Max Tallberg
To understand the present, we must look to the past, and to understand the future, we must look at both the past and the present. This is a thought traditionally associated with the school of historical materialism. In my view, this applies particularly strongly when trying to comprehend today’s Global South. By doing so, we also understand that the current poverty in Africa is explained by a chain of past events. Upon closer examination, one cannot avoid concluding that this development involved great injustice and exploitation, which still affects the modern world.
To begin with, it is appropriate to define more precisely the terms colonialism and imperialism, as they are the key concepts related to this theme. Imperialism refers to a situation where a specific actor, nowadays especially a nation-state, controls, exploits, and retains power over another area by force. This has happened throughout human history. Colonialism describes the same setup but differs from imperialism in that, in colonialism, the ruling state has settlements and bases within the area it controls.
The era of modern colonialism
The era of modern colonialism began around 1500 when Europeans first discovered a sea route in 1488, which allowed sailing around the southern tip of Africa. Subsequently, in 1492, America was discovered. These events shifted the focus of global navigation from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, and new powers, including Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, France, and England, strengthened their positions. These countries then spread European institutions and culture worldwide through exploration, conquests, and settlements.
This marked the beginning of one of the darkest phases in the history of Europe, Africa, and America, the effects of which are still visible today. When Europeans first arrived in greater numbers in America, they realized its immense potential for natural resources, particularly gold and silver. However, exploiting these resources required labor. Europeans first killed a vast number of people in America – the new world – took their lands, and then European-spread diseases like smallpox, to which Americans had no immunity, claimed even more lives. Because of diseases spread by European conquerors, the native population on islands such as Cuba was almost completely wiped out. At the same time, Europe’s population was small and could not provide the labor needed to exploit America’s wealth. The indigenous population of America also could not withstand the harsh conditions of slave plantations and mines. For these reasons, Europeans turned to the nearest continent with a labor force, Africa, which was accustomed to local agriculture and disciplined work in many areas of the period’s labor.
This was the background of the European slave trade. The European capitalist class used its power in international trade at the time to ensure that Africa specialized in exporting captured slaves. European power, however, was not military because they did not manage to conquer Africa during the first centuries of the slave trade, except for small, isolated areas. Europe’s power lay in its production system, as their societies were leaving the feudal system and moving towards capitalism, whereas Africa was moving towards a situation resembling feudalism. Because this shift to capitalism occurred first in Europe, they gained a competitive advantage over the rest of humanity and were able to exploit their position. European technological development did not extend to all areas of production, but their lead in certain key areas was crucial, such as in the construction of large ships. The spread of literacy was also an advantage.
Some African rulers were willing to exchange captives for European goods. Local wars were also fought with the aim of capturing prisoners who could be sold to Europeans. Rulers might also have been tempted to capture their own subjects and sell them. Political divisions in Africa at the time also made it easier for Europeans to control locals, especially in terms of the slave trade. Europeans benefited regardless of which side won conflicts within Africa, so there was always an incentive to foment these conflicts. However, the exploitation of Africa by Europeans in the slave trade was a slow process and sometimes met resistance, including from local rulers.
Africa was thus enslaved for economic reasons, as it would have been impossible to exploit the riches of America, the new world, without it. During the first centuries of the trade, Africa experienced a loss in development and related opportunities, which also had a significant impact later. The exploitation practiced by Europeans was later rationalized by racism, telling the story of the racial inferiority of Africans. Exploitation logically often leads to oppression, which in turn justifies exploitation. Racism thus reinforced the earlier economic oppression.
When examining the reasons for Africa’s current underdevelopment, the question can be approached through two answers. The first answer states that historical imperialism is the greatest reason for Africa’s economic underdevelopment. This occurred when colonial powers exploited Africa’s wealth and simultaneously made it impossible for the continent’s countries to develop faster by utilizing their resources. The second answer highlights those actors who actively manipulated the system or collaborated with other similar actors. Western European capitalists are often the obvious group linked to this, as they actively extended their exploitation from Europe to all of Africa.
If we consider that both answers are based on historical truth, we can also understand that they have strengthened each other. Thus, it is clear that the current underdevelopment of African countries can be explained through historical phenomena and chains of events. It has been shown that Africa’s current underdevelopment is a consequence of exploitation by Europe and a few other parts of the world, and the reason cannot be found, for example, by examining internal development within continents.
It has also been suggested that the development of world regions has been and still is connected to social relations related to production, especially how people create wealth. When only a small part of the world’s population owned land and most only rented it, only a few owners focused on improving the quality of arable land. Earlier, when individuals in Africa belonged to local communities, everyone was given enough land to meet their needs alone, simply because each individual belonged to a family or community that supported them. This reason and the relative abundance of land led to the fact that individuals had little social pressure and incentives to carry out technical changes that would have increased agricultural productivity. The situation in Africa was thus similar to that elsewhere in the world when only a few owned land.
International trade as the extension of European interests
How then was it possible for European countries to exploit Africa so ruthlessly? The answer can be found by looking at the historical conditions of world trade. What was called international trade was in reality the extension of European interests to the world’s oceans. The strategy related to international trade and the production supporting it was in European hands, especially those of the great maritime powers. They owned and controlled most of the world’s ships, as well as the financial flows of trade between four continents. Europeans had a monopoly on the knowledge that guided trade comprehensively, as Western Europe was the only actor capable of observing and thus managing the system as a whole. Africa did not participate in this.
History can identify a group of the aforementioned European countries that made decisions about Africa’s economic position. At the same time, Africa functioned as an extension of the European capitalist market. Africans depended on Europe for foreign trade, for what Europeans were willing to sell and buy. Europeans brought products to Africa that were already produced and used in Europe, such as Dutch linen, Spanish steel, and Portuguese wine. Products that could not be sold in Europe, such as outdated weapons, were also brought to Africa. Africans later understood the possibility of demanding better products, but even then, no significant change occurred, as European production and consumption habits almost exclusively determined which products left European ports.
From the beginning, Europeans took control of a power position that allowed them to make decisions about the functioning and logic of international trade. For example, the international maritime law was ultimately just European-made law. Africans did not participate in drafting it but were its victims. Europeans also decided what products Africa should export to the rest of the world, and this too was determined by European needs.
If lagging behind in technological development, it is often borrowed from others. Most of humanity’s great scientific discoveries have not been independently invented in different places by different people, but the inventions have spread to other parts of the world. However, the nature of European trade with Africa prevented this, and the continent’s own production could not be sufficiently developed. Japan was the only society that borrowed and adopted the capitalist system from Europe.
Europeans, however, had other means of controlling African societies and their populations. Religion has historically been used in Africa to mobilize and control masses and has extended to the creation of nation-states. In a few cases, religion has also helped actors to increase understanding related to the struggle for social justice.
European guilt related to the slave trade has sometimes been alleviated by claiming that most of the responsibility lies with Africans themselves, as they also collaborated with Europeans. However, in my view, this cannot in any way be seen as justifying oppression. The cooperation was mainly done by those in power; it is impossible to see that ordinary people would have contributed to a development where there was a great risk of them being captured and sold as slaves.
My view is also that when examining guilt as a collective feeling, it is often easy to push it aside. The same justification and creation of an atmosphere of legitimacy happened with European racism towards Africa. It can also be difficult for masses to act driven by guilt, and a society feeling guilty can also be difficult to mobilize behind new projects and development. For this reason, collective guilt is probably often something societies want to avoid, and this is also reflected in Europe’s relationship with Africa. Although an individual living in today’s Western countries is not responsible for past events, he or she or they, in my view, has a responsibility to build a truly just world. This applies especially because the modern world still operates according to structures that are unjust and maintain old, unfair setups. Today’s people should work to ensure that our generation is the one that corrects the mistakes of past generations.
Sources:
Rodney, W. (2011). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Baltimore: Black Classic Press.
