Depictions of the Basuto ruler’s humble spirit and inquisitive nature cast him in a light similar to Plato’s philosopher-king, and like that Grecian ideal Moshweshwe demonstrated a considerable amount of political insight. Long before outside threats were posed to his kingdom “Moshweshwe saw the necessity of adapting Sotho fighting techniques to the fire arms and horses possessed by his enemies…[he also] sought a more direct and substantial relationship with whites” (49). Clearly, Moshweshwe understood the need to strike delicate political balances such as preparing against potential threats, while at the same time embracing and learning about those who might be his enemy. For example, and perhaps this is ironic, Moshweshwe “used the [local missionaries] as agents of his own consolidation and expansion…[h]e correctly assumed that the missionaries would develop strong loyalties to Lesotho and support the kingdom against encroachments by Africans or other Europeans” (54). It would then be incorrect to assert, as others have, that later treaties and negotiations made by Moshweshwe (and African leaders like him) with Europeans were acts complicit in the colonial project. These rulers were not collaborators because what they “sought to achieve was not their own selfish ends but in fact the very sovereignty of their state…they saw themselves as…allying with the incoming invaders to achieve this national end” (Adu Boahen 41). These observations reveal the existence of a legitimate and deliberative consciousness within Africa’s past; the presence of an authentic ruling elite whose practice in assessing political realities and acting in the interest of the state differed little from its European counterparts.
Moreover, the type of nationalistic fervor and reverence for state institutions which would characterize European imperialism in general was already existent in many African states. In this regard, the Asante Empire was probably well above those of contemporary African regimes. The account of Dutch envoy W. Huydecoper regarding his welcoming to Kumasi (the dominant city-state in the Asante empire) captures the state’s patriotic pomp concisely:
And what a tumult greeted me there….There were golden swords, flutes, horns and I know not what else….Throughout the ceremony music was provided by drums, which were in position all around us, and the whole affair was marked by perfect order. Behind the king stood at least 100 men with muskets. They seemed quite as well disciplined on parade as European soldiers. (Sources 168)
Statehood was much more than ceremonial, however, and the Asante Empire operated an intricate, constitutionally based hierarchical governing structure. In order to manage his empire, Osei Bonsu “established an extensive bureaucracy….[t]he results were a capital city of about 20,000 and a highly centralized administration…[it] was divided into three principal departments; finance political service, and provincial administration” (162).
This evidence of well organized and sophisticated African kingdoms is important for two reasons. First, these reports are usually accompanied by accounts of European dependence on those regimes in order to conduct profitable business. Second, it explains how much in common African institutions really had with Europeans – hierarchical states with their own penchant for empire. Dependency and commonality were rooted in African sovereignty; if independent African rule were allowed to persist, it would threaten the legitimacy and efficacy of colonial projects. As a result, Europe employed the conceptual machinery of modernity to reinvent an African reality that was better suited to colonial ambitions.
Evidence of such thinking is highlighted in excerpts from an 1812 memorandum by London’s African Committee regarding the viability of enforcing the ban on African slave trading. The memo states that “one of the chief arguments urged for the abolition of that trade was that on adoption of that measure, a new, more desirable, and more extensive commerce would…be established in Africa” (176). It notes further, however, that “British trade will not be able to exist where the slave trade is carried on,” and then proceeds to yield a rather informative critique:
Can the wildest theorist expect that a mere act of the British Legislature should…inspire with wisdom and refinement the unenlightened natives of the vast natives of Africa and persuade them that it is for their interest to contribute to…the destruction of a trade non inconsistent with their prejudices, their laws, or their notions of morality and religion… (176)
Though it may not be intentional, there is an implicit call in this statement to redefine, to modernize those prejudices, laws and notions of morality and religion so that they may be in line with the colonial venture. Once Europeans realized the potential resource and market values of the African space, having the extent of their presence determined by the indigenous people was no longer perceived as an acceptable state of affairs. As a result, European nations took on the colossal task of modernization through molding a fervent colonial mindset – both in Africa and at home – in order to destabilize the African powers which threatened their economic aims. It seems true that “[i]f colonialism meant anything at all politically, it was the loss of sovereignty and independence by the colonized people” (Adu Boahen 99).
The crude production of misleading cultural and humanitarian notions for mass consumption were paramount in facilitating African progression toward modernity and validating prolonged profit-oriented ventures into the continent. In Europe, a significant portion of this modernizing effort was achieved through the delicate crafting of education and popular culture. Depicting colonial duty as an avenue for personal achievement, national service and doubtless exoticism was paramount to the recruitment of Europeans for serving the cause of empire and moving Africa toward modernity. Knowing that the process of securing European interests in Africa would be highly dependent upon a loyal and motivated group of imperial administrators, European nations set about imbuing the supposed ideals of empire in the education of their youth. Terrence Ranger’s reference to one English headmaster’s thoughts on the matter captures the essence of this propaganda accurately:
[A headmaster] will not forget that [his pupils] are destined to be the citizens of the greatest empire under heaven; he we will teach them patriotism…he will inspire them with faith in the divinely ordained mission of their country and their race. (Ranger 216)
Moreover, writings such as Arthur Mee’s Books for Boys glorified the expansion of British Empire while H. Rider Haggard’s King’s Solomon’s Mines and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness put forth a depiction of Africa as largely feral, backward, and mysterious. The work of the latter two authors in particular was highly important through infusing their audience with images of Africa that legitimized both the superiority of whites and the missionary purpose of empire being taught in schools. For example, descriptions of Africans in these works take on a detached manner, objectifying and denying these people of their inherent humanity. In describing the women of Kukuanaland Haggard’s protagonist Quatermain notes, “these women are, for a native race, exceedingly handsome…[t]he hair, though short, is rather curly…the features are frequently aquiline, and the lips are not unpleasantly thick as is the case in most African races” (Haggard 129). In Heart of Darkness, Conrad’s characterization of Africans is nothing less than animalistic such as when he describes the movements of a thirst-ridden slave:
[O]ne of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all-fours towards the river to drink. He lapped out of his hand, then sat up in the sunlight, crossing his shins in front of him, and after a time let his wooly head fall…” (Conrad 27).
These works induced exhilaration at the mere thought of entering into the European imperial endeavor; the promulgation of these notions allowed for growth of empires to run smoothly by making the administrative and even menial tasks of colonialism acceptable because of “…the glamour of empire building…” (Ranger 215).
Such accounts of Africa in literature were taken as canon. As a result, the influence they had in promoting a perception of Africa and its people that would inspire Europeans to join in the venture of modernization, and which would affect their behavior after having arrived there, cannot be understated. As Ranger notes, “white workmen who had been regarded in Europe as the ‘lower classes’ were delighted on arrival [to Africa] to find themselves in a position of an aristocracy of colour’” (Ranger 213). Thus, it is not surprising that the inadvertent emergence of African nationalism which “was generated by colonialism was not a positive but a negative one [and arose] out of the sense of anger frustration and humiliation produced by the oppressive discriminatory and exploitative measures…of the colonial administrators” (Adu Boahen 98). In short, the fact that these administrators were essentially indoctrinated with the propaganda of modernization
Additionally, establishing a colonial mindset in the African interior was equally important to “modernizing” the continent and opening it up to foreign empire. As mentioned earlier, working with the Africans as equals was no longer conducive to producing the accelerated resource commerce that Europeans necessitated to fuel their economic and imperial growth. As a result, facilitating Africa’s transition into the fold of this new era would require a complete realignment of Euro-Afro relationships, “… [redefining the] relationship between leader and led” (Ranger 221). As Adu Boahen notes, “[t]o varying degrees all the colonial rulers…condemned everything African in the cultural field and tried to produce Africans in their own image” (60) This importation of European traditions, “not only provided whites with models of command but also offered many Africans models of ‘modern’ behaviour” (212). In essence, this would mean transporting European methods of tutelage to Africa to mold its people in the European image, establishing a sense of order and obedience among Africans. Moreover, the Europeans recognized that “real modernizing change would be the product of European commanders loyally supported by African subordinates,” and this could be achieved through the utilization of their military establishments and instilling reverence for their monarchs. According to Ranger, “[b]lack mirrors of English privates and non-commissioned officers were precisely what African soldiers were intended to be,” exhibiting “…instant obedience, fierce regimental pride [and] reverence toward [Europe]…” (Ranger 225-226, Mazrui qtd. in Ranger 226). Likewise, the institution of “Imperial Monarchy” would serve as yet another means of bringing Africans into “…the neo-traditions of subordination” (Ranger 229). Working with the African chiefs, headmen and elders, European authorities in the region, specifically Germany and Britain, set about mystifying their respective monarchs in an effort to further promote their superiority and justify their power. Colonial authorities "presented to African audiences a king who was almost divine; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent” (Ranger 230). The purpose of all these actions, of course, was to secure the smooth growth of empire in Africa, “… [creating] a clearly defined hierarchical society in which Europeans commanded and Africans accepted commands…” (Ranger 220).
One must be careful, however, in taking these accounts at face value. Given the earlier evidence of proud, capable and independent African rulers, it would be out right foolish to assume that Africans as a whole submitted so easily to this process of modernization. In fact, “[m]ost of the revolts were led…by the traditional rulers” (63). Even early on, Africans were well aware of the “iniquities, inhumanity, and exploitation of the colonial system,” and engaged in an array of both traditional and creative forms of resistance. Outright insurrection and rebellion were the most common forms of confronting the colonial order, but there were also instances of escape, passive resistance, reform movements, formations of political groups and criticism through the arts and media.
On the whole, it should be apparent that when approaching accounts of European colonialism in African history, the concept and meaning of modernity becomes key to framing a more accurate narrative of the past. The need for Africans to be led into the modern era was an invention. African civility was on par with, if not surpassing sophisticated notions of statecraft based on European standards. The need to modernize rested not in African savagery, but in the European desire to expand its Empires take control of the rich African space. Territorial sovereignty was the main issue here and as result, modernization had the paradoxical, though intended effect of granting it to those who didn’t deserve and revoking it from those who did.
Works Cited
Boahen, A. Adu. African Perspectives on Colonialism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989
Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. New York: Bantam Books, 1981.
Haggard, H. Rider. King Solomon’s Mines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Ranger, Terrence. “The Invention of Tradition in Colonial Africa”
Robinson, David W., and Douglass Smith. Sources of the African Past: Case Studies of Five Nineteenth-Century African Societies.
