IMBALANCE CREATED IN AFRICA BY COLONIALISM
 |
| Senathon Ipia (senaipia@gmail.com; +234 7052802574) |
The Industrial Revolution in Europe in the 18th Century brought about hot
demand for raw materials. Obviously the quest for raw materials to meet the
growing need of industries in Europe became paramount, as the supply of raw
materials that were produced within the shores of the continent of Europe became grossly inadequate as a result of
increasing demand for raw materials.
The gross adequacy of raw
materials for industries in Europe needed
urgent attention; hence drastic measures were evolved by Europeans to meet the
need of raw materials for their industries. Coupled with the very fact most of
the raw materials were agro-based, and the temperate climate of Europe would not support production of some agro-based
products, Europeans were forced to source for raw materials outside the shores
of their continent.
One of their destinations was the
continent of Africa , which produced ivory,
palm oil, cocoa, cotton, rubber, timber, banana, and so on. All these and more
thrive in the tropical climate region of Africa ,
so the colonial masters persuaded Africans that inhabited the tropical region
to embark on large scale production of cash crops at the expense of food crops.
Before Europeans came to Africa , Africans were
used to producing food crops more than cash crops.
Europe was also in dire need of
mineral resources for its industrial drive, which of course was in abundance in
Africa . Both mineral fuels, metallic minerals
and non-metallic like coal, tin, columbite, zinc, granite, etc were and are
found in different territories on the African Continent.
The vast availability of
resources of different kind in Africa was the “temptation” Europe could not
resist, hence the influx of Europeans into the coast of Africa .
The European powers scrambled for
and partitioned Africa , as they engaged in the
expansion of their empires, resulting in colonialism and imperialism. For them,
colonization of many territories provided a sure and cheap way of having a firm
grip of sources of raw materials.
Among the Europeans themselves,
there was a demarcation as to the territories that were under the domination
and occupation of a particular European power. The persuading or forcing of the
king, chiefs and people of a territory by a European power to sign a treaty was
to serve as evidence of the European power’ occupation of the territory to
other European powers, therefore other European powers would have to stay
clear. The Berlin conference of 1884/85
provided a forum where European powers met and strengthen their position of
non-interference in one another’s colonies in Africa .
To a European power, having a
colony meant having a source of raw materials, and in fact, a ready market for
its finished goods. So having more colonies or extending the existing ones was
of great economic benefits to the Europeans as they had larger areas from which
raw materials could be sourced and finished goods sold. (There were political
and other benefits as well).
Business people and organizations
from Europe took advantage of the economic benefits of colonialism to Europe and engaged in trade in the colonies of their
respective countries. Europeans’ trade with Africans induced Europeans
exploration of the coast and hinterland of Africa .
But the avenue for trade created
by colonialism was not on the basis of fairness. Normally, Europeans’ trade
with Africans should have bilateral, where one party to a trade agreement is
not superior to the other. But with the prevailing notion and disposition of
the strong to subdue, dominate and prey upon the weak, Europeans took to
forceful occupation of African territories and exploited the people of their
resources.
In their scramble for Africa and its partitioning, Europeans did not take into
consideration that African, even before then, was made up of different tribes
and peoples, who were socially and politically organized in their own
territory. Each territory had a different language, culture or system of things
from another. Without taking cognizance of this, European powers merged different
territories, which were their colonies and/or protectorates into one, for
administrative and purpose and convenience. The amalgamation of Northern and
Southern protectorates by the British to form a single political territory
called Nigeria
is an example.
The British had the benefit of
easy and cheap movement of raw materials from one place to another within the
amalgamated colony and then to Europe . But
merging people with different language, culture, custom, beliefs, ideologies
without recourse to their consent did not augur well, and has not even decades
after. Nigeria has always appeared not to be more than
an amalgam of people welded in then interest and for then benefit of a European
power: Nigerians
are yet to see why they have to be one, hence the agitation for secession by
some elements in the country and the placement of sectional/regional interest
above national interest.
Really, European powers scrambled
for Africa . Of course, conquering and
occupying one territory and signing a treaty with the king, chiefs and people
of the territory and then moving to another territory to do same is what
scrambling would mean in this context. But the scramble for Africa
by European powers meant more than that. It was a situation where the territory
of a single tribe (true nation) could be split and colonized by different
European powers. For instance, the Yoruba tribe is found in Nigeria (a former British colony) and Benin Republic Nigeria and in southern Niger (another
former French colony). These tribes maintain affinity with their tribesmen from
other countries than fellow compatriots but not tribesmen. This partly explains the reason our porous
borders. Locals easily collaborate with their tribesmen from a neighbouring
country than with security personnel.
Having a country with people of
same language, culture, custom, belief, and ideology will lead to more progress
and development. Consider some countries in Europe ,
how homogeneous they are and the rate of development they have recorded in
history. Britain and France are
examples.
In a heterogeneous country, the
pace of development may not be accelerated but slowed. Every national issue is
considered whether it serves the interest of a certain ethnic groups (or
region) or not.
Leaders sometimes act not in the
interest of the nation as a whole, but in the interest of region or section
they come from: they take decisions only after consulting their people rather
than doing what they know is best for the country as a whole.
In Nigeria , we question where a person
who wants to become president is from. Based on his extraction, we reject him
even though he may be the right person for the job; we question where a person
who is fit to take up a job on a strategic issue of national interest is from
before we offer him the job; we refuse to accept a man of certain ethnic origin
for a particular job; though a Nigerian, we ask you where you hail from before
we offer you a job or admit you to a higher institution of learning, and so on.
It could be argued that there are
some countries whose heterogeneity has not impeded their progress and
development. The United
States is a clear example.
Here is the reason why the heterogeneity
of the United States
never retarded her development: their union was agreed to by the people
themselves.
As stated earlier, European
powers partitioned Africa in their interest and for their own benefit but at a
big disadvantage to Africa . African countries
are only a product of colonial history and not the handiwork of the people
themselves. Assuming
there was no western creation of African countries, the African Continent on
the whole would have developed more and faster if the pre-colonial
geo-political structure had been left to evolve into countries. Europeans
partitioning of African into colonies and later countries was enmeshed in
imbalance, and is ensuing in retarded development of the countries of the Continent. One may argue
that some tribe may be too tiny to evolve into a viable country. In such case,
many tribes would have merged to form a country – and their union would be what
they have agreed to – being the architects of their own union and destiny.
AN APPEAL:
If you
found the content of this blog valuable, please support the development and maintenance
of a website, where many subject-matters would be discussed in categories. Please
contact me on: +234
8176007687 or 07052802574 or at senaipia@gmail.com. No donation is too small!
Comments