Module: HST6356 'An Excess of Colonialism': Empire, Race and Violence
By Katie Qin Guo
“Earlier on, such disparaging accounts had been given of African society and culture as to appear to justify slavery, and slavery, posed against these accounts, seemed a positive deliverance of our ancestors. Then the slave trade…became illegal, the experts on Africa yielded to the new wind of change, and now began to present African culture and society as being so rudimentary and primitive that colonialism was a duty of Christianity and civilization…Our highly sophisticated culture was said to be simple and paralysed by inertia, and we had to be encumbered with tutelage. And this tutelage…could only be implemented if we were first subjugated politically.”[1]
- Duara
Colonialism was a multi-faceted product of ignorance, perceived indifference and racial hatred of non-Westerners, used as an alibi to rationalize economic and imperial gains. Advancements in science and racial psychology indoctrinated Europeans with “gauges of superiority and inferiority…differences in physical appearance and religious beliefs”[2], setting the basis for fear and need to salvage these ‘backward’ societies. Christian civilising missions of “corrupt and wasteful indigenous regimes”[3] legitimised overseas expansion to implement “efficient bureaucracies…more nurturing of individual initiative and enterprise.”[4] Historical discourse emphasises the act of “aesthetic repression”[5] of Asian and African cultures. ‘Tribal’ and ‘savage’ legitimised by ‘official’ civilising mission discourse influenced international relations and colonial policy.[6] Duara argues that social evolutionary dogmas “interpolated from rather dubious readings of Darwin’s writings…savage races were doomed to extinction.”[7] Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe’s Morning Yet on Creation Day, suggested “continued absorption by non-Western cultures of ‘the human condition syndrome’ meant reaffirming the very vision which was underpinned imperial conquest.”[8] Nigerian critic Chinweizu Ibekwe supports this – “an essential continuity…in the ongoing attempt implicitly or explicitly to impose ‘so-called timeless, universal values which…are nothing but the European cultural imperialists’ salesman's for Western values.’”[9] Mainstream discourse theory in this field has received considerable scholarly attention over recent decades. Although fear was undeniably a factor, colonisers should not be allowed to use discriminatory ideology as a scapegoat to alleviate their own guilt and accountability, as much of civilising mission discourse was “obviously self-serving”[10] and shaped European perceptions and interaction with ‘natives’. Increasing one’s colonies allowed Westerners to inflate international influence and gain profits; radical politician Albert Sarraut writes “Must these immense expanses of land, which could produce so great a variety of foodstuffs, be allowed to lie fallow, abandoned to the thickets of indifference, ignorance and incompetence…?”[11].
Lingering tropes of mass psychological conditioning dismissed Africans and Asians as “superstitious, indolent, reactionary, out of control and oblivious to time”[12]. For Westerners, mass control of ‘barbarism’ and ‘backwardness’ meant terrorising populations into silence. Demographically, Europeans were outnumbered, which could prove to be a logical fear; the Indian Mutiny showed that colonial rule can be fragile when it involves relying on the other for imperial rule. Psychological fears were exaggerated and extended into other facets. Beyond the frame of this question, fear became a defence, and violent colonial policy that ensued allowed colonisers to facilitate industry. This essay encompasses 1850-1955, with selective global focus on the Congo, South Africa and Kenya. Duara, Breckenridge and Gilbert-Moore provide complimenting arguments, whilst Sarraut, Lugard and MacDonald challenge such. All provide different narratives influenced by the social environment in which they had conducted their studies, provided that there have been large shifts in historiography since. Fear of the ‘Other’ will be discussed foremost as the predominant factor for communicating through violence tactics. European imaginations of threat branched out, inciting the race for imperial and economic gains. The study of driving factors of violence is critical for modern-day society, as colonial exploitation continues to be fuelled by racism and capitalism. With extreme relevance to contemporary politics, it should be further criticised and be prevented from reoccurring.
Fear of the barbarian ‘other’ sparked colonial violence. Symptomatic of “ideological representation…which the subject people are…too often enmeshed”[13], it was used to pathologize political policy. Fear infiltrated colonisers and subsequently, the colonised. Violence was necessitated by fear-inciting ‘scientific’ studies of race. With tropes of cannibalism and rape, it became consensus that only violence could incite response and required obedience of humans low on the “imaginary scales of human capacity and evolutionary development.”[14] Though demographic fear was valid, racial psychology acted as moral ground and a catalyst to justify human torture. Preconceptions of ‘savagery’ incited colonising programmes of ‘reformation’ through “mimicry of the West”[15] to secure Western hegemony; “through…scientific discoveries and inventions, Westerners…gained an understanding… [and] ability to tap its resources that were vastly superior.”[16] Achebe’s ‘An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness’ criticises Conrad as a “thoroughgoing racist”[17], problematizing the normalisation of white racism towards Africans – that racial manifestations should be held accountable. Works like Conrad mocked, dehumanised and canonized racial tropes of ‘inferior’ African people, enforcing regimes of stereotype, thus providing a route to alleviate oneself emotionally and morally from violence. Achebe criticised F.R. Leavis’s The Great Tradition’s idea of ‘adjectival insistence’ as reinforcing misconceptions of Africa as “the place of darkness and home of the irrational.”[18] A dichotomous regime that reinforced the binarism of the West to the non-West is tangible throughout colonial discourse, mocking Africans as “dumb brutes”[19] and problematizing their difference. Achebe argues that these cultural depictions were strategized around a “consistent attempt ‘to set Africa up as a foil to Europe, as a place of negotiations…in comparison with…Europe’s own state of spiritual grace’”[20], used as a method to “offload all of its owner’s inner guilt and horror through a process of symbolic projection.”[21] Colonial discourse destabilised coloniser psyche, instilling the idea that ‘natives’ did not possess intelligence for ‘civil’ communication.
Professor Nancy Rose Hunt ascribes that colonial regimes were “born from nervousness.”[22] A regime of forced labour, torture and death was established in the Congo. Police held families ransom to force men to extract rubber. Villages were wiped out to instil terror and obedience. Hands and feet of workers were amputated for taxidermy and tallies. Anthropologist Michael Taussig writes that population control was conducted using a campaign of fear and terror to prevent the prospect of rebellions. Workers were flogged to death with hippo hide whips, starved, with genitals amputated. Hunt argues that images of those like Boali are multi-layered; images alone cannot report tactile sexual violence and rape or reveal trauma and the mental implications.[23] Over 23 years of King Leopold’s rule, 10 million Africans were massacred, exhibiting results of destabilising fear.
The 1922 Rand Revolt in South Africa exhibits broader implications of prejudice against ‘natives’ in structuring urban white South Africa. The murder of 150 black residents by strikers embodies anxieties of power and the culture of fear rooted in racial anthropology. Historians Breckenridge, Condos and Wagner view violence as a systemic part of racist culture which bred such dichotomous regimes. White vigilante violence was exercised in partnership with State, legitimising the interests of exploiting rich gold in Johannesburg. The British Bloemfontein concentration camp resulted in 20,000 deaths of black South Africans. Black votes were denied except in Cape Town – though not explicitly violent, crucially demonstrates fundamental racist exclusionary ideas, causing this pre-emptive suppression out of fear of political threat. Though increased Marcus Garvey-ian black militancy post-WWI provided reasonable threat of vulnerability, racist-charged violence should not be overlooked. Black mineworkers were exploited for their inexpensive labour. White workers feared ‘native rising’ – solely notions of privilege derived from racial anthropology. Jeremy Krikler writes that hours before the Primrose mine attack, white wives cried out “the blacks will kill us all!”[24] Racial fear destabilised Westerners – they became ‘savages’ themselves. Krikler asserts that these were spontaneous racial killings, which had its roots in systematic racism and white supremacy. ‘Black peril’ imagined the threat of sexual violence and ‘native rising’, predicting imminent demographic domination. White supremacist historian Lothrop Stoddard circulated ‘scientific’ racial discourse “it is…practically certain the African negroes will multiply prodigiously in the next few decades…”[25] G. Heaton Nicholls’ Bayete! catalysed fears of Africanised Bolshevism, citing explicit warnings. From a post-analytical perspective, tropes of the ‘black rapist’ point to the fragility of white masculinity.
Racialized ‘academic’ studies rationalised European vulnerability. Self-preservation circumvented the notion that ‘rising tides of colour’ should be vilified and problematized. The radical militant wing of the Kenyan nationalist movement – Mau Mau, aimed to destabilise British rule. Upon the uncovering of 1 million files in 2013 hoarded illegally by the British Foreign Office, historical discourse has shifted significantly though remaining politically divisive. Medical and psychiatric discourses crucially paved British conceptions of the Mau Mau, deeming local groups like the Kikuyu and WaKamba as ‘nomadic’ and ‘forest people’ unable to sufficiently use the land. ‘Black peril’ propaganda depicted them as highly sexualised beings to be feared. Historians John Lonsdale and Bruce Berman frame the Mau Mau uprising as a rational attempt to attain self-mastery in the moral economy. Violence triggered by white settler greed for land was of a far greater magnitude than vice versa. Historians Caroline Elkins and David Anderson’s research of hidden archives revealed mass incarceration of the Mau Mau – 80,000 were imprisoned upon ‘affiliations’. Violence was ‘necessary’ to subdue such condemnable ‘sub-humans’, and Achebe argues this was not the “psychopathology of a particular individual”[26], but “symptomatic of a whole cultural system of representation of the Other.”[27] Psychiatrist J.C. Carothers published The Psychology of Mau Mau, depicting ‘raving psychopaths’ and the underdeveloped ‘African mind’ led by those ‘running amok’ – a Malaysian word to label ‘natives’ as aggressive and prone to violent outbursts. Concentration camps and ‘Pipeline’ rehabilitation programmes were for education of agriculture, modernisation and reform, and to fight formidable anti-colonial insurgency. Outbreaks of Typhoid and dysentery served to illuminate colonial discourse and its imperial languages of disease. The riot following Harry Thuku’s arrest – a follower of Marcus Garvey-ian ideals – resulted in 15 Kikuyu’s shot dead, demonstrating fears of ‘native rising’. David Anderson writes that this police state ‘Apartheid-like-regime’ maintained overtly racist virtues. All adult males wore a kipande, an ID pass to control movement of population. Historians CA Presley and Kate Bruce-Lockhart revealed the highly gendered abuse. Mass incarceration of women forced many to be sectioned within mental hospitals against their will.
Imperial and economic desires intrinsically spiralled out of the ultimate factor of fear, therefore considerably be less will be written concerning these factors. Colonial ties held perceived significance for the economy of the metropole. Sarraut stated “Nature has distributed unequally across our planet a wealth and variety of materials…the inventive genius of the white races and…technical expertise…to exploit natural resources…concentrated…in Africa [and] tropical Asia…the entire human race must be allowed to benefit…riches are a common treasure-house of humanity” [28], exhibiting notions of entitlement to valuable resources. With anxieties of empire, fears loomed that competing empires would take desired land, culminating in their faltering in the colonial race. Imperialist policies focused on mercantilism, however due to their intrinsic fear of ‘natives’, violence was used as an instrument of oppression to obtain desired gains. The ‘helpless imperialists’ notion asserted the idea of vulnerability against ‘natives’. In identifying this system of representation, it is rooted “in the desire…of the Western psyche.”[29] Article 22. Covenant of the League of Nations of the Treaty of Versailles 1919 stated “[To those colonies] and territories which…are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves…The tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources…can best undertake this responsibility.”[30] Imperialism was a duty of Western civilisation to salvage these ‘helpless’ nations, diffused by ‘superior’ science.
Leopold II wanted to become a trading monopoly in the scramble for Africa. Gripped with a sense of entitlement to land, vital commodities of ivory and rubber were exploited by oppressive measures. Governor General P. Ryckmans stated “Rule in order to serve, this is the sole excuse for colonial conquest; it is also its complete justification. To serve Africa means to civilize her”[31], exposing racial tropes behind the violence. “As the blacks were 2000 years behind, the Belgian presence and domination would be essential for the Congo”[32], although underlying intentions of this fundamentally coercive violent regime were to accrue profits from exploitation. The violent Force Publique were deployed to instil obedience for rubber quotas. Rich gold in Johannesburg instigated the ‘need’ for British imperialists to overthrow this ‘backward’ agricultural state and expand capitalism. Violence tactics were implemented to subdue the ‘native threat’ of black organisations. In Kenya, Lord Delamere advocated for white settlement to secure the Suez Canal trade route. Violence descended upon the Mau Mau despite them having legitimate grievances upon being stripped of their territory.
For France, colonies were “essential to its economic recovery.”[33] For the Dutch it became a “source of economic profit rather than…for territorial expansion.”[34] Colonialists aimed to stimulate the development of nation’s resources with the intervention of capitalist firms. Lord Lugard writes “their raw materials and foodstuffs…must be developed alike in the interests of the natives and of the world at large…The tropics are the heritage of mankind…the races which inhabit them [do not have] a right to deny their bounties to those who need them.”[35] Former British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald supports this – “the Temperate lands have a right to ask from the Tropics some of their desirable products. The world is the inheritance of all men. Tribes and nationals have no right to peg off parts of the earth and separate them from the rest…”[36] Notions of privilege provoked violence becoming a ‘necessary’ apparatus to secure these profits. Racial discourse cited their indifference – “their resistance to work discipline and overtime, suggested they lacked proclivities and abilities that were essential to the mastery of the industrialist, capitalist order of the West.”[37]
The free trade of ivory and natural rubber made the Congo a commercial asset for Leopold II. Violence was a tactic to ensure rubber quotas were met. Rich gold mines in Johannesburg became a target of British imperialists. Kenya was exploited for key trade routes; the Mau Mau and Kikuyu demanded redistribution of land and the right to self-mastery, thus to protect colonial gains, violence was used to de-politicise these people.
In conclusion, fear, originating in racial anthropology, intercepted all colonising activity, rationalising colonial domination of those that ‘lagged’ behind Westerners. Violence acted as an instrument of European oppressive ideology to uplift ‘backward’ peoples. The practice was identical to disparaging accounts made of African society to justify slavery. Historian Michael Adas argues that civilising mission ideology “became a good deal more than a way of salving the consciences of those engaged in the imperialist enterprise.”[38] Colonial violence has broader implications across the world – although these institutions dissolved, other governments continue similar discourse. “Rationality, empiricism, progressivism, systematic inquiry, industriousness and adaptability”[39] – the same tropes that marked the indifference of Europeans still stand as “hallmarks of the capitalist industrialist order.”[40] Decolonisation challenges the “humanist assumption that culture is an autonomous sphere”[41], and African discourse proposes that criticism plays “an important role in the ongoing struggle for…political, economic…cultural liberation.”[42] Kenya, Congo and South Africa are just a few – violence is mirrored across Asia and Africa. This argument brings into question postcolonial implications, as it distorts the idea of independence. Should European language remain? As history is too often written as the history of its dominant class, should nationalistic history of society be promoted in place of European adventures? The inability for ‘native’ women to obtain serious education derived from T.B. Macaulay’s feminine caricature of Bengalis, of which key female attributes were ascribed to colonial psychiatry – does this problematic fixation still have implications on race and gender dimensions? Furthermore, the transition to decolonisation left lasting impacts on political stability, the economy and society. With the recent historiographical shift in Kenyan discourse, broader theories have been presented by the likes of David Anderson and Caroline Elkins. This notorious cover-up exemplifies how crucial it is for future events to not replicate the concealed past.
Footnotes
[1] Duara, Decolonization, 68.
[2] Ibid. 78.
[3] Ibid. 82.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 174.
[6] Duara, Decolonization, 78.
[7] Ibid. 80.
[8] Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 172.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Duara, Decolonization, 78.
[11] Grimal, Decolonization, 91.
[12] Duara, Decolonization, 78.
[13] Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 174.
[14] Duara, Decolonization, 78.
[15] Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 174.
[16] Duara, Decolonization, 78.
[17] Ibid. 173.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid. 175.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Hunt, A Nervous State, 1.
[23] Hunt, A Nervous State, 41.
[24] Krikler, “White Rising”, 157-158.
[25] Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.
[26] Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 175.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Grimal, Decolonization, 91.
[29] Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 175.
[30] Grimal, Decolonization, 91.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Springhall, Decolonization since 1945, 110.
[34] Grimal, Decolonization, 75.
[35] Ibid. 91.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Duara, Decolonization, 81.
[38] Duara, Decolonization, 78.
[39] Ibid. 81.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 172.
[42] Ibid.
Bibliography [Primary Sources found within the Secondary Readings]:
Breckenridge, Keith. "Fighting for a White South Africa: White Working-Class Racism and the 1922 Rand Revolt." South African Historical Journal 57, no. 1 (2007): 228 - 243.
Cambridge Dictionary. “Meaning of fear in English.” Accessed April 19, 2020. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fear
Craps, Stef. Postcolonial Witnessing: Trauma Out of Bounds. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
Duara, Prasenjit, ed. Rewriting Histories: Decolonization: Perspectives from Now and Then. London: Routledge, 2004.
Grimal, Henri. Decolonization: the British, French, Dutch and Belgian Empires, 1919-1963. Translated by Stephan de Vos. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.
Hunt, Nancy Rose. A Nervous State: Violence, Remedies, Reverie in Colonial Congo. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2016.
Jansen, Jan C., and Jürgen Osterhammel. Decolonization: A Short History. Translated by Jeremiah Riemer. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013.
Krikler, Jeremy. “White Rising: The 1922 insurrection and racial killing in South Africa.” African Affairs 106, no. 422 (January 2007): pp. 157-158.
Moore-Gilbert, Bart. Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics. London: Verso, 1997.
Parr, Adrian. Deleuze and Memorial Culture: Desire, Singular Memory and the Politics of Trauma. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2008.
Shipway, Martin. Decolonization and its Impact: A Comparative Approach to the End of the Colonial Empires. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.
Shohat, Ella. Taboo Memories, Diasporic Voices. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2006.
Springhall, John. Studies in Contemporary History: Decolonization since 1945. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.
Stoddard, Lothrop. The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1921.
댓글