Each colonial power used an African territory as testing ground for its policy which was later implemented other colonies. For the British, “Indirect Rule” was developed in India and tested in Nigeria. Senegal was France’s laboratory for “Direct Rule.” For the Belgians the Congo was the testing ground for the policy of “paternalism.” This policy completely denied education to Africans because, as John Gunther explains, “they will then demand a growing share of responsibility in the shaping of their own future.”
Unlike Portugal, Belgium knew independence was on its way. All she did was to delay it. In order to buy off African discontent, she offered wide economic opportunities, widespread social services and a comparatively high standard of living to Africans.. By withholding education from Africans it was easy to render them more malleable and more docile. Education could make Africans “less subject to the ruling glut of Belgian paternalism, and harder to handle politically,” as Gunther says.
The evil nature of Belgian paternalism is explained by its ability to manufacture genocide in Rwanda and trigger a bloody and endless conflict in the Congo. This inherent evil in paternalism is also reflected in the chain of exploitation in the Congo from the days of King Leopold through the Belgian government to Mobutu. The story of exploitation and bloodshed continues with the flurry of mercenary activities in the Congo till this day.
The resource-rich Congo is today a case study in violence and an object for plunder. The call for this plunder was given in 1884 when European powers in Berlin declared Congo a “free state,” meaning it was free for all. Before 1906, King Leopold had acquired at least $20. As Rodney further observes, “in the years preceding independence, the net outflow of capital from the Congo reached massive proportions.” The time bomb of Belgian colonialism in the Congo exploded in 1960.
Unlike Portugal, Belgium knew independence was on its way. All she did was to delay it. In order to buy off African discontent, she offered wide economic opportunities, widespread social services and a comparatively high standard of living to Africans.. By withholding education from Africans it was easy to render them more malleable and more docile. Education could make Africans “less subject to the ruling glut of Belgian paternalism, and harder to handle politically,” as Gunther says.
The evil nature of Belgian paternalism is explained by its ability to manufacture genocide in Rwanda and trigger a bloody and endless conflict in the Congo. This inherent evil in paternalism is also reflected in the chain of exploitation in the Congo from the days of King Leopold through the Belgian government to Mobutu. The story of exploitation and bloodshed continues with the flurry of mercenary activities in the Congo till this day.
The resource-rich Congo is today a case study in violence and an object for plunder. The call for this plunder was given in 1884 when European powers in Berlin declared Congo a “free state,” meaning it was free for all. Before 1906, King Leopold had acquired at least $20. As Rodney further observes, “in the years preceding independence, the net outflow of capital from the Congo reached massive proportions.” The time bomb of Belgian colonialism in the Congo exploded in 1960.
Comments