The ‘grey’ areas of colonialism

“

The brutal history of colonialism is one in which white people literally stole land and people for their own gain and material wealth” - Patrisse Cullors, American activist, co-founder of the Black Lives Matter.

One of the most contentious, and controversial subjects uppermost in the minds of many, especially Africans, which to this day, still continues to trigger ferocious, and emotional debates, leaving, (and had always left) a bitter taste in the mouths of some of us, is the subject of colonialism.

The noun ‘colonialism’ has many definitions. Its general description, though, is that, it is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation, conquest, or domination of one people, nation, etc., by another. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is hard to differentiate it from imperialism - the latter being a tendency to extend power or control over others, especially through the use of force.

Colonialism has been the most frequent way for ‘one group of people to dominate another. It is the maintenance of political, social, economic, and cultural domination over people by a foreign power for an extended period.’ - W. Bell, 1991

When one discusses colonialism, Western countries come to mind. These countries were notorious for having been allegedly, chiefly responsible for this political-economic phenomenon whereby they explored, conquered, settled, and exploited large areas or swaths of land in many countries around the world.

LOOTING

Many people around the world, most notably, us Africans are of the notion that the African continent, and its people are to date, generally stricken by, and wallowing in dire poverty due to the looting of their countries’ resources by mainly European countries who colonised African countries centuries ago.

Is there some truths in this notion? What is it that drew - like how honey does it to bees - these nations to the so-called, ‘dark continent’ - the African continent - which made them to embark on precarious, sea voyages through thousands of miles to our continent? I am no historian, but, I will have my say, on the subject, give it my best shot, and hopefully, trigger an alluring, engrossing, and engaging debate!

History tells us that the colonisation of Africa came to be known as the “Scramble for Africa”. Belungu bagilana bodvwa bafuna umcebo wase Africa, inyanisi! Places that were colonised usually had resources that they (Europeans, belungu) wanted or which had some strategic advantages. Please, note that it is not only countries in the African continent that were colonised. Asian countries like India, and many others were also not spared from this phenomenon.

Some of the European countries which colonised non-European countries, and much of the world included Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

One of the most, famous - if not the most famous - countries which colonised many parts of the global world is the British Empire, which exercised long control over much of North America, parts of Africa, and India, respectively. Our country, Swaziland also fell victim to colonialism from the British. Scholars claim that the colonising of Swaziland was modest compared to that of other, African and global countries.

MINORITY

It is said that, ‘colonialism had often led indigenous people, such as tribal groups, to become a minority in an area they once were the majority or dominant group. Examples of these are the Maori natives of New Zealand, and Hawaiians of Hawaii.

One might then, ask, what were the key, core, motives behind European colonialism? What are/were the pros and cons of this phenomenon? What are/were the subsequent (or lasting) effects of colonialism in the countries that became victims to this inunu?

Those in the know, that is, historians, generally explain the colonisers’ motives in three, simple words - God, gold, and glory, the three Gs... They stood to - and, they surely did - gain economically, politically and...religiously? The latter had been a simmering cauldron of debate for as long as I can recall.

It is said that during the times of colonisation, an economic depression was occurring in Europe, and powerful countries such as Germany, France, and Britain were losing money.

The African continent became an alternative of sourcing out (or is it looting?) natural resources, and kwakha imali, most probably, to revive European countries ailing economies. It is said that Africa in terms of deadly conflict seemed to be out of harm’s way. Coupled with its abundant, natural resources, it was easy for the taking!

Again, as it is still now, Africa’s cheap labour enabled the Europeans to easily acquire products like oil, ivory, cotton, etc., through use of cheap labour. Hamba lapha emafenini uyobuka kutsi bodadze betfu bahola malini in return for their ‘cheap labour’ efforts...

Colonialism, even though it had over the years, gradually waned as African countries gained self-rule, has in my opinion, deviously, and insidiously come back through foreign investments. How come, some people, might ask?

UNEMPLOYMENT

Unemployment in Africa is a scourge. Numerous, Third World, African countries like Eswatini, whose governments are desperate for their citizens to get much-needed employment, accept any kind of investment - be it those with dubious credentials or otherwise. Consider some of the so-called, Asian investors who run fast-food, and electronic goods, outlets .... Are these credible investors, dear reader? What is your take, dear reader on this?

Can one label these companies as real investors? Some of them take advantage of this desperation by locals for employment by paying them very low wages. We cannot also rule out possible collusion by leaders of such countries resulting in the payment of such pittance wages, for reasons best known to themselves. But, some of us can take educated guesses - corruption, through kickbacks!

Now, let’s come to the controversial part.. Dear, reader...what were or are, if any, the pros and cons of... colonialism? Come, now...be a sport, be candid, and engage the editorial team of this publication over this most debatable issue!

In my opinion, there initially, were some advantages for colonialism. For example, through the ushering in of civilisation. Europeans brought in new technologies, and other modern ways of doing things. For example, they provided the continent with tools to help with agriculture, brought along with them crops from their countries such as maize, and others.

They also built infrastructures such as railways, schools and medical units. Right or...wrong? I write so impeccably through the spoils of... colonialism...! Well, take that in jest.

Many African natives had to adopt their colonial masters languages like English, French and Portuguese which has given them an advantage to communicate in the present globalised world.

EDUCATION

Missionaries, pursuing another form of what I will call ‘positive colonialism’, brought education, through schools, and, most importantly, the Word of God, something the Living God calls in Matthew 4:4, “And Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

I am a Christian, and sincerely believe that God, in His mysterious ways, inspired missionaries from European countries in fulfilment of the Great Commission, in Matthew 28:16-20, to make ‘disciples of all the nation’ and ‘baptize’ them. There’s a school of thought that had been doing the rounds since time immemorial from other quarters - none believers - that ‘religion is an opium of the masses’. Have your say, please...

Proponents of this notion are fiercely defensive of what they claim the bringing in of religion by missionaries was another form of colonialism, designed to hoodwink, and force into submission, Africans, while they looted their resources. Come to think if it!...there is also the contentious, King Somhlolo’s dream of ‘choose between ‘indilinga’ and ‘umculu’ or whatever. Your take, dear reader?

Any cons of colonialism? You bet, there are! I sourced out this engaging content from www.quora.com:

“There’s is the unremitting, rampant looting of Africa...by Africans as well as by outside multinationals. And governments. Africa is a victim of natural resources, which the rest of the world, mainly the West, has vowed to have for nothing. So…there’s the serious insidious, pervasive agenda to disrupt development in Africa; to ensure that Africa fits their stereotype.

“There are many, outside of Africa, actively working to see that their narratives of Africa - poverty, financial dependency, etc., remain, and instigate, fuel, fan civil wars, strife, etc. in Africa.”. Well, could this..be true, dear reader?

I touched briefly about financial dependency by African nations on European countries. One form of colonialism, that is, in my books, is the depency on foreign entities for loans, aid, and other much needed, assistance. Consider how our country, Eswatini, is embroiled in debt, possibly due to lack of visionary leaders...

Finally, how was Swaziland colonised? According to www.familysearch.org:

“During the 1890s, Eswatini (then Swaziland) was under a triumviral administration between the Swazi people, the Dutch, and the British. In 1894, Swaziland was placed under the Dutch South African Republic as a protectorate. This lasted until the Second Boer War in 1899

“After the British victory in the Anglo-Boer War, Swaziland became a British Protectorate in 1903. Prior to this, Swaziland had been heavily influenced by British and Dutch rule in South Africa. During the British Protectorate, Swaziland was divided into European and non-European rule. Eswatini gained independence in 1968”

Kindly also read this (www.thought. co.com) interesting content, and draw your own conclusions, dear reader:

“Contact with the British came early in Mswati II’s reign when he asked British authorities in South Africa for assistance against Zulu raids into Eswatini.

ESTABLISHED

It also was during Mswati’s reign that the first whites settled in the country. Following Mswati’s death, the Swazis reached agreements with British and South African authorities over a range of issues, including independence, claims on resources by Europeans, administrative authority, and security.

South Africans administered Swazi interests from 1894 to 1902. In 1902 the British assumed control.

“1921, after more than 20 years of rule by Queen Regent Lobotsibeni, Sobhuza became iNgwenyama (lion) or head of the Swazi nation.

The same year, Swaziland established its first legislative body – an advisory council of elected European representatives mandated to advise the British high commissioner on non-Swazi affairs. In 1944, the high commissioner conceded that the council had no official status and recognised the paramount chief, or king, as the native authority for the territory to issue legally enforceable orders to the Swazis.

Before, I conclude the article, it would be prudent of me to mention that colonialism is not only restricted to domination of other nations by powerful nations, it was also internal. Kindly read the following:

WHAT IS THE DEfiNITION OF INTERNAL COLONIALISM SOCIOLOGY?

“Internal colonialism was a modern capitalist practice of oppression and exploitation of racial and ethnic minorities within the borders of the state characterised by relationships of domination, oppression, and exploitation.”

Does this ring any bells in relation to our country’s, current political, and socio-economic conundrum?

Think dear reader, and read between the lines... Wishing everyone a blessed Sunday. Peace! Shalom!