DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8209--------------------------------------------------
Nigeria
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 21, 2021, 10:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Nigeria
[quote]Following military conquest, the British imposed an
economic system designed to profit from African labour. The
essential basis of this system was a money economy—specifically
the British pound sterling—which could be demanded through
taxation, paid to cooperative natives, and levied as a
fine.[11][12]
...
In the 1700s, the British Empire and other European powers had
settlements and forts in West Africa but had not yet established
the full-scale plantation colonies which existed in the
Americas. Adam Smith wrote in 1776 that the African societies
were better established and more populous than those of the
Americas, thus creating a more formidable barrier to European
expansion. Though the Europeans possess many considerable
settlements both upon the coast of Africa and in the East
Indies, they have not yet established in either of those
countries such numerous and thriving colonies as those in the
islands and continent of America.
...
Local leaders, cognizant of the situation in the West Indies,
India and elsewhere, recognised the risks of British expansion.
A chief of Bonny in 1860 explained that he refused a British
treaty due to the tendency to "induce the Chiefs to sign a
treaty whose meaning they did not understand, and then seize
upon the country".[14][/quote]
AKA "It's OK to be a "white" treaty signatory."
[quote]European slave trading from West Africa began before
1650, with people taken at a rate of about 3,000 per year. This
rate rose to 20,000 per year in the last quarter of the century.
The slave trade was heaviest in the period 1700–1850, with an
average of 76,000 people taken from Africa each year between
1783 and 1792. At first, the trade centred around West Central
Africa, now the Congo. But in the 1700s, the Bight of Benin
(also known as the Slave Coast) became the next most important
hub. Ouidah (now part of Benin) and Lagos were the major ports
on the coast. From 1790 to 1807, predominantly British slave
traders purchased 1,000–2,000 slaves each year in Lagos alone.
The trade subsequently continued under the Portuguese. In the
Bight of Biafra, the major ports were Old Calabar (Akwa Akpa),
Bonny and New Calabar.[15] Starting in 1740, the British were
the primary European slave trafficker from this area.[16] In
1767, British traders facilitated a notorious massacre of
hundreds of people at Calabar after inviting them onto their
ships, ostensibly to settle a local dispute.[17][/quote]
But what I really want to debunk next is the frequent rightist
claim that the British Empire led the way in abolishing slavery.
Let's look at what really happened:
[quote]In 1807 the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the
Slave Trade Act, prohibiting British subjects from participating
in the slave trade. Britain subsequently lobbied other European
powers to stop the slave trade as well. It made anti-slavery
treaties with West African powers, which it enforced militarily.
Some of the treaties contained prohibitions on diplomacy
conducted without British permission, or other promises to abide
by British rule.[18] This scenario provided an opportunity for
naval expeditions and reconnaissance throughout the region.
Britain also annexed Freetown in Sierra Leone, declaring it a
Crown Colony in 1808.[19][/quote]
In other words, Britain passed laws against slavery merely in
order to give itself a pretext to colonize, supposedly for the
sake of enforcing such laws. But couldn't Britain have been
sincere about ending slavery? We shall see:
[quote]Lagos became a major slave port in the late 1700s and
into the 1850s. Much of the human trafficking which occurred
there was nominally illegal, and records from this time and
place are not comprehensive. According to the Trans-Atlantic
Slave Voyage Database, 308,800 were sold across the Atlantic
from Lagos in 1776–1850. British and French traders did a large
share of this business until 1807 when they were replaced by
Portuguese and Spanish.[/quote]
In other words, since Britain had become the self-proclaimed
enforcer of the laws against slavery, it could enforce or not
enforce as it preferred, and of course when it was "whites"
(including Jews) doing the slave trading, the laws were not
enforced. In effect, the so-called 'anti-slavery laws' only
prohibited "non-whites" from owning slaves, thus ensuring
"whites" (including Jews) dominated the slave trade.
[quote]Whether British conquest of Nigeria resulted from a
benevolent motive to end slavery or more instrumental motives of
wealth and power, remains a topic of dispute between African and
European historians.[21][/quote]
LOL
Moreover, in a territory under colonial rule, the entire local
workforce is in effect enslaved, so of course Britain had no
need to trade in slaves after it had taken over the entire
territory itself!
[quote]In 1892 the British forces set out to fight the Ijebu
Kingdom, which had resisted missionaries and foreign traders.
The legal justification for this campaign was a treaty signed in
1886, when the British had interceded as peacemakers to end the
Ekiti Parapo war, which imposed free trade requirements and
mandated that all parties continue to use British channels for
diplomacy.[18] Although the Ijebu had some weapons they were
wiped out by British Maxims, the earliest machine gun. With this
victory, the British went on to conquer the rest of Yorubaland,
which had also been weakened by sixteen years of civil war.[39]
...
The British had difficulty conquering Igboland, which lacked a
central political organisation. In the name of liberating the
Igbos from the Aro Confederacy, the British launched the
Anglo-Aro War of 1901–1902. Despite conquering villages by
burning houses and crops, continual political control over the
Igbo remained elusive.[42][43] The British forces began annual
pacification missions to convince the locals of British
supremacy.[44]
...
"If the millions of people [in Nigeria] who do not want us there
once get the notion that our people can be killed with impunity
they will not be slow to attempt it."[47]
...
From 1895 to 1900, a railway was constructed running from Lagos
to Ibadan; it opened in March 1901. This line was extended to
Oshogbo, 100 kilometres (62 mi) away, in 1905–1907, and to
Zungeru and Minna in 1908–1911. Its final leg enabled it to meet
another line, constructed 1907–1911, running from Baro, through
Minnia, to Kano.[57]
Some of these public work projects were accomplished with the
help of forced labour from native black Africans, referred to as
"Political Labour". Village Heads were paid 10 shillings for
conscripts, and fined £50 if they failed to supply. Individuals
could be fined or jailed for refusing to comply.[12][/quote]
See what I mean?
[quote]During his six-year tenure as High Commissioner, Sir
Frederick Lugard (as he became in 1901) was occupied with
transforming the commercial sphere of influence inherited from
the Royal Niger Company into a viable territorial unit under
effective British political control. His objective was to
conquer the entire region and to obtain recognition of the
British protectorate by its indigenous rulers, especially the
Fulani emirs of the Sokoto Caliphate. Lugard's campaign
systematically subdued local resistance, using armed force when
diplomatic measures failed. Borno capitulated without a fight,
but in 1903 Lugard's RWAFF mounted assaults on Kano and Sokoto.
From Lugard's point of view, clear-cut military victories were
necessary because the surrenders of the defeated peoples
weakened resistance elsewhere.[/quote]
Lugard is bad, right? But:
[quote]Lugard's immediate successor (1919–1925), Sir Hugh
Clifford, was an aristocratic professional administrator with
liberal instincts who had won recognition for his enlightened
governorship of the Gold Coast in 1912–1919. The approaches of
the two men to colonial development were diametrically opposed.
In contrast to Lugard, Clifford argued that colonial government
had the responsibility to introduce as quickly as practical the
benefits of Western experience.
...
Uneasy with the amount of latitude allowed traditional rulers
under indirect rule, Clifford opposed further extension of the
judicial authority held by the northern emirs. He said that he
did "not consider that their past traditions and their present
backward cultural conditions afford to any such experiment a
reasonable chance of success".[70] In the south, he saw the
possibility of building an elite educated in schools modelled on
a European method (and numerous elite children attended
high-ranking colleges in Britain during the colonial years).
These schools would teach "the basic principles that would and
should regulate character and conduct".[70] [/quote]
Clifford is far worse. The deep psychological colonization we
are faced with today is Clifford's legacy.
What else happened?
[quote]The Influenza pandemic made its way to the port of Lagos
by September 1918 by way of a number of ships including the SS
Panayiotis, the SS Ahanti, and the SS Bida.[71] The spread of
the disease was quick and deadly, with an estimated 1.5% of the
population of Lagos falling victim.[72] The disease first found
its home among the many trading ports along the West African
coast.[72] But with the advancement and efficiency of colonial
transportation networks, it was only a matter of time before the
disease began to spread into the interior.[71]
...
the virus would continue to spread throughout the southern
provinces throughout September and finally make its way into the
hinterlands by October.[71] An estimated 500,000 Nigerians would
lose their lives due to the pandemic, severely decreasing
production capabilities on Nigerian farms and
plantations.[74][/quote]
In short, the British forced locals to build the very
transportation networks (see above) that would then help the
virus spread to kill the same local populations. This is
colonialism for you.
NEVER FORGIVE. NEVER FORGET.
What about local resistance?
[quote]In the north, appeals to Islamic legitimacy upheld the
rule of the emirs, so that nationalist sentiments were related
to Islamic ideals. Modern nationalists in the south, whose
thinking was shaped by European ideas, opposed indirect rule, as
they believed that it had strengthened what they considered an
anachronistic ruling class and shut out the emerging Westernised
elite.[/quote]
Clifford made this happen. Instead of rejecting Western
civilization, these False Leftists merely wanted to be
recognized as Westerners too. And so Nigeria never drove out the
British in armed struggle, but was merely given superficial
independence on condition that it remained Westernized within:
[quote]By a British Act of Parliament, Nigeria became
independent on 1 October 1960.[8] Azikiwe was installed as
Governor-General of the federation and Balewa continued to serve
as head of a democratically elected parliamentary, but now
completely sovereign, government. The Governor-General
represented the British monarch as head of state and was
appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Nigerian prime
minister in consultation with the regional premiers. The
Governor-General, in turn, was responsible for appointing the
prime minister and for choosing a candidate from among
contending leaders when there was no parliamentary majority.
Otherwise, the Governor-General's office was essentially
ceremonial.
The government was responsible to a Parliament composed of the
popularly elected 312-member House of Representatives and the
44-member Senate, chosen by the regional legislatures.
In general, the regional constitutions followed the federal
model, both structurally and functionally. The most striking
departure was in the Northern Region, where special provisions
brought the regional constitution into consonance with Islamic
law and custom. The similarity between the federal and regional
constitutions was deceptive, however, and the conduct of public
affairs reflected wide differences among the regions.
In February 1961, a plebiscite was conducted to determine the
disposition of the Southern Cameroons and Northern Cameroons,
which were administered by Britain as United Nations Trust
Territories. By an overwhelming majority, voters in the Southern
Cameroons opted to join formerly French-administered Cameroon
over integration with Nigeria as a separate federated region. In
the Northern Cameroons, however, the largely Muslim electorate
chose to merge with Nigeria's Northern Region.[/quote]
Only in the north was there anything resembling authentic
resistance.
*****************************************************