Nationalism and Independence in Africa
The second lecture I watched at the Cambridge History Masterclass (preceded by Gendering British Politics by Dr Ben Griffin) was Nationalism and Independence in Africa by Dr Poppy Cullen. Dr Cullen explored the journey of independence in ex-colonial African countries through the 20th century, a topic I was very excited to learn about since I've never been taught anything about African history with the exception of the slave trade from an American perspective. And, as it turned out, I was not the only one in that position. Before she began her lecture, Dr Cullen asked by show of hands how many students in the audience had ever studied African history and not one hand went up. I was also excited to learn how European attitudes towards African independence varied from the British attitude towards Indian independence which I have studied in my A Level course.
The following is a summary of Dr Cullen's lecture.
Dr Cullen began with some background information. In the 1880s, Africa was split up in the colonial scramble for these territories. By 1914 almost the whole continent was colonised by a European power. The European-drawn borders split up groups which meant the African people lacked a connection with the colonising power as the borders are very artificial. We can still look at a map of Africa and see the straight line borders dividing up countries so it's no surprise this sort of invasive action aggravated the population there.
Source: http://www.pinkballoon.nl/colonization-map-of-africa.html
The artificial nature of the African borders led to a particular form of nationalism.
Colonisation was driven by the conception that black Africans were uncivilised and backwards but through the 20th century their want for self governance grew.
Dr Cullen also mentioned how colonial rule in Africa was much shorter than in India or other Asian countries.
The strongest nationalist movements came in the aftermath of World War II when most European countries were more willing to consider colonial change as they were seriously damaged by the war. Germany had lost all colonies after World War I; Britain was in debt in WWII and France had been occupied by Nazi Germany which caused her to lose great amounts of power. Many Asian countries colonised by European powers had been invaded and/or occupied by Japan during WWII.
Another aspect which aided the nationalist movement in African colonies was the fear of communism after WWII. Many world super-powers had feared communism far more than decolonisation in the midst of the Cold War which meant ceding power in the form of decolonisation was a less daunting concept. During the Cold War, nationalist movements often went hand-in-hand with socialist movements.
Indian and Pakistani independence in 1942 showed this potential flux in ideas in Europe and led to increased pressure for independence from within Africa. However, I would argue that given Britain's Prime Minister at the time, Winston Churchill, who I have made no effort to portray in a positive light on this blog, there was not such a great shift in attitude among some of Britain — particularly not where Churchill was concerned. Granted, he was in the vast minority: "the bulk of political opinion held that negotiating with the Indian nationalists and their high-profile leader Ghandi was necessary and wise" (from OCR A Level textbook Britain 1930-1997 written by Nicholas Fellows and Mike Wells).
Source: https://punch.photoshelter.com/image/I0000vhGWZShYhDg
Click here to see a selection of cartoons about the Indian independence movement such as the one featured above.
Dr Cullen clarified quite early on that we need to adjust our attitudes so that we do not talk about the Europeans "giving" independence to their colonies when they believed them to be "ready." This makes the Europeans appear benevolent and generous whereas, in reality, it can be quite easily argued that the Western colonial powers had delayed decolonisation for as long as possible for entirely selfish purposes. Conversely, the idea that Africans "took" independence makes the African people wholly responsible for pushing out the greedy colonial powers — makes independence an African triumph. This is a far more positive and optimistic approach to independence with regards to Africa's future and much better reflects the common sentiment across Africa during the nationalist movement.
By the 1920s, what heightened was the need to the need for readjustment within the colonies. Neo-colonialism occurred: Europeans gave up formal colonial power but Africans became financially dependent on their former colonial powers. One common argument as to why this happened is that Africa had been groomed for succession of the Europeans so that the relationship between Europe and Africa would remain in tact. Not an awful lot changed as a result.
Those who came into power when African countries gained independence benefitted from taking over from the Europeans as they were the first leaders of independent African nations (thus a stark contrast to the negatively-viewed colonial government prior), which meant that they didn't feel the need to tear up the policies and systems left behind and start anew. Therefore, there was no way they could have been as successful as one would have hoped without the financial support of former colonial powers.
Dr Cullen then spoke about the simultaneous sentiments circulating in pre-independence Africa alongside nationalism:
pan-Africanism (the idea that independence in one country is not worth as much until all of Africa can be independent)
the possibility of federations
Pan-Africanism was a big part of shaping what it meant to be African later on and how we view this now. At the same time as this, the growth of specifically anti-colonial nationalism was crucial for gaining independence. Combined, these two frames of mind allowed populations from all across Africa to unify in pursuit of a common goal.
One case study Dr Cullen focussed on was that of Ghana (previously named the Gold Coast). Ghana was the first African colony to gain independence, and she did so in 1957.
The Gold Coast was a British colony with a particularly strong economy due to huge cocoa and palm oil exports. She was seen as the most advanced African colony by the 1940s due to her independent success. This was hugely challenged by riots in 1948 in Accra which hurt her reputation as the 'model' for British colonies. The Brits assumed the riots were inspired by communism so they cracked down on potential communists.
I briefly read up about the true cause Accra riots. In short, African soldiers in the British Army during WWII had been promised they would have plentiful pensions and/or jobs but when they returned from war there were few jobs to choose from and state pensions were never disbursed. They embarked upon a peaceful march to being a petition to the Governor but were stopped by colonial police, who refused to let them through and opened fire. Three ex-servicemen were killed and a further sixty wounded. In response, five days of riots broke out.
The British then realised the need for government with African members in the Gold Coast.
Meanwhile, nationalist sentiment grew. In 1947 a new United Gold Coast Convention was set up to campaign for independence. In 1949 a break-away group, the Convention People's Party (CPP), formed with a more radical wish for independence. They wanted independence immediately.
In the 1951 election, CPP won 34 of the 38 seats with Kwame Nkrumah as its leader. He was the first black Prime Minister in the British Commonwealth. Later on, this had a knock-on effect on nearby British colonies in Africa.
However, there were still divisions: not everyone supported Nkrumah. A new break-away National Liberation Movement formed in Asante wanting their own independence from the British separately from Ghana.
Nonetheless, Ghana became independent in March 1957, becoming the inspiration for nationalist movements in many other colonies.
The next case study Dr Cullen explored was that of French West Africa. France had a very different idea for how decolonisation should be done. French colonies in Africa were to her an extension of France.
To avoid mass independence of her colonies, France invited representatives from these countries (who, as an aside, had been elected by quite a limited franchise) to sit in French parliament in Paris so that their voices would be loudly and clearly heard. They could make demands on policy from the French state such as abolition of forced labour and arbitrary punishment.
In 1947 a general strike began in French West Africa in favour of labour reform. In order to appeal to their French powers the strikers used the founding pillars of the French Revolution to convince the French of their case: equality, fraternity and liberty.
In the 1940s, African colonies weren't always fighting or total independence but more for reform of colonia government from within. Léopold Senghor had proposed the idea of a multi-layered government:
African legislature
French legislature
French imperial legislature
A referendum was held in 1958 in all French colonial territories in Africa asking if the people wanted to remain part of the French Empire. What surprised me at first was that Guinea was the only French West African colony to vote in favour of leaving the French Empire in this referendum. The leave campaign was led by a very prominent Guinean movement which strived to unite all ethnicities, classes and genders behind the cause. Guinea immediately became independent and therefore immediately cut off from French aid and developmental assistance. The fear of being cut-off was a huge incentive for other colonies to vote to remain part of the French Empire.
1960 was known as the Year of Africa as it was the year in which seventeen colonies in Africa became independent.
Towards the end of her lecture, Dr Cullen then touched on later decolonisations.
The apartheid in South Africa, she said, had a huge impact on the nationalist movement in remaining African colonies.
On the other hand, Portuguese colonies had a much harder time gaining independence. Under the dictatorship of Antonio Salazar, Portugal refused to give up her colonies. Salazar was prepared to maintain such colonies by force if necessary. So, in response, nationalist movements in Portuguese colonies used force to combat against colonial rule. This led to a long, drawn-out period of civil war among the Portuguese colonies. Various international powers also got involved in this conflict. The Portuguese Empire kept its hold on African colonies until as late as 1974 when Salazar's dictatorship was overthrown and he replacement government realised the conflict was not worth the extensive money being spent on it. It was largely for this reason that Portugal decided to cede her African territories.
Overall, I was very much engaged by Dr Cullen's lecture on nationalism and independence in Africa. This was the first exposure I had had to African history outside the slave trade which I only studied relatively shallowly and it did not disappoint my expectations. Unfortunately, an hour-long lecture was not nearly enough for my curiosity to be satisfied so I hope I will get more chances to read up more about African history and decolonisation as soon as possible.
Thanks and credit go to Dr Poppy Cullen for the topic and much of the content of this post. As always, I strongly recommend the Cambridge History Masterclass as both a great networking event to meet and mingle with other passionate historians but also an incredibly valuable learning experience. If you would like to read my summary of the other lecture given at the masterclass I attended, click here.
Thank you so much for reading! If you would like to be notified when I next upload feel free to subscribe using the box at the bottom of the Home page.