EUROPEAN CONQUEST OF AFRICA

Lecture Outline
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Learning Outcomes
12.3 African Responses to the Imposition of Colonial Rule
12.3.1 African Resistance Movements
12.3.2 African Collaborators
12.4 Summary
12.5 Further Reading

12.1 Introduction
In much of Africa, the period following the Berlin Conference was the time of the actual European
conquest of Africa. African reactions to this European invasion varied from one community to
another. In this lecture we shall try to understand how Africans reacted to European conquest and
why; and whether or not their objectives succeeded or failed.

12.2 Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lecture, you should be able to;
1. Explain the terms resistance and collaboration as the main African
responses to European colonisation.
2. Analyze the factors that determined African responses.
3. With the aid of examples, analyze African resistance movements.
4. Use specific case studies to underscore the role of collaborators
5. Account for the conquest of Africa.

12.3 African Responses to the Imposition of Colonial Rule

African reactions to colonial rule have been classified as resistance or collaboration. Resistance
means the act of fighting against the imposition of European rule by the use of military force.
Communities which offered this kind of response almost always had it spearheaded by a known
leader. In most cases, the struggle began at the launch of colonial rule, though many rulers who
started as collaborators also opposed colonialism in later years after realizing the motives of
Europeans. Examples of resisters are Samori Toure and the Mandinka, the Asante, the Nandi,
Banyoro, Hehe, Ndebele, Ethiopia under Menelik, Baganda under Mwanga and the Wagiriama
(Njiro, 1985:209; Isichei, 1977: 181-182).
Collaboration implies the apparent willingness of some African leaders and communities to
welcome Europeans in their dominions. Such Africans first welcomed the European traders and
missionaries and later the imperialists. Examples include Baganda, Mumia of the Wanga
Kingdom, Lewanika in Barotseland, Lenana of the Maasai, and the Amangoche Yao. These leaders
welcomed Europeans to aid them against their enemies (Njiro, 1985:208; Isichei, 1977: 181).
It must be noted, however, that to classify African responses as resisters and collaborators is rather
simplistic as responses were neither constant nor consistent. Some communities which started as
collaborators later resisted, and others which began as resisters later collaborated. There was also
a range of reactions which fell in between the two categories. For instance, a number of
communities remained passive or withdrawn from the events of the years. Nonetheless,
categorising African reactions as resistance and collaboration remains a convenient method of
bringing about an understanding of African responses to the colonial onslaught. But whatever their
reaction, the objective of Africans was to preserve as much independence as possible in the
circumstances (Njiro, 1985:209; Illife, 1995: 93).

A number of factors determined the various responses chosen by different communities. Any one
people’s response reveals that there were considerable influences, both internal and external,
which determined their reaction. Generally such factors included;
1. Lack of a clear understanding of the motives of Europeans. For example, some Africans
initially tried to accommodate Europeans believing that they were working as equal
partners. When they realized the European aims to dominate them, they reacted differently,
for example, Lobengula of the Ndebele.
2. Relationships among the African people. For example, a community which was in need of
assistance against a local enemy sought friendship with Europeans mainly to get military
assistance against the enemy. For instance, Asante’s resistance was partly a result of
British friendship with their enemy, the Fante.
3. The strategy used by Europeans. For example, in situations where Europeans engaged in
military attacks against Africans, the Africans themselves were forced to also take up arms
in defence. On the contrary, when European occupation was gradual and peaceful, the
relationship between the colonizers and Africans sometimes ended up in friendship,
especially with African chiefs- hence collaboration.
4. Natural catastrophes- drought, famine and disease, for example, among the Maasai,
especially in the last years of the 19th century weakened them. When the Europeans arrived
the Maasai were unable to resist their rule and could merely collaborate.
5. Traditional attitudes to strangers especially if such aliens did not conform to the expectation
of the community. For example, if the intruders were hostile to the traditional cultural
values of the people, they resisted.

6. European interference in the political and/or economic affairs of Africans. Jaja of Opobo
in Igboland and the slave trading Yao chiefdoms in Nyasaland resisted the British when
their slave trade economies were hurt by the British abolition efforts. Dahomey resisted the
French when the invaders demanded to be given Porto Novo which had been a petty state
 of Dahomey since the 1820s. Moreover, Porto Novo was an area of great commercial and
strategic importance which Dahomey was not ready to forego (Njiro, 1985: 223,228; Iliffe,
1995: 193).
7. Groups with previous experience of European firepower thought armed resistance was futile
as did the Asante in 1896 after their humiliation in 1874. The same applied to the Yoruba
kingdoms which signed treaties with the British after witnessing the British defeat of the
resisting Ijebu (Illiffe, 1995: 193-4).
8. Reactions were also a result of missionary influence. Khama of the Bamangwato became a
collaborator after conversion to Christianity, which was also meant to guarantee him
protection from the advancing Dutch colonizers. Later he influenced Lewanika of the
Balozi to obtain similar protection against the Ndebele. Lewanika also wanted to protect
his Lozi throne after it was recaptured from the Kololo in 1864 and still threatened by royal
rivals and dissident subjects (Illiffe, 1995: 194).
9. Responses were also dependent on the state of the military in a given polity. Among the
Pedi in South Africa (under Sekhukhuni) and the Ndebele in Central Africa (under
Lebengula), the leader could not convince his young men to negotiate with Europeans as
they were more interested in maintaining their military honour. Stateless societies with
strong war parties similarly cherished their notions of honour and found it difficult to
cooperate with European invaders. Often remote and amorphous, they were more difficult
to conquer. Examples are the Baoule of Cote d’Ivoire who fought the French until 1911;
the Igbo of Nigeria whose struggle against the British only came to an end in 1919; the Jola
of Senegal who fought the French until the 1920s; the Dinka of Southern Sudan until
1927;the pastoralist Somali of Kenya and Somalia and the Bedoiri of Libya whose mobility
and statelessness made them extremely intractable (Illiffe, 1995: 195).
10. Other primary resistances were a result of new colonial policies. For example, the Ndebele
revolt of 1896; Kabaka Mwanga’s rebellion in 1897 and the Maji Maji rebellion in 1905-7
were provoked by the heavy colonial demands for tax, land and labour (Illiffe, 1995: 195).

12.3.1 African Resistance Movements

Outside Ethiopia, many Africans attempted to resist colonial rule with little success. Many of them
died in action or in exile. The few who survived became resigned to themselves, and could only
hope that one day the colonialists would be overthrown.

In the short run, it would appear that resisting did not pay. Indeed, the colonialists referred to
resisters as traditionalists who were only attempting to block progress. To the resisters, however,
alien rule was intolerable because;
Africans were not ready to lose their rights.
They objected to interference with their cultures especially European descriptions of their way of
life as paganism.

One is tempted to conclude that resisters had an intense desire to defend their rights, freedoms and
social values such as religion and culture. For this reason many preferred death than submission.
Indeed resisting European rule amounted to wars, death, loss of property and at times deprivation
and deportation.By protesting and fighting for cherished ideals, the resisters demonstrated that
there was more to live for than to gain power, prestige and material goods.

The following examples of resisters may illustrate the schemes and patterns adopted by
communities which chose this response.

At the East Coast of Africa, the Mazrui Arabs resisted British rule. The rebellion was led by
Mbaruk Bin Rashid. Initially, the Mazrui leaders had welcomed the officials of the IBEACo,
assuming that the company would rescue them from the overlordship of Zanzibar. However, they
soon realized that the British had come to establish their own rule over the area. This idea made
the Mazrui unhappy. Thus, when in 1895 the British installed a puppet leader in Takaungu, the
event sparked off the Mazrui rebellion against the British. For a time, the Mazrui were successful.
But then the British brought in more forces from India, and the Mazrui were defeated and forced
to submit.

In the interior of East Africa the Nandi staged the most formidable resistance against colonial rule.
Towards the end of the 19th Century, Nandi power was growing because of their able leaders.
Culturally, they were very suspicious of strangers within their territory. Strangers had, therefore,
to obtain permission to pass through Nandi land. Thus, when a European by the name Peter West
tried to cross Nandi country without permission, they murdered him. This murder sparked off
eleven years of war between the Nandi and the British, as the latter attempted to bring the Nandi
under their effective control.

The first British military expedition against the Nandi was sent in 1895. The Nandi immediately
discovered that they could not match the British military strength and turned to guerrilla warfare
in which they were excellent. They continued to frustrate the British even during the construction
of the Kenya-Uganda Railway, for they constantly harassed the railway builders and stole railway
equipment. These harassments by the Nandi resulted in another military expedition in 1897- but
the Nandi were still not defeated.

In order to pacify them the British tended to intensify raids in areas near Nandi-land in the hope
of scaring them. The British hoped that through such raids, they would destroy Nandi power itself,
and scare away potential allies of the Nandi. However, Nandi unity and strength under the Orkoiyot
facilitated their continued ruthlessness against the British. It was only in 1905 when the British
tricked the Orkoiyot and murdered him that the Nandi surrendered. This is because following the
murder of the Orkoiyot, the Nandi were demoralized and their unity and power base broken. They
were forced to accept the peace terms of the British without conditions. Consequently, they were
removed from their homelands near the railway and resettled in reserves where they lived
throughout British rule.

Other resistances in East Africa came from the Somali, Agiriama, Bukusu and the Abagusii
(Kenya); Abushiri, Nyamwezi,Yao and Mkwawa (Tanganyika); Mwanza and the Banyoro
(Uganda).

In West Africa the resistance of Ahmadou Sekou of Tukolor and Samori Toure against the French
stood out.

The Tukolor resistance against the French began in the 1850s, when Al Hajj Umar was ruler of the
empire. Umar knew the commercial ambitions of the French and negotiated with Faidherbe a
demarcation between his territory and French territory. But Faidherbe secretly engineered
rebellion against Umar by selling arms to his enemies. Umar could not tolerate Faidherbe’s double
standards and attacked the French Fort at Medina. When his forces were repulsed, he blocked the
Senegal River and brought French trade to a halt. This action earned Umar an agreement with the
French in 1860, demarcating the boundary between Tukolor and the French territory. But it also
made the French realize the need to expand their territory in the hinterland of Senegal if their
trading interests were to be secure.

In the period 1879-1881 the French began an aggressive policy of the widespread colonization of
Africa. They moved up the Niger, building a series of forts between Senegal and Bamako. They
also started constructing a railway along this route so as to make Senegal the outlet for trading
goods obtained in Western Sudan. This French expansion brought them into conflict with
Ahmadou Sekou and Samori Toure.

At first, Ahmadou tried to resolve the disagreements diplomatically. He concluded an alliance with
the French which he believed secured him French recognition of the Tukolor Empire. However,
by 1883, the French had defied the treaty by constructing a line of forts right across Southern
Tukolor as far as Bamako. Sekou’s complaints to the French went unheeded. Continued French
provocations led in 1888 to Sekou’s attack on French villages near Kayes and Medina (in Tukolor).
Although the French request for a ceasefire was rejected by Sekou, the Tukolor army was soon
defeated, paving the way for the French acquisition of Segu and Medina.

But Ahmadou’s army did not surrender. Its struggle against the French continued up to 1893 when
the French finally routed it. The French success is mainly attributed to divisions in Sekou’s empire
which they exploited. Indeed, Ahmadou’s brother, whom he had made ruler of a section of
Tukolor, betrayed him by becoming an ally of the French. Through his assistance, the French
dislodged Ahmadou from power. Ahmadou died in exile in Sokoto, while his brother became the
ruler of Massina, though as a mere puppet of the French (Hallet Vol. 2, 1974: 264-273).
The most heroic battles against the French were fought by Samori Toure between 1882 and 1898.
Samori was born in the Guinea Highlands about 1830. He came from one of the Dyula clans of
the Malinke speakers. The Dyula were loose type Muslims, and largely followed trade as a
profession. Samori was a Dyula trader. He travelled widely to market towns in search of arms,
horses and cattle. This enabled him to acquire wealth and to build an army. He began to build an
empire. By the time of his first conflict with the French in early 1880s, he commanded an army of
about 30,000 men, mostly foot-soldiers. They were well armed with muskets and rifles imported
through Sierra Leone, or manufactured and repaired by his own Mandinka metal workers. In
addition, Mandika was at the peak of its power, Mandinka being unified by a sense of nationalism
in the memory of ancient Mali.

The first clash between the Mandinka and the French occurred in 1882 when a French officer
conducted a raid at Kanyera in Samori’s empire. The raid was a disaster as Samori’s men rapidly
repulsed the French. The French came to realize the growing strength of Samori.

Soon after the Kanyera incident, the two imperialisms converged at Bamako. Samori had sent his
brother to capture the area, only to find the French in possession. Attempts by Samori’s forces to
dislodge the French not only failed, but led to serious losses of life.

In 1886, the two parties concluded the treaty of Bissandugu by which the French pledged to
recognize a boundary line between them and Samori’s North-eastern region, along the line of the
Niger. However, the French did not like the treaty as they thought it was too favourable to Samori.
Thus, another French mission was sent to Samori, and he signed another treaty ceding his territory
as a protectorate to the French. Samori, most probably was not aware of the protectorate clause.

It is clear, however, that both Samori and the French signed the agreements out of necessity.
Samori needed time to deal with his enemy and neighbour, Tieba of Sikasso. The French too
needed time to complete their conquest of the Tukolor empire. But while Samori honestly sought
lasting peace, the French only wanted a truce in the hostilities. In time the French began to
antagonize Samori by encouraging his own people to rebel against him, and by supplying arms to
his enemy, Sikasso. These led to a renewal of hostilities between the Mandinka and French.

In 1892 the French took Samori’s capital Bissandugu together with several towns. Samori
immediately deployed the scotched earth policy. As his army advanced, it destroyed villages
forcing the population to withdraw and in the process they took all food with them. The pursuing
French army was left without food and provisions and was forced to retreat. Samori had won a
kind of victory, but at a terrible cost to his soldiers and homeland.

Even so, Samori realized the insecurity of his military position and began to shift his entire empire
to the east, to a region on the northern borderlands of modern Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana. Being
foreign conquerors, the Mandinka had to contend with opposition from the subject people. In
addition, their further movement eastwards was blocked by Asante-already a British territory. As
a last ditch effort to escape French imperialism, Samori pleaded for British protection without
success. Samori had to fight it out with the French. In spite of being cut off from their Sierra Leone
arms suppliers, the Mandinka army still won a great victory over the French in July 1898. Samori
now began a retreat with his army westwards, hoping to reach Toma in Liberia. Finally, however,
it was famine which defeated Samori’s troops in the mountains north of Liberia in 1898. Samori
gave himself up to the French and was exiled to Gabon where he died in 1900 at the age of seventy
(Hallet Vol. 2, 1974: 264-273).

Take Note
Further examples of communities which resisted colonial rule are the
Asante, Lobengula and the Ndebele both against the British; and other
resistance movements in Angola and Mozambique against the
Portuguese.

Why was African Resistance Defeated?

By 1914, African resistance movements had been crushed by the colonizing European powers.
There are many reasons for this,

Africans were technologically backward. They did not have modern weapons. Those who had
home-made guns or had bought flint locks or muzzle loading muskets could not match the
Europeans who used repeater rifles like the maxim guns. The English poet Hilaire Bellix summed
up the imbalance in military power when he wrote:

“Whatever happens we have got the maxim-gun and they have not”
Africans were disunited and their societies were unstable. The colonizers were able to recruit
mercenaries from some African communities to defeat neighbouring groups. The Nandi for
example, were defeated by a British army composed of Nubians, Baganda and Maasai. On the
contrary, the colonizers collaborated and agreed on ways of eliminating African opposition. For
example, attempts by Samori Toure to ally himself with the English against the French failed.

In areas where improvements in transport and communication were made, for example,
construction of railways and telegraphs, Europeans was easy while that of Africans remained
sluggish.

The partition and conquest of Africa coincided with a number of political upheavals as well as
ecological catastrophes which sapped the capacities of Africans to resist external aggression. For
example, in East Africa droughts, famines and disease epidemics both of human beings and
livestock had devastated the population. In southern Africa, societies had not fully recovered from
the ravages of the Mfecane and slave trade. The upheavals were further compounded by the
problems of droughts, famines, disease and above all the outbreak of rinderpest epidemic that
affected the economies of eastern and southern Africa in the 1880s and 1890s. In the circumstances
many African economies were too demoralized to contain the imposition of colonialism.

12.3.2 African Collaborators

These were Africans who sought to use the newcomers to advance their local interests. For
example, they saw in the strangers an opportunity to advance their trade in firearms, manufactured
goods like clothes and other western goods.
There were reasons for collaboration
Certain individuals collaborated because they were collaborators by nature.
Others collaborated to retain their independence.
Some people collaborated because of the moderating influence of Christianity.
The African diviners’ ideas also led to the collaboration of a section of Africans. For example, in
Central Kenya, Chege wa Kibiru had told his people that a white skinned people would come, but
that such people should not be fought because they would be more superior than local rulers.
Sakawa of the Gusii also foretold the coming of white men, whom he said would kill using a fire-
stick.

Some people collaborated because of the futility of armed resistance. For instance, most chiefs
who had seen their neighbours subdued by European fire power opted to collaborate.

Other Africans collaborated because their enemies were resisting.

The Collaboration of Chief Mumia of the Wanga

At the time of the British penetration of Western Kenya, Mumia was experiencing a lot of
problems. His father had died and he needed to strengthen his position to remain power. However,
his survival was threatened by many rivals. He was also faced with external threats from the
neighbouring Bukusu and Luo of Ugenya, who were gradually making inroads into his kingdom.
He decided to seek outside protection. Thus he approached the British for assistance to;
Restore his crumbling kingdom by acquiring firearms to fight his enemies.
Protect him against his enemies.
Help him restore his power and prestige.
Mumia’s collaboration earned many of his relatives benefits in the colonial administration. In fact,
his kingdom became an administrative centre in the East Africa Protectorate and reaped many
benefits from colonialism, for example, the building of schools. Nonetheless he lost his power and
prestige.
Khama of the Bamangwato (In Bechuanaland) and Lewanika of the Lozi ( in Barotseland)
Khama collaborated for two major reasons,
1. He had become a keen protestant Christian, and could therefore not resist European
expansion.
2. He wanted protection against the Boers who were expanding from the South, and the
Ndebele raids which caused instability in his kingdom.
Similar insecurity threatened Lewanika of the Lozi. In 1840, the Kololo invaders from the South
overthrew the Lozi rulers. They ruled Bulozi until 1864 when a Lozi ruler regained power. But for
a brief period between 1876 and 1878 the Kololo once again ruled Bulozi. Lewanika seized power
in 1878 but had great difficulty retaining his position.
He was troubled by internal rivals and Ndebele raiders.
He did not want to lose power to the advancing Boers.
Lewanika also desired European education for his people, or at least for his sons and the sons of
other Lozi chiefs. He thought that once such education was introduced, he could keep it under his
control to strengthen his position.
In the early 1890s, Lewanika became increasingly alarmed by the Portuguese advancing from the
West.
In the face of these problems, Lewanika fell under the influence of Khama who advised him to
accept British protection. Thus, in 1896 his area became a protectorate of the British South Africa
Company.

In general collaboration during the early years of colonial rule gave such European allies the
feeling of being associated with power and prestige. Europeans reciprocated the closeness of
collaborators by providing them with benefits of colonialism such as schools and hospitals. Their
areas also became major centres in the colonial administration framework.
Some historians have suggested that unlike the resisters, collaborators read better the signs of the
times, and were able to benefit more from the colonial system. It must be remembered, however,
that the status of the collaborators in the colonial regime was merely that of agents of the system
rather than of independent partners. No wonder that the positions they were awarded did not open
for them new possibilities of obtaining political power, wealth or other privileges.
12.4 Summary
In the foregoing pages we have examined African reactions to
European conquest. We have argued that African responses differed
from community to community but can be conveniently categorized
as resistance and collaboration. A number of reasons, both internal
and external, influenced African responses to European intrusion. But
whether they resisted or collaborated, African communities, but more
so, their leaders seem to have been guided by one objective- retaining
as much independence as possible in the present circumstances.
However, in the face of the European onslaught, with technology far
superior to the African spears, shields and machetes, the resisters were
often humbled in to submission. The defeat of the resisters was often
facilitated by divisions within Africa itself which enabled the
Europeans to use Africans from opponent camps to defeat their
enemy. Collaborators were often brought under colonialism with a lot
more ease. Many of them sought European protection against local
enemies, and the Europeans responded by declaring protectorates
over the said territories. African leaders of such regions only realized
later that they had surrendered the sovereignty of their land to
Europeans.