 |
| Lagos, Nigeria. Image Credit: Wikipedia |
When asked to think about the African continent, most modern
Americans will picture a desolate, war-torn wasteland with people in tribes,
living in huts, devoid of any technology. This view is not only drastically
problematic, but unfairly portrays a large group of modern Africans. So why do
we hold these views? Africa has the fastest rate of urbanization of and
continent on the planet, with multiple megacities. By 2030, it is estimated
that Africa’s thirteen largest cities will have a trade spending power over $2.5
trillion[1]. Why is this idea perpetuated in the media, when we
see images of starving African children, or tribalistic people with little
clothes, living as hunter/gatherers in huts?
This view has been maintained as yet another form of
oppression and control. This stems back to colonialism. For much of the 20th
century, the colonial powers used this image of a ‘backwards’ or underdeveloped
African continent to maintain their control[2]. They told their citizens
of how they were helping the colonies through economic development. In truth,
this mostly involved exploiting the continent for its natural resources and
taking them without thought for the native people. These western countries and
their businesses racked up enormous profits through a combination of forced
labor, unfair trade with natives, and human rights abuses. The image of these
war-torn, “primitive” people allowed westerners to justify their domination, as
simply a necessary practice to bring them up to modernity.
However, as time went on, public support for colonialism
diminished. Following the end of WWII, most of the colonies were dissolved, and
from them countries were established. Once the colonizers were gone, it seemed
the new African countries would finally be able to make profits on their
resources and keep them for themselves. Instead, the exploitations continued,
simply changing forms to adapt with the times. Economic growth came to a halt
due to a variety of influences, such as foreign political intervention out of
fears of communist takeover. The countries invested in production, but the
annual GDP on the continent began declining after this. “By the end of the
1980’s, many African countries had a lower GDP per capita than at independence”[3].
Because of the economic instability, some Africa nations
were forced to continue their one-sided trade, often with their former
colonizers due to lack of other options. The sudden release from the grasp of
colonizers left the young governments to try to navigate the international
trade market. When they ultimately failed, European nations came back offering
to continue trade, essentially creating a monopoly. Now the former colonizers
could continue their exploitative behavior without fear from concerned western
outcry.
The idea of and African “primitiveness” allowed the
colonizers to enact their rule and maintain public support through the idea
that they were helping. This mindset continued past decolonization and is still
around today. Even though most of us are not aware that these preconceptions
maintain their negative connotations, we still help to perpetuate these ideas.
We can look back and condemn the practices of western governments, and still be
blind to how we continue to engage in these negative stigmas.
By engaging in these practices, we continue to hold the
continent back. Take Somaliland for example, the semi-autonomous region of
Somalia, formerly the British colony, British Somaliland. In 2017, they had
their third peaceful transfer of power. The Somaliland election cited
democratic rules and was supported by the European Union and the United
Kingdom. This heavily contrasts the state of the rest of Somalia, who held
their own elections earlier this year. These elections were not successful,
held back by unrest within the citizens. Somalia is currently torn apart, and
the unstable government is not in a position to offer much in the way of change[4]. How could this region be
so different from the rest of the country? Are they seeking independence from
Somalia, seeing as they seem to be much more successful in their governmental
well-being?
Somaliland formally declared independence from Somalia in
1991, following civil war after the fall of dictator Siad Barre’s regime. It
hosts its own elections, supports its own army, has its own flag, and even uses
an independent currency. Yet it cannot gain foreign recognition from anywhere.
I was surprised to discover this was not due to diplomatic relations, but
instead a “strategic decision to hinder other [territories] from declaring
independence, due to fears of a domino effect in the region”[5]. Even with our progressive
views, striving for African autonomy in the international market, we still
remain unchanged in this regard. In the past, foreign nations refused to
recognize the independence due to not wanting others to follow. This philosophy
was used as a form of control, in order to keep other potential independent
regions from causing more structural change in the region. This ideology does
not think about the well-being of any of these regions and their people,
simply, it attempts to keep the African countries ‘in line’ to be able to
continue their relations with the powerful nations, whether economic or for
other reasons.
Even after colonialism ended in the 1990’s, the influence
and sense of ‘responsibility’ still remains within the western world. We do not
recognize how these viewpoints have been influenced from the previous colonial
institutions. Out continued outlooks portrayed through each other and the media
leave a damaging effect on the African continent, as well as the rest of the
developing world. It is difficult to think about our perceptions, but we must
commit to challenging these preconceived ideas in order to help end the lasting
effects of colonialism.
[1]
Signé, Landry. Africa’s Consumer Market
Potential: Trends, Drivers, Opportunities, and Strategies. Washington DC:
Brookings, 2018. Accessed March 16, 2019.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Africas-consumer-market-potential.pdf
[2]
Frederick Cooper. Africa Since 1940: The
Past of the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 67.
[3]
Thandika Mkandawire and Charles Soludo, Our
Continent, Our Future: African Perspectives on Structural Adjustment (Trenton,
New Jersey: Africa World Press, 1999), 6.
[4]
“Somaliland: Still Seeking Recognition After 25 Years of Independence,”
Unrepresented Nations & Peoples Organization, last modified August 23,
2016, http://unpo.org/article/19401.
[5]
Ibid.
This post is a great demonstration of colonization is upheld by through ethnocentrism and prejudice. Colonizers have justified their actions through portraying nations as underdeveloped and incapable of functioning on their own in order to seize control and extract their resources. Though this portrayal is often false, the negative stigma is often perpetuated and maintained. Therefore, it appears to be justified because the colonizers are "helping" these poor nations who they have deemed inferior, using their own culture as a standard. I like how this post mentions that colonialism is an example of Conflict Theory but also mentions the effects is has on individuals mindsets because we have notions of colonization ingrained in our minds. Having lived in India for 5 years, I've noticed the lasting effects of colonialism on individual mindsets such as the presence of colorism derived from the introduction of Eurocentric beauty standards. It would be interesting to examine how the ideologies of colonialism are perpetuated in symbolic interactionism and how colonizers and colonized individuals interact with each other.
ReplyDelete