THE NOBLE GENESIS OF BRITISH PRESENCE IN WEST AFRICA

This article was born from my experience when I helped an SS2 student rehearse for their third term exams. I realised that in their Government textbook the account of colonialism was given almost side by side slavery without proper distinction, so much that the reader may as well conclude that they are one and the same. Had I read this as just a Facebook post I’d have ignored it, but seeing that it is something that’s taught in our schools, I saw it as a grievous error that needs to be addressed. If we are drumming this disinformation into the heads of students, it won’t be long before we start reaping the poisonous fruit of their error.

Shortly after I had seen what was written in the government book of our schools I also had the privilege of sitting down to talk with a teacher of the subject of government as if by providence. I never knew she was a government teacher and had gone to her to discuss about a book she wanted to publish, but along the line I mentioned how the British were such a noble people. She became furious and started a tirade of how they were this and that. It only confirmed to me that what we are feeding our young with is nothing but the poison of disinformation. I’ll bring up the things she said later in this article as it reflects the misconceptions behind the disinformation spread amongst us.

Now, kindly note that in the title I said, “the noble GENESIS,” meaning my focus was on what brought the British to West Africa in the first place. There are minor things here and there along the line as they stayed here that are questionable, which is but normal to expect to happen in an expedition like that which they had in Nigeria. As I said, they are minor. Much of the things people try to paint black about their presence here are in fact very noble. However, the point of this article is mainly to bring to light what brought them here in the first place and how noble and thank worthy it is. I shall speak of other things only as it has a bearing on the opinions we hold of the motive of what brought them here first.

Why I write this article is because I myself have been exposed to what a noble people the British are and their exemplary leadership world over. I am well conscious of the fact that Africa has benefited a great deal from the Brits, as Lord Fredrick Lugard wrote in his book, “The Dual Mandate,”

Had it not been for this need to go inland to put an end to slave trade in the region I strongly doubt they’d ever wish to establish a presence in West Africa. Seeing merely intercepting ships transporting sold slaves was not enough, the mission to go inland to stop the slave trade entirely was quite an Herculean one. From the accounts I’ve read, it appears that their mission was to work together with natives, their leaders, chiefs, and kings to put an end to slavery within their domain.

What baffled me about this expedition is that it did not stop half way. One would have expected that when it went tough with virtually no profit for the British Crown they’d quit somewhere along the line. But that didn’t happen. They fought it to the most bitter, rigorous, yet successful end. The tremendous tenacity they kept this up baffles me greatly. Thank you Britain.

So this is the noble cause that brought them here, which is to set men free despite the humongous cost of doing so, and despite the fact that the people they were trying to set free are not in any way of close kin or of same race. Even though under the scrutiny of poor judgment it may seem intrusive (like, it’s not your business), their knowledge of the moral obligation upon them by virtue of their tremendous and far reaching power prevailed over sentiments. Such moral judgments that can’t be tampered by sentiments is unparalleled. This was just done in good conscience and a moral sense of duty, the sense that comes from the realisation that with great power comes great responsibility. Something most world leaders of today don’t seem to realise. Power comes from God and using that power to free African slaves and put a permanent stop to it is a great way to give praise to God for that power that he had bountifully granted to them.

Africans who today are playing innocent resisted them as much as they could, but I love the spirited fight the British put up against even chiefs and kings to force them to stop slave trade. On December 26 and 27, 1851, for example, Lagos was bombarded by the British navy. What occasioned this bombardment was because Kosoko, the ruler of Lagos, refused to sign anti-slavery treaty which the British had drafted and required that he signed. This refusal resulted in a clash with the British and with this bombardment Kosoko was forcefully deposed and his rival Akitoye was installed in his place. Akitoye then quickly signed the anti-slavery treaty with the British upon acceding to the throne. Blessed is he that taketh power from him that is bent on its abuse and misuse.

This is just one example of how the British had to rely on the use of force to put an end to slavery in inland West Africa. Seeing that they faced as much opposition as can be mustered by the natives, it was but right and just to seek a formal subjugation and control of the area which resulted in colonisation. Without colonisation, the task of putting a permanent end to slavery would continue to be a hard one.

Petty sentiments should not shroud the reasoning by which we consider these things. If we love what is good and right and hate what is evil we must commend the British for their work here in setting slaves free and putting an end to slavery.

These things are well documented for interested persons to peruse. The British had no national gain in this arduous pursuit to put an end to slavery and we are not of close kin to them. A pursuit that ultimately succeeded in that in the entire world slavery was abolished till this day.

Now, about British commerce, their projects, and their mode of executing them. It would be good to touch on this because though the focus of this article is on the noble genesis of their presence here, what happened after would have a strong bearing on the opinions of people about that noble genesis. And since the purpose of this article is to correct wrong notions it would be useful to touch on it. From the little I’ve read about their business dealings, they didn’t take anything by illegitimate force, use undue forced labour, or steal. All they engaged in was commerce.

In my little study on the matter I have come by things that are described as forced labour but do portray a wrong picture of what it is in reality. First, what is forced labour? Forced labour is a labour which a person is made to embark on without their consent, especially without pay. This is done with threats of punishment as a motivating factor rather than on a promise of remuneration.

One instance where the British endorsed the use of forced labour can be found in the 1916 Forced Labour Ordinance for communal projects. The ordinance states that “the governor may, by order, require any male native… to work for a period not exceeding 60 days in any one year… at the rate of wages not less than than the current rate for similar work.” However, kindly note that though the ordinance was labelled “Forced Labour Ordinance” this law states it actually places a limit to how long it can be used in a year and that the wages for such services must not be less than what the current rate is for similar work, which ensures fairness to the workers.

The question then is, “if it were fair, why then must it be forced?” The reason why this ordinance came about must not be isolated from the reality on ground. The British faced opposition in their business of combating slavery with armed resistance and ambushes. It is very plausible that natives won’t be willing to help out in their projects in order to sabotage their purpose. The use of force against the will of natives in such a case was a matter of expediency, and while they had the power to force the natives, the ordinance clearly shows a high level of consideration and the ensuring of fairness to workers in ensuring they get fair pay and that their labour won’t be abused or oppressive. So it is not forced labour as we know it of flogging, beating, underpayment, etc.

The noble expedition they embarked upon here costs a lot of resources and an easy way to administer a project to a successful end is to ensure that the project is self-funding. After running at the sole expense of the British crown for decades, it is expected that the expedition was at risk of being halted because of the expense involved to carry it on, yet the goal was far from being achieved. To therefore tie the expedition to commerce was not an act of greedy exploitation but a mark of administrative brilliance. And seeing the purpose of the expedition was noble, noble must be the legitimate means by which it was sustained.

It is very possible that there could have been some faults here and there in their mode of doing commerce and executing projects as is to be expected from humans (as opposed to what is to be expected from the angels of God), but they can’t be outrageous. First, much of the account that paints an oppressive British presence have flaws with their facts on many points, biased and exaggerated, and while the accounts pick points from actual verifiable historical events deliberately seek misrepresent the facts to the reader, all which things leaves the rest of what they have to say to be in doubt.

One common thing I found with many Nigerian/African accounts portrays all the actions of the British as opportunistic. For example, the account I read of the British bombardment of Lagos was that the British had been looking for the opportunity to seize control of Lagos using words like, “they finally found the opportunity to do so when the king refused to sign the anti slavery pact.” Other times they say things like, “the PRETEXT they used to take over a village was when…” When people present accounts of the hidden motives of the hearts of men over a hundred years ago, it baffles me how mere mortals can read the hidden motives of the hearts of men, and that of long ago. Something that only God can do. It were better to tell us what happened and leave it at that, than to go ahead to be playing God in describing even the motives of the heart just to paint people black. Relying on cogent facts alone we can scarcely come by the conclusions these accounts arrive at.

Secondly for the verifiable account, we see a conscientious approach to tackling slavery, a conscientious approach in dealings with natives. People who have shown such a level of good judgment may err occasionally or go overboard in some actions, but it can’t be outrageous to justify the narrative being propagated about the British presence here in West Africa.

A good and quick way to accurately judge the reality on ground at the time of their presence is to first strip it off of the faulty present sentiments today then examine the prevalent sentiments of those times. Were the British oppressive, why then were natives of the time eager to fight under their banner as they began to martial forces, both for local military expeditions and even foreign expeditions all the way to Burma where Nigerian soldiers of the West African Frontier Force aided the British in their victory over the war hardened Japanese? All these soldiers volunteered wilfully and eagerly. The first of these forces were the Glover’s Hausa who comprised runaway slaves. You can read about them, how devoted they were to the security of Sir. John Glover’s company. The people today with sentiments and judgments blurred by many prejudices, misinformations, and the likes are poor judges of the effects of their presence. They who were liberated and enjoyed the benefits of their redemptive work were deeply committed to them.

Lastly, even if they engaged in exploitative practices here in Africa (which thing I see as largely commerce exaggerated to take the face of exploitation) alongside their expedition against slave trade, before you judge exploitation as the definitive essence of their presence, remember the fifty years they were off the coasts of West Africa liberating slaves without pay or thought of your mineral resources. All these at the full expense of the British Crown. Remember also the necessity that brought them inland. Remember that had the natives not engaged in the shameful act of selling their kind as slaves they would have no basis for coming inland. Rather they would have disembarked and returned home having completed their mission.

The one thing that in the course of my reading I found fault with was with the idea of monopolising certain commerce. But if one were to criticise it, it could only be because one isn’t conversant with the rules of the game on ground and is having a narrow view of things. In the Berlin Conference that began what is called the scramble for Africa, rules of the game of Africa’s colonisation were laid. The rules were fair though the players committed a lot of fouls in the process. The idea behind this conference was that now that there’s an interest in Africa, the European powers ought to meet and agree on fair dealings with Africa. The rules were simple and basically states that you can’t own a territory in Africa except by treaty with the natives. Meaning you cannot do anything on their soil without giving something commensurate enough to warrant a treaty in return. You can engage in commerce with the natives, but you can’t use force to claim a territory. The only time force can be used to claim a territory is when there is an unprovoked hostility by the natives. In such a case the claim of that territory can be claimed by conquest. The fact that the British came to put a stop to slave trade, slave raiding, and slave dealing afforded copious justifiable opportunities to claim territories by conquest.

These rules were fair on paper but in practice it became dubious. So dubious that even Lord Lugard, in his book, “The Dual Mandate,” ridiculed the method the players of the game chose to play the game. He lamented how Africa could be given over to merchants to govern, citing Adams Smith who said, “the government of an exclusive company of merchants is perhaps the worst of all forms of government.” Therein was the main error from the Berlin Conference in itself though the intent was good.

In practice however, Lugard also called out the dubious ways some European nations obtained these treaties noting that some of the treaties were deliberately meant to be so long and verbose, and with the natives not being well educated enough to comprehend the meaning of the treaties they’re signing do sign it without understanding what they are signing. He gave an example of the Sultan of Sokoto supposing that the subsidy promised him as a part of a treaty was actually a tribute as from a vassal. Lugard later sarcastically wrote in his book, “the best that an intelligent mallam could make of the phrase, ‘The Protectorate of N. Nigeria,’ was to render it as, ‘The instruction of compassion of the Sudan,’ – thereby making absolute nonsense of the context.”

At other times these treaties were gotten from people who didn’t have the power to sign them. The power dynamics of Africa were complex, for example, in cases where some kings rule over other kings by conquest, who has the power to sign such treaties? But they got the treaties anyhow. He said other things about how these treaties were faulty and didn’t really justify the aim of making it a requirement of European nations in the bid to ensure fair dealings with Africans.

From this we see that there were rules designed for fair engagement but players sometimes played foul, sometimes without knowing it, misjudging the ability of the natives in understanding the terms of the treaty, they got treaties signed without the natives comprehending what they signed, and at other times deliberately fashioned the treaty to ensure they didn’t understand them.

That said, there were also rules for commerce. Lugard wrote, “the modern merchant adventurer was ready to employ his capital in the development of these regions and accept the responsibility which the government shunned provided that he was allowed to monopolise the trade…” So when we talk about monopoly, it is not the way we look at it. It comes by deals with powers to control a territory and sometimes with treaties. The design is that people who invest their monies to develop a place should have means by which to have returns on their investment. So it is not an ojoro system where people force others out of a particular business for no just cause.

It is good to look at it in the light of patenting today. You can patent an invention and it becomes illegal for anyone else to make, use, or sell that invention without your permission and financial settlement. Suppose a man, Mr. Beneson were to invent a foldable chair and patented it with success, then another man sees that the chair is making good sales and decides to start making it also for sale. Who doesn’t like good things. Then he is sued and punished for making a chair, just a chair. Being disgruntled he tells his children that the system is so wicked and unjust, so unjust they let Mr. Beneson make and sell a foldable chair but they wouldn’t let me. And it passes down from generation to generation in his blood line that their ancestors weren’t allowed to do foldable chairs. But the truth is that if anyone of his descendants were ever to acquire enough knowledge to understand what happened, he would be able to point out that their ancestor unwittingly tried to steal another man’s idea, and that that was no meaner form of theft than the theft we are all used to. The same way, if we shall get ourselves acquainted with the realities of the times in question we shall see that the monopolies were not injustices as it appears, but part of a deal or treaty to recover the resources invested in developing a region. We then shall be able to ask those who claim they were deprived of engaging in a business, “what development did you bring to the region in question that makes you think you’re qualified to carry out such a business there?”

So herein too I didn’t find much fault in the way they carried out their commercial activities including the monopolies.

So why this article? Am I paid by the British crown or some British establishment to write this? Of course not. Is this writing just an outburst of a pro-British neurotic? Of course not. Then am I just writing this article to no profitable end? Of course not. So here’s the basis for this article as well as the benefit of it.

As I said, I first came about the truth of slavery and the noble British involvement in it all when I read the book, “THE INTERESTING NARRATIVE OF THE LIFE OLAUDAH EQUIANO.” That was when I first knew that Africans themselves were involved in the dastardly trade. The more I began to read about it I saw that we were more complicit in it than any other and that the British even had to use force to get us out of it. This was very contrary to the prevalent opinions amongst Nigerians, with even popular musicians singing and promoting wrong notions of things.

So the main reason for the article is to correct the erroneous notion and evils which comes with error, particularly ingratitude to the benefactors of our race. We all know that ingratitude is a great fault though in today’s world it is not seen as such. To refuse to thank someone for a favour done is ingratitude, but to go ahead to seek to demonise them is evil. This ought to be corrected for it is wicked both in the sight of God and man.

Some of the displeasure shown to the whites in general in regards to slavery come from a genuine hatred of a more civilised African conscience for the dastardly trade. But this displeasure is because one is not well informed. When you see that the Africans were complicit in this wicked trade you will see that we ourselves deserve far more displeasure, and when we realise this we would just drop the matter and let things be. It is natural that whenever one discovers that one is more righteous than himself he merely lets things be rather than pass the same judgment he would have passed on others. We see this in Judah passing a verdict that Tamar deserved to die, he simply dropped the issue when he realised that she was more righteous than him on the matter in question (Genesis 38). This is what we too would do when we realise that the whites are more righteous than we on the matter of slave trade.

This article, while not presenting a holistic detail of all there is to be observed about the British presence here in West Africa, it is a call to revisit it and get facts straight. Why this is very important is because we have a great friend in the British people. And we have a lot to gain from this friendship. If we turn our great friends into enemies, then we have lost all there is to gain from that friendship. This is the first benefit to mention when talking about the benefit I seek in writing this article.

Next benefit is that we have a great mentor in the British system. People must aspire towards something. It’s in the nature of man. Either you’re aspiring towards what is good, and if you fail to find something good and noble to aspire to, you’ll aspire towards what is bad. The life of man is ever aspiring. The British are a worthy people to aspire to. I know some vain Africanist fellow will go berserk when he hears this, but do we not see that even though we pretend not to aspire to be like them, most Africans aspire to live there. So why the pretence? Almost everyone wants to japa. How often do people risk sinking in the sea in the attempt to cross over into Europe?

So to aspire to live their quality of life and not imbibe the way of life that invents the quality of life is in itself another slavery. The Japa syndrome shall be with us forever and it shall have its toll on our development setting it further back as long as it remains.

For lack of what to aspire to, many have started suggesting that the best thing for Africans to do is to go back to primitive ways and this foolish thoughts of retrogression is manifesting itself in many ways. Though colonised by the British and our modern system of life is heavily influenced by the British, we didn’t seem to learn enough from the British. Our education is still downright crappy despite Britain being the unrivalled and undisputed education capital of the world. British literature teems with wisdom, good values, sound reasoning and judgment. Our literature on the other hand is nonsense compared to British literature. Not only is it not as helpful as British literature but largely ruinous to mental development. The why would be another day’s topic.

Now, except we have that high regard for their ways, we shall find very little reason to learn from them. You can’t receive knowledge and understanding from one who you despise. Before you can receive knowledge and understanding from anyone, that one must first be held in regard by you. The very act of choosing to learn from some is diametrically opposed to having contempt for them.