Analysis
The European imperialism and colonization are the most horrific chapter of modern history. The European exploration in Africa , Asia and North America is the modern example of Greek and Roman invasions and implementation of their ideas on another culture. This time around it was more about controlling and capturing the wealth of different lands and using violence to deter revolt.
The Invasion of Caribbean, Africa and India
are violent episodes of the modern history (Timo,
2000). In these areas it can be observed that
the people were not merely brought under colonial
control simply for the sake of spreading a particular
doctrine, culture or a way of life. The colonists
were hardly interested in making indigenous people
like them. Instead, it was all more about plunder.
Indeed, this is what occurred in West Africa ,
and is still believed to be occurring today, several
years after the end of colonial rule.
Turning back to Europe in the 16th, 17th and 18th century, many witnessed civil wars and fights among different nations. It was common to use violence against the enemies; the Civil War in England and the French Revolution also saw the new forms of violence.
These events gave violence a meaning; the use of violence not only became necessary to gain political control but it also became an instrument to combat the masses. In view of this, similar strategy was implemented in West Africa in order to bring people under French control. Where people or rulers in West Africa were not prepared to agree to treaties and similar agreements, the use of military force was sought (Timo, 2000).
Ahead of the colonial domination and false protection promises the 18th century saw the rise of nationalism, which reinstated the racist and xenophobic violence. Europe was the center of this nationalism and Germany, Austria, France and England engaged in brutal fights. On the other hand imperialism flourished, Spain and Portugal led the way, first in the America's and later found Africa (Timo, 2000).
In view of the nationalism that rose during the
18 th century, France saw a greater need to increase
their exploitation of West Africa. This is reinforced
by the rise of Germany, which meant that France
had become even more careful of its position in
Europe. This explains the increased hostilities
towards the West Africans (Ajayi et al, 1987,
15-23).
The lasting effects that one sees today are because of the fact that Francophone countries have not been able to bring themselves up to par owing to their dependence on their colonists. Another reason for them following the French policy is because of the system that has been instilled there. Replacing it may ask for severe changes in the country that the people would have difficulty sustaining. However, sustaining these changes in those times would be almost equal to an all out revolution against the colonists.
Certainly, this was not an achievable task because of the fact that the French had gotten themselves very well placed in West Africa. They had even managed to institutionalize everything according to their own liking (Ajayi et al, 1987, 15-23).
Having the people believe that they would be protected under their forces, the West Africans gradually surrendered a great deal of their property and power. Once these were achieved by the French, things were generally never the same. The French knew that they were under immense pressure to maintain their position as colonists in their region.
In Europe the rise of Germany meant that they (the French) were at risk. In order to secure themselves and make sure that they had enough resources on their side, they exploited the West Africans. Indeed, the common man in West African had much to sacrifice at the say so of the French. There was little choice for these indigenous people, as they were under military rule and had to do as they were told (Ajayi et al, 1987, 15-23).
In accordance with French Colonial Policy, this
may have been a violation of rights of people
under colonial rule. This is because of the fact
that French policy held that all indigenous people
under colonial rule were supposed to be considered
citizens of France. It was under this rule that
France was supposed to respect the rights of these
people.
France actually wanted to create an empire and hold people in different regions of the world under their control. By doing this they would be able to compete with the British. However, in doing so, they were to consider people in different regions as citizens of their republic, which meant that they could not be exploited. However, this was not to be because of the fact that exploitation became a common act to support mainland France.
Needless to say, but the colonial policy became more and more vigorous as France was threatened by competing powers. This increase in policy was of course in contrast to the Convention of 1794, which states that all people living in colonies were to enjoy all republican rights. However, Napoleon repealed this policy. Later, citizenship rights were granted to Senegal ( Saint Louis, Dakar, Rufisque, and Gor). The remaining colonies were not included, such as Mauritania (Ajayi et al, 1987, 15-23).
In contrast to the so believed egalitarianism
of the French, their policy did not stand any
more for citizens of France in colonies. People
living in colonies were no more considered citizens,
but were considered subjects. Certainly, there
was a vast difference in the meaning at hand,
and hence, there were very few Africans who were
assimilated according to the original French policy;
the rest remained exploited with nothing to look
forward to.
According to researchers of the issue of French exploitation of West African people, “France is only out to reap huge gains out of Africa, and not to do or initiate anything that can help the continent.”… “France is ready to impose her will on Africans; dictating which leader should stay in power and which should be thrown out even against the people’s will” (Wongibe, 2001, 20-21). These words certainly reveal the extent to which people are aware of France’s role, even today. “People have come to realize that France has not paid back even half as much as it should for what she has received from Africa … Paying back for Cameroonian wood, decades and centuries of benefiting from Africa’s resources is only a matter of justice” (Wongibe, 2001, 20-21).
Though France has not paid back and will not pay back for any of its doings in West Africa, it continues to work with West Africa, considerably. This is only through the mutual interests that they have. An example of this is the understanding and agreement they have on moving forward with diversified external relations. This is believed to nullify the immense influence that France has over Francophone countries.
|