I found the articles both interesting and informative. The one that stuck out to me the most was Reconstructing Empire in British and French Africa by Frederick Cooper. The photo below shows African colonialism in 1945, right after World War II. Africa proved to be a challenge for the British and French government to have an imperialist influence on.
Africa in 1945. (https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/sub-saharan-africa-1945-to-present)
France and Britain post-war dilemma was that they were in need of empire desperately and the ways that they could enforce it were diminishing. Their economic reconstruction left a delicate balance between exploitation and development. Cooper goes on today that, “With the destruction of manufacturing plant in Europe and with revolution and uncertainty in Asian colonies, Africa loomed large in post-war planning, the most promising source of primary products, which was about all that either empire was able to sell for hard currency” (204). Ernest Bevin , who was Foreign Secretary at the time, explained that they should push forward with the development of Africa because it would result in the United States depending on them (204).
This meant that the French and British governments had to take the productive capacity of Africa more seriously but as far as the US being dependent on them was a fantasy. Cooper said that, “The ministries in both Paris and London set about planning development for their African colonies, and both exhibited a sensibility also evident in their thinking about political change” (204). There was talk for an agricultural revolution. With almost no help, Africans were already producing cocoa, coffee and other crops that were exported. British and French governments believed that Africans could be made into modern farmers and workers and that they were the only ones who could help them to fit the role (205).
Social struggles in Africa brought French and British governments proved to be problematic because of the whirlwind of increasing demands. Both governments assisted in offering the knowledge that they had as a response, “They began to articulate a vision of a stable workforce, socialized into industrial discipline and urban life, breaking ties with backward rural villages and settling permanently, with wives and children, in cites, mine towns, and commercial centers (206). The vision that the British and French governments drew up stood at an oblique because of the reality of what city life was really like after the war. This new imagine that the British and French had for Africa came with the cost of meeting the wage demands to provide the services that would give the vision they had a glimpse of reality on top of the fear of radical movements and social chaos.
I found it interesting how the British and French governments sought out to change Africa so drastically. It proved to be a challenging and complex problem that could not have been done without numerous resources and a lot of money.
It seemed as though France and Britain were more interested in getting these territories resources’ for themselves and their own reconstruction. It was interesting to see what reconstruction efforts were made in these colonies. Most articles focused on the social aspects of reconstruction in Africa.
How was Africa a “problem to be solved”, was Africa different than other places that Britain and France had colonized earlier?
You offer some good ideas here. Do you think that the colonizers were really looking to change and help their African colonies or were they just looking to exploit them for their resources and labor? Would it just had been easier, amidst the frantic post war climate, to just drop their colonies instead of working hard to maintain them and keep the uprisings at bay?
I think that the rate in which Africa was going , the certain holdings would have started to be even more problematic regardless of whether the war weakened the imperial nations. I think though France especially sped up the process by making their empire more inclusive. Do you think the demands placed on the colonies help them develop the skill set to challenge their oppressors?
World War II really weakened the European powers and it shows the most in Africa where they completely lost control of the situation. Violent repression seems to be the final stand in many regimes and it showed in Algeria when the French killed nearly 2 million people. Its ironic that the very system they fought against, they used to create their governments, which in some instances caused instability in various regions.
I think that Cooper’s quote about being able to sell African products for hard currency that you include in your post is very interesting in a postwar context. It seems like what little of that kind of mercantilistic economic thought remained prior to WWI had been eliminated by it. But I agree with you, with hindsight it seems strange that Britain and France sought to control so tightly colonies that would be completely gone within a matter of decades.