Why they came

CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK

MANY REASONS have been advanced by apologists of imperialism to justify British rule in Nigeria. Said Sir Hugh Clifford, a former Governor of Nigeria:

In the case of primitive peoples, unadulterated native rule is not popular or desired by the bulk of the natives. It means the oppression of the weak by the strong, the tyranny of might, the abnegation of law, the performance of various bloody rites, and perennial inter-tribal strife – in a word, all the things which are most abhorrent to the principles of democracy.

Sir Alan Burns, author of History of Nigeria, and a former high-ranking British Colonial official in Nigeria, is equally supercilious in his attitude towards ‘native races’ as Clifford termed them, but more specific with reference to Nigeria:

National acquisitiveness and commercial interests no doubt played a part, but in the case of Nigeria it may safely be said that the British entered on the great trust with reluctance and considerable hesitation, and that philanthropy was not the least of the influence that led us to take up the burden.

The above quotations have put the reasons in a nutshell. But they can be set out in greater detail.

The British, so say the apologists, had come to Nigeria in order to suppress slavery, slave raids, and the slave trade; to stamp out human sacrifices and cannibalism; to put an end to inter-tribal and internecine wars with which the land and its peoples had been incessantly plagued; and to establish good and orderly government in place of the bloody tyranny of the King of Benin, the malignant influence of the Aros, and the oppression of the slave-raiding Emirs’. Slave-trading between Nigeria and foreign countries as well as slavery to British overseas possessions was abolished. To this end, enormous sums of money were spent by the British, ‘with no possible selfish motive’. The conquest of Lagos, which we have previously noted, and the subsequent forcible cession of the island to the British were seen by the apologists only as a means, no more and no less, to the destruction of one of the chief strongholds of slave traders in Nigeria.

READ ALSO: The People’s Republic: How they rule

As a direct result of the advent of Pax Britannica to Nigeria, there was security of person and property. Certain pleasant and unprecedented consequences followed. There was freedom of movement, of occupation, and of trade. The rights to life and personal liberty were guaranteed: there was freedom from slave raids and from any kind of molestation – all of which used to be the wicked pastimes of the native rulers. The position and tenure of offices of Chiefs were safeguarded and enhanced. In the places of the perquisites and tributes which the Chiefs used to exact with violence if need be, and in place of their incomes from all manner of inhuman traffic, the Chiefs were paid regular and reasonable monthly stipends.

Material prosperity, such as was never known before and could never have been achieved or realised under the chaotic conditions which had existed previously, followed in the wake of British administration.

But the long-term objective of the British, continue the apologists, far transcended the immediate attainment of good government, orderly progress, and increasing prosperity for the people. The long-term policy of the British in Nigeria was to lead the country, ‘by education, training, and example’, to complete self-government as rapidly as possible.

In other words, altruism, philanthropy, and humanitarianism were the dominant (if not the only) motives for British rule in Nigeria. An examination of the facts set out in Chapters 1 and 2 showing the motives and manner of their coming to Nigeria as well as the raison d’etre and style of their rule, does not bear out the claims made for the British by the apologists. In this connection, British relations with Nigeria from the time of first contact to the end of 1951 may be divided roughly into four periods as follows:

(1) the period of the slave trade – 1553 – 1808

(2) the period of pioneering legitimate trade – 1808 – 1900

(3) the period of colonisation – 1861-1899

(4) the period of British rule – 1900 – 1951.

As we have seen in the previous chapters, the first period was one of extremely inhuman and heartless brutalisation of Nigerians by British adventurers. In exchange for slaves, which were the main merchandise, and for ivory and pepper, they gave our people arms, spirits, and some other articles of very inferior quality. With the importation of unusually lethal weapons and highly intoxicating spirits, inter-tribal wars became more savage and ferocious, and much more extensive in carnage. Many of these wars were now encouraged and waged, not because of inter-tribal disputes, but for the sole purpose of capturing slaves for sale. In addition, organised slave raids continued with unparalleled ruthlessness. Throughout this period, either in the capture of slaves, in their transportation, or in their treatment both en route to and at their destinations, there was no mitigating feature of any kind. There was only one motive behind the activities of the English (later British) nationals: the acquisition of personal wealth by any means, and the consequent enrichment of their motherland.

We have already (in Chapter 1) given a fairly full account of the enormous expenses incurred by Britain in her efforts to stamp out the slave trade with Nigeria, and to abolish slavery in her own colonies. In this connection, it is apposite to recall the activities of those British nationals who, out of sheer humanity, fought long and hard for the abolition of the slave-trade and slavery. Specifically, we remember, with gratitude, Granville Sharp, who championed the cause of Somersett, the absconding Negro slave. We also remember that famous and immortal British crusader against the slave trade and slavery, William Wilberforce. Assisted by a handful of others, he fought relentlessly for 20 years (from 1787 to 1807) before his noble objective was achieved.

When all this has been said and admitted, it must be pointed out with emphasis that at the time the House of Commons saw its way clear in 1807 to supporting Wilberforce’s resolution on the subject; slavery had ceased to be an economic proposition to the great majority of British capitalists.

CONTINUES NEXT WEEK