Contract Between African Chiefs And The British-Lead Royal Niger Company

European Imperialism in Africa

In the late eighteenth century, a movement sparked in Europe that would completely change the world. It would push the human race forward and the very idea of progress would never be the same again. This event, comparable to the earlier Scientific Revolution, brought on innovation that would simplify the way man worked and lived. The Scientific Revolution occurred in response to the Enlightenment where the eyes of man were opened to the notion of scientific exploration and invention. People began to work on progressing the mechanics of society and reality themselves instead of relying on a government or religious group to do it all for them. Likewise, this aforementioned movement, which can be realized as a response

to the Scientific Revolution, is known as the Industrial Revolution. It was because of the Industrial Revolution that the world gained such luxuries as steamships and trains; but the Industrial Revolution may also be credited with such nightmares as poor working conditions, air pollution, forced labor, and intense imperialisation. The infamous “White Man” at this time was great at thinking up new inventions and taking the glory from them, but he cannot be ascribed with participation in putting in the laboring efforts to acquire the materials needed for his innovations. This job was instead given to the natives of the lands the resources could be found in. For example, Europeans needed coal to drive their locomotives, and they knew such materials could be found in Africa. The Europeans might proceed to colonize a region of Africa, enslave the natives to dig out the coal, and reap the benefits of work they had not even done. The native Africans responded in a variety of ways. Some would allow their African nations to be colonized as long as they received some small reward for themselves. This would often result in the harsh oppression of the African laborers. Other African rulers, such as the Ethiopian emperor, would refuse to defile their culture and people by allowing the Europeans to enslave and “fix” their people.
When faced with the challenge of decided whether or not to allow colonization of their nation, African rulers would agree on set terms.

This is shown most blatantly in Document 1. The document provides an outline of a contract between African chiefs and the British-lead Royal Niger Company. The chiefs, “with the view to the bettering of our country and people, do this day cede...forever, the whole of our territory…” They would agree to such terms as long as “...The said Royal Niger Company [would] bind themselves not to interfere with any of the native laws or customs of the country…The said Royal Niger Company agree to pay native owners of land a reasonable amount for any portion they may require…,” and, “of their own free will and consent…” they would sell their people off to European imperialism. This form of compliance, though seemingly agreed to be peaceful, often ended in harsh conditions. For example, Document 3 displays the viewpoint of an African colonial who was involved in a rebellion against the British in southern Africa. The speaker, Ndansi Kumalo, says, “...we surrendered to the White people and were told to go back to our homes and live our usual lives and attend to our crops. We were treated like slaves. They came and were overbearing.” This document explains how the idea of peace between colony and colonizer was often not the reality at all. A similar opinion of African colonization is exhibited in Document 6, where an African leader, Samuel Maherero,

writing to another African leader says, “All our obedience and patience with the Germans is of little avail, for each day they shoot someone dead for no reason at all.” In fact, not only does this document prove the harsh treatment dealt by the Europeans, it shows the Africans desire to fight back. Maherero writes to “appeal to you my Brother, not to hold aloof from the uprising, but to make your voice heard so that all Africa may take up arms against the Germans.” He expresses his true emotion and the severity of the hardship his tribe is faced with when he says, “Let us die fighting rather than die as a result of maltreatment, imprisonment, or some other calamity.” African leaders that responded with acceptance and agreement with European colonization often faced the burden of the oppression of their people due to their decision.
Another, quite opposite, response to the call of European colonization was utter refusal.This is evident especially in Ethiopia, as recalled in Document 2.

This piece of history is written by Menelik II, the emperor of Ethiopia, in 1891. He writes to the European nations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia, saying, “I have no intention at all of being an indifferent spectator, if the distant Powers hold into the idea of dividing up Africa.” He tells the European superpowers, “For the past fourteen centuries, Ethiopia has been an island of Christians in a sea of Pagans...Since the All-Powerful has protected Ethiopia until now... I do not think for a moment that He will divide Ethiopia among the distant Powers.” Also in this letter, he calls upon the “distant Powers” to consider helping Ethiopia recover their “seacoast boundary...or give...at least a few ports along the coast.” According to Document 4, however, only five years after that letter was written, a land battle struck out in the Ethiopian town of Adowa between Ethiopia and Italy. This painting depicts what looks to be a fight over Italy attempting colonization over Adowa, which supports the claim that some African nations refused European involvement. According to the painting, both sides of the battle had fairly equal artillery, but the Ethiopians seemingly greatly outnumbered the Italians. The source of the document tells the observer that the Ethiopians were victorious in this fight, so one may

assume that they remained free of colonization at this time. Battles such as these must have been common, for one may read of another in Document 5, where the Ashanti queen speaks to West African chiefs following some disrespect delivered towards the “King” by “the British governor.” She rages, “If it were in the brave days of old, chiefs would not sit down to see their King taken away without firing a shot. No White man could have dared to speak to chiefs of the Ashanti in the way the British governor spoke to you chiefs this morning...I must say this; if you the men of Ashanti will not go forward, then we [the women] will.” It is unclear to a reader just by the contents of this document if this queen speaks of a region under colonization, but one may assume not by the way she speaks of the British governor. She speaks of him not as a sovereign or a partner (as were some relations between African elite and European leaders), but she speaks of him as a great enemy by the way he mistreated the African chiefs. This theme of battle between caused by European mistreatment of Africans was repeated in the late nineteenth century in the small African nation of Rwanda. Belgium received Rwandan control and educated the Tutsi tribe while leaving the Hutu tribe alone. When Belgium lost control of Rwanda, ignoring the most logical idea of leaving the educated Tutsis in charge, they left the Rwandan government to a Hutu because the Hutus made up a majority of the Rwandan population. The Tutsis were treated harshly under this new command, and the situation ultimately led to the genocide of the Tutsi people in Rwanda. The Belgian’s decision to leave the Hutus in charge, in time, caused the mass murder of an entire tribe of Rwandans.
African responses to European imperialization varied by nation and leader. Some leaders reacted by agreeing and negotiating with the European powers. Ultimately, this lead to the oppression of the native people. Others answered with refusal and, oftentimes, battle in order to keep the peace of independence in their country. Either response can be compared to those of America during their conflict with Great Britain in the late sixteenth century. At first, America agreed to be a peaceful colony of Britain, though they presided under a fairly autonomous government. Britain and America remained in this relationship peacefully until Britain needed more money. This compares to the African leaders who agreed to European colonization under negotiations. In order to retrieve more finance, Britain decided to place harsh tax on their American colonies. This upset the colonies not only because their taxes were increasing, but also because they were unrepresented in the government that ultimately covered them, like in African colonies that were harshly treated by their colonizers. This conflict grew into the American Revolution which was fought for liberty, like the battles fought between African and European nations for independence.