African Revolt | History of Resistance to Imperialism

African revolts against oppression,  slavery, or otherwise can be characterized into two types,  passive as in the case of Martin Luther King and Amodue or active as in the case of Nat Turner or the Muslim Revolt in Bahia Brazil

https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/66280701

A few groups in fact demonstrated a remarkably consistent opposition to the trade throughout its history, perhaps an indication that their resistance was motivated largely by moral principles and convictions. Prominent among them was the Baga of the lower Rio Nunez-Rio Pongas region in the modern Republic of Guinea. In striking contrast to their Nalu, Landuma, and Susu neighbors, whose economy was dominated by slave trading, these Baga concentrated on agriculture and the manufacture of salt. They not only refused to sell slaves but also did everything possible to secure the liberation of any of their number who were enslaved. Their unusual attitude to the slave trade struck Zachary Macaulay, the governor of the anti-slaving British settlement of Sierra Leone, who observed in August 1797: It is worth noting that the Bagos who inhabit the country along the Sea Coast between the Rio Pongas and Rio Nunez, do not sell slaves. They employ themselves in making salt with wh.[ich] they buy Ivory from the Foulahs and goods from the traders in the Rio Nunez. Whenever one of their numbers is sold they take the utmost pains to recover him, but with their salt or produce, not with slaves. This aversion to the slave trade exists however only among the Bagos who inhabit the above district.

……resolute opposition by African rulers to the Atlantic slave trade was relatively rare and was in striking contrast to the frequent resistance displayed by the captives themselves. The resistance of the captives was evident in all three principal phases of the organization of the trade in Africa, namely, at the time of enslavement, on the journey from the place of enslavement to the coastal marts, and on the seaboard before the departure of the slave ships for the Americas. Documentary evidence about the captives’ response to enslavement is far more substantial for the final phase when literate whites were usually present than for the first two stages, for which there is a paucity of eyewitness accounts. In the absence of whites, who seldom penetrated beyond the coast during the period of the Atlantic slave trade, the only witnesses during the first two phases were almost invariably illiterate Africans whose oral accounts of their experiences for the most part have not survived

Naturally, the people of West Africa did defend themselves from the attention of slave raiders. Slaves in the Danish West Indies reported that back home: “Each house is enclosed with its yard by a circular wall and closed off with a door. The raids of the Amina, which are always for kidnapping, make these preparations necessary for safety. Otherwise they would never be safe at night from being stolen and sold” [4]

The African states further inland either kept fewer records, fewer records have survived or fewer people have spent enough time looking for them. This is in contrast to, say British history, where much documentation is retained in the National Archives in Kew, enabling the historian to read what was written at the time. So in my answers on the “Opium War” on this site I back my answers up with copies of letters written in the 1840s.

The resistance manifested by African states and peoples was not always directed to the slave trade itself, but sometimes to the methods employed by some white traders to obtain captives. Africans usually resisted and retaliated when foreign traders resorted to kidnapping and raiding to secure slaves instead of the established practice of purchasing them from African vendors or from resident white or mulatto traders, thus robbing Africans of the opportunity to profit financially from the slave traffic. Kidnapping and raiding by white traders, especially of the inhabitants of coastal and riverain villages, occurred as long as the slave trade lasted, but on the whole were comparatively infrequent, except perhaps in the initial phase of the trade in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They tended to be employed in special circumstances, particularly situations where Africans were unable or unwilling to supply slaves at all or in sufficient numbers, perhaps because they were living in harmony or had not yet become accustomed to slave trading, or where the white traders were newcomers who lacked business contacts and knowledge and experience of the danger of men-stealing. Seasoned white traders seldom resorted to kidnapping and raids, not because of any moral scruples, but owing to their realization that such practices were dangerous, ultimately counter-productive, and haphazard, unreliable means of securing a large cargo of slaves. The violent seizure of Africans entailed the risk of casualties to the ship and crew, damaged future trade prospects, and evoked African animosity and vengeance. Africans retaliated by attacking vessels that were guilty or suspected of men stealing, sometimes massacring the crew and confiscating the cargo. They often punished the innocent, especially slavers of the same nationality as an offender, for the misdemeanors of the guilty. In several instances, they maintained a marked hostility to all white traders for years.19 Thus in the 1770s the Orungua ruler killed an innocent English crew in retaliation for the kidnapping of Africans perpetrated by another English vessel at Gabon and Cape Lopez.

Examples of such persistent opposition to the trade were, however, rare in West Africa. More common were cases of temporary or partial opposition to the trade dictated usually by practical rather than moral considerations, as exemplified in the history of Dahomey. In the first phase of its existence in the second and third quarters of the seventeenth century, Dahomey opposed the slave trade, even preventing Africans from the coastal state of Allada from proceeding inland to procure captives. But eventually, in the last decades of the century, its policy began to change. First it passed through a phase in which the ruling family became divided over the question of the state’s involvement in the trade. One section of the family was opposed to it for fear that it would result in the unwelcome establishment of European political authority and military power, as had occurred earlier on the Gold Coast, while the other one was in favour of welcoming the European slave traders, but exercising strict control over them. By the early years of the eighteenth century this indecision or duality had disappeared and Dahomey had become actively involved in the slave traffic. At times, however, it tried to circumscribe its participation so as to minimise the detrimental effects which the trade was having or could have on the kingdom. Thus Agaja, who governed the state from 1708 to 1740 and is generally regarded as one of its greatest and most far-sighted rulers, while permitting the sale of women for whom there was only a limited demand, forbade the sale of adult males to the European traders. This policy, which was reversed by his successor, Tegbesu, was designed to check the drain of the most able-bodied, energetic and skilled segment of the country’s population

The main documented efforts to stop slave trading in Africa are those of the Europeans

Footnotes

1. MacGowan (2008) African resistance to the Atlantic slave trade in West Africa Slavery & Abolition: A Journal of Slave and Post-Slave Studies
2. Black J The Atlantic Slave Trade in World History Routledge
3. MacGowan
4. S. Brown (1983), From the Tongue of Africa; A Partial Translation of Oldendorp’s Interviews, Plantation Society In the Americas, vol. 2, no.l 47

WHY AFRICA

When Europeans face made contact with Africans in the 16th century Africa was impossible to conquer. However, after centuries of slavery and corruption the economies of Africa (mainly West Africa) became so weak that colonialism became a prospect.

Several factors made Africa vulnerable to European colonization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and there were limited African powers able to successfully resist this colonization. The reasons for this vulnerability and lack of resistance were complex and multifaceted.

Factors Contributing to Africa’s Vulnerability

Economic and Technological Disparities

The Industrial Revolution had given European nations significant technological and economic advantages over African societies. This allowed Europeans to exploit Africa’s abundant natural resources and cheap labor for their own economic gain13.

Political Fragmentation

Africa was not a unified entity but rather a continent of diverse kingdoms, tribes, and ethnic groups. This lack of unity made it difficult for Africans to present a united front against European aggression89.

Environmental Challenges

Natural disasters, such as droughts and plagues, weakened many African societies in the late 19th century. These events caused food shortages, and deaths of people and livestock, and left communities physically and mentally weakened, making them less able to resist European incursions3.

European Strategies

European powers often exploited existing rivalries between African leaders, persuading some to side with them against others. This divide-and-conquer strategy further fragmented African resistance3.

Limited African Resistance

While there were instances of African resistance to European colonization, they were largely unsuccessful for several reasons:

Technological Disadvantage

European nations possessed superior military technology, including advanced firearms, which gave them a significant advantage in conflicts2.

Lack of Unity

The absence of a unified African response allowed Europeans to conquer territories piecemeal. Different African societies often fought European powers individually rather than collectively8.

Indirect Rule

In many cases, Europeans used a system of indirect rule, co-opting local chiefs and leaders to enforce their colonial policies. This strategy undermined potential resistance from within African societies6.

Exceptions to the Rule

It’s important to note that there were some instances of successful resistance:

Ethiopia

Ethiopia was the only African nation to successfully repel European colonization through military force. Under Emperor Menelik II, Ethiopia defeated Italian forces and maintained its independence5.

Mandinka Resistance

The Mandinka people, led by Samori Toure, resisted French colonial forces for a time, though they were eventually defeated2.

Despite these examples, the overall pattern was one of European dominance and African subjugation. The combination of technological, economic, and political factors, along with European strategies of exploitation and division, made much of Africa vulnerable to colonization and limited the ability of African powers to mount effective resistance.

Structured resistance vs the mob

[text_block_nav title=”Structure V. the mob]When people resist in a structured way they first understand what they are resisting against. They are not vague. Gandhi’s problems with the British were studied and he reacted in a strategic way to bring victory. So with the salt, or with the exporting of Indian cotton and buying back British clothes made with Indian cotton, he had a structured response. Our brother Gaddafi studied the neo-colonialist and offered the gold standard, he also realized the importance of control over our own continental communication. Nkrumah and his great plan for industrialization of the continent– a very structured form of resistance. Sometimes violence is used, but it is used strategically Intifada (Palestine), Cuban revolution, Haitian revolution. But sometimes it can be very peaceful, Iranian revolution.