
population
demonstrates
that
less
had
changed
than
Kagwa
feared.
This
issue
cannot
be
explored
in
too
much
depth
here,
but
what
should
be
taken
from
it
is
that
social
norms
were
altering
in
some
African
communities
in
this
period.
Whether
European
colonialists
would
have
thought
of
this
as
modernisation
is
open
to
doubt,
but
change
certainly
occurred.
Key
to
this
was
the,
tentative,
emergence
of
class-consciousness
in
parts
of
Africa.
This
may
be
considered
ironic,
given
the
protestations
of
settlers
that
they
had
shucked
the
old
32
Saul
Dubow,
Racial
Segregation
and
the
Origin
of
Apartheid
in
South
Africa,
1919-36,
(London:
Macmillan,
1989),
70.
33
Dubow,
Racial
Segregation
and
the
Origins
of
Apartheid,
72.
In
a
discussion
on
modernity
it
might
be
noted
here
that
the
father is still sitting in his grass hut. Change was far from total.
34 Kenyatta, Facing Mount Kenya, 114. 35 Reid, A History of Modern Africa, 203. 36 Vaughan, Curing their Ills, 135.
European
obsession
with
status.
Doris
Lessing
wrote
of
Rhodesia:
[t]here
were
no
divisions
here,
no
barriers,
or
at
least
none
that
could
be
put
into
words
the
harshest
adjective
in
use
was
toffee-nosed,
which
meant
snobbish,
or
exclusive.37
Despite
this
apparent
new
sentiment
amongst
the
settlers,
what
they
brought
to
many
native
African
people
was
an
awareness
of
class-based
status
that
came
to
challenge
kinship
and
age
for
social
dominance
in
some
parts.
This
manifested
itself
in
a
snobbery
tied
to
colonial
innovations,
especially
in
terms
of
education
and
healthcare.
One
self-titled
volu
wrote
in
a
1950
journal:
[w]e
must
no
longer
tolerate
the
attitude
of
certain
of
our
compatriots
who
prefer
to
give
birth
on
the
ground
while
our
cities
are
endowed
with
maternity
wards,
equipped
with
all
modern
scientific
equipment.38
Maternity proved an especially clear example of this tendency, with the higher-status mothers in some communities proudly parading their newly-born children in Western dresses, obtained from birthing clinics.39 As some African people began to think of themselves as middle-class, they implicitly accepted the notion that some of their compatriots were low, thus projecting European or colonial hierarchies on all and weakening their solidarity. This was the argument of Mary Rose Hunt based on her work on the Belgian Congo. 40 The significance of this is easy to exaggerate. It was a very slight tendency that did not manifest itself equally across the entire African continent. Nonetheless, it does seem as if African social consciousness was in some instances influenced by the class-based mentality that settlers were ostensibly trying so hard to purge from themselves. Certainly this brought some Africa communities closer to the social model of the colonial metropoles, but it is hard to describe this process as one of modernisation. Colonial rule in this period did change Africa, and many of these changes brought her more in line with a European economy and way of life. Education, industrialisation, healthcare, political involvement; all of these were to an extent more open to Africa and her inhabitants in 1939 than they had been in 1918. To claim this as simply modernisation seems wrong, however. Colonial powers did not want Africa to be modern, per se; they desired her to be modern enough to service the colonial metropole. The civilising mission that had been expressed from the late nineteenth century did not translate into a genuine effort to make European the various societies and cultures of Africa. It was extended further in regions where colonial settlers could exploit either labour or resources, and it was extended as a system that was under the control of the colonialists, not the colonised. In the midst of this, African agency did allow some change to occur that, though opposed by the colonial powers, fitted more with the image of modernity that they had for themselves. This invariably involved opposition to the system of oppression that colonial rule formed. It is only by assessing multiple aspects of African societies in this period that this conclusion can be drawn, for the impact of colonialism was deep-reaching, if inconsistent. Issues such as industrialisation, urbanisation, healthcare, education, and status were all intertwined. As Kenyatta wrote; No single part is detachable; each has its context and is fully understandable only in relation to the whole.41
37
Kennedy,
Islands
of
White,
183.
38
Hunt,
A
Colonial
Lexicon,
13.
40
Hunt,
A
Colonial
Lexicon,
8.
41
Kenyatta,
Facing
Mount
Kenya,
309.
39
Vaughan,
Curing
their
Ills,
69.
Bibliography
Primary
Material
Kenyatta,
Jomo,
Facing
Mount
Kenya,
(Trowbridge
&
Esher:
Redwood
Burn
Limited,
1974
[1938]).
Secondary
Scholarship
Brown,
Ian
(ed.),
The
Economies
of
Africa
and
Asia
in
the
Inter-War
Depression,
(London:
Routledge,
1989).
Conklin,
Alice,
A
Mission
to
Civilise:
The
Republican
Idea
of
Empire
in
France
and
West
Africa,
1895-1930,
(Stanford:
Stanford
University
Press,
1997).
Cooper,
Frederick
et
al.
(eds.),
Confronting
Historical
Paradigms:
Peasants,
Labour
and
the
Capitalist
World
System
in
Africa
and
Latin
America,
(London:
University
of
Wisconsin
Press,
1993).
Dubow,
Saul,
Racial
Segregation
and
the
Origins
of
Apartheid
in
South
Africa,
1919-36,
(London:
Macmillan,
1989).
Faye,
J.D.
&
Oliver,
Roland
(eds.),
The
Cambridge
History
of
Africa,
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1986).
Gordon,
Robert
&
Tilley,
Helen
(eds.),
Ordering
Africa:
Anthropology,
European
Imperialism,
and
the
Politics
of
Knowledge,
(Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press,
2007).
Hunt,
Mary
Rose,
A
Colonial
Lexicon:
of
Birth
Ritual,
Medicalisation,
and
Mobility
in
the
Congo,
(London:
Duke
University
Press,
1999).
Kennedy,
Dane,
Islands
of
White:
Settler
Society
and
Culture
in
Kenya
and
Southern
Rhodesia,
1890-1939,
(Durham:
Duke
University
Press,
1987).
Mamdani,
Mahmood,
Citizen
and
Subject:
Contemporary
Africa
and
the
Legacy
of
Late
Colonialism,
(Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press,
1996).
Reid,
Richard
J.,
A
History
of
Modern
Africa:
1800
to
the
present,
(Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell,
2009).
Rodney,
Walter,
How
Europe
Underdeveloped
Africa,
(London:
Bogle-LOuverture,
1972).
Shenton,
Robert,
How
Europe
Underdeveloped
Africa
by
Walter
Rodney,
Canadian
Journal
of
African
Studies
9:1
(1975),
146-150.
Vaughan,
Megan,
Curing
their
Ills:
Colonial
Power
and
African
Illness,
(Stanford:
Stanford
University
Press,
1991).