Imperial Powers and Decolonization: Settler Colonies March 6

Decolonization: Settler Societies “Settler Colonies”: - all colonial powers controlled colonies with large populations of white settlers - most in Central, East and Southern Africa - Major North African colony: Algeria

Decolonization: Settler Societies Britain: - Northern, Southern Rhodesia [Case Study] - Nyasaland [Malawi] - Kenya France: - Algeria [Case Study] Portugal: - Angola, Guinea Bissau - Mozambique [Case Study] Belgium: - Congo [Case Study]

Decolonization: Settler Societies Economy: - most settler colonies, economy based on exploitation commercial agriculture: required alienating Africans from the land - Congo exception: developed both mines and commercial agriculture - all required forcing Africans to work in European enterprises

Decolonization: Settler Societies “Issues”: - return of land - right to ‘freedom’ (as elsewhere) – including freedom of religion and/or ideology - education - ending racial discrimination

Decolonization: Settler Societies Problem: - European colonizer was not only colonial power: local white settlers had their own - colonial powers facing demands of white settlers as well as Africans - even as Britain, France moved towards decolonization in West African – Settlers’ voices elsewhere competing successfully

Decolonization: Settler Societies Belgium, Portugal: - not considering reforms to colonies at all - post-war era knew ‘second colonization’ France: -treated Algeria as exception to other colonies: no intention of letting go

Decolonization: Settler Colonies Algeria and Mozambique: Key Common Issues -resistance led to full-scale civil wars, direct intervention of metropolitan country - ideology played central role (Islam, Socialism respectively) - international involvement (or potential involvement) catalyst - ‘colonial war’ played key role in ‘domestic’ politics metropolitan country [more on these issues in context of Case Studies ]

Portuguese Colonies Portugal was itself poor and underdeveloped; 40% of the population was illiterate, the result of overtwenty years of dictatorship. The regime could not afford to be flexible, nor did it have the power to force compromise from African nationalists.

Portuguese Colonies Regime had Nazi-like Youth movement, to which Church closely allied through State.

Portuguese Colonies Portuguese policy Post-WWII opposite to decolonization everywhere (except South Africa): - colonial policies intensified - large emigration movement encouraged: “Second Colonization” - settlers provided with land through program of land alienation (as earlier in Rhodesia, Kenya)

Portuguese Colonies Complicated ‘issues’ further: - African peasants lost extensive land - population local mulattoes, assimilados affected -Mulattoes: descendants generations of Portuguese-African ‘mixed’ marriages -Assimilados: Africans adopting Catholicism, speaking Portuguese, moving into middle class

Portuguese Colonies - ‘older settlers’ (those who had come in interwar years), local elites: both lost social, economic position vis-à-vis post-WWII settlers - new ‘settler regime’ created (again, similar to early 20th century Rhodesia, Kenya) - strongly racist: rejected ‘mixing’ with Africans, discriminated against assimilados, enacted repressive policies

Forced labour continued to underpin Settler Economy under new emigration of 1950s. Not until early 1970s was system reformed .

Portuguese Colonies Picture from 1960s could have been taken 30 or even 40 years earlier!

Decolonization: Settler Colonies Under the circumstances: - resistance to be expected - Africans being ‘re-colonized’ - local settler society displaced, disadvantaged Between 1961-63, struggle became armed warfare in Mozambique [more in Case Study]

Portuguese Colonies Between 1963 and 1974: - all three Portuguese Colonies engaged in Wars of Liberation - leadership in hands of strong, charismatic men - each driven by commitment to Socialist ideology

Portuguese Colonies Eduardo Mondlane [Mozambique]:

Portuguese Colonies Jonas Savimbi [Angola]

Portuguese Colonies Amilcar Cabral [Guinea Bissau ‘Portuguese Guinea’]

Portuguese Colonies Portuguese Colonies: - Portugal received western (including US) support: cast wars in terms of ‘Cold War’ – African resisters were ‘Communists’ - wars bankrupted Portugal itself: brought down government 1974 - by 1975: all Portuguese ‘overseas territories’ were Independent! [Case Study: Mozambique, Mar.15-7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Colonial_War#/media/File:Guerra_Colonial_ Portuguesa.jpg

Belgian Congo Belgium: “King Leopold’s Ghost” - 1999 book on history of Congo - harkens to Conference of Berlin (1884-5), importance of Leopold pushing ‘Scramble for Africa’

Belgian Congo Colony ‘unique’ in Africa: - ‘feudal fief’ first of King, then of Government- sanctioned companies - looked like ‘settler colonies’ elsewhere in that settler community was attracted to manage companies, commercial agriculture - large post-WWII colonization

Belgian Congo White European Settlers: 1901 1,187 1910 1928 1920 3,615 1901 1,187 1910 1928 1920 3,615 1930 17,676 1939 17,536 Post World War II Influx: 1950 39,006 1955 69,813 1959 88,913

Belgian Congo - similar in complexity: ‘local settler’ government vs ‘imperial/metropolitan’ government - sense that ‘decolonization’ not on horizon - low level of educational/training provided for Africans

Belgian Congo - spatial segregation (living, working) - ‘domestic servant’ situation - all positions of power in ‘settler’ hands

Belgian Congo As ‘settler colony”, how well developed was Congo? - Human Resources very underdeveloped: -no African army officers -3 African managers in civil service -30 University Graduates

Belgian Congo first Congolese in Belgian universities: 1950s first universities in Congo: - 1954 (Catholic) - 1956 (lay), graduating 16 by the time of independence

Catholic Cathedral of Jesuit Mission (Lower Congo)

Belgian Congo Mineral resource industries, well developed: - copper, gold, tin, cobalt, diamonds, manganese, zinc - all attracted massive investments from West - economy dominated by mining: 70% controlled by Belgian Societé Générale (also controlled river and rail transport)

Copper in Katanga [ Ali Mazrui, The Africans, London 1986: 163]

Belgian Congo Cash crops almost as much product of Western investment as mining: -35%-40% commercial agriculture: controlled by Huileries du Congo Belges (subsidiary Anglo-Dutch Unilever Co. – also active in West Africa) -dominated palm-oil production

Belgian Congo Cash crops almost as much product of Western investment as mining: i.e. Cotton -ran plantations covering hundreds of thousands of acres -labour varied from poorly paid wage to forced

African Farmers with Cotton Crop -- 1950s

African Farmers with Cotton Crop -- 1950s

African Workers in Belgian Cotton Factory – 1950s

Belgian Congo Urban Growth: dramatic even by post-war African standards - mostly workers, many of them migrants - growth African urban associations, ethnically based - African newspapers flourished

Belgian Congo Overall: - adjunct to western industrial system - lacked any indigenous capital or internal capital generating market [see ‘Belgian Congo, 1950s – newsreel n.d., Add’l Rdgs]

Belgian Congo Settlers did not demand the semi-autonomy neighbouring colonies did (e.g. Southern Rhodesia): colonialism ‘worked’! - ‘intense’: number white officials, para-military forces, agricultural officers enforcing drastic programmes of compulsory cultivation

Belgian Congo Anachronistic rhetoric about ‘paternalism’: - aim to create Middle Class who would eventually attain full citizenship in some form of Belgo-Congolese community “Cartes de merite civile”: so rarely given out that they became yet another source of grievance

Belgian Congo Education: - primary education in hands of Christian Missionaries - Evangelism successful: 600 Congolese priests, 500 ministers c.1956 - 16 million Congolese: 3 ½ million Catholics; 1 ¾ millions Protestants

Belgian Congo Education: - 1950s: more secular education policies, missionaries rallying converts in support of church [Excellent novel “Poisonwood Bible”, based on this ‘moment’ although missionary in novel was American. See short excerpt in Resources]

Belgian Congo 1957 Paper announcing Need for ‘independence plan’ in 30 years : - hailed in Catholic journal, Conscience Africaine - followed by handful educated Congolese - included young postal worker, Patrice Lumumba

Belgian Congo - responded by deferentially requesting that Congolese elite be consulted in drafting plan - first of Congolese University graduates also emerging 1957/58, engaging with idea

Belgian Congo The process of ‘decolonization’ as we know it simply did not exist in Belgian Congo.

Belgian Congo 1959 banning of political meeting in Leopoldville: - led to riots - control of townships lost - no Europeans killed - ‘officially’ 50 Africans dead

Belgian Congo Spread into rural areas: unexpected - facilitated by movement migrant labourers - deliberately cultivated by local political parties - rooted in years of forced labour on plantations, infrastructure projects, compulsory crop growing schemes Overwhelming: local administrators forced to seek help from Congolese party leaders

Belgian Congo Belgium Reaction: 13 January 1959 - as riots spread throughout colony Belgian Govt. issued Déclaration Gouvernmentale - promised independence graduallement et progressivement

Belgian Congo Read by Congolese as Belgium controlling the process Read by Belgians as capitulation, BUT. . . - King’s endorsement reassured Belgian companies that they would have time to secure their interests

Belgian Congo “WHY” did Belgium so suddenly move towards independence for its richest (and indeed, only) colony? - some argue Belgian politicians did not really believe that ‘independence’ meant what it said - or… that total unpreparedness of Congo with its proliferation of political parties emerging at the last minute (120) would remain vulnerable to continued Belgian influence OR BOTH!

Belgian Congo Recent scholarship suggests that Belgian authorities intentionally moved quickly - to prevent Congolese politicians from developing a more radical agenda - to contain the challenge presented by Patrice Lumumba and his supporters

Belgian Congo La Table Ronde Belgo-Congolaise, January 1960: - Belgians expected Congolese representatives to be divided along ethnic and regional lines - But they presented ‘common front’ At the political talks: Belgians agreed to Independence on June 30, 1960

Belgian Congo “We demanded the immediate and unconditional independence of our country. We have just won it. We demanded that this independence should be complete and absolute. The Belgian Government, in compliance with our demand, assures us that Belgium will retain no measure of control after June 30, 1960. On that date, the Congo will accede to international sovereignty. The Congolese Government and the Belgian Government will be proud to sit side by side at international assemblies where they will defend their common interests” [Patrice Lumumba: following agreement on date for Independence.]

Belgian Congo Belgium exception among Settler Colonies: - in all other cases, ‘independence’ came only after protracted wars of resistance and often civil wars between different African factions - Congo’s ‘war of liberation’ took form of civil war following Independence [to be developed in Case Study ‘Congo’, Mar. 24-7]

Decolonization: Settler Colonies As Basil Davidson once wrote: “Where settlers were many … the road to independence was soaked in blood.” [Modern Africa, p. 148] Case Studies: Kenya [below] Algeria [Mar. 8-10, ‘Discussion Class’]

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ “…there is something else you should bear in mind and that is:… You cannot serve two masters.” [letter from Mau Mau fighters to teacher Karai Njama, cited B Freund, Contemporary Africa, p. 167]

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Post-WWII: liberalizing of restrictions on African political and union activities [as in West Africa] both flourished in Kenya became increasingly radical [as elsewhere; see earlier lecture on ‘New Nationalisms’]

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Post-WWII: union activities: large strikes 1947-50 Polical activities: 1946:formation Kenya African Union (KAU) - led by former leader of Young Kikuyu Association [similar to Nkruma, Convention Youth Party – Convention Peoples Party]

Kenya African Union Flag

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Party needed more ‘modern’, less ethnically based leadership [again, similar to CPP]: Jomo Kenyatta: returned from 17 years in England - active in same circles as Nkrumah - participated (with Nkrumah, others) in Pan- Africanist Congress UK, 1945 [refer back to ‘Discussion Class – Pan Africanism, Feb. 15-7]

Jomo Kenyatta

Jomo Kenyatta (1953) 1953

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ As leader of KAU toured country, attempting to: politicize and attract members overcome ethnic divisions (exacerbated by colonial land policies) gain support of disadvantaged groups create ‘universal’ political base Ultimate Goal: to negotiate with White Settler Regime

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ 1950: Settler Regime refused to negotiate: had local power since 1920s prosperous economy: coffee, tea, bananas Banana plantation north of Nairobi, Central Highlands

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ 1950: Settler Regime refused to negotiate: comfortable lifestyle [more on ‘Settler Life’ Lecture Feb. 3; suggested Rdgs ‘video’) Domestic Servants (Karen Blixen) Country Club (for Whites only)

Settlers Controlled Labour: Kenyan ‘Pass Book’ (1957)

Settlers Controlled Labour: Kenyan Pass Book (1959)

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Settlers’ Refusal to negotiate resulted in: sporadic clashes, increasing urban violence KAU leaders arrested -- including Kenyatta 1000s fled to hills and forests in resistance “Land and Freedom Army” -- known to British as ‘Mau Mau’

The “Land and Freedom Army” -members (above) - Leader Dedan Kimathi (right)

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ ‘Taking of the Oath’: much debate about nature of group - nationalist? ethnic? members required to take ‘Oath’ that reflected Kikuyu culture and opposition to British Rule threat of Death (at the hands of ‘Ngai’ – Kikuyu God) to anyone who betrayed Mau Mau

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ "We used to drink the oath. We swore we would not let white men rule us forever. We would fight them even down to our last man, so that man could live in freedom." [Jacob Njangi, former Mau Mau fighter]

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Still Debated: Did Kenyatta Support Mau Mau? - July 1952: Kenyatta speech to KAU ‘KAU speaks in daylight. He who calls us the Mau Mau is not truthful. We do not know this thing Mau Mau. . . . Our country today is in a bad state. … KAU seeks to remedy this situation and I tell you now it despises thieving, robbery and murder for these practices ruin our country. … Those people are wrecking our chances of advancement. They will prevent us getting freedom.”

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ 1952 ‘State of Emergency’ Declared: Governor of Kenya assured government that all would be normal in “just a few weeks” war lasted eight years, 25,000 people died, many thousands severely affected What began as battle to allow 29,000 white settlers to remain in control of Kenya became not only ‘anti-colonial’ but ‘civil’ war

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau By the numbers: Mau-Mau killed: *32 British settlers *120 ‘home-guards’, loyalists *5,000 non-Mau Mau Africans British: *150,000 Africans interned (camps) *20,000 Africans killed

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau: an ‘anti-colonial’ struggle: the story of ‘Freedom Fighters’ and colonial oppression more than 100,000 Kikuyu interrogated for presumed sympathies with Mau Mau “processed” through, often interned in brutal labour camps.

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Hola Camp: victims allegedly castrated, burned alive March 1959: eleven Mau Mau detainees beaten to death by British guards amid an attempt to force prisoners to labour. now known as ‘Hola Camp Massacre’ also now known that British government was ‘aware’ and turned a blind eye

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Hola Camp Massacre: seen as a seminal moment undermined legitimacy of British rule: British public disgusted “ [It is not possible to have] “African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home […] We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.” [Enoch Powell, Speech to Commons]

British colonialists standing guard over Kenyans British colonial officers stand guard over Kenyans suspected of being members of the Mau Mau while they search their homes for weapons.

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau: Civil War in the Making "The opponents of the Mau Mau were those who did not share the values of the rebels, who rejected violence and armed struggle as a way forward, and who questioned the moral basis of the claims made by the rebels. . . . As the conflict went on, these divisions made it appear more and more like a civil war.“ [David Anderson, Histories of the Hanged]

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau from the Other Side: [from ‘British Must Not Re-Write History, Resources] Mau Mau told as tale of “Evil Imperial Power” using internment, torture to oppress African colony seeking “Freedom”: fantasy version of history it was a Terrorist Organisation run by the Kikuyu: “extremists” furious at theft of their land by white settlers, so launched war from ‘jungle’

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau from the Other Side: like many terrorist groups: enforced discipline against anyone not ‘with them’ ‘loyalists’ [majority?] - who served as Home Guards, - who co-operated with British - who refused to sign ‘Mau Mau Oath’ what began as nationalist uprising turned into ethnic civil war.

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau from the Other Side: most famous victims were white settler Ruck family January 1953: Mau Mau fighters stormed remote farm house, hacked to death parents and six-year-old son images (photos, newsreel) of bloodied teddy bears, broken toy trains inflamed British opinion [Davidson Video, ‘Africa –Rise of Nationalism: Kenya’, Add’l Rdgs]

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau from the Other Side: killing Europeans rare: “the Mau Mau preferred to kill Africans” in total: murdered at least 1,800 fellow Kikuyu and Africans from other tribes African women and children were frequent targets just 200 British soldiers and 32 European settlers killed

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau from the Other Side: Lari Massacre March 1953 “communicates the full horror of this war” Lari populated by Kikuyu who refused to take Mau Mau oath [challenges ‘ethnic war’ interpretation] regarded as loyalists – ‘traitors’ Mau Mau “descended upon the community like something from hell” Some slashed to death, burned alive; pregnant women disemboweled; children murdered

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau from the Other Side: Lari Massacre massacre claimed 120 lives bitter memories still divide Lari today consider in light of (Video) “Scars of Lari” [see Resources]

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ War fought between 1952 and 1956: State of Emergency lasted until 1960 1963; Independence granted “With Britain’s Union Jack replaced by the black, red and green flag of the new state, political power in Britain’s last East African colonial holding slipped from the grasp of its 55,759 whites and was taken up by its 8,365,942 Africans.” The New York Times December 12, 1963.

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Jomo Kenyatta [released from prison 1961] elected first President of Kenya

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Post-independence Kenya refused to recognize Mau Mau claims on ancestral lands: banned Mau Mau as organisation. “The new independent country [of Kenya] did not hail these [Mau Mau] fighters as liberators. On the contrary, they were often regarded with embarrassment: Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya, publicly called the Mau Mau "scum". [see “Analysis”, Resources]

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Kenyatta offered amnesty to Mau Mau still in forest (1963) associated politically with many Kikuyu ‘loyalists’ "Field Marshal" Mwariama surrendering group of Followers to Kenyatta

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau in Contemporary Britain October 2012: three Mau Mau veterans granted right to sue British government for torture they were subjected to during war lawyers for government argued: ‘out of time’ ‘suit should be against Kenya, independent state inherited British responsibility’ they lost!

Mau Mau Veterans took on British Government – and WON!!

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Mau Mau Today: concerns expressed that people around the world from former British empire could bring similar charges – and so they might! case of the ‘three’ became case of over 5,000: they won Each will receive roughly £2,600 in compensation (total of £13.9 million)

Kenya and ‘Mau Mau’ Britain will also help to pay for a new memorial in Nairobi to “victims of torture and ill-treatment during the colonial era” without admitting wrong-doing: “The British Government recognises that Kenyans were subject to torture and other forms of ill treatment at the hands of the colonial administration. [We] sincerely regret that these abuses took place.”

Algeria’s ‘War for Independence’ Case Study March 8-10 [to be continued’