Introduction
The period between the 1870s and the early 1900s was characterized by attempts by the Europeans to conquer and colonize Africa. Using the indirect system, the British aimed at preserving the culture of the colonies. The British had the idea that it is the indirect rule that is less expensive compared to the direct governance system. As they remained in their positions, the locals had to use their resources in the indirect system setup meaning that the colonial power would spend little in controlling the colony. On the other hand, the French direct rule; commonly referred as assimilation aimed at completely changing the colony’s way of life and adapt to the French culture (Taiwo 19). The use of language formed a vital element in the assimilation process. In response, the local people either collaborated or resisted the colonial rule. Whether the act of these communities to collaborate with the European colonizers qualifies for the activity to be termed a joint venture of African and European stakeholders is debatable.
Why Communities Collaborated with the European Colonizers
First, some communities collaborated throughout the entire colonization period. Second, certain communities collaborated with the colonizers from the onset, only to start resisting later after learning the intention of the colonizers. The major reason for collaboration was that thought that such a move would help them protect their independence. In most cases, such European colonizers employed fashionable tactics to gain the confidence of the African communities. African communities failed to understand that signing treaties was one way through which their independence was to be snatched. Instead, they thought that it was a move through which they would be protected from other imperialists. They also thought that the signing of such treaties was meant to promote trade. The fact that most African leaders by then were illiterate means that such treaties would only be interpreted to them by missionaries.
Under the indirect rule, certain African communities collaborated with the Europeans so that they could acquire military support from the colonizers and other forms of weapons. This, to them, was a good move as it would help them overcome their enemies. Buganda, for instance, lived fearing the threat of Kabarega of Bunyoro. The Maasai leader, Laibon Lenana hoped to be protected from Sendeyo (his brother). Mandinka Empire’s Samori Toure was a constant threat to a number of communities in Senegal, forcing such communities to seek protection from the French, hence collaborating (O'Mahony 78).
Military weakness among a number of African communities also played a significant role. During the time, the Europeans had superior weapons and advanced mechanisms. As such, certain African communities realized that it would be useless to resist or fight the European colonizers. Putting up a fight against the Europeans, to them, was of no importance as it would put their independence at risk. In some occasions, responding to both direct and indirect rule, some of the African communities had seen how the neighboring communities who resisted were defeated (Parsons, 292). Some of the communities who chose this avenue include the Lozi, Mutesa I of Buganda and Rumanyika of Karagwe.
A number of natural calamities forced African communities to welcome the Europeans. A good example is by taking into account that the Maasai had been thoroughly weakened by rinderpest and smallpox. On a similar note, rinderpest and jiggers had affected the Banyankore. Such calamities had thoroughly weakened the Africans who could not even trust their leaders to offer solutions. Instead of resisting, they were of the view that collaborating would enable them to get foreign support.
Some African communities opted to collaborate so as to acquire wealth. By far, there was a notion that European goods were far superior as compared to the goods in Africa. The missionaries who had arrived early had prepared the ground; they made the African communities believe that they were inferior and primitive. The urge to acquire the foreign goods was irresistible to them (Parsons 299). Communities such as the Luo in Kenya hoped to loot property if the neighboring resisters were defeated. Because of this, they supported the British in Kenya fully against the Nandi.
Analysis: whether to describe the colonial rule as a ‘joint venture’ of African and European stakeholders
As shown above, there are several reasons as to why some African communities decided to collaborate with the European colonizers. Ranging from reasons that could not be prevented, there is no doubt that the move by these communities to collaborate depended on individual cases. As much as there were African stakeholders wanting to benefit from such a move, most communities had no option. In one way or the other, all the parties involved benefited in one way or the other.
In terms of success, it is evident that the French Direct/assimilation was most successful compared to the British colonial system. This is because all those people that got the assimilation influence changed their culture completely to that of French. It means that, even after the colonization was over, the French colonies, for example, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia continued to exercise French customs and way of life. The British colonial system had less impact as there was no huge culture change. The British colonies today continue exercising their cultural practices. Therefore, in this perspective, the French Direct rule was better and successful in transforming the lives of colonial people since the British system had less impact.
Despite the collaborations, most of the African communities had no option. The Maasai in Kenya, for instance, needed support for the natural epidemics. Resisting the European move was tantamount to resisting external support. The colonizers, on their part, hugely benefited in various aspects. From this perspective, it is clear that both the colonizers and the African societies benefited. As such, it would be prudent to argue that the colonial rule was a ‘joint venture’ between African and European stakeholders.
Works Cited
O'Mahony, N. "Book Review: Jennifer M. Jeffers: Britain Colonized: Hollywood's Appropriation of British Literature." Journal of European Studies 43.1 (2013): 78-79. Print.
Parsons, Timothy H. "British Kenya." Those Who Built Them, Those Who Endured Them, and Why They Always Fall (2012): 289-350. Print.
Taiwo, Olufemi. How Colonialism Preempted Modernity in Africa. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2010. Print.
