Was there any such thing as African nationalism before 1960?

Was there any such thing as African nationalism before 1960?

African nationalism is a topic that stirs up much emotion in people because of what it has come to represent; the idea of Africans united under the same banner of opposition towards colonial rule. However, the term ‘nationalism’ is one that many use but few can aptly define which has become problematic in terms of its usage and the cause of intense debate amongst historians as to whether it is a suitable term to be applied to events that unfolded in Africa. The traditional definition of ‘nationalism’ is ‘a state of mind in which the supreme loyalty of the individual is felt to be due to the nation- state’. However to most Africans, the only socio-political unit that provides any conscious sense of belonging has been, in its widest extent, the clan or tribe, and, in its smallest extent, the family or kinship group. Furthermore, African societies have possessed no indigenous unit of social and political organization comparable to the nation-state. Rather, they have comprised a galaxy of tribal groups, normally small in numbers (though some, like the Yoruba, Ibo, Kikuyu, etc., number in the millions), each of which has for centuries adhered to its own pattern of custom, belief, religion, and has in most cases possessed its own language or distinct dialect.  If one adhered to the ‘traditional’ definition of what nationalism is then clearly it could be stated that there was no such thing as African nationalism before 1960, however I propose that when applied to Africa ‘nationalism’ takes on a new meaning. In line with historian Thomas Hodgkin’s views I would argue that African nationalism is an attempt to comprehend African responses (particularly organized responses) which sought, in a variety of ways, to modify or alter the colonial situation, or which sought to adjust and adapt African societies to the complex and profound changes stemming from the situation.

There was such a thing as African nationalism before 1960. This is evident because the workings of African nationalism that enabled it to materialise into an organised anti- colonial movement had its roots in events that happened prior to 1960 such as the Second World War and the formal schooling of several Africans. The Second World War was a powerful tool and motivator for African nationalism because African soldiers came home in 1945 after fighting side by side with Europeans throughout the world. They saw their white comrades die as easily as black men, and they came to realise that ‘white superiority’ was a myth. In addition to this education proved to be a primary stimulus to African nationalism. The number of young Africans with a formal education increased dramatically, especially the number studying in European and American universities. The more education they had, the more students became aware of their unequal status under colonial regimes. This was particularly true of students who went abroad. Not only did they study democracy in theory, but they experienced it in life outside the colonies. When they returned to Africa, holding the same Oxford or Cambridge degree as their European counterparts they saw the absurdity of taking orders from their ‘equals’ and receiving less pay for the same job. This would have inevitably caused grievances and resentments on the part of Africans towards their colonial masters. This mutual feeling of anger and frustration was not just present amongst the general African population. The nationalist leaders of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s were also the products of colonial and metropolitan schools. For example Julius K. Nyerere of Tanzania studied in Great Britain, Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia studied in Paris, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Hastings K. Banda of Malawi studied abroad. These men were lawyers, doctors, journalists and intellectuals who were respected as national heroes and eventually spearheaded the nationalist movements in various African dependencies. These nationalist leaders were charismatic and drew many followers because they were able to tap into the general frustration and discontent of the masses as they had experienced discrimination themselves. These men had read the works of political and social philosophers from the Western world. They had learnt about the basic rights of man, democracy, freedom, justice, and the rights of self determination of peoples. However they soon realised that these noble concepts popularised in the Western world did not apply to them. Arguably it was at this point that they became thoroughly aware of the theoretical glass ceiling that had been placed upon their heads; that is to say they could see the opportunities that their education entitled them to but realised they were forever going to be held back from taking advantage of those opportunities because of the colour of their skin. Eventually, they became angry, disillusioned and very determined to end colonial rule; sentiments that were arguably present before 1960.