General
- History SSE Y2 SB File Uploaded 2/11/21, 16:05
UNIT 10:AFRICAN RESPONSE TO COLONIAL RULE
The scramble for Africa was followed by its partition during the 1884-1885
Berlin Conference. These exercises were soon followed by the imposition
of colonial rule that was done through a combination of coercive (forceful)
and persuasive means. Some of these means bred African reactions against
Europeans as analysed below.
Collaboration
It was adopted by people who realized the great power of the invader (Europeans)
and saw the only way of accommodating the new danger and preserving their
independence as cooperating with the enemy. They allied with the Europeans
to guard against local enemies or signed treaties allegedly to buy time. For
instance, the Baganda, the Massai, the Fante and the Barotse (Central Africa)
societies collaborated with Europeans. However, those societies (collaborators)
have been described by some Afro-centric as traitors, opportunists or passive
resistors.
The collaboration was of two forms:
─ Career collaboration. This concerned the people who were not
traditional political leaders but ordinary men who were more
opportunists. They chose to collaborate for political, prestigious and
social reasons only. Here, we can give an example of Ekinyajwi of
Kenya, Nuwa Mbangula, Appollo Kaggwa, Kakungulu, etc.
─ Mercenary collaboration. This was the way where legitimate African
chiefs used work hand in hand with the foreign infiltrators in their
society. They gave the imperialists much of the necessary assistance
like military protection, land and food. For example, we can mention
Kasagama of Toro, Mwanga and Cwa of Buganda, Merere of Maraangu
and chiefs Lewanika and Lenana of Masai.
Indifference
This meant a situation where a society or individuals neither collaborated nor
resisted in the practical sense but just looked on as their independence was
eroded e.g Rwanda Kingdom under Yuhi V Musinga. The indifference, as an
indirect resistance, complicated the work of the imperialists by refusing to take
up orders given by the imperialists.
Resistance
It was an armed struggle against the imposition of colonialism as the only way
of preserving independence. Examples include Kabalega of Bunyoro, Mwanga
of Buganda, Samoure Toure of the Mandika Kwaku Dua III (Prempe I) of Asante
and Mkwakwa of the Hehe.
However, in this unit, the attention is paid to methods of collaboration and
resistance as they are the ones having happened in most kingdoms of Africaand resulted into significant effects to be analysed.
In their penetration of Africa, European got some collaborators. These were
Africans who welcome the Whites, embraced their cultures, their ways of
administration and gave them much of the need assistance as they tried to
establish colonial rule.
They include:
Some Africans collaborated because they believed that invading imperialists
were far superior militarily, well-experienced and had better weapons. “He who
makes the gun wins the battle” commented Gerere, chief of Dahomey.
Some chiefs collaborated because they were seeking protection and defense
against their neighboring hostile kingdoms or empires. E.g. The Fante against
the Asante, Toro and Buganda against Kabalega of Bunyoro, the Shona were
against the Ndebele, the Yao were against the Hehe, etc.
African opportunists collaborated because they saw it as a chance of getting
job, prestige, becoming rich and gaining high status in their respective societies.
The societies that were politically segmented collaborated because of lack of
coordination to resistance. They had no single identified leader who could
organize them and they did not have a standing army and no military equipment.
The weaknesses of some African societies caused by the constant and prolonged
wars led them to collaborate with the imperialists. These were like the Batoro
weakened by the Banyoro, Fante weakened by Asante and the Shona who were
weakened by the Ndebele.
The role of the missionaries, who had prepared the Africans to be humbled,
softened and made obedient to the people with the white skin. They had been
told not to fight foreigners because it was against the will of God.
The chiefs who had lost their throne collaborated in order to get support from
the Europeans so that they could re-ascend it. That was in case of King Lenana of
Masai against his brother Sendeyo and Mwanga of Buganda against his brother
Kalema supported by the Muslims.
Some societies collaborated because their neighboring societies which had
tried to resist had been defeated and with heavy losses. In order to avoid
similar suffering and loss of independence, they decided to collaborate with
the infiltrators. The Chagga and Nyamwezi witnessed in the Abushiri war.
Some Africans collaborated because they were economically weak, like the
Masai, and they could not finance the war for a long time.
Some other African societies collaborated because their ancient enemies had
resisted and their collaboration was a means of getting military supplies,
assistance and destroying the enemy totally. E.g. Buganda and Toro collaborated
because Bunyoro had taken up resistance and the Masai collaborated becausethe Nandi had resisted.
They are among others:
Spread of Christianity. Africans who collaborated with Europeans did not delay
embracing Christianity as a new religion introduced by Europeans.
Adoption of European civilization. In order to show their loyalty to their colonial
masters, Africans collaborators adopted European civilization such as the way
of dressing, food diet, administrative and judicial systems, etc.
─ Failure of African resistances. Due to the role of collaborators who
provided food, offered protection and even military support as they
revealed the African defense secrets to the Europeans.
─ Stability of some African States. Some African leaders who collaborated
were given protection and defense against their neighboring hostile
kingdoms or empires. E.g. The Fante against the Asante, Toro and
Buganda against Kabalega of Bunyoro, the Shona were against the
Ndebele, the Yao were against the Hehe, etc.
─ Loss of African culture and the disappearance of African religions.
African collaborators actually lost their religions and they were
forced to abandon their culture in favor of those of Europeans. This
way, several elements of African cultures disappeared or even mixed
those of Europeans through colonial education.
─ Alignment of Africans to European policies. Most of African
collaborators peacefully adopted the European colonial policies such
as tax collection, education system, growing cash crops, and forced
labor among others.
─ Enrichment of some Africans. Those who collaborated managed to
become rich and gaining high status in their respective societies.
─ Recruitment of some Africans. Africans who collaborated with
European got a chance of getting jobs in European enterprises and in
colonial administration.
─ Stability of some African States. Some African leaders who collaborated
were given protection and defense against their neighboring hostile
kingdoms or empires. E.g. The Fante against the Asante, Toro and
Buganda against Kabalega of Bunyoro, the Shona were against the
Ndebele, the Yao were against the Hehe, etc.
─ Loss of African culture and the disappearance of African religions.
African collaborators actually lost their religions and they were
forced to abandon their culture in favor of those of Europeans. This
way, several elements of African cultures disappeared or even mixed
those of Europeans through colonial education.
─ Alignment of Africans to European policies. Most of African
collaborators peacefully adopted the European colonial policies such
as tax collection, education system, growing cash crops, and forced
labor among others.
─ Enrichment of some Africans. Those who collaborated managed to
become rich and gaining high status in their respective societies.
─ Recruitment of some Africans. Africans who collaborated with
European got a chance of getting jobs in European enterprises and incolonial administration.
Forms or methods of resistance
Resistors were people who opposed the establishment of European rule in
Africa. They were reactionaries to European imperialism and annexation
of their territories and in general they used primary and secondary forms of
resistances defined below:
─ Primary resistance
This was direct confrontation by African communities at the invasion
of Europeans into their land. They used force to expel the Europeans
before they gained access to their land. A number of examples of
primary resistance can be cited where African reaction immediately
followed the arrival of Europeans.
─ Secondary resistance
This was a way used by Africans by initially accepting the imperilists
to operate within their territories but later to rise against them after
understanding their intentions e.g Mwanga of Buganda and Nandifrom North Rift of Kenya.
Reasons for resistance
They included:
There was need to preserve African independence because some African people
had nationalistic and patriotic feeling to their societies. Those who resisted
saw it as a means of keeping away foreign intruders and maintaining the
independence of their kingdoms. Such people were like Kabalega of Bunyoro,
Samori Toure of the Mandika, Menelik and Theodore of Ethiopia, etc.
Some African chiefs and societies resisted because they trusted their military
strength and they hoped defeating the Europeans. For instance, Kabalega with
his Abarusura army, Mosheshe of Suto, Ngoni, Zulu, Samori Toure, etc.
Some Africans resisted because their traditional enemies had collaborated.
Bunyoro resisted because Buganda had collaborated and gave a base to the
British, Samori Toure resisted because Sikaso had collaborated with the French.
Some Africans resisted because they were struggling to keep and guard their
trade monopolies as they knew that the coming of Whites would force them out
of trade. Some Africans resisted hoping that the Europeans could not withstand
some African geographical environment using examples of explorers, traders
and missionaries who had died because of the conditions in Africa.
Some Africans resisted in order to safeguarding their traditional religion
because they supposed that their ancestors were not happy with the Christianity
introduced by the Whites in Africa.
Some Africans resisted because of presence and pressure of Islam because it
was known in some areas of Africa before the Christianity, which forced the
Africa Moslems to counter the spread of Christianity and the Europeans.
Some African chiefs resisted because they had known that the earlier
collaborators had been mistreated, undermined and politically subjected. Some
chiefs who had collaborated were later overthrown and replaced by others. So,
other chiefs who come to know about this decided to resist.
Some African chiefs resisted because they had a long standing enmity with
the Whites. That long enmity was developed by explorers, missionaries and
traders. For instance, Kabalega of Bunyoro quarreled with Samuel Baker and
Samori Toure with the French.
Some African chiefs and societies resisted because the European colonial
administrative and economic policies were so oppressive and exploitative like
forced labor, high taxes, land alienation and overthrowing of the traditional
political leaders.
Note: Generally, all African resistance cases ended up to a failure. A number of
factors contributed much to the occurrence of this phenomenon.
10.2.2. Reasons for the failure of African resistance
At the time of the arrival of the imperialists in Africa, the chiefs and African
societies had attempted to resist them, but they failed due to the following
reasons or factors:
Africans were militarily weak comparing to the well-trained and well-armedcolonial invaders while the Africans were poorly armed with traditional arms.
Disunity among resistors themselves because the African armed resistors did
not organize a coordinated and joint struggle against Europeans.
Role played by the missionaries and explorers that had facilitated easy
European penetration in Africa by identifying the strong and weak societies
and preparing the minds of Africans.
Effects of slave trade because the Europeans had taken the Africans who were
strong able to defend their continent and left those who were too old, weak,
sick and very young who could not contribute much towards the success of
resistance.
The role played by the collaborators who provided food, offered protection
and even military support as they revealed the African defense secrets to the
Europeans.
Use of diplomacy and treaty signing by the Europeans which meant the
surrender and submission of African sovereignty because most African leaders
were illiterate and ignorant about the content of the document they signed.
Constant civil wars among the African societies made them vulnerable to
European defeat because the Africans had been weakened by those constant
wars and no longer to defend their kingdoms or empires.
Africans were economically weak, and they failed to get finances for purchasing
modern weapons that would level them with the Europeans and the Europeans
imposed arms embargo on Africans.
Lack of patriotic and nationalism spirit because some Africans had no sense of
political maturity and love for their territorial integrity.
Europeans were determined to colonize Africa while some Africans seemed
relaxed and never sought support from their neighbors while the Europeans
used all means to get victory against the Africans.
Geographical factors: the absence natural geographical defensive barriers like
mountains, valleys and deserts in many places made it easier for European
powers to triumph in their conquest of Africa. In only case that occurred inAfrica was Ethiopia which benefited from its mountains to defeat Italians.
10.3.1.The Maasai collaboration
The Maasai are a Nilotic speaking community. They occupied an area stretching
from the Uasin Gishu plateau in the north to the plains around Mount Meru in
Tanzania to the south. From AD 1750, they were the dominant group in the
Rift Valley. Organised and strong militarily, the Maasai were a constant threat
to their neighbours whom they raided for cattle at will. The caravan traders
avoided Maasai country for they spared no strangers on their land. When in
the late 19th Century the British appeared on the scene, it was expected that
the Maasai would put up a stiff resistance against them. But they did not, and
instead became one of the best examples of Kenyan collaborators with theinvading Europeans.
A photo of Lenana, the Chief Medicine-Man of the Maasai circa 1890. Pt Lenana (4,985m),
the third highest peak, on Mount Kenya was named after him by Halford Mackinder.
Mackinder made the first ascent of Mount Kenya in 1899. Lenana is sitting next to Sir
Arthur Hardinge (the man wearing spectacles). Lenana was the son of Batian who was
the previous Chief Medicine-Man. Batian is the name of the highest peak on Mount Kenya.
Reasons for Maasai collaboration
This response can be explained by five main factors:
Effects of the rise of the Nandi: The rise of the Nandi from the 1850s adversely
affected Maasai power. They began raiding the same communities for cattle
which were traditionally Maasai raiding grounds. The Nandi even successfully
raided the Uasin Gishu Maasai. Second, at the time of the British penetration
of Kenya the Maasai were economically and politically in a state of decline.
The civil wars of the 19th Century had destroyed whole sections of the Maasai
including the Uasin Gishu, the Ngurumaini, the Iloogolala and the Losegallai.
From 1889 to 1890, cattle diseases spread to Maasailand, especially rinderpest
and pleuro-pneumonia.
Drought of 1891: In 1891 there was drought and famine with smallpox and
cholera, further reducing both human and animal populations. As a result ofthese calamities, many Maasai joined up with Kikuyu and Akamba neighbours.
Others sold their women and children to neighbouring peoples. Still others
became mercenaries, especially in the armies of Mumia and Akamba. The
Maasai were no longer as strong as they used to be.
Succession disputes: In 1890, Mbatiany, the great Laibon of the Purko and Rift
Valley Maasai, died. Although a laibon by tradition was only a ritual expert and
prophet, Mbatiany had also gained political power in the civil wars. Thus, the
position of laibon was still politically attractive when Mbatiany died, but there
was no one of his stature to succeed him, and his two sons, Lenana and Sendeyo
both claimed and disputed the position of laibon for ten years. Sendeyo was
finally driven with his followers to the Loita region of northern Tanzania. But he
never gave up and continued raids against the territory of his brother Lenana
who remained in the area between Ngong and Naivasha.
Dispute with the Kikuyu: Succession dispute placed the Maasai in an even
weaker position in the face of the incoming British. Lenana was also in dispute
with the Kikuyu. Following the calamities that befell the Maasai as already
outlined, Lenana had arranged for some Maasai women and children to be
cared for in Kikuyu villages to avoid certain death. When he later went back for
them he learnt that the Kikuyu had sold many of them to the slave traders. He
quarrelled with the Kikuyu and prepared to go to war against them. He grew
desperate: his enemies threatened to destroy him and his people; he was faced
by the problems of raids by Sendeyo; there were frictions with the Kikuyu;
famine and disease were afflicting his people and cattle. Lenana sought the
support of the IBEACO agent, Francis Hall at Fort Smith. And Hall was only too
happy to oblige, and assisted Lenana in his campaigns against Sendeyo and the
Kikuyu. The British and the Maasai became allies. Maasai warriors assisted the
British against other Kenyan peoples from 1894 to 1908.
The Kedong Valley Massacre: There was the Ewuaso-oo-Ng’indongi Massacre
(Kedong Valley Massacre) of November 1895, and the friendship between
Lenana and the British was sealed. A caravan of the Kikuyu, Swahili and Arab
porters was returning from Eldama Ravine. Resting in the Ng’indongi Valley
near Naivasha, members of the caravan attacked the Maasai, stole food and
seized some Maasai girls. The Moran attacked the caravan, killing 647 out of
871 men. On getting the news, a Scottish trader, Andrew Dick, who was camped
nearby, took the caravan side and set forth with two French travellers to fight
the Maasai. He shot dead about 100 Maasai before he himself was killed. But
this incident, in which three white men had killed a hundred Maasai warriors
in one encounter, so shocked the Maasai that they immediately sought peace.
Subsequent investigation into the whole incident by British officials exonerated
the Maasai and put the blame for the Massacre upon the porters.
Lenana and his people were greatly impressed both by the military
might of the white men and the magnanimity and sincerity of the British
officials: From these and earlier contacts, good relations between the Maasai
and the British were established, and Lenana and his followers collaboratedwith the British.
According to the table above, many people in Africa tried their best to resist the
European occupation. But some a few cases were chosen so as to apprehended
how the reaction took place such as Samoure Toure.
Resistance of Samoure Toure in Mandinka Empire
The Mandika people occupied the area of Western Sudan, bordered on the West
by Futa Jalon, on South by forests, in the north by the Tokolor Empire and in the
East by the Mossi and Asante’s kingdoms. The people of the area were Malinke,part of the great Mande-speaking family.
Samori Toure was born in 1830 to a Malinke peasant of a Dyula clan who
practiced African traditional religion, later become Muslims and traders.
Being a Dyula by birth, he later joined Dyula traders to trade in gold from
Wassulu and cattle from Futa Jalon. As a trade, he travelled widely to market
towns in search of firearms, horses and cattle. He reached Freetown and the
Tokolor Empire.
In 1852, he joined and served in the army of Sori Birema Amande chief of
Bisandugu in exchange for the release of his imprisoned mother. But he rapidly
began to build up an army of his own, centered round a solid nucleus of friends
and relatives.
Between 1870 - 1890’s, Samori Toure was master of a large empire which
included the gold-bearing area of Boure. He established his capital at Bisandugu.
His expansion had brought him into conflict with Kankan and Wassulu states
which he captured in 1880’s.
Reasons for the resistance
The reasons that led to the conflict between Samori Toure and the French were
imperial and defensive in nature:
Samouri Toure defended Mandika independence from being colonized by the
French.
Defense of Islam since the French colonialists were Christians while the
Mandika were Muslims. Consequently, resisting them was a purposeful action
to defend Islamic state against infidels.
Samouri Toure defended trade because the French domination would
monopolize the trade in the empire by out competing the Mandika merchants.
The French colonial administration was very oppressive and repressive as it
was in Algeria and Senegal.
Samouri Toure defended the land from the French settlers because they were
looking the fertile soils which were under the ownership of the Malinke people.
Samouri Toure wanted to conclude an alliance with the British because he had
shown the willingness to hand over his empire to the British protection other
than the French.
Samouri Toure defended Mandika culture which the French were set to destroyand replace it with the French culture through their policy of Assimilation.
The French plan to use Tiebe of Sikasso to attack and when Toure found out he
dissolved the treaty he had concluded with Sikasso and attacked them before it
was too late. Unfortunately, Samori Toure was defeated.
False foreign support because Samori Toure had been falsely encouraged by
the military support had expected from the British, Creoles of Sierra Leone and
Tokolor against the French. However, they had betrayed him when they left him
alone in the battleground.
Europeans were exploitative in nature; they subjected Africans to forced labor,
over taxation and its brutal collection like the hut tax in Sierra Leone. Aware ofthis nature of Europeans, Samori Toure of Mandika had to resist.
A charismatic and revered leader in his time, Samori Toure was a Guinean Muslim cleric
and the founder and leader of the Wassoulou Empire of West Africa. Besides south-eastern
Guinea, the Islamic Empire stretched to parts of the Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Mali.
Samori Touré led an armed resistance against French colonial rule from 1882 until his
capture in 1898. He was then exiled to Gabon where he died on June 2, 1900.
Samori Toure’s downfall
A number of factors explain Samori Toure’s downfall:
He was unsuccessful in winning British support against the French. Britain had
decided that the Mandinka area was a French sphere of influence.
There were differences and lack of unity among African ruler. Samori did not
get the support of his neighbours, such as Ahmadou Sekou of Tukolor, Tieba of
Sikasso.
Samori was faced with local resistance due to his scorched earth policy and
ruthless aggression against his neighbours. He thus dissipated his energy
fighting the French and fighting wars of conquest in the east at the same time.
Non-Mandinka subjects – largely captives – were cruelly treated and did not
give the right level of support against the French. They even tended to welcome
the French, whom they saw as their liberators.
French troops were better armed and trained.
Shifting of the empire eastwards weakened him economically. He was cut off
from the gold fields of Wangara where he used to obtain his gold.
Amori was also cut off from Freetown where he used to buy firearms. So he
had to rely entirely on his military workshops for supplies, which were not
adequate.
The new empire was surrounded by the French and the British. The French
attacked from the Ivory Coast; the British occupied Asante in 1896; the French
had also occupied all the surrounding areas by 1898. Therefore, Samori was
stack at his second empire at Dabakala.
His troops suffered heavy losses.
The empire was too large for him to manage effectively.
Samori was tricked into believing that if he surrendered, he would be allowed
safe conduct and quiet retirement in his home village. But the French did not
keep their promise, and when he surrendered in 1898, he was deported toGabon, where he died in 1900.
Results of Samori Toure’s Resistance
Samori’s resistance had the following results:
─ Samori lost his independence as the Mandinka Empire was conquered;
─ There was a lot of loss of lives and property as a result of the war;
─ Samori was sent into exile in Gabon where he died in 1900 at the ageof 70.
10.4.1. Consequences of resistance
Depopulation: caused by the loss of lives due to the fighting because where
Africans tried to resist, Europeans reacted by killing them massively. It was also
due to displacement of people who were flying from the battle field.
Destruction of property: due to the fighting between Africans and Europeans,
there was destruction of properties such as houses, crops and villages, etc.
Famine:because of insecurity and instability, economic activities were disrupted
and people could not provide themselves with foods and essential items. In
some cases, this famine was also caused by military tactics like “scorched earth
policy” used by the Germans in Tanganyika.
Spread of diseases and other epidemics: This was due to the presences
unburied bodies and by the fact that people were living in forests because their
houses had been destroyed.
Rise of African nationalism: the rebellion provided a lesson to the Africans
because the patriotic and national consciousness was implanted in these people
who participated in the revolt and later used as base for future nationalist.
Spread of Christianity: Traditional religion lost its credibility among the
Africans because of its defeat after the execution of its leaders. Thus, this
opened chance for the spread of Christianity.
African submission to colonial policies: Some native people accepted to go
and work for the Whites on their roads, farms and railways construction and
other projects.
Increase of European settlements in Africa: after defeating African resistances,
Africa was secured and this encouraged other European to come massively to
settle in peaceful African regions.
Land alienation: Because of the end of the war of resistance, many Europeans
settled in Africa which increased the confiscation of the land of the Africans.
For instance, Zimbabwe still has a very large population of Whites.
104.2. Consequences of African collaboration
The Maasai collaboration had a number of consequences:
The British helped the Maasai against the Kikuyu and against his rival brother
Sendeyo, and later the Maasai morans helped the British in their punitive raids
against the Nandi in 1905 and other ‘unco-operative’ communities.
The British were able to build their railway across Maasailand without any
trouble.
Lenana increased his prestige because the British rewarded him with cattle and
he not only successfully claimed the laiboniship but was given the grand title
‘Paramount Chief of the Maasai’ in recognition of his support for the British.
This was a purely political position, which helped to alienate him from many
Maasai. He then moved permanently away from his traditional home among
the Loita to Ngong, to live among the Kaputiei and Keekonyokie.
However, this happy relationship did not exist for long. Not all British
administrators were friends of the Maasai and British Commissioner of the
East Africa Protectorate from 1901-04, Sir Charles Eliot openly despised
the Maasai, asserting that they should abandon their ‘socially and politically
abominable’ nomadic habits and settle down. Eliot considered that the Maasai
had served their purpose and could no longer pose a threat to the railway or to
the administration.
The Anglo-Maasai Agreements, 1904 and 1911: Eliot was succeeded in 1904
by Sir Donald Stewart, who in the same year accomplished what Eliot had been
working on earlier - the signing of the first Anglo-Maasai Agreement. While
Donald Stewart represented the British, the Maasai were represented by Lenana
and his associates such as Masikonte (‘Chief’ of Laikipia) and Ole Gilisho (‘Chief’
of Naivasha). But the mass of the Maasai had no say in the matter. The Maasai
are said to have agreed to move to two reserves – to the south of Ngong and
to the Laikipia plateau. They were promised that the two areas would remain
theirs ‘so long as the Maasai as a race shall exist’. A half-mile corridor would be
created to link the two reserves.
But none of these points was implemented. On the other hand, all the land
formerly owned by the Maasai was made available for white settlement. As a
matter of fact, the Colonial Government and local settlers in particular were
determined to alienate the enviable Maasai land.
By 1911, the settlers were putting pressure on the Government to move the
Maasai out of Laikipia so that they could move there themselves. The Laikipia
Maasai, through their chief, Legalishu, refused to move. Lenana, on the other hand,
is said to have agreed as the ‘Paramount Chief’. The second Maasai Agreement
of April 1911 settled the matter. This time, the Maasai were literally forced to
vacate their lands at great personal inconvenience and loss of property. In fact,
their lands in Laikipia were appropriated before adequate arrangements were
made for them in the less attractive southern reserve (Ngong) even before the
Imperial Government in London had given its approval. It is doubtful whether
the Maasai agreed to move from Laikipia.
By April 1913, they had vacated Laikipia and moved to the enlarged, but drier
and less attractive southern reserve in Ngong. The Maasai ‘as a race’ still
existed; but they had virtually been forced to vacate Laikipia for white settlers
and, as for other communities, their collaboration had not spared them from
the ravenous intents of colonialism.
