During the partition of Africa, African chieftains signed hundreds of treaties that effectively gave European states or trading companies control of African lands and resources. The document that I would like you to read is an example of such a treaty (you can read the treaty by clicking here).This “standard treaty” was utilized in the late 1880s by representatives of the Royal Niger Company, founded in 1879 as the United African Company by the merchant adventurer George Goldie Taubman. Competing with the French for trade on the Niger River, the company was commissioned by Queen Victoria in 1886 as the Royal Niger Company and given a trade monopoly and the right to exercise political authority in the region. After receiving the royal charter, the company’s representatives had to move quickly to head off the French, so they drew up a set of standard treaties in which one needed only to fill in the blanks. Using templates such as the one that you are going to read, British representatives of the trading companies concluded no fewer than 373 treaties with chieftains of the region between 1884 and 1892. These treaties served as the basis for the Niger Districts Protectorate, which in turn became the British colony of Nigeria.
After you have read the “standard treaty,” I would like you to consider and discuss the following: By accepting this treaty, what were the chieftains giving up? What benefits were the Africans to receive by signing the treaty? What does use of the standard treaty signify about English attitudes toward and knowledge of the Africans? What does the treaty indicate about the motives of the British in Africa? Your thoughts…
19 comments:
Really this treaty shows no benefit to the native African population, It gives all governing and ownership rights to the Royal Niger Company. As Prill described it showed one of the major motives of Imperialism, CC, The Britsh trying to head of the French as quickly as possible to gain more territory.
This "treaty" gives the British control over the territory, the military, all industry within the territory, and foreign trade. In return, the African Chiefs and native land owners supposedly are to be paid. The British also vow to provide protection from foreign invasion, and to respect the native laws and customs.
It is obvious after reading this that the British found the African chiefs to be unintelligent and naive, thinking that they will do all these things for them in return, when they actually won't. It shows that the English viewed Africans as a lesser people and easy to take advantage of. Britain's motive was to conquer and expand further than the French at anyone's expense.
well this treaty pretty much says that the royal niger company is taking over. it said that the said royal niger company also had full power to mine, farm, and build in any portion of the country but it also said that they agree to pay native owners of land a reasonable amount for any portion they may require...which i dont think would help much. so the natives practically just lost their land.
All the treaty describes is how the cheiftans are getting basically nothing. All they are talking about it how all their rights belong to the Royal Niger Company. The chieftans gaing nothing.
Oh my gosh. this whole treaty is basically saying "we..... give you, Britain, complete and total control of everything and anythin we have." they are giving up their land, their ability to war with on another, they are allowing the British to put down fights that have absolutely nothing to do with them,giving them permission to exploit their land... I mean, seriously, could the chiefs read? could they tell they were selling their lives away? there seems to be no benifit for them whatever. "in the intrest of bettering our country" my butt. morelike "in the intrest of helping britain take over the world". It seems so cruel that they exploited these peope like that. Seriously, Britian is ike a bully... a small but cunning bully with a had start on everyone else.
I love the line that says "hey we'll ALLOW you to practice your own customs." honestly. and the other that says they'll pay them "a reasonable amount" for the land they take. who decides what a reasonable amount is? i'm betting it's not the natives. I doubt they even know what a reasonable amount is, so they won't see the British ripping them off. genius on the part of england. twisted, but genius.
The treaty did not benefit the natives at all, other than protection form the Royal Niger Company, they got robbed. By signing the treaty they lose all of their land to the company and have no power anymore.
i think that the only reasont his treaty was made was so that britain could say "we didnt technically take it" because the cheifs are getting nothing out of these
Ok so wat i got from this was the fact that the natives basically had no controll and the Royal Niger Company governed everything. And they were not allowed to communitcate or make transactions with any foreigners without the Royal Niger Company's say so, possibly keeping them from urbanizing in the long run.
i feel like this treaty was a way of using africans. they just took their land and left them empty handed. they used them for the gold and diamonds found there and then fought wars or battles against them..
The Chiefs were giving up everything to the British. They gave them political authority and economic authority by letting them build mines and farms in any portionof the boundaries. The Chiefs must not fight in local wars and must always respect the British decisions. The Chiefs may get a little bit of money and some protection but that is all. The British motive is to jump from nation to nation to try and colonize each and every one of them.
This treaty implies that the British look at the Africans as unintelligent people and they are trying to take advantage of their rights. The Africans will loose control of the land, millitary, industry but they will be "paid" by the British. Britain feels that it is a Super Power and can do whatever they want.
this from kevin pett...
ok to make it simple the British get everything and the natives get nothing. The british are [wrong] by taking all the rights of people and not treating them like people at all. and totally off topic but im losing respect for the united states because they are just as bad as the british. im kinda disappointed in our elementary school teachers for not telling us all this stuff
Although the company does offer benefits like money and the right to keep the tribes' laws, they probably won't do it. and since they now have control over the tribes, they will rule how they want. and its a perfect justification for taking over.
The supposed benefits are nice sounding on paper, but not realistic. All the Royal Niger Company does is take rights in return for false promises. From what we’ve read and what we’ve learned in class it is clear that the supposed "rights" that are acquired with the signing of this document are commonly ignored. The Britts seem to use this to get more land fast from the Africans who they deem stupid.
PRILL!!!
does this have anything to do
with "Wilfred Scawen Blunt:
Britain's Imperial Destiny,1896-1899"??
im confused;(
sort of... it can be used in connection with it... i think i accidentally told a couple of people the blunt document was pro-imperialism, and if that's the case i misspoke because it is severely anti-imperialism
omg prill i wrote it for
pro-imperalism already!!!!!!
i just left the library--
no problem miss toy, i look foward to hearing your spin on it!
um okay:)
Post a Comment