What was colonialism and why should we still care?

One of my favourite things about the Gambia is the banter we sometimes get from the people trying to hassle us. I’ve been to some countries where such hassle can be really difficult to avoid and has a hint of threat. In the more touristy parts of the Gambia, we do encounter people trying to get us to buy stuff, but they are always friendly and quick to back off if we are not interested.

They are also often very funny.

One of my favourite approaches was from a Rastafarian guy on the beach a few years ago: “Hello to our former colonial masters! Come and get rid of your guilt by buying one of my T-Shirts”

It got me thinking then as now about the strangeness of our relationship with the Gambians.

The truth is that the British legacy in the Gambia and indeed many other African countries is at best mixed and at worst pretty awful. Gambia came under British control gradually over centuries until we officially took over in 1783. Typically, this was not a result of any kind of agreement with the Gambians themselves- we seized these lands at gunpoint. The treaty we made was with the French- the other leading European power in the region.

At the time and for long time after, the justifications that the British made for this were based on racist and religious ideas. Africans, as far as the Europeans were concerned, were intellectually inferior but physically strong. This meant that they were capable of doing physically demanding work, but unable to organise themselves and create civilisation of their own- ideally, as far as the Europeans were concerned, they could be taught some useful skills and become economically useful either as slaves or later as loyal servants. At the same time, the religions that they followed were also seen as primitive and the Europeans could help them by attempting to convert them to superior Christianity.

These ideas look pretty awful from the 21st century, but they formed the basis of what came to be called colonialism. The British believed in the value of these colonies because they had these kinds of patronising ideas about the Gambians and about how they were helping them.

In a colony like the Gambia, the natives were taught not just the English language, (which immediately became more important than any of their own) but also about the importance of the British way of life. We see relics of this everywhere we go. In the villages, for example,  we will hear local politicians and dignitaries giving the kinds of speeches that would have been expected in 19th century Gambia to welcome a visiting Englishman. Similarly, in the schools you will often see a replica of British education from the same time with learning off by heart and copying definitions from the backboard. It is easy to laugh at this, but these are things that our ancestors taught them were important while they exploited all the wealth out of their country.

This is not to say that colonialism did not do some good at times- we brought in modern developments in health and sanitation and did emphasise the importance of education.

We then left.

In the case of the Gambia this happened in 1965. The way that Britain left the Gambia was a lot more positive than in many other countries, but our  relationship with the country since has sometimes been seen as being neo-colonialist- a sort of colonialism 2.0

Neo-colonialism is a complicated mixture of behaviours, but it is worth us understanding a bit about it when we are in the country. The thinking behind the term is that the relationship that European countries have with Africa is still based on the same ideas of superiority and the right to patronise and exploit as we had back in the colonial days. It is just that we wield our power in more subtle ways.

Westerners may take power economically by controlling businesses in a country or the banks. We can reinforce this economic power by refusing debt relief so that a country that has built up debts ends up never managing to escape them because they have to pay crippling interest. Gambia for example currently spends 23% of its government revenue on debt service and the amount is rising.

The old colonials also used to rule by presenting their values and lifestyles as superior to the ‘uncivilised’ Africans. They did this through their institutions and through education. Neo-colonialists might do the same (often unconsciously) by producing TV, films and music that promote the superiority of western values- the end result is that (equally unconsciously) the formerly colonised still want to live like the colonisers.

Similarly, we, the former colonisers are encouraged to still feel superior to the formerly colonised because of  the limited representations of Africa in the media. On the rare occasions when western media does represent Africa, it often does so in ways that emphasise either the helplessness of the African people (hungry, sick children crying) their charming simplicity (Africans dancing or singing) or their barbaric savagery (Africans fighting). These things all do happen of course, it is just that these are all we see.

We need to be very aware of the concept of neo-colonialism, because unfortunately western charities in Africa have often been part of it. When Band Aid sang for example:

“Where nothing ever grows, no rain or rivers flow”

Critics have pointed out that they were feeding into the myth that Africans are helpless to look after themselves and that Africa itself is a place with no resources and no chance of solving their own problems.

“Do they know it’s Christmas?” Yes, of course they do- they are neither stupid, nor uneducated about what goes on in our countries!

Debates around all this are never simple- if we buy Gambians mobile phones, for example, are we giving them access to a technology which will allow them to engage in the global economy, or be even further enslaved by American culture?

But just because the debates around no-colonialism are complicated, does not mean we shouldn’t be watching for the risks of it all the time.

When we go around the villages and then later on decide how to spend the money that we have raised, we have a duty to listen to the villagers’ own voices about how they want to spend it and respect their ability to work very effectively in their own interests for the 364 days when we are not with them each year.