Detribalized African

.docx

School

Columbia University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

History

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ConstableBat3684

1 Why did the colonial authorities perceive the ‘detribalized African’ as a threat to the social order? To this day, the conventional image of pre-colonial (and sometimes contemporary) African political and social structures is a tribe with a male elder serving as the society’s chief. 1 Whether this is rooted in fact or a remnant of Orientalist associations of the African continent with primitivity and backwardness, the connection of African societies to tribalism has withstood the passage of time—despite this very connection being a European invention. 2 From their earliest encounters with the African continent, Europeans were reliant on the collaboration of African leaders (like chiefs) and created a framework for understanding and administering African societies through these chiefs. As such, to Europeans, a detribalized African undermines and uproots the entire basis of European colonial administrators’ authority since allegiance to the tribe and chief was the vital precursor to allegiance to colonial authority. More terrifyingly, the detribalized African served as a remnant of African society prior to European colonialism. It is important to first specify what the (ideal) African social order under European colonial rule was. As the partition began, British colonial administrators in Buganda hoped to “strengthen the authority of the king while ‘acquiring…a controlling influence’ over him.” 3 It would have been nearly impossible—or incredibly costly in both force and finances—for Britain to blankly and directly assume authority over all of the Ganda, so they wished to take advantage of pre-existing political structures and simply assert themselves at the top. Thus, the social order that benefitted them most would be European colonial powers as the supreme authority, then tribal leaders and chiefs who govern the African masses in Europe’s interest, and lastly, the African general populace whose blind devotion to their chiefs would be transferred upstream to the European powers. Any threat to the social order would therefore be a direct threat to the establishment and persistence of European control over the continent.

2 This order, however, incorrectly assumes fixed tribal allegiances and the enlarged scope of African tribal leaders’ authority. “Administrators believed that every African belonged to a tribe, just as every European belonged to a nation.” 4 Unlike national identities, tribal identities were fluid with “most Africans mov[ing] in and out of multiple identities, defining themselves at one moment as subject to this chief, at another moment as a member of that cult.” 5 Because colonial administrators connected African tribes with their conception of nations and viewed tribe allegiances as fixed, they also viewed tribal leaders’ authorities as more absolute than they were, bringing their ideas of “imperial monarchy” to Africa. 6 Conversely, it was under this new colonial social structure that offered African chiefs “for practical purposes more power than they had in pre-colonial days.” 7 These flawed assumptions meant that in order for European colonial powers to maintain the social order their rule rested on, they would have to first create and then defend it through, most notably, the invention of tradition (like tribes). Despite the stark contrast in the way British and French colonial leaders treated African chiefs, both relied on (and perhaps took for granted) the chief’s authority and the subjects’ compliance as the basis for their own authority. For the British, “the goal of ruling through traditional political units on whom local self-government could be devolved was maintained” while the French “placed the chief in an entirely subordinate role to the political officer.” 8 Prioritizing efficiency in ruling over legitimacy, the French chose chiefs who appeared the most loyal to them—resulting (ironically) in these chiefs being less effective over their citizens than British ones. 9 By becoming “mere agents of the [French] administration,” African chiefs in French territories saw their power diminish and “were resented in most parts of French West Africa” which greatly undermined French authority. 10 By breaking the pre-existing political units and appointing chiefs to new ones, the French further “detribalized” the African masses by

3 disturbing the legitimacy of African chiefs, thus damaging their own legitimacy. The British, by using an “advisory relationship between the political officer and the native authority…that corresponded to a pre-colonial political unit,” were able to maintain more order and control than the French (even if implicitly the advisory relationship was unequal). 11 The French colonies reveal the fragility of this new social order and how its success would have to rely more on new institutions and structures (or at least exaggerated versions of pre-existing structures) than the former ones. As seen through the French colonies, the detribalized African was a threat to European control because the tribe was a European invention stemming from European control that required constant reinforcing. Europeans had created the fixed tribe and tribal allegiances (albeit loosely inspired by their conceptions of pre-colonial political and social orders) and depended on this as the foundation of their control; as such, the tribe needed to be reinforced repeatedly in order to become legitimate—meaning just a few detribalized Africans could undermine the whole fledging system. As Ranger points out, “tribes are not so much survivals from a pre- colonial past but rather largely colonial creations by colonial officers and African intellectuals.” 12 In their colonial endeavor, European administrators had to convert the detribalized African society into a tribalized one to more effectively enforce their authority. On a rudimentary level, companies, people, anything is easiest to manage when it is more structured and organized. Detribalized Africans were threats to the colonial social order because they reflected African society prior to European colonialism, when tribes and allegiances were fluid (and thus more difficult to manage). 13 As with the Afro-European partition, slave trade, and cash crop exporting economies, Europeans did not act unilaterally and had African collaborators who made the invention of the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version