To what extent did the colonial state openly side with metropolitan capitalist interests and missionaries lobbies against indigenous interests?

Résumé du document

Ghana was a victim of the British Empire's colonialism, from the establishment of the South as a Crown's possession in1874 until the independence of the country in 1957. Basically, colonialism can be defined as a particular form of imperialism: the 'colonial imperialism', notion was mainly developed by economists, political scientists and historians. For the Marxists and their heirs, colonial imperialism first means economic exploitation. Thus, for them, the colonial Ghanaian state would be a committee for managing the businesses of the metropolitan British bourgeoisie . But, the political scientists and the historians tried to go beyond the Marxist economic reductionism. For them, colonial imperialism, as a form of totalitarianism, also deals with the idea of racial and civilizational superiority, and, as a particular shape of imperialism, it also implies the will to universalise a culture by assimilation or, at least, acculturation . Thus, these schola, see in the Ghanaian colonization not only an economic exploitation but also a British empire's attempt to spread the Civilization, notably by imposing Judeo-Christian ways of thinking and believing in Ghana trough collusion between the State and the Church. Civilizing mission and evangelising mission became the two facets of the White man's burden, popularised by Rudyard Kipling , the main justifications of political domination. These two visions of colonial imperialism tends to make us think that 'colonial state' was a simple expression of the interests of the expatriate bourgeoisie and clergy. It is interesting to discuss the pertinence of this hypothesis by wondering to what extent did the colonial Ghanaian state openly take sides with metropolitan capitalist interests and missionary lobbies against the indigenous interests? This essay will try to show that most of the time, the state acted on behalf of the British businessmen and the men of the Church against the natives and that certain factors sometimes qualify in their partial behaviour.

Extraits

[...] To what extent did the colonial state openly side with metropolitan capitalist interests and missionaries lobbies against indigenous interests? I. The colonial state sided with European capitalists and missionaries against Ghanaians: the working and the logics of the colonial system A. A constant of the Ghanaian government policy during the whole colonial period B. The causes of the governmental partiality II. The limits of the usual attitude of colonial state towards expatriate communities and ‘Natives': conflicting dynamics as system failures A. [...]

[...] 174-175. Meredith, op. cit., p Ababio, op. cit., pp. 160-166. Ibid., pp. 110-111; 160-164. See words of Georges Clauson (note 24). Crozier, op. cit. especially part three ‘Bureaucracy as an organisational system', pp. [...]

[...] Meredith, Colonial Office, British business interests and the reform of cocoa marketing in West Africa, 1937-1945”, Journal of African History p Howard, op. cit., p. 60; G. B. Kay (ed.) The political economy of colonialism in Ghana: a collection of documents and statistics, 1900-1960 (Cambridge: The University Press, 1972), p See K. E. Ababio, Conflict, identity and co-operation: the relations of the Christian church with the traditional, colonial and national States in Ghana with special reference to the period 1916-1966 (Thesis (Ph. [...]

[...] In those rare cases, the colonial state did not serve the interests of the missionary lobbies. More, in certain situations, Gold Coast civil servants even sided with ‘Natives'. B. The colonial state did not always act against the indigenous population: the ‘plurality' of the colonial state or the internal administrative conflicts It is important to precise that even if the government usually sided toward British merchants and missionaries to preserve ‘white prestige'[30], some organs or individuals occasionally side with ‘Natives'. [...]

[...] It is interesting to discuss the pertinence of this hypothesis by wondering to what extent did the colonial Ghanaian state openly side with metropolitan capitalist interests and missionary lobbies against indigenous interests? This essay will try to show that if most of the time the state acted on the behalf of British businessmen and men of church against the ‘Natives' certain factors sometimes qualified its partial behaviour (II). The colonial state sided with European capitalists and missionaries against Ghanaians: the working and the logics of the colonial system A constant of the Ghanaian government policy during the whole colonial period The colonial state permanently adopted decisions that served the plans of British firms and Christian organizations. [...]