Europeans in West and South Africa: Trade versus Settlement
European influences on African societies in West and South Africa differed fundamentally in that Europeans actually settled in South Africa in large numbers. The European presence in both Western and Southern Africa marked a significant change in African societies by providing them direct trade with Europe, industrial goods, and the horrors of the Atlantic Slave Trade. In South Africa, the actual physical presence of Europeans also brought direct trade, industrial goods, but differed in that the climate and people of the Cape facilitated the Dutch East India Company settlement and European expansion because of the decentralized nature of Khoikhoi communities and nearby Bantu-speaking groups. West Africa, on the other hand, was not an enticing area for European colonists because of the prevalence of malaria and other tropical diseases to which whites were very vulnerable. Thus, large white settlement made European influences in South Africa very direct and confrontational with regards to relations with Africans prior to the rise of imperialism.
One of the greatest differences between European influence in West and South Africa was the large and burgeoning Dutch East India Company settlement of Cape Town, which gave Europeans a permanent and growing presence in Africa. As the colony expanded beyond the Cape through migrations of voortrekkers, Europeans directly fought against local African populations and were able to make significant progress because of the decentralized nature of local African societies near the Cape.[1] Indeed, the Khoikhoi and San who occupied the land near the Cape were easily defeated or incorporated by early Afrikaners despite their numbers. The Khoikhoi pastoralists in the Cape adopted cattle herding from Bantu-speaking peoples to the north but lacked the political centralization to put up a united front against the encroachment of Afrikaners from the coast.[2] After the destabilization of Khoikhoi chiefdoms and San communities, both groups were forced into indentured servitude for whites, began to incorporate cultural elements of Afrikaners, adopted their language, and converted to Christianity.[3] This process of assimilation and intermarriage led to the formation of Cape Coloreds and Griqua communities that eventually resembled white South Africans on the frontiers of the Cape colony who also practiced semi-nomadic pastoralism.[4] Thus the impact of Europeans near the Cape was the gradual elimination of pre-existing social organizations such as the chiefdoms of the Khoikhoi and the formation of a new multiracial society with whites on the top of the social ladder. Armed bands of Griqua and whites also roamed the frontiers of the colony, often fighting with African groups in the process.[5]
Likewise in West Africa, communities of European settlement developed and often included racially mixed populations that resembled Europeans in several ways. For example, biracial and westernized blacks in coastal West Africa often identified with Europe and communities of Creoles in Sierra Leone joined European missionaries in spreading Christianity. Samuel Ajayi Crowther, a famous Yoruba recaptive, became the first African bishop of the Anglican Church and established African missionary centers in Nigeria.[6] The establishment of a college to train African clergymen at Fourah Bay in Freetown illustrates the high level of admiration and acceptance of European influences among Creoles.[7] Thus many of the biracial and culturally westernized West Africans such as Crowther supported colonialism since they hoped for colonial rule to give them political power.[8] Unlike the Cape of South Africa, however, the Creoles and other European-influenced societies lacked the power to actually pursue a similar semi-nomadic lifestyle and appropriate land from other African societies like the Griqua and trekboers. Indeed, land was mostly not available for expropriation to Europeans and biracial traders and missionaries since West African states were strong enough to repel European invaders. Prior to the use of quinine to treat malaria and the invention of modern repeating rifles in the late 19th century, African kingdoms could prevent European conquest and settlement in the interior.[9] This of course made European influence prior to this time centered on trade instead of colonialism and settlement since the region’s climate and centralized states were able to thwart any attempts to do so. Thus, like the Cape Coloreds and Griqua of South Africa, European influences in West Africa included miscegenation and the rise of intermediate racial groups in what would eventually result in colonial racial hierarchies, such as the privileged position of Cape Coloreds over black South Africans in apartheid South Africa.
European influences in South Africa past the Cape impacted Bantu-speaking communities as well. Due to the growing independence of Afrikaners, who by 1679 were mostly free burghers no longer attached to the Dutch East India Company, many had moved beyond the Cape and interacted with larger and more centralized Bantu-speaking peoples.[10] When Britain took control of the colony in 1805, many Afrikaners and Griqua left the Cape to escape British rule, bringing indentured servants, slaves imported from Asia and other areas of Africa, and their herds of cattle and sheep.[11] The voortrekkers established independent republics such as Orange Free State, Transvaal and formed alliances with certain African groups to defeat others. For example, the 1838 Battle of Blood River fought between voortrekkers led by Andries Pretorius against Zulu king Dingane, ended in a triumphant victory for the Afrikaners and the establishment of the Natalia Republic, later incorporated by the British in the 1840s. However, the eventual triumph over Dingane was only possible because of Zulu leader Mpande’s alliance with Pretorius. European settlers also influenced the Xhosa peoples against whom they waged several wars. For instance, the Xhosa, closest to the migrating Europeans, quickly found themselves entangled in a struggle over land and resources. Both trekboers and the Xhosa relied on agriculture and cattle, leading to conflicts over control of land and cattle raiding on both sides.[12] The British were able to successfully subdue and incorporate the Xhosa into British-administered South Africa after several wars, leading to the Xhosa Cattle Killing in 1856-1858, a millenialist movement called for by prophetess Nongqawuse who believed sacrificing all cattle would drive the white settlers away and bring prosperity back to the Xhosa. Obviously a mass movement that demanded the destruction of their means of sustenance left the Xhosa more impoverished and totally dependent on white settlers for relief. [13] Clearly the European influences on the Xhosa, such as the adoption of firearms in conflicts with the British and missionary activity, impacted Xhosa religion, land possession, and political independence. Other African groups, such as the Zulu under Shaka and the Matabele under Mzilikazi became militarized societies that formed age-based military regiments such as the amabutho.[14] Afrikaners and European colonists, to justify their own settlements in South Africa, used the mfecane theory that posits that the depopulation of some areas of South Africa during the 1820s was caused by Zulu expansion and conflicts between different Africans for land and resources. However, the militarization of Zulu and Matabele societies was partly motivated by expanding European settlement in the interior and the ensuing wars for land between the various parties. Unlike South Africa, where the slave trade was minimal the Atlantic Slave trade intensified armed conflicts because the need for arms to defend a state against potential rivals meant trading in slaves. In order to acquire slaves to receive guns from European traders, African states had to wage war against neighboring peoples. The violent cycle of guns and other industrial goods for slaves in order to legitimize and expand kingdoms led to warlordism in some areas, where legitimate rulers were easily overthrown by African slave traders who acquired guns. On the other hand, some centralized states arose because of the slave trade, such as Dahomey and Oyo, who were able to maintain their power by controlling the coastal trade routes with Europeans.[15]
Ultimately both West Africa and South Africa succumbed to European imperialism by the end of the 19th century. The racist nature of Afrikaner nationalism and their desire to separate themselves from black South Africans along with British colonialism and the discovery of diamond mines led to massive exploitation of Africans. In West Africa, British and French encroachment from the coast led to European rule in the entire region whereas South Africa experienced imperialism from Afrikaners and Britain, whose mining companies sought British rule.
[1] Neil Kodesh, “South Africa: The Arrival of the Dutch,” 11/29/2010.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Neil Kodesh, “Abolition and Legitimate Trade,” 11/10/2010.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Neil Kodesh, “The Scramble for Africa,” 12/13/2010.
[10] Neil Kodesh, “The Arrival of the British and European expansion in South Africa,” 11/31/2010.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Neil Kodesh, “The Zulu and the Mfecane,” 12/3/2010.
[15] Neil Kodesh, “Oyo, Benin and Dahomey,” 10/25/2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment