Colonial Views of African history
The colonial views of African history were heavily influenced by Eurocentric
perspectives, which significantly impacted the historiography of the continent.
European colonial administrators and scholars often dismissed the rich histories of
African societies, portraying the continent as a "dark" place devoid of any
significant past. This Eurocentric viewpoint led to a widespread belief that Africa
had no history worth recording, and whatever was written about Africa was often
distorted to fit the colonial narrative.
Eurocentric Perspectives and Misrepresentations
Colonial administrators and rulers, along with European historians, frequently
described Africa as a land without history. This perception was rooted in a
profound misunderstanding and dismissal of African cultures, traditions, and
achievements. European explorers, such as Heinrich Barth, did acknowledge
Africa's rich traditions, religions, and economies, yet the dominant narrative was
that Africa had no significant history before the arrival of Europeans. This
narrative suggested that Europeans were the ones who brought "light" to Africa,
showing its people how to live, and that African history only began with European
contact.
In 1960, Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, delivering a paper at Oxford University,
exemplified this Eurocentric view when he remarked that there was nothing
significant to say about Africa's past, except for the history of Europeans who
came to the continent. This dismissive attitude was not isolated. Many European
writers and historians, including the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel,
perpetuated the idea that Africa had not contributed to the development of
civilization. Hegel, in his work between 1830-1831, divided the people of the
world into two categories: historical individuals who had contributed to the
development of mankind, and non-historical people who had not. He categorized
Africans as belonging to the latter group, thereby reinforcing the notion that
Africa's past was insignificant.
2
The Consequences of Colonial Historiography
The colonial misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Africa's past had
far-reaching consequences. European writers exhibited social prejudice and
cultural chauvinism, believing that only European history was worth studying. This
assumption led colonial powers to suppress African history, disrupting the
continent's historical narrative and failing to present African history in its proper
context.
As colonial historiography took prominence over African historiography, it became
the dominant narrative that shaped global perceptions of Africa. The works of
historians like A.P. Newton, who declared that "history only begins when men take
to writing," further marginalized African history, as he argued that without written
records, Africa had no history to speak of. This view was a part of a larger
historiographical tradition that for centuries degraded African history, reducing it
to a narrative centered around slavery, slave trade, and the supposed inferiority of
African peoples.
The colonial portrayal of Africans as slaves and the association of the term
"Negro" with slavery contributed to the birth of racism and racial discrimination.
European powers saw themselves as superior to Africans, who were deemed
inferior and subhuman. This ideology justified the exploitation, colonization, and
division of Africa, leading to the infamous "Scramble for Africa," where European
powers carved up the continent among themselves. African customs, dances, and
traditions were viewed as wild and abominable, further dehumanizing the people
and erasing their cultural significance.
The Role of Colonial Historiography in African History
While the colonial writing of history was deeply flawed and biased, its significance
in historiography cannot be ignored. It played a crucial role in shaping the study of
African history, albeit in a negative manner. The colonial narrative forced African
scholars and historians to critically examine and challenge these Eurocentric views,
3
leading to a re-evaluation of African history and the development of a more
accurate and comprehensive understanding of the continent's past.
By recognizing the distortions and biases in colonial historiography, modern
historians can work to reconstruct African history, emphasizing the achievements,
traditions, and cultures that were overlooked or misrepresented by colonial writers.
The critique of colonial historiography has also paved the way for a broader, more
inclusive understanding of global history, one that acknowledges the contributions
of all peoples and cultures.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the writing of colonial administrators was deeply flawed and
rooted in Eurocentric bias, its significance in the historiography of Africa is
undeniable. It highlights the importance of critically examining historical
narratives and the need to reconstruct and reclaim African history from the
distortions of the colonial past. By doing so, historians can ensure that the rich and
diverse histories of African peoples are properly recognized and respected in the
global historical narrative.
The Significance of Colonial Writing in Historiography: A Critical
Examination
Colonial administrators and European scholars have long influenced the
historiography of Africa, often in ways that have distorted and misrepresented the
continent's rich history. These writings, driven by Eurocentric views, played a
significant role in shaping global perceptions of Africa, albeit in a manner that
often undermined the continent’s indigenous cultures and achievements. The
significance of colonial writing in historiography lies in both its profound impact
on how African history has been documented and interpreted and the need to
critically assess and challenge these narratives.
4
Eurocentric Interpretations and Misrepresentations
Colonial historiography largely reflected European beliefs that many of the
developments in Africa were due to external influences, particularly those of white
Europeans. This narrative often ignored or downplayed the contributions of
indigenous African societies. For instance, colonial writers frequently claimed that
Egypt, despite being geographically located in Africa, was part of the
Mediterranean world rather than an African civilization. Similarly, the Swahili
culture, which had clear links with Arab traders, was attributed more to Arab
influences than to indigenous African development.
The Eurocentric view extended to South Africa, where it was argued that any
development in the region was the result of external, non-African influences. The
overall civilization of Africa was often linked to outside cultures, such as the
ancient civilizations of the Middle East or Egypt, rather than being recognized as
part of Africa’s own heritage. This perspective suggested that to understand
African history, one must trace it back to the Middle East, thereby denying the
continent its own historical agency.
Dismissing African Contributions
Another dominant theme in colonial historiography was the belief that Africans
lacked the ability to document their own history. Colonial administrators and
scholars claimed that the only valuable records from Africa were those created by
Europeans, such as the documentation of missionary activities, exploration, and
trade. Africa was often depicted as a "dark continent" with no significant
contributions to global history.
For example, A.F. Mockler-Ferryman, a British colonial writer, in his book British
Nigeria, argued that Africans were "ordinary beasts" who existed merely for
existence’s sake, lacking reason or the ability to organize themselves in a civilized
manner. Margery Perham, another European scholar, described Africans as highly
disorganized and barbaric, untrustworthy, and incapable of contributing to the
world’s progress. Similarly, Sam Alias Buras, in his 1929 book History of Nigeria,
5
depicted Africans as "rude savages" addicted to cannibalism, with poorly organized
governments.
These views were further propagated by missionaries whose writings often
portrayed Africa as a land plagued by crises such as warfare, slave trade, and
human sacrifices. The arrival of European missionaries and colonial officials was
justified as a civilizing mission to rescue Africa from its supposed barbarism and
chaos.
The Influence of Colonial Historiography
Colonial historiography had a profound impact on how African history was studied
and understood, both within Africa and globally. The Eurocentric bias in these
writings suggested that any significant development in Africa was either brought
by Europeans or influenced by external forces. This narrative became so
entrenched that African history was often viewed through the lens of European
history, with indigenous perspectives and contributions marginalized or ignored.
Writers like Lord Lugard, who introduced the system of indirect rule in Nigeria,
and Manga Park, who wrote Problems in Africa, emphasized that Africa’s
development was static and lacked direction. They argued that Africans were
incapable of independent thought and progress, reinforcing the stereotype of the
continent as backward and in need of European guidance.
Colonial officials like Eric Walker, in his book History of South Africa, and G.
Coker, in his writings on colonial governance, further promoted the idea that
Africans should be grateful for the arrival of Europeans, who supposedly brought
civilization and development to the continent. These narratives were often based on
ignorance and a lack of understanding of African cultures, as well as a desire to
justify European colonial presence and dominance.
The Need for Critical Reassessment
While the writings of colonial administrators have been significant in shaping the
historiography of Africa, it is crucial to critically reassess these narratives. These
6
writings often reflected the prejudices and biases of their time, rather than an
accurate portrayal of African history. By relying on European documents and
perspectives, colonial historiography often failed to capture the true complexity
and richness of African societies.
However, the significance of these writings cannot be dismissed outright. They
provide insight into how European powers viewed Africa and justified their
colonial ambitions. Moreover, by critically examining these writings, historians
can work to deconstruct the Eurocentric biases that have shaped much of Africa’s
recorded history. This process is essential for reconstructing a more accurate and
nuanced understanding of Africa’s past, one that acknowledges the continent’s
agency and contributions to world history.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the writings of colonial administrators are significant in the
historiography of Africa, but they must be approached with a critical eye. While
these writings have influenced how African history has been understood, they often
reflect Eurocentric biases that have distorted the true nature of Africa’s past. By
challenging these narratives and incorporating indigenous perspectives, historians
can work towards a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of African
history that recognizes the continent’s rich cultural heritage and its contributions to
global civilization.
Will you agree that European writing on Africa during the colonial period was by a
large pervadoc by mixture of ignorance and social prejudice
7
Do you think that the writing of colonial administrators is of any significance in the
historiography of Africa
