|
Show
NOTE TO READERS
Between 1945 and 1960, three dozen new states in Asia and Africa achieved autonomy or outright independence from their European colonial rulers.
 There was no one process of decolonization. In some areas, it was peaceful, and orderly. In many others, independence was achieved only after a protracted revolution. A few newly independent countries acquired stable governments almost immediately; others were ruled by dictators or military juntas for decades, or endured long civil wars. Some European governments welcomed a new relationship with their former colonies; others contested decolonization militarily. The process of decolonization coincided with the new Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, and with the early development of the new United Nations. Decolonization was often affected by superpower competition, and had a definite impact on the evolution of that competition. It also significantly changed the pattern of international relations in a more general sense. The creation of so many new countries, some of which occupied strategic locations, others of which possessed significant natural resources, and most of which were desperately poor, altered the composition of the United Nations and political complexity of every region of the globe. In the mid to late 19th century, the European powers colonized much of Africa and Southeast Asia. During the decades of imperialism, the industrializing powers of Europe viewed the African and Asian continents as reservoirs of raw materials, labor, and territory for future settlement. In most cases, however, significant development and European settlement in these colonies was sporadic. However, the colonies were exploited, sometimes brutally, for natural and labor resources, and sometimes even for military conscripts. In addition, the introduction of colonial rule drew arbitrary natural boundaries where none had existed before, dividing ethnic and linguistic groups and natural features, and laying the foundation for the creation of numerous states lacking geographic, linguistic, ethnic, or political affinity. During World War II Japan, itself a significant imperial power, drove the European powers out of Asia. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, local nationalist movements in the former Asian colonies campaigned for independence rather than a return to European colonial rule. In many cases, as in Indonesia and French Indochina, these nationalists had been guerrillas fighting the Japanese after European surrenders, or were former members of colonial military establishments. These independence movements often appealed to the United States Government for support. While the United States generally supported the concept of national self-determination, it also had strong ties to its European allies, who had imperial claims on their former colonies. The Cold War only served to complicate the U.S. position, as U.S. support for decolonization was offset by American concern over communist expansion and Soviet strategic ambitions in Europe. Several of the NATO allies asserted that their colonial possessions provided them with economic and military strength that would otherwise be lost to the alliance. Nearly all of the United States’ European allies believed that after their recovery from World War II their colonies would finally provide the combination of raw materials and protected markets for finished goods that would cement the colonies to Europe. Whether or not this was the case, the alternative of allowing the colonies to slip away, perhaps into the United States’ economic sphere or that of another power, was unappealing to every European government interested in postwar stability. Although the U.S. Government did not force the issue, it encouraged the European imperial powers to negotiate an early withdrawal from their overseas colonies. The United States granted independence to the Philippines in 1946. However, as the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union came to dominate U.S. foreign policy concerns in the late 1940s and 1950s, the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations grew increasingly concerned that as the European powers lost their colonies or granted them independence, Soviet-supported communist parties might achieve power in the new states. This might serve to shift the international balance of power in favor of the Soviet Union and remove access to economic resources from U.S. allies. Events such as the Indonesian struggle for independence from the Netherlands (1945–50), the Vietnamese war against France (1945–54), and the nationalist and professed socialist takeovers of Egypt (1952) and Iran (1951) served to reinforce such fears, even if new governments did not directly link themselves to the Soviet Union. Thus, the United States used aid packages, technical assistance and sometimes even military intervention to encourage newly independent nations in the Third World to adopt governments that aligned with the West. The Soviet Union deployed similar tactics in an effort to encourage new nations to join the communist bloc, and attempted to convince newly decolonized countries that communism was an intrinsically non-imperialist economic and political ideology. Many of the new nations resisted the pressure to be drawn into the Cold War, joined in the “nonaligned movement,” which formed after the Bandung conference of 1955, and focused on internal development. The newly independent nations that emerged in the 1950s and the 1960s became an important factor in changing the balance of power within the United Nations. In 1946, there were 35 member states in the United Nations; as the newly independent nations of the “third world” joined the organization, by 1970 membership had swelled to 127. These new member states had a few characteristics in common; they were non-white, with developing economies, facing internal problems that were the result of their colonial past, which sometimes put them at odds with European countries and made them suspicious of European-style governmental structures, political ideas, and economic institutions. These countries also became vocal advocates of continuing decolonization, with the result that the UN Assembly was often ahead of the Security Council on issues of self-governance and decolonization. The new nations pushed the UN toward accepting resolutions for independence for colonial states and creating a special committee on colonialism, demonstrating that even though some nations continued to struggle for independence, in the eyes of the international community, the colonial era was ending. African nationalism is an umbrella term which refers to a group of political ideologies in sub-Saharan Africa, which are based on the idea of national self-determination and the creation of nation states.[1] The ideology emerged under European colonial rule during the 19th and 20th centuries and was loosely inspired by nationalist ideas from Europe.[2] Originally, African nationalism was based on demands for self-determination and played an important role in forcing the process of decolonisation of Africa (c. 1957–66). However, the term refers to a broad range of different ideological and political movements and should not be confused with Pan-Africanism which may seek the federation of several or all nation states in Africa.[3] HistoryNationalist ideas in Africa emerged during the mid-19th century among the emerging black middle classes in West Africa. Early nationalists hoped to overcome ethnic fragmentation by creating nation-states.[4] In its earliest period, it was inspired by African-American and Afro-Caribbean intellectuals from the Back-to-Africa movement who imported nationalist ideals current in Europe and the Americas at the time.[5] The early African nationalists were elitist and believed in the supremacy of Western culture but sought a greater role for themselves in political decision-making.[6] They rejected African traditional religions and tribalism as "primitive" and embraced western ideas of Christianity, modernity, and the nation state.[7] However, one of the challenges faced by nationalists in unifying their nation after European rule were the divisions of tribes and the formation of ethnicism. African nationalism first emerged as a mass movement in the years after World War II as a result of wartime changes in the nature of colonial rule as well as social change in Africa itself.[8] Nationalist political parties were established in almost all African colonies during the 1950s, and their rise was an important reason for the decolonisation of Africa between c.1957 and 1966. However, African nationalism was never a single movement, and political groups considered to be African nationalists varied by economic orientation and degrees of radicalism and violence.[3] Nationalists leaders struggled to find their own social and national identity following the European influence that controlled the political landscape during the colonial occupation. African nationalism in the colonial era was often framed purely in opposition to colonial rule and was therefore frequently unclear or contradictory about its other objectives.[9] According to historian Robert I. Rotberg, African nationalism would not have emerged without colonialism.[10] Its relation to Pan-Africanism was also ambiguous, with many nationalist leaders professing Pan-African loyalties but still refusing to commit to supranational unions. African nationalists of the period have also been criticised for their continued use of ideas and policies associated with colonial states.[9] In particular, nationalists usually attempted to preserve national frontiers created arbitrarily under colonial rule after independence and create a national sense of national identity among the heterogeneous populations inside them.[10] Tribalism and ethnic nationalismAfrican nationalism exists in an uneasy relationship with tribalism and sub-national ethnic nationalism which differ in their conceptions of political allegiance. Many Africans distinguish between their ethnic and national identities.[11] Some nationalists have argued that tribes were a colonial creation.[12] Women in African nationalism
During the late 1950s and 1960s, scholars of African nationalist struggles have primarily focused on the Western-educated male elites who led the nationalist movements and assumed power after independence. The history of studies of women's involvement in African nationalist struggle, mobilization, and party politics can be traced along intellectual and political paths that initially followed, later paralleled, but have seldom deviated from or led the course of Africanist historiography. The goal of these women involved in the African nationalism movement was to recover Africa's past and to celebrate the independent emergence of independent Africa. It was necessary to raise awareness of this cause, calling to the new emerging generation of African women, raised in a better, more stable society. Although the challenges they faced seemed increasingly more significant, they, however, had it better than past generations, allowing them to raise awareness of the African Nationalist moment. Whereas women's historians interested in effecting changes in the process and production of American or European history had to fight their way onto trains that had been moving through centuries on well-worn gauges, the "new" Africanist train had barely left the station in the early '60s. With a few exceptions, scholars have devoted little more than a passing mention of the presence of African women as conscious political actors in African nationalism. Anne McClintock has stressed that "all nationalisms are gendered."[13] Undoubtedly, women played a significant role in arousing national consciousness as well as elevating their own political and social position through African nationalism.[14] It is with this in mind, that both feminism and the research of these women become critical to the re-evaluation of the history of African nationalism. In 1943, a prominent organization called the African National Congress Women's League used its branches throughout the continent to build an international campaign. Women in national organisationsAs leaders and activists, women participated in African nationalism through national organisations. The decade of the 1950s was a landmark because of the significant number of women who were politically involved in the nationalist struggle. A minority of women were incorporated and affiliated into male-dominated national organisations. Founded by women in 1960, The National Council of Sierra Leone was to become, in 1968, the women's section of the ruling All People's Congress and dedicated primarily to the vigorous support of head of state, President Stevens. Women activists extended and conveyed militant behaviours. Nancy Dolly Steele was the organizing secretary and co-founder of the Congress, and has been noted for her militant political and nationalist activities. In the same way, throughout Africa, the influence of trade union movements, in particular, became the spawning ground for women organisers as such. South African women, for instance, emerged as primary catalysts for protests against the Apartheid regime. These women first participated in resistance movements through women's branches of the larger male-dominated liberation organizations, as through the African National Congress (ANC). Nevertheless, in 1943, the ANC adopted a new constitution which included a new position for women to become full members of the national movement. Women also formed their own national organisations, such as the Federation of South African Women in 1954, which boasted a membership of 230,000 women. Though at the time women viewed themselves primarily as mothers and wives, the act of their joining in political organisations illustrated a kind of feminist consciousness.[15] Women as national leadersWomen were fundamental nationalist leaders in their own right. Under the inspiration of Bibi Titi Mohammed, a former singer in Dar es Salaam who became a Tanganyikan nationalist, Tanzanian women were organised into a Women's Section of the Tanganyikan African National Union. Mohammed, who was semi-illiterate, was an impressive orator and later combined her nationalist work in the 1950s with her political ambitions. She was one of the most visible Tanganyikan nationalists during the struggle against colonialism and imperialism.[16] She was the only nationalist leader, besides Julius Nyerere, who was recognized across the country at the time of Tanzanian independence. Her legacy as a leader, speaker, organiser and activist is testimony to the pivotal role played by many uneducated women in spreading a national consciousness, a political awareness and securing independence from British rule in Tanzania. Women and Informal Methods of ProtestWhilst some female-oriented initiatives may have been conceived and presented to women by male party-leaders, others were clearly created by women themselves. These women used nationalism as a platform to address their own concerns as wives, mothers, industrial workers, peasants, and as women affiliated to the ANC. The 1940s Anti-tax protest in Tanzania involved the women of Peasant Pare, where women employed methods of direct confrontation, provocative language and physical violence. Explicit use of sexual insult was also central to the powerful Anlu protest of the Cameroon in 1958, where women refused to implement agricultural regulations that would have undermined their farming system.[17] In the same way, women used music, dance and informal methods to convey their solidarity for African nationalism. The production of Tanganyikan nationalism in Tanzania can be seen as “woman’s work,” where women evoked, created and performed nationalism through their dances and songs.[18] Equally, women were considered the best sloganeers, as traditional story-tellers and singers using ideas, images and phrases that appealed to the non-elite population. Market women in coastal Nigeria and Guinea also used their networks to convey anti-government information.[19] ‘Ordinary’ women themselves had transformed "traditional" methods for networking and expressing disapproval against individuals, into mechanisms for challenging and unsettling the local colonial administration. However, although these women contributed to African nationalist politics, they had limited impact as their strategies were concerned with shaming, retaliation, restitution and compensation, and were not directly about radical transformation. This problem was a reflection of the extent to which most African women had already been marginalized politically, economically and educationally under colonial regimes in Africa.[20] By country
GambiaIn the Gambia, one of the prominent Gambian nationalists and Pan-Africanists during the colonial era was Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof. From the 1950s up to Gambia's independence, Cham Joof (as he is commonly referred to), held a series of campaigns against the British colonial administration. In 1958, he spearheaded the All Party Committee - the purpose of which was for self-governance and to determine the political direction of the Gambia free from European colonialism and neo-colonialism. In 1959, he organised the Bread and Butter demonstration from outside his house in Barthurst now Banjul, and led his followers to Government House to lobby the British colonial administration. Following that demonstration, Cham Joof and his associates Crispin Grey Johnson and M. B. Jones were indicted as "inciting the public to disobey the laws of the land" and charged as political prisoners.[21][22][23][24][25][26]'[27] See also
Notes
References
Further reading
|
What was a major factor in the development of 20th century nationalist movements throughout Africa?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 wiewird Inc.
