By - Tonata "The Political Doctor” Angombe
Introduction
When attempting to find objective answers concerning the impact of colonialism and capitalism on African countries one must be cognisant of the fact business was practiced already in Africa and the question of making money (capitalism) existed and was not a completely new phenomenon to Africa. But of course, the Europeans came to fuel it (capitalism) up to a point where most Africans cannot cope often due to the fact that opportunities where blocked to avoid African interference.
In case of colonialism, the practice was not new either to the African continent because even though there was less a practice of conquest for other kingdoms by another group, with the exception of the Zulus under the great Shaka Zulu who conquered most of the Xhosa lands, African people were exposed to totalitarian rule in some sections of African kingdoms from their rulers. A classic example is that of Namibia were once Ombalantu was ruled by a King called Kamaku, whenever he travelled, his servants always carried around a traditional hut above him so that he would not burn from the sun, anyone who refused or rebelled to be part of the carriers would face execution. Another example is that of the autocratic former King of Ondonga called Kambonde Ka-Mpingana who was a polygamist, he had established a very strict rule that all beautiful women would be reserved for him (the King). He often conquered other men’s wives, it is said that he even forcefully took away a wife of one white man who was a farmer in Namutoni area and got married to her. (Adopted From oral encounters with elders when I was still young, 1996).
So, all these circumstances cannot be left unelaborated upon because they qualify to be judged as colonial practices, even though the truth must be told that European form of colonial rule came to be much worse.
The comparison and judgement that I deliberated upon above are viewed and qualify to be exemplified as forms of colonial and capitalistic practices that existed in the African continent before the Europeans engaged themselves with Africa. But let us understand that by then, traditional rulers were respected and sometimes worshiped unlike the Europeans who were seen as intruders. So, the question of the high respect that Africans accorded to their indigenous leaders should be understood that authoritarian rule seemed just right, unlike when European came to impose their leadership style on the African continent.
In answering this diverse question, I will be attempting a Namibian case study according to personal understanding and sources. This question will require one to have a background understanding of the initial economic policies that Europeans had in place when they undertook a mission to conquer Africa and the nature of the colonial activities that the colonisers engaged in.
1. Defining and understanding Colonialism and Capitalism:
I believe that colonialism and capitalism cannot be understood separately especially when we try to find answers to the impact that the two practices had on African society and family life. Jürgen Osterhammel refered to Philip Curtain’s description of ‘colonialism’ 1 “a domination of people of another society”, to give a more in-depth deliberation that such a general explanation of colonialism given by Curtin is not sufficient enough to explain ‘colonialism. Osterhammel’s is that’ 2 “Colonialism is a relationship of domination between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonised people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonised population, the colonisers are convinced of their own superiority and of their ordained mandate to rule.” This definition makes it much easier for one to understand and contextualise colonialism to any society where it has been applied in Southern Africa, i.e. Namibia.
Capitalism is defined by L. Brown as 3 “The possession of capital or wealth; a system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods; the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for profit”. This definition justifies my understanding that capitalism is a living system whereby only those with the rights to capital and machinery are producing for the whole society while the rest of the people who have no business skills or interests remain dependent on the “monarchs” of the society who happens to decide on the fate of the lives of the masses, and in my view, this is indifferent to colonialism whereby the political, social and economic powers was left in the hands of the minority (colonial administrations) during the colonial times.
2.Understanding African, (Namibian specifically), societies before Europeans came:
History has it that Namibia, with its diverse population currently, was mostly occupied by the Nama, Damara (Centre South), San (South east) and other Bantu (Aawambo – central north, Herero – central, Kwangari east north, Subiya, Lozi and Mafwe Far East up-north) groups of people. The Bantu people are known for a culture of owning and keeping large and small stock animals and also of owning fields where they grow their crops for subsistence purposes. While the Nama and Damara people to a certain extent kept small and large livestock but did not engage themselves in crop production like the Bantu people did. The San people exercised a nomad life and did not keep livestock as the Bantus or the Nama/Damara people.
The argument above is supplemented by Osterhammel when he said that 4 “The vast majority of people in colonised societies earned their livelihood from growing crops. Socially and culturally, they belonged to a rural milieu.” Yes, the land was collectively owned by the whole community, and this aspect rules out the capitalistic features to possibly have existed already in Africa before the Europeans arrived.
The above mentioned synopsis does not rule out the fact that Africans were not at all doing business in individual capacity; there were those Africans who produced and bred animals for trade purposes with other societies in times of droughts or any other natural disaster, whereas other business transactions in African communities happened through the barter system. Although business activities were not a new thing in African societies, business was conducted in a manner which the seller always had to adjust their prices to accommodate and serve the whole community, social obligation.
The communities organised themselves and put up traditional leadership structures that could make decisions on behalf of the whole community. There had been a position of the “Chief” that rotates around the members of the same clan or family, and then, there is the Council of advisors to the chief who served as ministers to the kingdom, and then at the very bottom of the leadership structure you find the headmen who played the role of councillors. The common people of these societies followed and obeyed the decisions taken on their behalves by their Kings and council even though some decisions were made against their interests. And rebellion was a thing that was heard of because the people had respect for the rule of law by their leaders. For example, when there was a quarrel between two people claiming ownership of a certain property, then the case is brought before the King (Chief) for him to make a ruling and people respected the outcome.
3.Europeans and Africans in the African continent:
The arrival of Europeans in Africa brought about radical change in African societies, and history has proven that the change that Europeans came with did not do any good to Africans because the environment became that of “survival of the fittest” which the indigenous people were not used to. Osterhammel qualifies this perception when he said that 5 “Colonial conquest had a twofold impact: it forcibly seized rural means of production, and it pursued agrarian commercialisation.”
African lifestyle of living a normal socialistic life has suddenly turned out to become capitalistic and the people had to adapt to the changes although not all societies could completely transform and accept the new life successfully. Most of the land has been taken by the Europeans through tricky treaties that our illiterate chiefs and kings unfortunately blindly signed. For example, some Nama and Herero Chiefs like Samuel Maharero signed treaties and entered into land sale business that in the end resulted in the Herero people losing a huge amount of land.
As Gerhard Pool commends that 6 “In the meantime, Samuel continued to sell land. On 19th November 1899, for example, he sold 700 hectares to the trader, R.A. Schroeder at Otjosatu.The sale price was 245.33 Marks and was payable immediately to Samuel. According to the purchase-deed, Samuel’s councillors had agreed to the transaction.” This argument tells us much more just how Europeans in collaboration with African community leaders successfully duped the rest of the inhabitant communities off the land and ordinary communal life. On the part of Maharero, it was a question of self enrichment, while on the part of the Europeans, it was an issue of conquering and finding the ground to establish themselves in Africa.
4. CONCLUSION:
Colonialism and Capitalism’s impact on family life and society in Namibia:
General Lothar Von Trotha is quoted to have said that 6 “German South West Africa is or should be just that colony where the European himself can work to support his family, free from interference but with a fair amount of security. Thus German interests were of prime importance.” These words give me the impression that Europeans came to Africa in search of living space and they did not just come to do business and go back to Europe.
Most young people at homes were now forced to adapt to the new life style of going away from home to go look for work in other parts of the country (the south especially). This new working scenario came about to be incorporated in our societies involuntarily because the people were forced to pay taxes, and if they did not pay them then serious measures will be taken against them by the colonial government, and so, one could not really claim to say that the oppressed people by then had really much choice to continue living their simple communal life.
Most of the land has been taken away by the capitalistic Europeans and then the inhabitants have been forced into Bantustans or reserves were the life has been confined to a small piece of land which sometimes was not sufficient to cater for the population living there. Roads, railway lines and other infrastructures has been put in place and had taken up most of the grazing land that the cattle herders used every now and then for their animals, and free living space. Money was introduced to the societies and people had to abandon their casual life of bartering and doing business with a social responsibility approach.
Colonialism brought about wars that left societies very much reduced to almost nothing in numbers, a very good example is that of the Herero people and some Nama people who were killed due to the extermination order of (02 October) 1904 - 08 given by General Von Trotha which is said to have destroyed about 80 000 Herero speaking people alone. The people were brutally beaten, imprisoned under harsh conditions just because they were apparently not being subjective to the Europeans (Germans), women and children were raped and treated insensitively as if they were men, even though being men doesn’t mean that one has to be mistreated.
The sentiments I raised above are researched and shared by Erichsen Casper W, who conducted interviews with some of the Herero people. He writes that the experience his interviewees have of the nature of the cruelty of colonialism might be heavy to carry in the memory because of the sensitivity of the events that have transpired. Below is the account given by one of the people he interviewed;
7 “After the war of Hamakari, Nikanor Hoveka was captured and put in the service of a German man, Mathissen 57. Some people were collected in the camps and others were living on the open veldt, afraid of being killed by the Germans. In those days, people were killed, [as for example] if you were found in the bush or at the poisoned water holes.”
In attempt to justify the argument that sexual abuse was prevailing during the colonial era under the German rule, Erichsen interviewed one old man who gave the account below:
8 “[the elders] said that people were put in camps by the Germans. Some died in there, some stayed there. Some, who were found in the open veldt, were killed; others were brought to the camps. The women, like my grandmother who worked in the kitchens for the soldiers, became the woman of these soldiers without being married to them. They would bear them children and were left like that, like my own father. Some survived these ordeals like my own grandmother who came to settle in Aminuis and was buried in the big graveyard near the school.”
As many young people left their homes to look for jobs to cope with the new colonial-capitalist life, they left a gap unfilled at home as only children and women were left home. Married men went away for a very long time (18 months) and in most cases the distance and omnipresence of the husbands led to family and home break down, and that really shows just how much family life was interrupted and societies changed for the worse and not for the good as capitalists or colonialists would say since Africans were only being remote controlled to suit the “masters” will, and not leave them to evolve into the European civilisation. That is why Frederick Cooper supplements my understanding saying that;
9”Colonial officials were convincing themselves that their policy should not be to “civilise” Africans, but to conserve African societies in a colonisers’ image of sanitised tradition, slowly and selectively being led toward evolution, while the empire profited from peasants’ crop production or the output of mines and settler farms.
Colonialism and capitalism cannot be divorced and they cannot be defined separately without being viewed as aide tools towards the transformation of African societies and lifestyle.
6. REFERENCE LIST:
1. Osterhammel, J. Colonialism: A theoretical Overview. New York: Macmillan Press, 1995.
2. Brown, L. The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary: Capital. United Kingdom: Oxford Press, 2001.
3. Pool, G. Samuel Maharero: Lothar Von Trotha, a Formidable Opponent. Windhoek: Gamsberg McMillan, 1991.
4. Erichsen, C.W, “WHAT THE ELDERS USED TO SAY”, Namibian perspectives on the last decade of German Colonial Rule, Windhoek: John Meinert Printing, 1999.
5. Cooper, F. Africa since 1940. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
No comments:
Post a Comment