In his short, but scholarly work on neo-colonialism, Iweriebor (1997:3) identified four stages in African transition to a neo-colonial status. During these stages which, according to him, spanned a period of five centuries, Africa was subjected to both open exploitation and subsequently, underdevelopment of her economies. Iweriebor’s classifications are, perhaps a summary of Water Rodney’s How Europe underdeveloped Africa, or Basil Davidson’s book, with the title: The Black Man’s Burden – Africa and the Curse of the Nation-state.
The first epoch of African encounter with the Europeans was the period of slave trade from the 15th Century to the early 19th century, when slave trade was abolished, to pursue what was called ‘legitimate trade’. During this period Africans were parceled and shipped to Europe and North America to provide cheap labour. The “surplus value” produced as a result of this massive exploitation contributed significantly to the industrialization of Western Europe.
The period of mercantile trade or imperialism from the early to late 19th century constitutes the second era of exploitation. This epoch inaugurated in Africa the operations of British Companies like the British South African Company, British East African Company and the United African Company as well as companies of other colonial powers, like France, Portugal and Spain. (Iweriebor 1997:4). But because Western imperialism considered the exercise of sovereignty by Africa as exemplified in several treaties of friendship, signed with African traditional rulers objectionable, they pressurized their home countries to colonise Africa. This was the antecedent to the scramble for, and the eventual partition of Africa in Berlin in 1885; which set the stage for the third epoch.
The first epoch of African encounter with the Europeans was the period of slave trade from the 15th Century to the early 19th century, when slave trade was abolished, to pursue what was called ‘legitimate trade’. During this period Africans were parceled and shipped to Europe and North America to provide cheap labour. The “surplus value” produced as a result of this massive exploitation contributed significantly to the industrialization of Western Europe.
The period of mercantile trade or imperialism from the early to late 19th century constitutes the second era of exploitation. This epoch inaugurated in Africa the operations of British Companies like the British South African Company, British East African Company and the United African Company as well as companies of other colonial powers, like France, Portugal and Spain. (Iweriebor 1997:4). But because Western imperialism considered the exercise of sovereignty by Africa as exemplified in several treaties of friendship, signed with African traditional rulers objectionable, they pressurized their home countries to colonise Africa. This was the antecedent to the scramble for, and the eventual partition of Africa in Berlin in 1885; which set the stage for the third epoch.
The era of colonial domination was that of direct political domination, economic exploitation, and cultural imperialism. When it suited the Europeans, this colonial subjugation of Africa by superior firepower was justified on the altruistic ground of “civilizing mission”. In other instances, it was based on the myth of racial superiority. The tenor of this era was the forceful conversion of African land and resources, as well as African rulers as colonial agents, under ordinances issued in the name of the Crown.
But the more enduring consequences of the colonial era were the establishment of the structure, and institutions to foster African economic and ideological dependence on the West. This was achieved through the development of export crops tied to external vagaries, commerce “base” tied to Western outlets and “investment” in extractive industries. Colonialism also created a bourgeois class which Nkrumah (1970:10) called “African bourgeoisie,” and described them as a “class which thrived under colonialism”, and benefiting still “under post-independence, neo-colonial period”.
This class-political, economic and intellectual – have been mentally and psychologically subjugated that it could only conceive its own society from Europe prisms, and apply models and tools provided by Western Imperialism.
But the more enduring consequences of the colonial era were the establishment of the structure, and institutions to foster African economic and ideological dependence on the West. This was achieved through the development of export crops tied to external vagaries, commerce “base” tied to Western outlets and “investment” in extractive industries. Colonialism also created a bourgeois class which Nkrumah (1970:10) called “African bourgeoisie,” and described them as a “class which thrived under colonialism”, and benefiting still “under post-independence, neo-colonial period”.
This class-political, economic and intellectual – have been mentally and psychologically subjugated that it could only conceive its own society from Europe prisms, and apply models and tools provided by Western Imperialism.
This class, ironically, also include some of the nationalists who championed the anti-colonial struggle but were yet to wean themselves from imperialist grip. This class in Iweriebor’s words: “represented African rejection of colonialism; but as a class it did not reject the Western Colonial model. The colonial era inexorably, set the stage for the fourth epoch, the neo-colonial stage, which is focus of this unit.
The root of neo-colonialism in Africa therefore has both internal and external dimensions. The ideologically backward, and reformist nationalist leadership that succeeded the colonial powers, and pursued economic and political interests against the common interests of the people, constitutes the internal dimension. The external dimension is represented by Western “neo-imperialism” represented by Western Capitalist States which offer various tempting financial, educational, and advisory aids to the new African States” (Iweriebor, 1997:5).
The root of neo-colonialism in Africa therefore has both internal and external dimensions. The ideologically backward, and reformist nationalist leadership that succeeded the colonial powers, and pursued economic and political interests against the common interests of the people, constitutes the internal dimension. The external dimension is represented by Western “neo-imperialism” represented by Western Capitalist States which offer various tempting financial, educational, and advisory aids to the new African States” (Iweriebor, 1997:5).
Social Plugin