CHAPTER 4:

The Insitutionalization of Oppression and Dependency:

The Colonial Period

Located on the south edge of the main city center of Nairobi, next to the old Kenyan Train Station and railroads, is the Kenyan Train Museum. The Museum is located in an economically depressed area where the vendors sell cheap food products from run-down tin and wooden shacks, and trash is scattered around the Museum. Although the Museum is difficult to find and has been forgotten by most Kenyan people in a seedy corner of the East African metroplis of Nairobi, the interior of the Train Museum provides a valuable depiction of East African colonial history in old photographs, maps, and antique pieces of furniture and machinery from old railway cars, that provide physical testimony to the importance of the Kenya-Uganda railroad and the old Kenyan Train Station historically. The construction of the Kenya-Uganda railroad began in the early 1900s soon after British colonial settlement of the East Africa Region was imposed upon indigenous cultural groups and ecological systems beginning in 1888, and the railroad provides a powerful metaphor for the ideological and socioeconomic systems instituted within East Africa by the British with the onset of the colonial period. The Kenya-Uganda railroad was constructed (and the city of Nairobi around it throughout the twentieth century) based on the British colonial agenda of extracting resources from the East African interior - through the use of forced labor of East African peoples - and exporting these resources to the United Kingdom solely for the benefit of British "progress" in the modern industrial age. The British also saw the railroad as the first step in the "process of domesticating nature" (Collett, 1987: 139), clearing preferential land for white settlers, and the alienation of traditional East African societies from land and resources they had managed sustainably for millennia. The construction of the Kenya-Uganda railroad represented the beginning of British colonial efforts in East Africa, based on a sociocultural and ideological framework stressing the domination and "domestication" of the African "wilderness" - including human communities and the environment - and the imposition of an extractive and exploitative relationship benefitting British economic and technological expansion at the expense of East African sustainability of human and natural resources. It is grimly appropriate that the old Kenyan Train Station is now surrounded by trash and poverty-stricken slums, physical manifestations of the impoverishment and environmental degradation imposed upon the lives of most East African peoples by the destructive models of British colonialism which had their origins in the railroads constructed out of this very train station. The British introduction of this parasitic model of human and environmental interactions was to create a colonial legacy of dependency, degradation, and impoverishment that was to prove disastrous for the East African geography throughout the colonial period and the modern era.

Philosophical Foundations of Colonialism in East Africa

To fully understand colonial power dynamics, ideological frameworks, and interactions with the people and the environment of the East African geography, it is necessary to deconstruct some of the Western European, philosophical foundations that gave rise to the colonial mentality and agendas that the British (primarily; German colonial occupation of Tanzania was short-lived, as were the majority of German colonial efforts in Africa) imposed upon the East Africa Region. The most important philosophical foundations shaping British involvement in East Africa are contained within the male-dominant, Judeo-Christian traditions and the emerging capitalist ethical and socioeconomic frameworks embraced centrally as ideological and social models at the turn of the century in Western Europe and by the British in particular.

The philosophical implications of the Judeo-Christian tradition in Western Europe provided an important basis shaping British relationships with the natural world and with other human beings. Fundamentally, the Judeo-Christian tradition is based on a mechanistic and male-dominated world view that has historically been antagonistic to nature. This tradition embraces an anthropocentric position towards the environment, in which "God is the supreme being ruling over ther rest of nature followed by the human male with women, children, mammals, non-mammal animal life, plant life and inanimate nature following in descending order. The tendency has been to bring nature under the control of humans for their use" (Wamalwa, 1991: 38). The development of scientific rationality out of this Judeo-Christian tradition has stressed the importance of a mechanistic consideration of the natural world devoid of spiritual reverence; the environment and its resources are useful in so far as they can be utilized and conquered by human beings, and not in their own right. This conception of the physical world tends to invalidate the importance of the environment in itself, and has important consequences for human relationships with the natural world. Based on a cartesian, anthropocentric consideration of the world, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the development of scientific rationality out of this tradition encouraged human groups to dominate and exploit natural resources for their own benefit, disregarding the ecocentric respect of and reverence for the natural world that allowed human groups in East Africa to interact with the environment on a sustainable level. The importance of the natural world as a source of exploitable and extractable resources to be utilized by human beings has tended to focus on short-term human gains at the expense of long-term, environmental sustainability. This is graphically illustrated in the massive deforestation and loss of species diversity in many parts of the United Kingdom historically, and in the continuing exploitation and extraction of resources from East Africa. Shiva (1995) stresses this point by suggesting that British colonization of the "South" was directly linked to a Judeo-Christian tradition seeking to dominate and conquer the sacredness of the natural world in favor of a more mechanistic world view: "Throughout the world the colonization of diverse peoples had at its root a forced subjugation of the ecological concepts of nature and of the Earth as the repository of the powers of creation" (51). The Judeo-Christian concept of nature as a set of resources to be dominated and exploited for human beings was imposed upon the East African geography throughout the British colonial period, with disastrous results.

The mechanistic, exploitative tendencies of the Judeo-Christian tradition were "eminently suited to the exploitation imperative for the growth of capitalism" (Shiva, 1995: 51) that began to emerge with the modern industrial age during the turn of the century. Capitalist ethical and ideological frameworks were consistent with many aspects of the Judeo-Christian tradition: the domination and exploitation of natural and human resources were important foundations of functioning capitalist systems, based on a mechanistic view of the world that quantified these resources in terms of their potential for yielding increasing profits and economic expansion. In the context of the globalization of capitalist economies and dynamics throughout the "North" and "South" in the modern era, the importance of capitalist socioeconomic processes and ideological frameworks cannot be stressed enough. Schnaiberg's and Gould's (1994) analysis of capitalist dynamics and tendencies is extremely instructive of ways in which emerging capitalist ethics and structural principles in England at the turn of the century provided an important framework for determining ways in which British colonialism manifested itself in the East African context. According to Schnaiberg et. al., capitalist reproduction is based on "the assumption that unlimited economic expansion is desirable possible, and necessary" (1994: 199), and this economic expansion requires increasing exploitation and extraction of natural and human resources to make the continued reproduction of capitalism possible. Given the lack of resources and the small land surface area of the United Kingdom, British colonial activities in East Africa (as well as in India and Asia) were largely driven by the need to expand economic growth and resource exploitation in other continents to preserve the reproduction of capitalist dynamics in England. Intrinsically related to this expansion of capitalist markets - and to the exploitation and degradation of East African resources - were the expanding technological capacities and economic wealth of Britain (and increasingly other "Northern" countries in Western Europe and in America): "The colonialists' primary goal was to enrich themselves and their nations by removing anything of value from the South and repatriating that wealth to the North. The plunder of the wealth of the South was essential in subsidizing the development of Europe and the industrial revolution" (166). As Schnaiberg et. al. (1994) correctly observes, the capitalist ethic, in connection with the Judeo-Christian tradition, were fundamentally important philosophical foundations justifying British exploitation of resources, oppression of human communities, and extraction of wealth from East Africa to be used for the benefit of British sociocultural and economic development. These philosophical foundations were extremely important in determining the dominating and exploitative agendas of British colonization in East Africa, and the ways in which the sustainable strategies of traditional societies and indigenous cultural groups in East Africa were disrupted and disregarded in favor of the increasingly destructive and oppressive tendencies of the British colonial framework.

British Agendas in East Africa

Although most authors agree that the colonial period of East African history from the 1880s to the 1960s was economically and ecologically disastrous for Kenya and Tanzania, due to colonial mismanagement and misunderstanding of human and ecological systems within the East African Region, many fail to make the important connections between colonial management decisions, the ideological frameworks and beliefs systems of the British, and the socioeconomic and ethical principles of capitalist dynamics that continue to be directly involved in environmental and human disasters in Kenya and Tanzania today. Many authors contend that the colonization of East Africa included some "positive" results, such as increased technological innovations, decreased mortality rates, and economic expansion.

The critical analyses of Davidson (1992), Jarrett (1996), and especially of Rodney (1981), demonstrate effectively that the justification for the colonial process in East Africa on the basis of its "positive" results proves quite hollow, short-sighted, and misguided on closer observation. Although technological innovations, improved infrastructure, decreased mortality rates, and economic expansion did take place during the colonial era, these "positive aspects" of colonialism did not benefit the majority of the people or the natural resources of East Africa; "the most convincing evidence as to the superficiality of the talk about colonialism having "modernized" Africa is the fact that the vast majority of Africans went into colonialism with a hoe and came out with a hoe" (Rodney, 1981: 219). The contention that British colonization contributed "positively" to East African development is not only "completely false" (Rodney, 1981: 205), given the evidence of poverty and environmental destruction throughout the East Africa Region during the colonial and postcolonial periods, but fails to take into account the philosophical foundations of a dominating Judeo-Chrisitan tradition and an exploitative and oppressive capitalist framework, and the ways in which the British related to the East African people and environment during the colonial and postcolonial periods. These philosophical foundations are intrinsically connected with the purposes of British colonization, the agendas of the British, and continuing trends of domination and oppression in East Africa. Although the British colonial agendas in East Africa were complex and numerous, the most important agendas can be divided into the categories of: the institutionalization and reproduction of capitalist dynamics; the imposition of conservation and development models based on British philosophies and experience; and the management and restructuring of East African human-environmental interactions according to British traditions and ideologies.

The Reproduction of Captalist Dynamics

The most important colonial agenda of the British in East Africa - and in the "South" in general - was the institutionalization and reproduction of capitalist dynamics of production, resource exploitation, and economic growth. Marx (1996) correctly observes that the capitalist socioeconomic system is prone to encountering crisis situations in reproduction, as economic growth and profits begin to decrease with a lack of new markets of production and expansion. To survive, capitalism must overcome these crisis situations by finding new ways of expanding and intensifying production, increasing economic growth, and extending profit margins into new or existing markets (although this constantly creates greater crises in capitalist production that are more difficult to resolve, as is occurring now with increasing human and ecological crises globally as resources and exploitable markets are being "maxed out;" this will be considered in more detail in later sections). The main reason that Britain began to occupy colonies throughout the "South" at the turn of the century was because it was experiencing these crisis situations that Marx (1996) speaks of. To reproduce capitalist dynamics and to steadily increase wealth and technological gains for Britain after resources and markets had been exhausted in England, it was necessary that the British colonize regions such as East Africa to create new markets for capitalist production. Rodney (1981) recognizes the profound importance of this in his discussion of African underdevelopment: "It is fairly obvious that capitalists do not set out to create other capitalists, who would be rivals. On the contrary, the tendency of capitalism in Europe from the very beginning was one of competition, elimination, and monopoly" (216). Rodney's point explains decisively why colonialism in East Africa cannot be considered in terms of intended "positive" benefits. From the beginning, the capitalist agenda of the British directed colonial exploitation and extraction of resources for the sole benefit of the white settlers in Kenya and Tanzania and primarily for use in England to make possible the machinations of technological and economic progress during the industrial revolution. The exploitation of East African peoples and the environment, the extraction of human and natural resources, and the monopoly control over exports and imports, was organized from the beginning to work for the British at the expense of localized control of resources and the maintenance of self-sustaining livelihoods for the vast majority of the East African people.

A couple of examples serve to illustrate the point that colonialism represented the capitalist interests that the British wished to preserve for themselves by creating and maintaining a dependency relationship with the human groups of the East Africa Region. Davidson (1992) identifies the "carving up" of Africa into European colonies in 1895 as a significant step towards promoting the formation of a dependency relationship between "North" and "South." In Kenya, the identification of territorial boundaries served to solidify private ownership of resources by British interests. The territorial boundaries were specifically designed as a strategy of divisiveness disrupting solidarity between indigenous East African groups, and tensions between agriculturalists and pastoralists - such as the Kikuyu and the Maasai - were taken full advantage of by the British: the Kikuyu were given preferential treatment because their agricultural activities and their willingness to submit to colonial and capitalist authority (unlike the Maasai) fit more effectively into the capitalist dynamics of British socioeconomic organization. According to Davidson (1992), the application of the nation-state model to the African continent, and the purposeful manipulation of cultural tensions between human groups in Africa, proved useful for European interests in exploiting natural and human resources without having to face a unified movement of resistance from African peoples. For the East African peoples, the results were disastrous; the nation-state model cut off peoples such as the Maasai and the Samburu from important resources such as watering holes and grazing lands across state boundaries, and the colonial fostering of competition over resources and tensions between cultural groups has alienated peoples - especially pastoralists and hunters and gatherers - from accessibility to resources, involvement in conservation and development strategies, and alternatives to increasing impoverishment (especially as the Kikuyu assumed state control - under the guidance of British interests - during the transition from the colonial to postcolonial periods in Kenya).

"The transfer to Africa of non-African farming and technology" (Davidson, 1992: 217) also served the colonial agenda by preserving an exploitative dependency relationship between British settlers and East African peoples. Juma (1991) observes that "the Kenyan agricultural sector is a product of the colonial economy which was largely based on exotic genetic resources... The fact that most of the crops were exotic guaranteed control over their production knowledge and ensured that local labor would be available to the colonial farmers" (126-127). The British colonial administration in Kenya actively shaped the agricultural sector so that it was dominated by "exotic genetic resources" that the British could supply and control through export and import markets. Wheat, cereals, and livestock were examples of exotic resources imposed upon the East African people and environment by the British colonial system. These resources helped the British develop a monopoly over cash crops and agricultural production, and further reinforced a dependency relationship with Kenyan pastoralists and agriculturalists by forcing them to buy, produce, and sell resources that they could not control locally or self-sustainably. As with the imposition of the nation-state model, the "exotic genetic resources" imposed upon the East African environment have proved disastrous in the East African context: the "exotic resources" - such as wheat - drain the fragile soil fertility of semi-arid areas and are much less resilient than local resources. But in the short term, colonial control of these resources helped the British expand capitalist markets through the forceful imposition of these markets on East African peoples; the exotic resources were environmentally destructive for the "South" but economically viable for the "North." It has become increasingly clear in the postcolonial era that the preservation of dependency relationships serves the capitalist interests of the "North" by providing resoruces and markets that can be exploited to the benefit of "Northern" nations. However, the long term effect of this preservation of dependency for the East African geography is that human and ecological systems are increasingly stressed by degradation and impoverishment. The long-term effects of the British imposition of capitalist dynamics upon East Africa (and upon the "South" in general) have become increasingly self-destructive; the short-term crises of capitalist expansion averted through colonization have developed into greater systemic crises that are becoming more and more difficult to resolve according to the capitalist model (this will be considered more fully in subsequent sections on postcolonial capitalist dynamics).

Go to next section on The Colonial Period...

(Return to Table of Contents)

Send comments to: emmons@lclark.edu