47 pages • 1 hour read
Africa has been central to European development since about 1500. Europe was more developed than Africa during the bourgeoning era of global trade. The former was moving toward capitalism, while the latter was transitioning from communalism to feudalism. This unequal state of development gave Europe distinct advantages in its dealings with Africa and other less developed nations in Asia and the Americas. Europe’s more advanced technologies allowed it to pursue its economic and political interests on a global scale. Europe owned and operated most of the world’s seafaring ships, financed long-distance trade, and monopolized knowledge about the international exchange system. Europeans also capitalized on their superior fleets and weapons to control the world’s waterways and capture strategic ports.
The growth of global trade turned Africa into an extension of Europe’s capitalist market. The exploitation of African labor and raw materials was key in this regard. Europeans dictated the rules of trade, determining what Africa could export and import, and for how much. Africans worked in local mines to feed Europe’s growing demand for minerals. Gold and silver were especially important because European powers needed them to produce coins for their growing monetary economies. It was the institution of slavery, however, that was most important for European development, as it supported the shipping and insurance industries while enabling economic growth, such as the formation of new companies and the expansion of capitalist agriculture. Commerce made possible by African labor strengthened European economies, gave rise to European manufacturing centers, and spurred the growth of European seaside towns—developments that ultimately led to the Industrial Revolution.
In the early phases of global trade, Africa provided new markets for European manufactured goods, such as Dutch linen, English pewter, and Spanish iron. Africa also became a dumping ground for goods that were technologically out of date or unsellable in Europe, bringing capitalists profits from otherwise useless goods. Europe then reinvested profits from external trade in its own development. Investments in technology were particularly important, as they helped Europeans develop new, more efficient ways of manufacturing goods. This allowed capitalists to monopolize European markets and to flood African markets with cheap, mass-produced goods. European capitalists strengthened their monopolies during the colonial period, with large companies swallowing smaller ones to create giant corporations.
Global trade drove European development and impacted many areas of life. Trade with Africa contributed to the nonmonetary development of Europe. This is especially apparent in the technology and military sectors during the colonial period. There is no causal relationship between European technological innovation and colonialism. Rather, the colonies were part of a chain that made innovation possible. Profits from colonialism, for instance, were used to finance scientific research. Further, the influx of colonial imports led to the development of new machinery to process and manufacture increasing amounts of raw material. European powers had to defend their colonial interests from competitors, leading to the creation of new types of armed naval vessels. European industries required high skill levels, which prompted more innovation, more development, and more employment opportunities. Production under European capitalism was global. However, the fruits of human labor were concentrated in the hands of capitalists from Europe and North America.
European imperialism, exploitative trade practices, and colonialism played a critical role in underdeveloping Africa. The impact of the slave trade is particularly important. Low estimates suggest that 10 million enslaved Africans arrived in the Americas in the trading era (this number does not include the captives who died before and during the Atlantic crossing). The slave trade robbed Africa of young, able-bodied men and women, shrinking the continent’s workforce and curtailing its birth rate. Africa’s stunted population negatively impacted its economic development. Some communities abandoned previously developed areas because their population was so small they could no longer combat pests, while other communities no longer had the manpower to tame horses or work the land. The development gap grew because Europe experienced explosive population growth as Africa’s population stagnated.
The slave trade fostered instability in Africa, further hindering economic development. For example, “[s]lave raiding and kidnapping made it unsafe to mine for and travel with gold” (111)—Africa’s most lucrative industry before it was displaced by the slave trade. As the slave trade expanded, it led to more wars and greater instability. This slowed development in other sectors, such as agriculture. The economic impact of the slave trade was felt throughout Africa, not just in the areas where the trade was most active. Economic depression in one region impacted others. In contrast to Europe, which profited immensely from slavery, Africa’s development stalled because its labor force was forcibly exported rather than allowed work locally to stimulate African wealth and economic development.
Trade with Europe further disrupted local African economies. For example, Portugal severed trade links between Benin and the Gold Coast by circumventing interior water routes and establishing direct connections across the open sea. Similar disruptions occurred across Africa, such as Western Sudan, Guinea, and the Congo. Europeans curtailed or replaced deeply rooted African commerce and thwarted attempts to integrate African economies. They became middlemen in local trade networks, creating dependency in Africans. Africans were forced to rely on Europeans to engage in local trade and were limited to whatever goods Europe was prepared to buy and sell.
The exploitation of Africa for European profit did not end with the slave trade. In fact, Europe’s antislavery stance stripped many African communities of their primary source of wealth. Exploitation arose in virtually all aspects of commerce; Europeans fixed the prices paid to African peasants at extremely low levels, and they also fixed the prices for shipping, making profits so high that even European merchants complained. Protectionist laws guaranteed European producers a market in the colonies, even when their goods were substandard. Banks and other financial institutions also amassed wealth at the expense of Africans by backing the gold and diamond industries, registering returns higher than even the mining companies.
Colonialism perpetuated Europe’s underdevelopment of Africa into the 20th century. Africans were overburdened with taxes and customs to support colonial administrations, which then forced Africans to work for free on public projects like transportation infrastructure. Private companies also relied on forced, unpaid African labor, which was equivalent to slavery and contributed to the development of Europe at Africa’s expense. Other harmful colonial practices included binding Africans to colonizers through exclusive trade agreements that prevented Africans from accessing alternative markets and kept prices low to maximize European profits. The quality and quantity of colonial education also blocked advancement, most relevantly in the science and technology sectors.
Apologists routinely claim that Europe modernized Africa by introducing capitalism on the continent. Although Europeans introduced some elements of capitalism to Africa, they did not establish a capitalist system there. Europeans blocked Africans from developing into capitalist societies because they did not want to create rivals that would threaten their monopolies. The dynamism of capitalism lies in the way it creates growth. This growth, in turn, creates opportunities for further growth. This did not happen in Africa because colonialists deliberately kept the conditions that sparked innovation and growth off African soil.
Colonial education was part of a state apparatus designed to assimilate, not educate, Africans. The written record attests to the desire to “civilize the African native” (302) and incorporate him or her in European culture. Portuguese colonial law, for example, drew a distinction between an African native and an assimilado (assimilated person), sometimes referring to the latter as civilisado (civilized) because of his or her ability to read and write Portuguese. Similarly, Belgians called educated Bantu in Congo évolués, referring to people who evolved from “savagery” to a “civilized” state thanks to their colonizers.
Europeans invested little in educating Africans. Schools were scarce, especially in the countryside. The quality of education was often lacking. Europeans needed to offer Africans enough instruction to allow them to serve in colonial administrations, but too much education was seen as superfluous and dangerous. The curriculum in colonial schools was Eurocentric to the point of absurdity. Demba children, for instance, were taught about European roses but not about local plant life. Additionally, colonial schools largely used European languages for instruction. This Eurocentric approach to education meant that the most educated Africans were also the most alienated:
At each further stage of education, they were battered by and succumbed to the values of the white capitalist system, and, after being given salaries, they could then afford to sustain a style of life imported from outside […] Some reached a point of total estrangement from African conditions and the African way of life, and like Blaise Diagne of Senegal, they chirped happily that they were and would always be ‘European’ (303).
Racism pervaded colonial education. This manifested itself in hostility to African culture and paternalism. Some educators wanted to eradicate “inferior” African cultural practices, while others considered them quaint and wanted to preserve them. Most colonial educational commissions promoted religious and moral instruction, even as Christianity’s influence in Europe waned. The educational system also created an elite African class that helped perpetuate colonial rule. Forming this elite class were the sons of traditional rulers, who forged bonds between colonialists and local communities. Schools also functioned as a pipeline for the armed forces and police, who were charged with defending the interests of the colonizers. Colonialism waned after World War II, when Europeans ceded their African territories to avoid costly and violent wars of independence. However, the end of colonialism did not free Africa from Europe’s hold. Education and assimilation created lasting psychological bonds between colonial subjects and their colonizers. These bonds outlived colonialism and remain relevant today.
Plus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features: